Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

Hi ringo An assumption is an assumption which is accepted as truth by those whose world view it fits. Sure I have reason to make my assumption. The earth was divided in the days of Peleg which was a duration of 239 years. But I believe it took place in a nano second or less. They just have not come to a complete stop yet, which is the reason different plates are moving at different rates.God Bless,

This is a science topic in a science forum and nonsense like the " The earth was divided in the days of Peleg which was a duration of 239 years." and other mythology are totally irrelevant.

To me that's the opposite of an assumption. That's religious.Maybe the word 'assumption'; as commonly used by religious people, means the opposite of what it means in the natural sciences? In the natural sciences there's scientific evidence for 'assumptions'.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Wrong. An assumption is based on the conclusion of another investigation. For example, we can "assume" that the sun will rise in the east because that's where we have always observed it rising. Stonehenge was built on the basis of the assumption that celestial events will continue as they have been observed. That's not a "reason". It's an empty speculation.You are also wrong about what the Bible says.

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.

Hi Pressie Evidence creates facts not assumptions.God Bless,

Hi ringo Can you tell me where I can find that definition.I can find several for the definition I gave. That assumption is false.
The sun does not rise in the east.The sun appears in the east due to the revolution of the earth on it's axis, in relation to the sun. Stonehenge was built on the evidence that was observed not an assumption. Science agrees with the Bible that the land mass was in in one area surrounded by water.Science and the Bible agree that the land mass was separated into the places they are today.So the only problem is how quickly the land mass was divided.How do we know when Pangea existed?IF the plates have always moved at the same speed Pangea existed about 250 million years ago and began to break up about 150 million years ago.The oldest data for the speed of the movement of the plates dates back to 1974.Some plates are moving at higher rates than others.Now just because the plates are moving at certain rates today does not mean they have always moved at those rates.The steady movement for 150 million years is an assumption.The plates could have been moved to their present location in a nano second and just have not come to a complete stop yet. This is an assumption. Someone who believes the Bible is a myth telling me I am wrong about what the Bible says is hilarious.God Bless,

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.

And the fact is that creationists have to change definitions around and have to challenge scientific assumptions because the evidence shows their claims are false.Creationists don't like the result of a scientific theory? Claim it is based on "assumptions" and by so doing challenge its results.In reality, as has been pointed out, those assumptions are not just "wild-ass guesses," but are based on evidence--generally a lot of evidence.A good example of creation "science" at work--a few days ago you challenged scientific dating methods by stating they are based on "assumptions." In other words, without providing any evidence you sought to discredit an entire field of scientific study.I provided a separate thread for you to back up your claim that the assumptions involved in scientific dating are incorrect, but you have avoided that thread--as I expected.No problem. You just keep on doing creation "science" and the rest of will stick to real science. We can do that, as we have the evidence on our side.

The Bible says that the water was gathered into one place, this does not logically necessitate that all of the land was gathered into one place.You could have a big lake with two islands in it and all the water would be gathered into one place while the land was not.We've been over this before, I even drew you a picture.ABE:Here is the picture that I personally drew for you: I uploaded it 5 years ago...Notice how the water is all in one pace and the land is not.Edited by Cat Sci, : see ABE

Thank you for clarifying that.However, it would still be an assumption that the sun will appear in the east each morning.At the same time, it is a pretty well supported assumption. Other assumptions maybe not so. Well, I would classify that as an assumption. Frankly, it would be a generalization that is based on (as usual) limited data. So are you saying that the Bible has made an assumption? Can you give us the supporting data used in the Bible? So, the Bible actually tells us where North America is?Does the Bible also tell us that the sky is blue? I could think of a lot more questions than that. One such that is receiving attention these days is why oceanic subduction zones start where they are. From paleomagnetic reconstructions. So, the observation that plates move at a certain speed (i.e., an observation) is trumped by the possibility that they could have moved faster?Nevertheless, we do have speed measurements based on radiometric dates of the ocean floor, so this is a supported assumption. Actually, no. The ages of the ocean floor and attached islands show show us distance versus time ... that would be speed. Here, for instance, is a diagram of ages for the Hawaiian Islands. Yes, and the highest relative velocities are about 20cm/y. There is no evidence for 'catastrophic plate tectonics'.You only assume it to fit your biblical narrative. However, there is no evidence going back to the Triassic (and new evidence suggests longer) that there were huge departures from known rates. For instance, during the Cretaceous, we are pretty certain that rates were somewhat higher, but nothing like the numbers that YECs would like. Well, that is not one of our assumptions. We know that there are higher rates in the geological record; just nothing like what you desire in you wildest assumptions. Such a displacement is not even an assumption. It is a fantasy. There are no forces on earth that could do that except magic.

Evidence allows us to create supported theories.The main issue between us is, 'what is valid evidence'?

I might add that sometimes we test our assumptions by using them as premises. That does not mean that we dogmatically accept them as 'facts'. It means that we can devise a test to see if an assumption endures.Does YEC do that? Does YEC test anything?

Yes, of course they do and almost 100% of the time devise tests that support prior conclusions.

As I've already pointed out to you, the Bible doesn't say that. It says the water was in one place, not the land. The Bible doesn't say that either. When the earth was divided in the time of Peleg (Genesis 10:25), it clearly refers to the division of nations (Genesis 10:32), which clearly refers to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11).It has nothing to do with continental drift. The Bible didn't predict continental drift. Nobody thought of interpreting it that way until after continental drift was confirmed by science. You're trying to reverse-engineer agreement of the Bible with science.And continental drift has nothing to do with what we would see if the Flood had happened. If you believed in Zeus you'd be wrong, whether I thought Zeus was a myth or not.Edited by ringo, : Spelding.