Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?

This topic is about the Bible Flood, so you can drop any argument that is not about the Bible Flood.

It would be too much to involve Biblical message in the global flood for you. I don't think you would like it.

Juvenissun writes: It would be too much to involve Biblical message in the global flood for you. I don't think you would like it.

I will be glad to discuss the Bible with you in an appropriate thread. This thread is about the scientific aspects of the Bible Flood, not the Bible aspects of the Bible Flood.

I will be glad to discuss the Bible with you in an appropriate thread.

Anytime. I will be honored.

ringo writes: I will be glad to discuss the Bible with you in an appropriate thread.

Juvenissun writes: Anytime. I will be honored.

In context, science threads stick with evidence while Faith & Belief threads can be more philosophical and as my opponents say, a place where one is free (though foolish) to make things up. One can get away with it it Faith & Belief, but in a Science thread, one must stick with objective recorded evidence and not alternative theories from Walt Brown or one of the CRI group.

In context, science threads stick with evidence while Faith & Belief threads can be more philosophical and as my opponents say, a place where one is free (though foolish) to make things up. One can get away with it it Faith & Belief, but in a Science thread, one must stick with objective recorded evidence and not alternative theories from Walt Brown or one of the CRI group.

Science: Data + Logic;
Theology: God + Logic.

Faith is only to God. The rest of theology CAN be explained by logic arguments. Systematic fiction will fail on logic.

Hi Phat,

Phat writes: In context, science threads stick with evidence while Faith & Belief threads can be more philosophical and as my opponents say, a place where one is free (though foolish) to make things up. One can get away with it it Faith & Belief, but in a Science thread, one must stick with objective recorded evidence and not alternative theories from Walt Brown or one of the CRI group.

Phat I have been around here for several years and I have yet to see any evidence that supports all the hypothesis, and so called theories that are pushed as evidence to support them.

Maybe I missed some evidence somewhere that you could point me to.

God Bless,

Faith & Belief threads can be more philosophical and as my opponents say, a place where one is free (though foolish) to make things up. One can get away with it it Faith & Belief,

Absolutely not. If a person can not think in logic, which is in contrast to "thinking free", his argument can not go far, even in faith and belief.

ICANT writes: Phat I have been around here for several years and I have yet to see any evidence that supports all the hypothesis, and so called theories that are pushed as evidence to support them. Maybe I missed some evidence somewhere that you could point me to.

Good morning Pastor. OK lets examine this argument. On the ssurface, I agree that traditional science is far from conclusive although they do have a method to their tests.

I dont think for a minute that science has all of the answers. I am a Cosmological Creationist and believe that God created the heavens(The Universe itself and any possible extensions or multiverses) and the earth (the one rock that we have to call home.)

My only issue in the science side of the forum is the comparison and contrast of what specifically constitutes evidence and theory. It is one thing to say that the opponents lack the proper evidence or understanding. It is another to present a counter-argument, which I fail to see many creationists do.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Jevenissun writes: If a person can not think in logic, which is in contrast to "thinking free", his argument can not go far, even in faith and belief.

OK.

I prefer Faith & Belief in that philosophy and speculation are more easily allowed than in science. Science requires objectivity.

quote:

---

t involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

---

Comments?

Good morning Phat,

Phat writes: I agree that traditional science is far from conclusive although they do have a method to their tests.

A method and a bunch of hypothesis and so called theories is not science. They are the thoughts and beliefs of mankind which is controlled by the individuals lifestyle, and beliefs.

To be scientific requires that an event be able to be reproduced under laboratory conditions.

Anything else has to be accepted by faith which scientist say they do not have. They don't have any empirical evidence either.

Phat writes: I am a Cosmological Creationist and believe that God created the heavens

Could you explain to me what a Cosmological Creationist is?

Everybody is a Creationist. The Bible actually says God created the Universe and everything in it.

Science say we don't know what, how, or from what the Universe and everything in it was created. But the Universe can not have existed eternally in the past as the according to the second law of thermodynamics it would have reached thermodynamic equilibrium long ago and would be a cold frozen universe.

When your theory does not agree with the second law of thermodynamics your theory is in trouble. So the universe and everything in it has to have a beginning to exist.

Phat writes: My only issue in the science side of the forum is the comparison and contrast of what specifically constitutes evidence and theory.

I just gave the second law of thermodynamics which declares that the universe could not have existed eternally in the past.

Yet the first law of thermodynamics states: The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.

Logically the universe could not have existed eternally in the past.

Yet it has to have existed eternally in the past in some form as energy and matter can not be created.

Science has no answer to this problem so they just shelve it and pretend it does not exist.

Phat writes: It is another to present a counter-argument, which I fail to see many creationists do.

But who is allowed to present any kind of counter-argument to the one held by most posters here?

Anyone presenting anything other than the standard pack of lies is ridiculed and told how they are stupid and do not know what they are talking about and they have no evidence because their evidence is based on a book of myths and their faith.

I have presented evidence in this post that requires a God to exist. I will restate it for clarity.

Fact one. The universe can not have existed eternally in the past. Second law of thermodynamics. "Reaches thermodynamic equilibrium."

Fact two. The universe has to have existed eternally in the past. The first law of thermodynamics. "Energy and matter can not be created or destroyed."

Fact three. The universe does exist. "WHY"?

Phat I will go back to our debate and present the Genesis account of creation.

God Bless,

ICANT writes: Maybe I missed some evidence somewhere...

Yes.

ICANT writes: ... that you could point me to.

No.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

Science: Data + Logic; Theology: God + Logic. Faith is only to God. The rest of theology CAN be explained by logic arguments. Systematic fiction will fail on logic.

OK, you ignorant idiot. Learn something about logic (almost literally my first class in college, praise be to CDR Spock).

All that logic can ever prove is the validity of its arguments, but never the truth. Anyone with any training in formal logic will know that from his very first lecture in the subject -- that is how very fundamental this fundamental truth is. Idiots such as you who are ignorant about logic would not know that.

Now, the thing with validity is that if you plug true premises into those intrticately valid logical syllogisms, then you should get a true conclusion. But if you plug in false premises, then your conclusions are fuck-all.

So then to recaputulate:

Science: Data + Logic;

The data of science it easy to verify. Therefore, the logic of science can easily lead to true conclusions since the premises (ie, data) are very easily verifiable as true. True premises fed into a valid syllogism yields a true conclusion. QEF

Theology: God + Logic.

"God" doesn't even have a definitive definition. Theology's premises are based on fallible MAN-created unfounded assumptions about "God" (whatever that could be). Unverifiable and mutually exclusive claims render your theology false from the very start.

Face it: you have nothing. That is why you have no other option but lies and deception.

Realize that and you can start on the road to recovery.

There is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics if the universe is not a closed system. If the universe came from something else (if, for instance, it started as a region of spacetime pinching off from a black hole in another spacetime, as proposed by Smolin 1997) then there still would be no conflict with the first law of thermodynamics, because on such a scenario the universe was not always a closed system, and would have inherited its initial energy from whatever it came from.

t involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.

That is too serious about science. It does not take that much, although it could.
As I said, science = data + logic.
If one has data (about anything) and can use logic to analyze the data. That is a scientific work. Whatever conclusion drawn is scientific knowledge.

OK, you ignorant idiot.

Your insulting word up in the front destroys ALL you said after that. So if you can't help to use it, please put it at the end. So I would at least read through what you said.