Maths of Flood - Correcting Premisses · Dialogues on Maths of the Flood · Other Maths of Flood Video
- I
- Scott E
- You are presuming Mt Everest was as high as or even existed before and during the Flood.
Yes. The science of geology supports such a presumption. No evidence supports the contrary except the wishful thinking and scientific ignorance of creationists.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Scott E "The science of geology supports such a presumption."
The data or the scientists?
"No evidence supports the contrary"
Except marine fossils found on top of it?
"except the wishful thinking and scientific ignorance of creationists."
Meaning:- your social ignorance of CreationistS
- your ignorance of arguments in CreationisM, right?
Seriously, you will say yourself that Himalayas have been lower than now, that they have risen fairly recently.
You will also pretend that this had happened millions of years before there were human observers, so, all we can say of it is by conclusion.
Now, your powers of conclusion are not brighter than ours. We have one datum more to base conclusions on - the history recorded in the Bible, since taken as accurate.
What exact datum (not theory, but datum) argues on your view that this conclusion must be wrong?
Now, I check the actual figures for Himalayas.
"During the Upper Cretaceous, about 70 million years ago, the north-moving Indo-Australian Plate (which has subsequently broken into the Indian Plate and the Australian Plate[10]) was moving at about 15 cm (5.9 in) per year. About 50 million years ago this fast moving Indo-Australian Plate had completely closed the Tethys Ocean, the existence of which has been determined by sedimentary rocks settled on the ocean floor and the volcanoes that fringed its edges."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas
So, the move was in 20 million years by 15 cm per year.
What if this took only 100 years? It would have meant a speed of 3472 m / h, less fast than a grown and healthy man walking. See calculations below.
It would have started out during the Flood, and it would have continued for 100 years.
Even a somewhat faster process seems possible, especially if the 3000 km distance is not quite proven.
20 000 000 * 15 cm 3 000 km / 100 years 2500 m / month 300 000 000 cm 30 km / year 2500 m / 30 days 3 000 000 m 30 km / 12 months 250 m / 3 days = 83 m / day 3 000 km 30 000 m / 12 months = 2500 m / month 83 333 mm / 24 h = 3472 m / h
- RationalSkeptic22
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your numbers mean nothing if you can't come up with a mechanism that raised the Himalayas to its present height.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Other proposed mechanism, violent movements (which have been slowing down for 5000 years now)
This is not true. The forces that are proposed to cause the plates to move as they presently do have not changed
in tectonic plates due to same impact which caused subterranean waters to erupt
What impact? You are just making stuff up, without anything to support your claims. Do you have any idea how much energy would have been released if an impact has occurred that caused 3 times more water than is found on earth today to erupt from beneath the surface? And all the while the little houseboat would have not been destroyed
into the flood and probably also left the iridium layer
Where did the flood get the iridium from. It's only found in very minute trace amount, naturally. The layer found around the world is dated to 65my ago. And scientists have traced it's origin to the Chixalub earthquake. You are playing fast and loose with scientific evidence.
Since you mentioned the layer of iridium, you have brought the geological column into the conversation. No dinosaur remains have ever been found above that line of iridium. So, how were they on the little houseboat? And of the 1.2 million extant species, not a single animal or plant fossil has ever been found anywhere near the iridium line.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @RationalSkeptic22 Mechanism in Flood geology : provided by geologists on CMI, like here:
How did the waters of Noah’s Flood drain off the continents?
by Mike Oard | This article is from
Creation 37(3):28–30—July 2015
https://creation.com/how-did-the-waters-of-noahs-flood-drain
Go down to figure 5.
Other proposed mechanism, violent movements (which have been slowing down for 5000 years now) in tectonic plates due to same impact which caused subterranean waters to erupt into the flood and probably also left the iridium layer.
- RationalSkeptic22
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
Go down to figure 5
I would rather start with this: "As the water receded from the continents it must have flowed into the oceans"
That's impossible. We are discussing a water supply in addition to the existing oceans.
It only takes a quick look at a globe of the earth to appreciate that the water indeed sits in the oceans. The Pacific Ocean alone takes up almost half the earth’s surface
We are looking for 3 times more water than there presently is in the Pacific Ocean.
That's ridiculous. There's nothing in that illustration that identifies the force that would have caused that to happen. Also, in the case of the Himalayas, we are talking about a 1,500mile long x 95-150 mile wide x 20,000 foot pile of rock. There, no way that illustration is sufficient. Also, there's no objective evidence whatsoever that supports the claim.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl
We have one datum more to base conclusions on - the history recorded in the Bible, since taken as accurate
You can use the bible to prove the bible. Besides, it's LOADED with contradictions, mistakes, utter nonsense (like the flood), despicable vileness and lies, including lies bu you god, himself. So, there's no reason why rational, objective minded person should consider anything it says.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @RationalSkeptic22 "I would rather start with this: "As the water receded from the continents it must have flowed into the oceans""
Dealt with when saying Everest is post-Flood, actually.
