Some water measurements for the Flood

A simple request: can you explain how the water cycle works?

Ok, you've got the gist of it i suppose. Now, how did you go about learning that rain comes from evaporated water?

I'm sorry Faith, but you continually prove that you see things in a far different way than "everybody else" and have shown all of us that whatever education you have had either did not stick or was insufficient.

I tried to ask you simple questions in a non-snarky manner and I would appreciate the same in response. I want to make certain that you don't accuse me of speaking gibberish for merely explaining things properly.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I was TOLD that rain comes from evaporated water.

Ok. Why do you believe it (I would prefer to say accept it as true)? Why do you accept that it works on a macro scale when all you can actually see for yourself is what occurs on such a small scale?

I'm sorry again, dear Faith. I am doing all I can to stick to science and things that we all can actually test. You've just proven that, contrary to what I thought before, you actually are capable of viewing events or evidence for an event and then coming to a conclusion based on witnessed data. We have a water cycle that you accept, so let's try and stick to things we have good evidence for, how's that sound? You have to realize that once you start inferring events that fly in direct opposition to things YOU have actually witnessed and what all observable data show, you leave our reality and realm of honest discussion and enter one of your own?

So I ask again, can we please stick to things you can show us all that don't require faith or belief?

What ARE you getting at?

I am trying to get a handle on where your brain turns away from evidence the rest of us can test and into the bible where only you can see it. I mean no harm.

it's just different data to think about

Where is the data, the hard data that doesn't require faith or belief, that says what you are saying and backs up your claim? The claim that the world was completely different pre-"flood"?

and I believe the Bible writers perhaps pretty much the same way I believed my teachers.

Do you never check anything for yourself? Do you simply believe everything everyone tells you and take it at face value? You admitted to me earlier that you do not, in fact, do that and you have witnessed firsthand what water can do. What if I told you there are a great many other things you can do yourself to study the world around you and be able to understand it better?

the fact is I've only witnessed the water cycle on the small scale, I can't say I've witnessed what happens in the clouds I can only infer it and believe what I'm told about it.

Fair enough. But you don't have to just take peoples word for it: you can test their claims and see for yourself that the water cycle actually acts the way you were told it does. That is the beauty of science.

And that, dear Faith, is the stark difference between faith and science and is precisely the reason I am asking you to use data that we can both test equally.

And I believe what I'm told about things like how the sun and soil and water create the chemistry that makes plants grow and so on and so forth.

Have you never planted a seed and watched it grow? I have difficulty thinking you have not.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

DA writes: Sinners give off evil, which rises into the atmosphere and condenses as water, causing it to rain, unless they want it to rain, in which case it condenses as a hygroscopic substance which sucks all the water out of the atmosphere, preventing it from raining.

Faith writes: What Dr. A said.

Did you read what he actually said?

Well, I'd offer the Geologic Column myself, buried in which is an immense abundance of all kinds of creatures, many we aren't familiar with today, which should say something about pre-Flood conditions, such as that it had to be immensely fertile to produce that teeming life. But of course anything you find in the Geologic Column you attribute to a time much older than the Biblical Creation and you invent an environment for it specific to accidental trinkets buried with it in its grave site, all of which destroys the Biblical account.

Now we are kinda getting somewhere. the geologic column DOES show that the planet was different in the past. However, you seem to be the only person in existence to claim it was different the way you claim. Does this fact give you no pause? Does this not make you think you need to do a hefty amount of data digging to get some hard evidence worthy of convincing others since you are intent on having discussion about it?

Where is your non faith and belief evidence to support this? I will keep asking for this as long as you keep saying it was not a miracle and that there is evidence for it.

You told me earlier that you had the same education as the rest of us and just believe what your teachers and preachers told you. Why did you choose to not believe your teacher about what they said about the geologic column and instead stuck to the bible? Why did you accept their explanation of the water cycle but not the geology of the planet?

But demanding that kind of data from a time before a huge destruction that wiped out everything is really unreasonable.

It's only unreasonable if you are unwilling to do the work. If you continue to rail against everyone here about us being delusional and your model being the obvious choice, do you think it is honest of yourself to not be willing to show your work?

The fact that we have a written mention of atmospheric water that sounds a lot fuller than what we have today, and a written mention that the Earth was watered by a mist, is really quite a bit of data under the circumstances.

We have an even fuller, more detailed record written in the rocks themselves. We have methods, methods that you yourself can test for validity, to measure what these rocks say. These methods do not in any way require interpretation and ONLY rely on data that anyone can access.

I want you to show me that same data you keep saying exists that says what you say.

Not all of us are geared for a career in science.

I dissected a frog in some science lab or other, that is not where my interests lay.

unless of course you're going to go on to become a scientist, which was not my interest.

I completely understand that it is unreasonable to expect everyone to take such a liking to science.

