Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

We are try to evaluate the description in a few chapters of the Bible by science. Do not forget this root purpose. Don't jump to the "myth" conclusion until you reasoned about it in a scientific way.

---

As you know I’ve done that.

quote:

---

If you think it is a myth, i.e. scientifically unreasonable, then you can quit (no need to reason any more). If I talk about it in science, and you do not, then I can quit. The talk won't continue unless both sides can talk in science.

---

You are the one refusing to talk in science. In science the existence of a story is nowhere near sufficient to take that story as fact. Actual empirical evidence is needed. Remember the motto of the Royal Society - an organisation hugely involved in the development of science: Nullius in verba or in English take nobody’s word for it.You have not yet talked scientifically about the Flood in this thread at all.

quote:

---

Science is data plus reason. Only rootlessly yell evidence, evidence won't make any science discussion.

---

If you don’t have evidence you have no relevant data. And - aside from the fact that you cannot reason without data - you haven’t been producing much in the way of reasoning either. Inventing excuses you only half-understand is not valid reasoning.

quote:

---

Without a solid theoretical background, no one can recognize any evidence.

---

I can say that you lack a strong theoretical background, so maybe that is your problem.

quote:

---

Started from my first post, I said the strongest evidence of the Flood is the ocean of the earth. Can you understand the evidence?

---

Yes, I can say that it is not significant evidence of the Flood and the fact that you tried to move the Flood back to the Hadean is further evidence of that. If that is the best you have - and you are unwilling to even try to adequately support the assertions - then you may as well be honest and admit that you have no viable case.

quote:

---

What I was doing is to explain to you why is that a strong evidence.

---

No, that is not what you have been doing. It is what you have refused to do. You prefer insults and a pretence to expertise that you lack in the hope of being blindly believed. Which again only shows that you lack any scientific case.

Please just come right out and tell us what the hell you are going on about. None of your weasel-wording and hand-waving. Just exactly what effect are you looking for and with what magnitude? Just say it as clearly as possible and give us some values -- even if only orders of magnitude -- of what you would need to get the effect that you want.Trying to dream up some vague mention of possible "causes" have absolutely no meaning whatsoever until we have some idea of the magnitude of the effect that you would need. If you need a really large effect but all the "causes" you try to promote have maximum effects that are several orders of magnitude too small (eg, if you try to invoke some natural sources of electricity that at most only produce a few milli-amperes of current but the effect you need requires thousands of amps, then your ideas have very obvious and insurmountable problems).Here's a real-life example. Infamous YEC charlatan and convicted fraud Kent Hovind has a solar mass loss claim that he uses to try to support that tired old false "shrinking sun" claim. He points out that as a result of the sun "burning its fuel" it loses five million tons of mass per second. He claims that, if the sun has been losing its mass at that rate for 5 billion (10⁹) years then 5 billion years ago it would have been so incredibly massive that its enormously greater gravity would have sucked the earth.Now, those are the only two values that he gives: 5 billion years and mass loss at the rate of 5 million tons per second, both of which are only very slightly exaggerated and actually quite reasonable. But the rest is all wildly baseless assertions (the earth being sucked in) and lots of hand-waving. Indeed, in later versions of this claim he not only refuses to do the math but he forbids his audience to do the math (you know, the basic analog to rate-times-time-equals-distance). Because the moment that you do do the math then you realize how completely and utterly bogus his claim is. While the total amount of mass lost over 5 billion years is a truly astronomical number (in more ways than one!), compared to the total mass of the sun it only amounts to a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's mass, which has miniscule effects. So the ancient sun that still had that missing mass would have been just 1.00039673 times the sun's current mass and the ancient sun's gravity would have been only 1.00039673 times the sun's current gravity, which would have "sucked the earth in" by only about 60,000 miles.The dramatic effects that Hovind wants to get from the sun's loss of mass due to its "burning its fuel" cannot possibly be provided by that mechanism. Completely and blatantly impossible. For more information on that claim, see my web page on it.It certainly looks like your hazy and confused claim is of the same class as Hovind's. Tell us the magnitude of change that you need and let's test it.