"That's impossible. We are discussing a water supply in addition to the existing oceans."
Only if you insiste on an "Everest flood zone" as in water 8 km and some higher than present sea level, as in height of Mt Everest presumed to have already existed.
Oard: "It only takes a quick look at a globe of the earth to appreciate that the water indeed sits in the oceans. The Pacific Ocean alone takes up almost half the earth’s surface"
You: "We are looking for 3 times more water than there presently is in the Pacific Ocean."
We are not looking for 3 times more water than there presently is on earth, again, unless you count Everest as the minimal height of a Flood covering the mountains.
"That's ridiculous."
Think you.
"There's nothing in that illustration that identifies the force that would have caused that to happen."
Oard provides a verbal intro: "Differential vertical tectonics as the floodwater was draining provides the answer,10 because the mountains were pushed up as a result of the Flood, by way of upward vertical tectonics."
"Also, in the case of the Himalayas, we are talking about a 1,500mile long x 95-150 mile wide x 20,000 foot pile of rock. There, no way that illustration is sufficient."
Hence my proposal of other mechanism, namely tectonic sideways movements, leading to subduction, same mechanism as conventional geology, just more rapid.
"Also, there's no objective evidence whatsoever that supports the claim."
A proposed explanation is not exactly a claim to be proven. As long as it explains and nothing else explains data, that is proof, if something else explains them, not proven, but also not irreplaceably necessary as explanation.
"You can use the bible to prove the bible."
I suppose you mean "can't".
When you ask me to defend the Bible, I explain with an extra-Biblical but biblically coherent model.
When you ask for my proof, I answer the Bible.
EXPLAINING AND PROVING ARE TWO DIFFERENT OPERATIONS IN LOGIC, GET BACK TO SCHOOL!
Not saying school should be compulsory, but some things, like debating, are better off for a good schooling, which you lack.
"Besides, it's LOADED with contradictions,"
I think you are seriously wrong.
I think you aer seriously into a story you heard and never bothered to check, like two childhood accounts naming different cities, but still not contradicting each other since people move.
"mistakes, utter nonsense (like the flood), despicable vileness and lies, including lies bu you god, himself."
More prejudice on your part.
"So, there's no reason why rational, objective minded person should consider anything it says."
Even Genetically Modified Sceptic knows better than you. With 40 sth authors, any debunking of one of them will do nothing to debunk the rest.
In fact, a source may both be inaccurate and morally vile, and yet be the source we have for a piece of history, so, even if you were right, which you are not, this does not preclude Bible from being accurate history.
Now, what makes someone take a text as history, as opposed to fiction? Statements in the text? No, but reception of the text.
For instance, I do not take the Lord of the Rings as history, despite everything being in it formulated in a way it would have been if historical or a historical docufiction about long past millennia, simply because I know of no reception of the text prior to Tolkien's publication in 1954 and 55 and the years just before in which he was working on it and even changing plot points. This reception has not involved any academia crediting him with the discovery of a text in Westron, nor of deciphering and translating Westron. ANYTHING related to Red Book of Westmarch and Westron depends PURELY on the text, NOT on the reception.
By contrast, as far back as any can trace the reception of the Torah, it has been regarded as historical, except by sceptics who are a recent addition to the mix. THAT is my proof for historicity of Bible. NOT the Bible text alone.
@RationalSkeptic22 I missed one, here are my answers to that one:
"This is not true. The forces that are proposed to cause the plates to move as they presently do have not changed"
You presume.
It is harder to prove they have not changed. You cannot for instance prove it historically by citing scientific observations from last 5000 years, year by year.
"What impact? You are just making stuff up, without anything to support your claims. Do you have any idea how much energy would have been released if an impact has occurred that caused 3 times more water than is found on earth today to erupt from beneath the surface? And all the while the little houseboat would have not been destroyed"
Again, the "three times more" meme involves Mt Everest already existing before the Flood. We are discussing a scenarion in which it didn't. You cannot use your disagreement with it to prove contractions in it when they only are with your mixing it up with another scenario.
I consider it very probable that either the impact was causing tsunamis the Ark escaped as built on highest available ground, or added water after it had started floating. Oh, since it was floating, it was not navigating against the waves and therefore not broken by them.
"Where did the flood get the iridium from. It's only found in very minute trace amount, naturally. The layer found around the world is dated to 65my ago. And scientists have traced it's origin to the Chixalub earthquake. You are playing fast and loose with scientific evidence."
You are confusing evidence with theories. I have every right to interpret the actual evidence to that layer being 5000 years old. CHE I IX A ELE U BE - Chixalub .... no.
Chicxulub crater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
See why I am always afraid of mispronouncing and misspelling that place ...
As you can see from article, the iridium is from the meteorite that impacted.
"Since you mentioned the layer of iridium, you have brought the geological column into the conversation. No dinosaur remains have ever been found above that line of iridium."
I did a major check up on geological column. Can you name one place on earth where dinosaurs are found below that line of iridium - meaning it is actually found there too and above them?
