Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9036 total)
103 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, nwr, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 99 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,652 Year: 3,298/14,102 Month: 239/724 Week: 88/93 Day: 17/10 Hour: 4/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 432 (645902)
12-31-2011 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
12-31-2011 9:34 AM


What we're seeing demonstrated in this thread is the willingness of creationists to make up that which they do not know, and to not care whether what they're making up is contradicted by current knowledge.

It isn't just science that they are willing to make up. Often amateur creation scientis don't let the Bible get in the way of their creation science either. FY's reading of the Bible is rather "colorful" as well.

foreveryoung writes:

You are assuming that all God wanted to do was wipe out all life on earth. He also wanted to recreate it from scratch.

Why even bother with a flood if you are going to destroy the earth's surface with sky darkening, firestorm creating, eco system destroying, continent dividing, meteor impacts? Doesn't this meteor scenario make the rainbow sign promise not to destroy the world with a flood again ring pretty hollow? In fact it turns what appears to be a new covenant into a promise that next time God is displeased, no one is going to survive.

And what about the explicit words in Genesis 9:11 that a flood is what God used to destroy the world.

As best as I can tell, the professional creation "scientists" do a bit better with the Bible at least.

Edited by NoNukes, : correct verb form


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 12-31-2011 9:34 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 432 (645911)
12-31-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 2:38 PM


Re: Show us the numbers!!
all radioactive elements of the earth were initally created and placed near the center of the earth. In order for there to be 14C

It doesn't matter where the radioactive isotopes were placed, the evidence is that there has been billions of years worth of decay of the isotopes. Other than the carbon 14C cycle, the noteworthy production/decay cycles are not affected by cosmic radiation, humidity, ultraviolet light, heat, or pressure to any appreciable degree.

About half of the U 238 that ever existed on earth has since decayed into lead; you need to invoke yet another miracle to explain that. The water canopy explanation doesn't address it at all.
----------
ABE:

There is also the issue that you want to show that the decay rate for U238, K40, etc. has increased rather than decreased. Burying them in the center of the earth, and shielding them from cosmic radiation would not have that effect.

End ABE
------------

What I don't understand is why you bother with this "no new miracle" exercise. Why not just make the water, meteor, etc. magical rather than natural? It cannot be because you don't want to add things to the Bible, because most of the stuff you propose isn't Biblical anyway.

No, hypocrite; let's see your calculations. You are the skeptic; not me.

The see what sticks debating technique. Typical.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 2:38 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 432 (645916)
12-31-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by foreveryoung
12-31-2011 3:37 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
If you do this for several different time periods and find that deposition rates were far slower in the distant past and gradually grew faster as the time period progressed toward today, then you have evidence for accelerated nuclear today in the past, in my opinion.

If I do this?

1) You haven't said that the evidence you propose actually exists, so this line of reasoning does not work.

2) How are decreased deposition rates in the past evidence of accelerated nuclear decay rates in the past? Why would not they instead be merely evidence of decreased deposition rates?

3) If your proposal is that geological processes proceed at constant rates, then surely we must accept that geological features took millions or even billions of years to form. Is that really your argument?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by foreveryoung, posted 12-31-2011 3:37 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 432 (645924)
12-31-2011 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
12-31-2011 4:39 PM


Re: It all goes into heat
Some in this thread keep asking for evidence, but evidence isn't what this thread is about. The purpose is instead to explore the reasonableness of the explanations from a scientific standpoint

I don't get it. Nothing I read in the OP suggests that this thread is different from any other. And, why is it unreasonable to discuss or ask for evidence as a method of investigating reasonableness of an explanation, particularly if a process is proposed which has never been observed to actually occur?

If asking for evidence is inappropriate, why is this thread here instead of someplace where Buzsaw can participate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 12-31-2011 4:39 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 6:06 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 12-31-2011 9:18 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 432 (645943)
12-31-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Trixie
12-31-2011 6:06 PM


Re: The point of the thread
so I decided to instead ask for details of their models and then examine those models for scientific validity.

So if a proposed model includes a meteor bombardment that produces effect X, why wouldn't evaluating whether a meteor could produce effect X require evidence, even if we accept without evidence that the meteor bombardment did occur?

In this case, the idea that a meteor strike would cause effects that wouldn't be survived by merely floating in a boat has been flatly denied, and apparently pursuing that denial cannot include any request for evidence or even for a logical defense. In my view that's nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 6:06 PM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 8:18 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 432 (645955)
01-01-2012 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Trixie
12-31-2011 8:18 PM


Re: The point of the thread
More and more claims are made which are entirely inconsistent with science and that's what I wanted this thread to point out.

That's fine. I'm going to decline to participate further in the discussion, which I expect should not be of any major consequence. In my opinion it would be quite easy to produce a scenario for which there is no scientific evidence against the scenario, and also no credible reason to believe that such a scenario had ever occurred.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Trixie, posted 12-31-2011 8:18 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 01-01-2012 9:31 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 432 (645988)
01-01-2012 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by jar
01-01-2012 9:31 AM


Re: The point of the thread
I for one would love to see a description of a scenario for either of the Biblical Flood stories where there is no scientific evidence that refutes it. After all, so far no one has ever been able to produce such a scenario without invoking magic.

Is there any real difference between magic and made up science? When someone postulates that all of the radioactive elements were contained in the core of the earth and thus no decaying elements were present in the human body before the fall, is that bad science or magic?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 01-01-2012 9:31 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 01-01-2012 12:04 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 211 by edge, posted 01-01-2012 8:33 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 432 (662449)
05-15-2012 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Tangle
02-14-2012 8:17 AM


Re: What ifs
It's an alien way of working things out to me and I'm baffled by the self delusion and often simple dishonesty of it and often wonder how people who think like this deal with life.

I don't find the question of how fundies deal with life all that puzzling. For most fundies, having goofy ideas about science has few negative consequences and no immediate ones. You don't have to be right about anything scientific to have your GPS, television, or smoke detector function just fine. So what difference does it make if your impression regarding how those things work is different from that of a physicist. It's not like anybody is going to ask you to fix any of that stuff if it breaks.

Okay, so you aren't going to make good decisions about global climate change. Those consequences are a ways off, and in the short run, maybe global warming is beneficial.

In fact it is the physicist who has knowledge that makes it difficult to accept fundie beliefs who is most likely to find him/herself in awkward social situations.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Tangle, posted 02-14-2012 8:17 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 432 (662450)
05-15-2012 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Tangle
05-15-2012 6:04 AM


Maybe, I'm paranoid, but that blue bubble sure looks like a lot of water to me? Perhaps it's from hearing water covers 3/4 of the earth's surface, that's giving me the creepies, but I don't find the picture the least bit comforting. It is also the case that the variation in elevation around the globe is very tiny. That suggests that small changes in the volume of water can result in relatively large changes in the amount of land that is submerged.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Tangle, posted 05-15-2012 6:04 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2012 10:49 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 432 (833148)
05-17-2018 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Minnemooseus
05-13-2018 11:39 PM


Re: ex nihilo / de-ex nihilo
An "ex nihilo" water creation and "de-ex nihilo" disposal seems to be the only remotely rational answer to me.

Creation scientists don't seem to what want these kinds of explanations. It is okay if the Red Sea to parts and then swallows up Pharoah's army, but the Flood has to be something else entirely.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-13-2018 11:39 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by dad, posted 07-12-2020 2:12 PM NoNukes 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