The interaction could be collision, or a very close fly by. In either case, if the angle of interaction is correct, even a comet might be enough to suddenly change the orbit of the earth.Of course it would have some dramatic effect on the earth. The one hit the earth in late Cretaceous caused the termination of dinosaurs. However, it did not terminate lives on the earth.As long as the orbit of the earth suddenly changed, the longevity question may have an answer.

May be you did not. But I did. I hate to go back to find them. But if you do, I bet they are there.Anyway, for your sake, I can do it again. It won't take much trouble.Are we finished with Noah and time? If not, we could continue until you feel tired of it. If yes, we may start to think about the seawater as a strong evidence the global flood.

quote:

---

The interaction could be collision, or a very close fly by. In either case, if the angle of interaction is correct, even a comet might be enough to suddenly change the orbit of the earth.

---

Not by any amount worth considering.

quote:

---

Of course it would have some dramatic effect on the earth. The one hit the earth in late Cretaceous caused the termination of dinosaurs. However, it did not terminate lives on the earth.

---

Nor did it have any noticeable effect on the orbit.

quote:

---

As long as the orbit of the earth suddenly changed, the longevity question may have an answer.

---

What question? Besides, the orbit of the Earth did not change to reduce the year by that much, not while humans have existed. We know that because humans still exist.

quote:

---

May be you did not. But I did. I hate to go back to find them. But if you do, I bet they are there.
Anyway, for your sake, I can do it again. It won't take much trouble.

---

You should quote my post so the readers can know what you are talking about.

quote:

---

Are we finished with Noah and time? If not, we could continue until you feel tired of it

---

As soon as you have the honesty to admit that you are only making uninformed speculations to try and insist that Bible is correct,despite the many reasons to doubt it.

quote:

---

If yes, we may start to think about the seawater as a strong evidence the global flood.

---

I’ve given it sufficient thought. It isn’t.

I did not read those arguments. I wonder what is the idea about. If the sun lost its mass, would that make the planets go farther away from the sun? What is the sucked earth about?And what is the purpose of going through those arguments?The short goal of my argument is to explain the longevity of patriarchs and the decrease of longevity though time. One way this could become possible is a sudden lengthening of earth's orbit to the sun, and the slow down of the self rotation of earth. The quantitative part of this model could be figured out once this idea is accepted. Roughly, we can take the current condition of Mercury as a reference.

Show your math.

My goal is to show the possibility of Biblical longevity. I present a model. That is all we have now. If you do not agree with the idea, I like to know why. Please do not thrown out a bunch of questions (only get ignored except one). Just give the strongest point of opposition, and see how could I deal with it.

If you do not agree on my idea, why should I do that?

It will change the time counting significantly. A year on the Mercury is only about 1/4 year of the earth.The orbit change of the earth could take place and not be detected by life on the earth.

quote:

---

My goal is to show the possibility of Biblical longevity.

---

Well that would require a lot more work than you’ve done.

quote:

---

I present a model. That is all we have now.

---

Calling a wild guess a model is straining the truth a bit, don’t you think?

quote:

---

If you do not agree with the idea, I like to know why

---

Because there is no evidence that the Earth’s orbit has changed significantly in the relevant period, because anything that could do that would cause drastic effects that would leave evidence and because humans couldn’t live on Earth if it were that close to the Sun.

quote:

---

Just give the strongest point of opposition, and see how could I deal with it.

---

You’ve had the opportunity and you didn’t.

quote:

---

It will change the time counting significantly. A year on the Mercury is only about 1/4 year of the earth.

---

But you need more than that. And just how habitable is Mercury, anyway? How habitable would the Earth be if it were even closer to the Sun than Mercury is?

quote:

---

The orbit change of the earth could take place and not be detected by life on the earth.

---

Because it would all be wiped out? There is no other reason.

You are talking about the details of the longevity model. Does that mean if your questions above could be dealt with, then the model becomes a possibility?1. amount of change?
2. timing and duration of change?
3. effect to the life on the earth?Any more concerns?

The Mercury today is inhabitable. BUT, if put the earth there and a lot of the seawater evaporated into the atmosphere, plus if the earth rotated faster than the Mercury does, then the earth at that orbit may have a habitable environment.Suppose the earth is moving away from the sun at a speed 3 miles per year, how would be the environment change from what it is today? It would have some difference. However, every life form would also probably quickly used to it.