I actually even suspect there are places of earth where same iridium line is below some dino type critters, but there it is considered as an older layer from an older impact. The PT boundary (Permian / Triassic).
But I don't know for a fact there is even one place where there are dinos either above or below any extant and identified line of iridium.
I am nearly sure there are slugs above and below a line of iridium in Yacoraite, pretty much same slugs for Maastrichtian ("late" Cretaceous) and for Danian ("early" Palaeocene). Because if both Maastrichtian and Danian fossils are slugs of pretty much same type, only an iridium line comes to my mind as having motivated any differentiation of them into two layers.
"So, how were they on the little houseboat? And of the 1.2 million extant species, not a single animal or plant fossil has ever been found anywhere near the iridium line."
You don't find the iridium line on every spot on earth.
You brought up extant species. While any two animals in a couple were of same species, had no reproductive barrier, this doesn't mean every species now extant had to be there, as speciation events happened after the Flood. Here is an article of mine dealing with it.
Creation vs. Evolution : What Taxonomic Level Needs Representation on the Ark?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/01/what-taxonomic-level-needs.html
Here is a resumé of all links to an article series with geologic column in discussion:
Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html
- RationalSkeptic22
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Seriously, you will say yourself that Himalayas have been lower than now"
Right. Based on their present rate of ascension, they were ~450 feet shorter 4,600 years ago.
"that they have risen fairly recently"
Not according to the scientific evidence. And that's all we have to go on that explains their existence.
"You will also pretend that this had happened millions of years before there were human observers"
Nobody is pretending. The scientific evidence shows they began rising ~60 million years ago.
"so, all we can say of it is by conclusion"
There's evidence on which the conclusion are based.
"Now, your powers of conclusion are not brighter than ours"
Yes the most CERTAINLY are because they are based on scientific evidence and they explain everything. All you can do is make assertions and say what might have happened, without ever explaining how it happened.
"We have one datum more to base conclusions on - the history recorded in the Bible, since taken as accurate"
Take it as accurate all you want but it's not accurate.
"What exact datum (not theory, but datum) argues on your view that this conclusion must be wrong?"
All we are saying is we don't believe you. And since you are making the claim, it's incumbent on you to support it. We are also explaining why we don't believe you by pointing out issues that indicates that the flood couldn't have happened.
[Note he refuses to give a precise piece of evidence here.]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @RationalSkeptic22 "Right. Based on their present rate of ascension, they were ~450 feet shorter 4,600 years ago."
Unless their present rate is the result of a slowing down.
"Not according to the scientific evidence. And that's all we have to go on that explains their existence."
You are confusing evidence as in raw data with current theories.
Also, you are confusing proof with explanation. Explanations must not contradict the proof, but need not be derived from proof (why don't they teach logic in these schools!).
ALSO you are misinterpreting what I mean by recent. In your school of thought, Himalayas, Andes and Alps are the most recent mountains there are, while Pyrenees or Carpathians are lots older, since lower, more worn down.
"Nobody is pretending."
You are referring to the sense given as 4 on wiktionary:
To make oneself appear to do or be doing something; to engage in make-believe.
I was referring to the sense given as 1:
To claim, to allege, especially when falsely or as a form of deliberate deception. [from 14th c.]
I was not in this case intending the "as a form of deliberate deception" on your part, which is not necessary for the sense.
"The scientific evidence shows they began rising ~60 million years ago."
No, a certain scientific interpretation of the evidence says this.
"There's evidence on which the conclusion are based."
There is evidence and bad logic applied to it on which your conclusion is based.
"Yes the most CERTAINLY are because they are based on scientific evidence"
We are not unwilling to use that.
"and they explain everything."
Except they don't explain a lot of things, like why you are here thinking about why we are here.
"All you can do is make assertions and say what might have happened, without ever explaining how it happened."
Except we do explain how x happened by y, and then you say we never explain y, even if we do.
"Take it as accurate all you want but it's not accurate."
Claim you ...
"All we are saying is we don't believe you."
I am not asking you to believe me.
"And since you are making the claim,"
I am not making a claim, but defending one against a counterclaim you are making.
"it's incumbent on you to support it."
When you make a counterclaim saying we cannot explain such and such, it is incumbent, not to prove, but to explain.
"We are also explaining why we don't believe you by pointing out issues that indicates that the flood couldn't have happened."
Issues I am dealing brilliantly with. Whether you realise that or not.
- RationalSkeptic22
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Dealt with when saying Everest is post-Flood, actually"
If you have an ocean and 3 times more water appears, it can't flow into the ocean because it's in excess to the ocean's content
"Only if you insiste on an "Everest flood zone" as in water 8 km and some higher than present sea level"
You have a bathtub full of water. Your home is flooded to the roof and then the flood water drains off. It CANNOT drain into the bathtub because it's in excess to what the bathtub can hold. Same here.
