Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
121 online now:
AZPaul3, Christian7, nwr (3 members, 118 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,272 Year: 4,918/14,102 Month: 516/707 Week: 71/176 Day: 34/37 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 6 of 242 (788433)
07-31-2016 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by 14174dm
07-31-2016 1:34 PM


Re: Currents for eroding the pre-Flood sediment

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by 14174dm, posted 07-31-2016 1:34 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 150 of 242 (789062)
08-10-2016 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by ICANT
08-10-2016 1:29 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Coyote writes:
And what scientific evidence would you use to dispute the time frame?

The assumptions you have to use to begin with.

Way OT, but the only assumption underlying the time frame is that there is a real world we can investigate with our senses. The YEC three "assumptions" are BS. Modern methods do not assume known initial daughter product or closed system, and the constancy of radioactive decay rates is proven both experimentally and theoretically.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ICANT, posted 08-10-2016 1:29 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by ICANT, posted 08-11-2016 1:10 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 153 of 242 (789103)
08-10-2016 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by NoNukes
08-10-2016 11:45 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
More appropriate in Assumptions involved in scientific dating, if ICANT shows up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2016 11:45 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 159 of 242 (789133)
08-11-2016 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by ICANT
08-11-2016 1:00 AM



The Bay of Fundy is in no way analogous to a large land mass surrounded by water.

The tides in the Bay of Fundy are unique and due to unique conditions. The time it takes for a wave to travel from the mouth of the bay to the end and back is almost exactly the same as the time between high tides. This sets up a resonance that causes the extremely high tides.

That resonance would not exist in your fludde scenario because the geometry is totally different.

That resonance is periodic, meaning that what goes into the bay must shortly come out of the bay before any more goes into the bay. There cannot be a steady rise in the Bay of Fundy or any analogous situation.

Tidal Resonance in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ICANT, posted 08-11-2016 1:00 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 9:19 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 161 of 242 (789156)
08-11-2016 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
08-11-2016 9:19 AM


Re: ICANT NOT SAYING the Bay of Fundy could keep on rising
Yep, I know that's what he meant.

That's why I pointed out that the tides in the Bay of Fundy are in no way anything remotely like a flood on a land mass surrounded by water.

adding the necessary difference that the Flood would not have receded after the tidal rise but kept on rising

Which, of course, is impossible in the Bay of Fundy so that "necessary difference" destroys any correlation between the two scenarios. "Kept on rising" is an unjustified and ad-hoc explanation that is not supported by anything to do with the Bay of Fundy. The Bay of Fundy is a...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 9:19 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 11:16 AM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 163 of 242 (789166)
08-11-2016 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
08-11-2016 11:16 AM


Re: ICANT NOT SAYING the Bay of Fundy could keep on rising
You may have inferred that, but I did not imply it. {ABE} note "or any analogous situation" in my original message, which obviously means ICANT's fludde{/ABE} I pointed out that the water could not keep rising in the Bay of Fundy and therefore a global fludde would have to be wildly different.

Do you acknowledge that the tides in the Bay of Fundy have no connection whatsoever to an alleged fludde?.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 11:16 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 2:21 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 185 of 242 (789483)
08-15-2016 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by ringo
08-15-2016 11:48 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Sometimes scientists assume something currently unavailable to complete an analysis that could lead to interesting investigations. Of course you know nobody would present that analysis without acknowledging and discussing the assumption, and nobody would think that the results of the analysis were established fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 08-15-2016 11:48 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by edge, posted 08-16-2016 10:37 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 188 of 242 (789514)
08-16-2016 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT
08-16-2016 1:30 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Evidence creates facts not assumptions.

Then "assumptions" is not the correct term. I prefer "premises".

But the fact is that the "assumptions" under discussion are supported by tremendous amounts of evidence, no matter what you call them. Labeling them does not change reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 1:30 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 221 of 242 (790159)
08-26-2016 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by NoNukes
08-26-2016 10:16 AM


Re: Hi 14174Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Think like a YEC. The existence of landlocked ponds and lakes or whatever today doesn't prove their existence back then. Maybe streams and rivers would be allowable as long as the water eventually gets to the ocean.

Presto! All of them gathered in one place!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by NoNukes, posted 08-26-2016 10:16 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by NoNukes, posted 08-29-2016 11:17 AM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 224 by NoNukes, posted 08-29-2016 11:18 AM JonF 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