Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
68 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,348 Year: 4,460/6,534 Month: 674/900 Week: 1/197 Day: 1/30 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 151 of 242 (789064)
08-10-2016 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by ICANT
08-10-2016 1:29 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
ICANT writes:

The assumptions you have to use to begin with.

ICANT suffers from the same disease all creationists suffer from. If they don't know any of the research done over hundreds of years to come to conclusions; they call it an assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by ICANT, posted 08-10-2016 1:29 AM ICANT has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 242 (789080)
08-10-2016 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by ICANT
08-10-2016 1:29 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
The assumptions you have to use to begin with.

In particular, which assumptions are those?


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

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by JonF, posted 08-10-2016 1:54 PM NoNukes has taken no action
 Message 156 by ICANT, posted 08-11-2016 1:31 AM NoNukes has taken no action

  
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 taken no action

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 193 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 154 of 242 (789120)
08-11-2016 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by NoNukes
08-10-2016 3:45 AM


Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes:

Let's consider that argument.

But you want to use the Bay of Fundy.

The dry land mass that appeared in Genesis 1:9, when the water gathered into one place was not shaped like the Bay of Fundy.

When the water began to rise it would have come on the land mass from all direction at the same time. With the water rising at the rate of 1" per minute there would be little to no damage to the land mass.
When the water receded if it was at the same rate or less there would still be little to no damage to the land mass, regardless of the elevation of the dry land.

So when someone says there is no sign in the earth of a world wide flood such as the YEC"S put forth they are correct. Because that kind of flood did not take place.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2016 3:45 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 08-11-2016 2:27 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 159 by JonF, posted 08-11-2016 8:44 AM ICANT has taken no action

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 193 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 155 of 242 (789122)
08-11-2016 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by JonF
08-10-2016 8:03 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi Jon

Jon writes:

The YEC three "assumptions" are BS.

I am not YEC.

I probably believe the earth and universe is much older than you do.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by JonF, posted 08-10-2016 8:03 AM JonF has taken no action

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 193 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 156 of 242 (789123)
08-11-2016 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by NoNukes
08-10-2016 11:45 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes:

In particular, which assumptions are those?

The assumption that the Tectonic Plates have always moved at the same speed of one too two inches per year.

God Bless


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by NoNukes, posted 08-10-2016 11:45 AM NoNukes has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Pressie, posted 08-11-2016 8:20 AM ICANT has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 157 of 242 (789126)
08-11-2016 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by ICANT
08-11-2016 1:00 AM


When the water began to rise it would have come on the land mass from all direction at the same time. With the water rising at the rate of 1" per minute there would be little to no damage to the land mass.

The erosion effects would be generated by the water velocity rather than the rate of rise. Your argument that a global flood is just like the tide coming in, even with analogy to Fundy is ridiculous.

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)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ICANT, posted 08-11-2016 1:00 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2016 1:29 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 158 of 242 (789131)
08-11-2016 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by ICANT
08-11-2016 1:31 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
ICANT writes:

The assumption that the Tectonic Plates have always moved at the same speed of one too two inches per year.

Really? You think that it's an assumption? You really need a basic education.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ICANT, posted 08-11-2016 1:31 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2016 2:17 AM Pressie has replied

  
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 taken no action

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 160 of 242 (789134)
08-11-2016 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by JonF
08-11-2016 8:44 AM


ICANT NOT SAYING the Bay of Fundy could keep on rising
... 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.

I don't agree with much of ICANT's ideas about the Flood as far as I can tell so far, but this idea that he thought the tides in the Bay of Fundy could just go on rising is a complete misreading of what he said that really needs to be corrected. He was NOT suggesting that this could happen IN THE BAY OF FUNDY. He was simply using the Bay of Fundy as a model for the Flood in relation to the height of the tidal rise in a brief period of time (or something like that, he can correct me if I got this wrong), then adding the necessary difference that the Flood would not have receded after the tidal rise but kept on rising. NOT THE BAY OF FUNDY, THE FLOOD.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by JonF, posted 08-11-2016 8:44 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by JonF, posted 08-11-2016 11:11 AM Faith has replied

  
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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 162 of 242 (789160)
08-11-2016 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by JonF
08-11-2016 11:11 AM


Re: ICANT NOT SAYING the Bay of Fundy could keep on rising
If you want to argue "no correlation," fine, but you didn't, you implied he was stu*pid enough to think the water could go on rising after high tide in the Bay of Fundy, and so did some others here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by JonF, posted 08-11-2016 11:11 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by JonF, posted 08-11-2016 12:06 PM Faith has replied

  
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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 08-11-2016 2:21 PM JonF has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 685 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 164 of 242 (789175)
08-11-2016 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by JonF
08-11-2016 12:06 PM


Re: ICANT NOT SAYING the Bay of Fundy could keep on rising
OK, I'll assume I misread you then. Sorry.

I don't see any connection between the Flood and the Bay of Fundy, no, but then I'm not quite sure what connection he intended to make


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by JonF, posted 08-11-2016 12:06 PM JonF has taken no action

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 193 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 165 of 242 (789240)
08-12-2016 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by NoNukes
08-11-2016 2:27 AM


Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes:

The erosion effects would be generated by the water velocity rather than the rate of rise. Your argument that a global flood is just like the tide coming in, even with analogy to Fundy is ridiculous.

What would cause the velocity you are alluding too?

The Bay of Fundy has velocity because as the tide comes in the area gets smaller and smaller until the water is racing up river causing a rapids that people go rapid riding in..

But if you start with a relativity flat elevation and the water is rising from all directions as the sea is rising at 1 " per minute the water would rise like the tide coming in on the beach. There would be no Tsunami waves to tear everything up as the water would be rising at a steady rate.

I say relativity flat as there was no place the plates would have been diving under each other to make the mountain ranges yet.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 08-11-2016 2:27 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2016 1:50 AM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022