"We are not looking for 3 times more water than there presently is on earth, again, unless you count Everest as the minimal height of a Flood covering the mountains"
I think I'm being reasonable when I say the Himalayas is rising at 1.16 inches per year, and the forces causing the tectonic plates to move have not changed. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that the tectonic plates' speed has not changed
"Differential vertical tectonics as the floodwater was draining provides the answer,10 because the mountains were pushed up as a result of the Flood, by way of upward vertical tectonics"
You are just making stuff up. There's not enough water on earth to move the Himalayas. You have water lifting mountains AND laying down strata when that's totally impossible
"Hence my proposal of other mechanism, namely tectonic sideways movements"
LOL!! That's not a mechanism. And where is your evidence that describes such a phenomenon>
"leading to subduction, same mechanism as conventional geology"
Except in geology, everything MUST be explained. You are not even making an attempt to explain anything.
"just more rapid"
What caused it to be 1,000 times "more rapid" and then slow to its present? And why didn't this maneuver rip the earth apart? You don't seem to have the least concept of just how humongous the Himalayas are
"A proposed explanation is not exactly a claim to be proven"
Why do you expect people to believe you when you are just pulling shit out of your rectal data bank and treating it as factual?
"As long as it explains and nothing else explains data, that is proof, if something else explains them, not proven, but also not irreplaceably necessary as explanation"
In other word, any time you reach n impasse, just make an asspull ans "Wala""!
"When you ask me to defend the Bible, I explain with an extra-Biblical but biblically coherent model"
You are using the bible to explain the bible
"When you ask for my proof"
I don't recall asking you for proof because I don't have any. I have evidence that supports what I say. And that's what I ask for
"I answer the EXPLAINING AND PROVING ARE TWO DIFFERENT OPERATIONS IN LOGIC, GET BACK TO SCHOOL!"
LOL! I'm sure you need to follow your own advice, since you are accusing me of something that I never said
"Not saying school should be compulsory, but some things, like debating, are better off for a good schooling, which you lack"
Careful with the insults because I can get real nasty. So, let's stick to what was said.
"like two childhood accounts naming different cities"
Genesis 1 has a different creation accounts than Genesis 2.
"but still not contradicting each other since people move"
It contains contradictions.
"Even Genetically Modified Sceptic knows better than you. With 40 sth authors, any debunking of one of them will do nothing to debunk the rest"
LOL!!! So, 1 author can be shown to be a liar but that doesn't impact the other authors? Comedy gold!!
"even if you were right, which you are not"
LOL! The bible contains mistakes: God didn't make oxygen, CO2, radiated heat, gravity or atmospheric pressure, without life can exist. utter nonsense: The flood myth, which requires ~50 magic acts to pull it off, despicable vileness: condoning slavery, lies: promising A&E they would surely die on the day they ate from the tree but it didn't happen. There's more
"Now, what makes someone take a text as history, as opposed to fiction? Statements in the text? No, but reception of the text"
Horseshit!
"For instance, I do not take the Lord of the Rings as history"
And I don't take the bible as history.
"By contrast, as far back as any can trace the reception of the Torah, it has been regarded as historical"
That doesn't make it so. Every supernatural event described is bullshit, beginning with the first sentence.
"except by sceptics who are a recent addition to the mix. THAT is my proof for historicity of Bible. NOT the Bible text alone"
LOL!! You really had to twist yourself into a pretzel to believe that nonsense.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @RationalSkeptic22
"If you have an ocean and 3 times more water appears, it can't flow into the ocean because it's in excess to the ocean's content"
That is PRECISELY what was already dealt with when saying Everest (and modern Oceans too) didn't exist pre-Flood.
There wasn't any 3 times excess of modern Ocean content in the first place.
"You have a bathtub full of water. Your home is flooded to the roof and then the flood water drains off. It CANNOT drain into the bathtub because it's in excess to what the bathtub can hold. Same here."
No parallel. For one thing, the world doesn't have a roof.
For another, the "bathtub" is dug out much deeper so water can drain off into it.
"I think I'm being reasonable when I say the Himalayas is rising at 1.16 inches per year, and the forces causing the tectonic plates to move have not changed. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that the tectonic plates' speed has not changed"
When you say the forces have not changed, you are once again presuming a scenario. Considering the interest you show in maintianing a "three times more water" canard, you have a fairly shallow motive for this preference.
What you do NOT have is independent proof of it.
"You are just making stuff up. There's not enough water on earth to move the Himalayas. You have water lifting mountains AND laying down strata when that's totally impossible"
Can you read?
The article didn't say waters were moving tectonic plates or uplift.
The article did say strata were pushed down around sth, and then that sth had an uplift as counterbalance.
"LOL!! That's not a mechanism. And where is your evidence that describes such a phenomenon>"
It is a proposed mechanism. Evidence usually does not describe, but prove.
"Except in geology, everything MUST be explained. You are not even making an attempt to explain anything."
Except I did give the meteorite in Yucatan (let's skip trying to pronounce that Mexican word!) as explanation for movement of tectonic plates.
