Did the Flood really happen?

In Memoriam: RAZD

I've been too busy to moderate lately but I'm going to attempt to begin moderating both this thread and the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread.Going forward all posts should be evidence based. All content-free or snarky posting should cease. When someone posts several such messages I'll issue a one day suspension.

As the moderator said, post the details and evidence. (not a reading assignment)

So questionable fragments of incomplete ancient texts are your evidence that human lifespans were centuries long in the past. Questionable fragments of incomplete ancient texts are your evidence that gods and spirits exist. Ancient texts that you cannot read, cannot verify, cannot question, yet you believe them and their rendering of time and nature.On the other hand there are hundreds of thousands of modern texts with millions of pages of supporting documents that you *can* read, that you *can* verify, that you *can* question and (amazingly) get actual answers from, that you decide by your own incredulity are wrong and cannot be facts. And this incredulity is not based upon the knowledge of any of the fields, their methods, processes and procedures, but only that these facts contradict your personal religious beliefs.You believe the ancient texts. Yet, you try to tell us our *belief* in demonstrable facts are not science and are not real. You cannot be trusted with evidence. You cannot do science. You deny the hard facts in front of your eyes as beliefs while you yourself *believe* on a mere wisp of a whim the questionable fragments of incomplete ancient texts.You have no evidence of long ancient lives. You have no evidence of gods or spirits ancient or modern.In the other threads when presented with the evidence you continue to deny, to nitpick, to obfuscate. You are a science denier. You are a danger to the intellectual breath and depth of our entire species.You have no evidence of a *different* nature in the past. You cannot define it, measure it or show any of its effects.You never could. You never will.You have nothing.

quote:

---

So questionable fragments of incomplete ancient texts are your evidence that human lifespans were centuries long in the past.

---

All beliefs are questionable especially by those with other beliefs. That is why you need evidence.

quote:

---

Ancient texts that you cannot read, cannot verify..

---

That is the nature of beliefs, they cannot be verified by science generally. The millions of people who hold beliefs in the spiritual and Scripture, etc verify those beliefs in ways other than science, since science cannot confirm or deny them.

quote:

---

You have no evidence of long ancient lives. You have no evidence of gods or spirits ancient or modern.

---

Since science deals only with the physical, the types of evidences people do have for spiritual things is more than natural knowledge can deal with.

quote:

---

You have no evidence of a *different* nature in the past. You cannot define it, measure it or show any of its effects.

---

You have no evidence of a *same* nature in the past. You cannot define it, measure it or show any of its effects, except in your belief. You are welcome to your beliefs. Do not offer them as evidence.

Mindlessly repeating that doesn't make it true.Ignoring the evidence we have posted is profoundly dishonest.

One common trait which I see in many arguments is the stubborn insistence of some to frame the argument solely in their own method...ignoring any attempts to deflect it from that frame. Dad obviously w2ants...insists...that you acknowledge his point. Refusal to do so causes him to become stubborn and repetitive.No amount of further progress is possible.But in the context of a bigger picture, what precisely is each side attempting to prove?

The two sides of the argument are not equally balanced. One side is provably correct while the other is ignorant garbage that only religious cranks adhere to. He doesn't have an argument Phat, he has an assertion. That's why his replies to long and considered explanations backed by pages of actual evidence are single, contentless sentences.He has a single assertion which he will not (can not) produce any evidence for. So instead of producing an argument to support his assertion (that time was different in the past along with all of physics) he is forced to attempt shift the burden of proof to us. It's a tactic that only us fruitcakes would tolerate. The rest of the world just laughs and points.

It is warranted to repeat truth that is demonstrated repeatedly. You cannot provide evidence of this sams state past you cite. Just admit it.

As I said, you cannot be trusted with real factual evidence. You cannot do science.The fact that the nature around us is now and has been in the deep past the same without change is scientifically established. As usual, in your religious zeal, you refuse to see it and have to go hide you eyes, cover your ears and mumble your catechism so your mind won't be bothered by reality.My part was done some time ago. Message 1602 Message 1657 etc. This is not "belief". It is fact, no matter how you try to avoid it, obfuscate it, deny it. Real facts firmly established in these forums.It's been your turn for many weeks now. You have produced no evidence of some "other" nature in the past.You tried to put up some incomplete ancient text fragments that in your twisted science-denying mind you think constitutes facts. That was just plain stupid. Don't try that crap here again.You have presented no evidence. Without evidence your fantasy is rejected.Do you have anything viable to present to us in support of your "other nature" delusions?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I don't think he expects me to rehash everything RAZD wrote. You claim you have already read a lot of it so you should be quite prepared to deal with it.

You haven't demonstrated anything. All you've posted are unsupported assertions. I and others provided evidence. Ignoring it does not make it go away. The Constancy of Constants, Part 2
The author is a physicist.

quote:

---

Frankly, physicists are not, for the most part, interested in silly creationist arguments. But they are interested in basic questions such as whether physical constants or laws change in time -- especially if such changes are proposed by such a great physicist as Dirac. As a result, there has been a great deal of experimental effort to search for such changes. A nice (technical) summary is given by Sisterna and Vucetich, Physical Review D41 (1990) 1034 and Physical Review D44 (1991) 3096; a more recent reference is Uzan, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003) 403, available electronically at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205340 . Among the phenomena they look at are:

​

• searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);
• searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;
• ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;
• data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;
• observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;
• the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);
• experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);
• absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);
• laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle;
• searches for geological evidence of "exotic" decays, such as double beta decay of Uranium 238 or the decay of Osmium to Rhenium by electron emission, which are impossible with the present values of basic physical constants but would become possible if these changed;
• laboratory comparisons of atomic clocks that rely on different atomic processes (e.g., fine structure vs. hyperfine transitions);
• analysis of the effect of varying "constants" on primordial nucleosynthesis in the very early Universe.

​

While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.

---

I have. See just above.Your turn.

I am, if there is some point that you do not yet realize he was defeated on.

quote:

---

As I said, you cannot be trusted with real factual evidence. You cannot do science.

---

I see, so this is why you snipe and moan rather than post substantively. OK.

quote:

---

The fact that the nature around us is now and has been in the deep past the same without change is scientifically established

---

In your mind, yes. Very firmly. Too bad the rest of us with other beliefs will never know since you deem us unworthy to actually post anything.You refer to your post 1602"There is only the one nature because of the evidences that JonF, RAZD, PaulK, Percy, edge and others have already provided in this thread."Rather than show something was factual rather than belief based you type a sentence claiming so. Then you think you had a win. Hilarious.

quote:

---

You have produced no evidence of some "other" nature in the past.

---

History and the bible record of the past are evidence for me. There IS no science evidence either way, it is purely a matter of belief as far as science goes. It is you who offer your beliefs as science that must bear all the burden of proof.Do you have anything to offer other than unsupported beliefs of a same past nature here?