But then I have to ask, why do you engage in scientific discussions if you admit to not having the proper knowledge or passion? You talk to everyone here as if they are the idiots, yet you admit to not really knowing more than a passing knowledge about these subjects.

Is that honest of you?

it would be foolish in the extreme to throw it out just because the kind of data you prefer isn't available.

It's not about what data I prefer, it is about what data is useful in these discussions. No one can have the same faith as you. No one. What we CAN have, though, is the same hard data and do the same tests. When you offer your data and the test you used to come to whatever conclusion you come to, anyone else can do the same test and see if your conclusions are valid.

That is why science is useful for discovering the world and faith is useful for discovering faith.

Of course, but that experience tells a person absolutely nothing about the chemistry of growing plants.

Not true at all. You can set up an experiment to determine that plants cannot grow in rocks without sunlight or water, but instead need healthy soil, sunlight and water.

I have a challenge for you: go watch a few episodes of Mythbusters to see how fun the simple scientific method can be and how you can do it yourself with little advanced schooling. I also ask that you check out the new iteration of Cosmos. Neil DeGrasse Tyson and crew, it seems to me, went to extreme lengths to make this version palatable to people on the fence about science.

Would you respect a discussion with me about Jesus if I never read the bible?

How is his explanation different from the ones you have posted that say exactly the same thing? You yourself have said repeatedly that sinners and the like is what determines rain.

Are you now saying sin has no effect on rain? DA tried to actually give a workable explanation how sinners can cause droughts or floods. Why won't you do the same?

Your faith is unique to you. How YOU read the bible is unique to you. There is no reliable way to ensure someone reads and understands the exact same way you do. This is glaringly obvious given how many sects of Christianity there are and the fact that none of you can honestly say the other is wrong without also admitting the possibility that you are as well.

Science, on the other hand, is at the very core accessible to everyone. You can gather the same data and perform the same tests as even Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku can. Sure, they have more resources and spent far more time in school. But their knowledge is not locked away in their head. Their discoveries are right there at your fingertips for you to try. If you come to a different conclusion, you can have someone else test it and maybe even overthrow common knowledge.

Here, try some of these. Do some basic scientific experiments to get an understanding of the world around you firsthand.

Why does water boil? Because someone says so? What does water do when heat is applied to it? What does water do when extreme cold is applied to it? How do you find out? Through faith or experimentation?

Why won't your car door open? How do you find out? Through faith or experimentation?

Where is your lost dog? Do you just pray he comes home or do you go look for him?

Why do we need to drink water? What happens when you don't drink water? How do you find out? Through faith or experimentation?

You think I have a problem with the scientific method but that's because of a prejudice of your own against the Bible

Why do you keep accusing me of things I have not said or done? My view of the bible is not under discussion here since I have not brought it into the discussion. I have spoken only about strictly scientific matters and thing both you and I can test.

If we weren't talking about events described in the Bible but only about testable occurrences in the present there'd be no problem with the scientific method.

I admit that I have not kept strictly on topic. But that is only because I am trying to figure out where you stop accepting science and start plugging in the bible.

I share my basic view of the Geo Column with lots of creationists though we may differ on certain points with respect to it.

Am I wrong in saying that your view requires a vapor or water canopy? Not even Kent Hovind accepts that method as valid and has since stopped using it.

I discovered that the Bible is a more trustworthy source being the word of God and all.

That is fine for faith and belief matters. But you are taking part in a science thread and you continue to rail against science. "The word of god" is such a nebulous phrase and is so vulnerable to interpretation that it is useless when trying to discuss how the world works with other people. Especially people that don't read the bible EXACTLY the same way you do.

Do you wish to make an effort to have a discussion with people or do you just want to preach? Do you wish to discuss evidence to test the veracity of your claim or do you just want to preach?

It's really very simple and logical

If that were the case, don't you think you'd have swayed a few fence sitters or even converted a few atheists in your 13 years here?

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

What Dr. Adequate said was no different than anything you said apart from his actually having some explanatory power. You only object because it was him saying it and not you. There is literally nothing he said that departs from the spirit of what you've said.

But the hardened bias IS pretty thick here.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

And with that, my patience with you has worn thin and I will bow out. I tried to have a simple discussion with you, on your terms, but you are insistent on laying baseless and inflammatory accusations at everyone that you make it impossible to have a decent and successful discussion that is beneficial to all parties involved. I took some time off here at EvC to reflect on my poor attitude and I don't want you to make that all for naught. There is simply no reasoning with the clinically insane.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I know I said I was done, but this is an easy one.

Can you list the facts you have provided in a nice, easy to digest, free from interpretation, no need for your faith or belief, list that anyone can test?

Making a list with this forum software is easy. Just do:

[ list] insert list matter here [ /list] (sans the space I put after the first left bracket each time)