"What caused it to be 1,000 times "more rapid" and then slow to its present?"
On a) the meteorite, on b) the forces of resistance, which have grown stronger since solidification of rocks after Flood.
"And why didn't this maneuver rip the earth apart?"
The meteor did rip the then tectonic plates apart. That's what caused the movement.
"You don't seem to have the least concept of just how humongous the Himalayas are"
The precise reason why it needed a big movement in tectonics to build them up (I had to look up humongous, but still).
"Why do you expect people to believe you when you are just pulling shit out of your rectal data bank and treating it as factual?"
Again, explanations are creative.
Sometimes they can be checked, sometimes they cannot.
When they cannot, they can stand.
When they are chcked affirmatively they can stand.
When they are checked infirmatively, they cannot stand. I asked you for one datum disproving my scenario, you haven't given one.
"In other word, any time you reach n impasse, just make an asspull ans "Wala""!"
Except I haven't reached one.
"You are using the bible to explain the bible"
When it comes to texts, not to isolated terms or claims, there is no prohibition in logic against that.
"I don't recall asking you for proof because I don't have any. I have evidence that supports what I say. And that's what I ask for"
What you mean by "evidence" actually boils down to "proof" in good logic.
"LOL! I'm sure you need to follow your own advice, since you are accusing me of something that I never said"
You have time after time here treated my explanations as if they were attempts to prove, rather than to defend the Biblical scenario.
"Careful with the insults because I can get real nasty. So, let's stick to what was said."
You have already been real nasty by not grasping good logic.
"Genesis 1 has a different creation accounts than Genesis 2."
Which do not contradict, since Genesis 2:5-end of chapter is a close up on Genesis 1:1-2:4 (the last verses being a resumé of previous).
"It contains contradictions."
You haven't shown any.
"LOL!!! So, 1 author can be shown to be a liar but that doesn't impact the other authors? Comedy gold!!"
It's comedy gold you think:
- a) any can be shown a liar
- b) showing one a liar would prove another one so.
"LOL! The bible contains mistakes: God didn't make oxygen, CO2, radiated heat, gravity or atmospheric pressure, without life can exist."
Not mentioning these does not imply any claim God didn't make them.
"utter nonsense: The flood myth, which requires ~50 magic acts to pull it off,"
Probably three : sending the meteor to .... Yucatan, getting Noah and his animals on the Ark in time, and yes, making a meeting of Oxygen layers and Hydrogen layers, and igniting Brown's gas to make rain.
The factors being arranged so the rest are NOT "magical acts", except perhaps quick dry for some land just after Flood.
"despicable vileness: condoning slavery,"
If you condone prison and mental hospital and employment, you are condoning more vile conditions than the kind of limited slavery which was condoned.
"lies: promising A&E they would surely die on the day they ate from the tree but it didn't happen."
Riddle : to God a day is like a thousand years, they died same millennium, so it did happen.
// Now, what makes someone take a text as history, as opposed to fiction? Statements in the text? No, but reception of the text //
"Horseshit!"
Sorry, but you have just shown you are uneducated as someone born yesterday on historiographical matters. Not on historical events, but on how they are known.
"And I don't take the bible as history."
So, if different reception is not your thing, what is your argument?
"That doesn't make it so."
It being so is the most probable and coherent explanation for it being taken so.
"Every supernatural event described is bullshit, beginning with the first sentence."
Ah, your test for historical truth is your metaphysical prejudice ... nice, now explain how atoms and forces acting as vectors obeying mathematical laws formed sth which can test historical truth or have metaphysics one way or the other ...
"LOL!! You really had to twist yourself into a pretzel to believe that nonsense."
Your reading sense you aren't used to makes you think I twisted myself into a pretzel. I didn't.
- RationalSkeptic22
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Unless their present rate is the result of a slowing down"
Explain how that’s possible
"You are confusing evidence as in raw data"
LOL!!! There’s no such ting in science. There’s only scientific evidence, which includes data that has been vetted for accuracy, clarity and completeness, and has withstood all efforts to falsify it.
"with current theories*"
Notice that I use the phrase scientific theory*. I do it especially for people like you, to delote the fact that a *scientific theory is totally different from a “theory”.
"Also, you are confusing proof with explanation"
I would be if I asked for it. I have asked you for evidence
"Explanations must not contradict the proof"
PLEASE!! Don’t lecture on how science works because you obviously don’t know.
"but need not be derived from proof"
Science doesn’t “prove” anything. It simply provides natural explanations for phenomenon in the form of scientific theories that are based on *scientific evidence*.
(why don't they teach logic in these schools!) In your school of thought
Why don’t they teach the scientific method to people who tink they are qualified to discuss how science works?
