Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
51 online now:
dwise1, PaulK (2 members, 49 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,362 Year: 1,008/14,102 Month: 0/411 Week: 21/168 Day: 0/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
Larni
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 3998
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 21 of 432 (642762)
12-01-2011 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Portillo
12-01-2011 9:15 AM


It raises the question why even talk about this myth. Why have a subforum for it.

Because some people want the Fludd to be taught as fact in our schools. The more people that come to EvC and get that notion scubbed from their minds the less chance school kids have of having their science lessons ruined by religion.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Portillo, posted 12-01-2011 9:15 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 3998
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 47 of 432 (642978)
12-03-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ICANT
12-03-2011 12:56 PM


Re: Heat
In a nano second?

You do know that as a general rule, the faster things go (where friction is involved) the more heat is generated, don't you?

Mountains rising at 'a nano second' would most likely boil off much of the surrounding matter in... well, probably nano seconds.

Seriously, this is material physics that you should know already.

Kids know this.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 12:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 3998
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 293 of 432 (687849)
01-17-2013 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by mindspawn
01-17-2013 6:50 AM


There can be no further scientific discussion until you support you hypothesis.

What you need to do is provide supporting evidence for your idea. Otherwise one could claim anything and simply say 'you can't prove it wrong'.

This is called falsiability and is pretty basic philosophy of science and integral to the scientific method.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 6:50 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021