"Himalayas, Andes and Alps are the most recent mountains"
I’m sure the mountains that formed from volcanoes like those in Hawaii and the Galapagos and Indonesia formed later
"No, a certain scientific interpretation of the evidence says this"
Bullshit. In science it’s always about the scientific evidence” A “certain scientist” prepares a hypothesis, gathers evidence and test it. But then he must submit his work for peer review (vetting) where the evidence is cheched for accuracy, clarity and completeness, and every effort is made to falsify THE EVIDENCE. If the hypothesis passes vetting, it becomes a *_scientific theory Then the entire scientific community studies THE EVIDENCE, and if a consensus is reached, the scientific theory is accepted.
"There is evidence and bad logic applied to it"
LOL!! You are confusing how science works with your religion.
"on which your conclusion is based"
I’m not like you, I don’t make conclusions. I repeat what the scientists say.
"We are not unwilling to use that"
Yes you most CERTAINLY ARE because scientific evidence destroys your beliefs.
"Except they don't explain a lot of things"
Like I said, the hypotheses are vetted for completeness. They cannot pass vetting if ll issues are not address. You couldn’t know that, since you don’t know what I’m saying.
"like why you are here thinking about why we are here"
Science only answers questions about the natural world
"Except we do explain how x happened by y, and then you say we never explain y, even if we do"
Explain the force that once moved the tectonic plates over 1,000 times faster than they are moving now.
"I am not asking you to believe me"
Then what’s your reason for commenting?
"I am not making a claim"
All you have done is make claims about the existence of the mountains, how they formed the earth breaking open, water distributed the iridium,
"but defending one against a counterclaim you are making"
You have made counterclaims. Why don’t you know what a counterclaim is?
"When you make a counterclaim saying we cannot explain such and such, it is incumbent, not to prove, but to explain"
I never asked for proof. And you are disputing what this video says.
"Issues I am dealing brilliantly with. Whether you realise that or not."
BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @RationalSkeptic22
"Explain how that’s possible"
Sth moves fast, this results in a collision increasing thickness and bulk of resisting object, resistance increases and resistance slows down movement.
"LOL!!! There’s no such ting in science. There’s only scientific evidence, which includes data that has been vetted for accuracy, clarity and completeness, and has withstood all efforts to falsify it."
That would still be a selection of raw data - ideally.
In practise, you would be using article so and so as "evidence" not only for the evidence in it that are raw data, but also those that depend on the scientist's ultimate theories. You would also not accept Creationist efforts to falsify them, and even when no one makes any effort (except the Creationists you are discarding) to falsify anything worth falsifying, which is sometimes an implication, you will claim it has "withstood all efforts to falsify it".
"Notice that I use the phrase scientific theory*. I do it especially for people like you, to delote the fact that a *scientific theory is totally different from a “theory”."
This does not mean a scientific theory cannot be wrong.
"I would be if I asked for it. I have asked you for evidence"
Despicable formalism in very recent science speak.
Evidence is only evidence if it is a premiss in proof.
Evidence for x is a premiss in a proof for x.
"PLEASE!! Don’t lecture on how science works because you obviously don’t know."
I'm lecturing on how LOGIC works, which your science teachers obviously neglected.
"Science doesn’t “prove” anything. It simply provides natural explanations for phenomenon in the form of scientific theories that are based on *scientific evidence*."
Sorry, but if "evidence" for x does not prove x, it is not evidence for x. Sometimes it can be probable evidence for x, that is when it involves probable proof for x.
"In your school of thought"
Indeed, I have a school of thought which values logic.
And which doesn't fetishize words, as you do with "evidence" not being same word as "proof".
"Why don’t they teach the scientific method to people who tink they are qualified to discuss how science works?"
I'm not discussing how science works, but how it should work.
"I’m sure the mountains that formed from volcanoes like those in Hawaii and the Galapagos and Indonesia formed later"
Fair point.
"Bullshit. In science it’s always about the scientific evidence” A “certain scientist” prepares a hypothesis, gathers evidence and test it. But then he must submit his work for peer review (vetting) where the evidence is cheched for accuracy, clarity and completeness, and every effort is made to falsify THE EVIDENCE. If the hypothesis passes vetting, it becomes a *_scientific theory Then the entire scientific community studies THE EVIDENCE, and if a consensus is reached, the scientific theory is accepted."
Nice procedure, where is the detail by which this procedure is supposed to reach truth about matters?
You know, like proof in logic?
To resume my actual point, if the vetters and the "community" share the interpretation of the evidence pieces or raw data given by the scientist, the only chance of them rejecting the theory is the actual raw data being shown false, but this is not the only chance of the theory being false. There is also such a thing as false interpretation.
"LOL!! You are confusing how science works with your religion."
No, I am giving my assessment of why you believe a theory which is obviously false since it contradicts my religion which is true.
"I’m not like you, I don’t make conclusions. I repeat what the scientists say."
Oh, you are a parrot, sorry, I thought I was debating with a human person [/ mode irony off]
"Yes you most CERTAINLY ARE because scientific evidence destroys your beliefs."
I've dealt fairly and squarely with the mathematical evidence in the video and it didn't.
"Like I said, the hypotheses are vetted for completeness. They cannot pass vetting if ll issues are not address. You couldn’t know that, since you don’t know what I’m saying."
Your method would guarantee that, if the ones vetting were infallible.
"Science only answers questions about the natural world"
On your theory, we are part of it.
"Explain the force that once moved the tectonic plates over 1,000 times faster than they are moving now."
The impact from the meteor on ... shall we say Yucatan, I can't pronounce the exact place.
"Then what’s your reason for commenting?"
I'm asking you to believe mathematics : _if_ the Flood waters were only two km above modern sea level, the now water suffices, and _if_ Mt Everest (and some similarily above 2 km, and some even as high as 2 km, but that's incidental) rose afterwards, 2 km of water is sufficient.
I am also asking you to believe logic : if there is a scenario where water would have been sufficient, you are asked to drop your argument.
"All you have done is make claims about the existence of the mountains, how they formed the earth breaking open, water distributed the iridium,"
Models, not definite claims.
"You have made counterclaims. Why don’t you know what a counterclaim is?"
It seems you are unaware, even a hypothesis, not necessarily a claim, is sufficient to remove provenness from the claim, if the hypothesis is other than it and also explains data.
"I never asked for proof."
Evidence is a particular moment in the logical presentation of a proof.
"And you are disputing what this video says."
I am disputing it as pretended disproof of Bible story. I have also given a mathematical calculation parallel, but using a different premiss about what the Biblical scenario entails.
"BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH"
Enjoy, you seem to need it.
- RationalSkeptic22
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You presume"
I presume nothing. The flood supposedly occurred ~4,600 years ago. The forces theorized to cause the tectonic plates to raise the Himalayas at a rate of 1.16 inches per year are the temperature in the earth’s core, the earth’s rotation and the gravitational attraction between the earth and moon and the earth and sun.
"It is harder to prove they have not changed"
You must show (not prove) that they have and by 1,000 times as much
"You cannot for instance prove it historically by citing scientific observations from last 5000 years, year by year"
Nonsense. YOU are the one claiming the forces presently causing the tectonic plates to move once moved 1,000 times faster. So, YOU must demonstrate how it happened.
"Again, the "three times more" meme involves Mt Everest already existing before the Flood"
Have you ever read the bible? It says the highest mountain was covered. That means mountains must have existed in order to be covered.
"We are discussing a scenarion in which it didn't."
Then you are going against what the bible says. But that’s no surprise.
"You cannot use your disagreement with it to prove contractions"
I’m merely telling you how fast the plates are moving now. Your scenario hs them moving over 1,000 times faster. How was that possible
"I consider it very probable that either the impact was causing tsunamis"
Where’s the evidence for your impact? Are you going to claim the one that destroyed the dinosaurs?
"the Ark escaped as built on highest available ground"
The land was covered
"or added water after it had started floating"
There you go, making shit up again
"Oh, since it was floating, it was not navigating against the waves and therefore not broken by them"
BWWWWWWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"You are confusing evidence with theories"
Look, I have an understanding of this, you don’t. So stop telling me what I’m doing. According to the scientific evidence
"I have every right to interpret the actual evidence to that layer being 5000 years old"
Good!! Here a scientific treatises. The evidence is in it. Go ahead, interpret it: https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/renne.kt_.science.2013.pdf
"As you can see from article, the iridium is from the meteorite that impacted"
I knew that, you didn’t. You said water laid it down
"I did a major check up on geological column"
Really!!! WONDERFUL!! Then you know the first ~85% of it contains no life or only 1-cell organisms. If god made everything during the first 6 days, then all life forms found in the top15% would have to be found throughout the bottom 85%. Thanks!! Creationists won’t usually go near the geological column for this reason.
"Can you name one place on earth where dinosaurs are found below that line of iridium - meaning it is actually found there too and above them?"
Why? Scientists know the age of the layers of srata
"I actually even suspect there are places of earth where same iridium line is below some dino type critters"
What’s you rationale for suspecting the when you didn’t even know how the iridium got to be where ir is?
"but there it is considered as an older layer from an older impact"
Scientists have found only 1 layer. Why are you implying that another exists?
"The PT boundary (Permian / Triassic)"
Remember, I told you how you abuse science for your purpose. This is an event that is theorized to have occurred ~250mya. But you are going to put it into your timeline of 6,000 years, when you have no justification for doing so
"But I don't know for a fact there is even one place where there are dinos either above or below any extant and identified line of iridium."
The scientists know. If you question them, then go do your own research.
"I am nearly sure there are slugs above and below a line of iridium in Yacoraite"
But you will never find a cat, dog, rabbit, squirrel, or certainly not a human anywhere near there.
"You don't find the iridium line on every spot on earth"
I didn’t say you did, so what’s your reason for saying that?
"While any two animals in a couple were of same species"
That’s a totally senseless comment. But I understand, you are trying to discuss a subject that you know nothing about.
"had no reproductive barrier"
LOL!! That’s not the issue. The horse and donkey and lion and tiger don’t have barriers. But their offsprings aren’t fertine. That’s the key. LOL
"Here is an article of mine dealing with it"
Your article is bullshit for 2 reasons: 1) No ancestor of any species alive today is still alive. So, your “kind” had to do some magic reproduction and then al magically go extinct. 2) Genetic evidence, which is so reliable it can put people on death row in the US, show that every extant species evolved tens of thousands of years before the flood supposedly occurred. No species evolved after the flood.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @RationalSkeptic22
"I presume nothing. The flood supposedly occurred ~4,600 years ago."
5000 in Roman martyrology's chronology.
"The forces theorized to cause the tectonic plates to raise the Himalayas at a rate of 1.16 inches per year are the temperature in the earth’s core, the earth’s rotation and the gravitational attraction between the earth and moon and the earth and sun."
And subduction of plates suddenly has nothing to do with it, despite what I found on wiki?
"You must show (not prove)"
Word fetishism.
"that they have and by 1,000 times as much"
No, only that they can have.
Because, otherwise you have no proof they didn't.
That they did is at present my model for how this worked out. I don't need to prove it, since if it is disproven, I'll need to look for another model and if another model is preferrable, that dispenses with it anyway.
"Nonsense. YOU are the one claiming the forces presently causing the tectonic plates to move once moved 1,000 times faster. So, YOU must demonstrate how it happened."
Demonstrate as in prove? Claim as in propose?
I need to show it can have happened, that's all.
Now, you would agree that:
- the less weight there is, the faster such a force would move, the more weight there is, the more it would be slowed down?
- if there was no high mountain during the Flood, there was less weight and flood waters can even have removed weight which was above them in pre-Flood times?
- whether or not subduction from tectonic plates meeting is still contributing or not, it is thought to have contributed, and can have done so faster since the result would have slowed them down?
If one or more you would NOT agree on, state which ones and why. And do NOT try the "burden of proof" dodge. You have claimed that a rise of Himalayas in last stages of Flood and in post-Flood period (last 5000 years) is impossible, that the non-factuality of these scenarios are necessary and therefore factual. That is a claim.
I have said, they are possible and can be factual. That is a potential model.
Hence, burden of proof is on you.
"Have you ever read the bible? It says the highest mountain was covered. That means mountains must have existed in order to be covered."
Yes, but not that every mountain existing now or every h[e]ight of mountain existing now therefore also existed.
"Then you are going against what the bible says. But that’s no surprise."
What's not a surprise is your rough and ready and slightly illogical (on and off, when it suits you) reading of what the Bible says.
"I’m merely telling you how fast the plates are moving now. Your scenario hs them moving over 1,000 times faster. How was that possible"
- How it is possible they slowed down, bc such a fast movement is producing weight and pressure slowing it down (as are other factors, like rock solidifying after Flood).
- How it is possible they were moving so much faster then, again, the meteor in Yucatan will do for now.
"Where’s the evidence for your impact? Are you going to claim the one that destroyed the dinosaurs?"
The one that left an impact in Yucatan and an iridium layer and which is also claimed to have destroyed dinosaurs.
If flood waters covered the earth for about a year after, this would mean some of the atmospheric pollution or all of it was removed before people, mammals, reptiles and dinos came out of the Ark.
"The land was covered"
At the first tsunami? Possibly not yet.
"There you go, making shit up again"
Enumerating alternatives.
"BWWWWWWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
You seem to need it. Now, when your shock is over, I repeat : since it was floating, it was not navigating against the waves and therefore not broken by them.
Perhaps I should have said "just floating" to clarify my meaning.
"Look, I have an understanding of this, you don’t."
Would you mind stopping to pretend to talk, down to a child, Mr. Bully?
You have ONE understanding of it, I have ANOTHER one.
"So stop telling me what I’m doing."
When you are not only telling what I'm doing but getting it wrong due to your lack of education in logic?
"Good!! Here a scientific treatises. The evidence is in it. Go ahead, interpret it:"
https://eps.harvard.edu/files/eps/files/renne.kt_.science.2013.pdf
Nanterre University Library blocked the opening of the file by one "stratégie de groupe" - do you have sth similar on html?
"I knew that, you didn’t. You said water laid it down"
No, I didn't.
I said it was from the Flood. Not that it was necessarily from Flood waters, but that it was from the overall Flood event.
"Really!!! WONDERFUL!! Then you know the first ~85% of it contains no life or only 1-cell organisms."
You mean, the interpretation of it, not the raw data.
"If god made everything during the first 6 days, then all life forms found in the top15% would have to be found throughout the bottom 85%. Thanks!! Creationists won’t usually go near the geological column for this reason."
It has not occurred to you one can look at the data and come to an interpretation where time on terms of moyboy is not very relevant?
"Why? Scientists know the age of the layers of srata"
Ah, you trust their "evidence" as interpreted by them, without looking at the evidence, as in raw data. No, they don't.
"What’s you rationale for suspecting the when you didn’t even know how the iridium got to be where ir is?"
On your gross misreading of what I wrote.
"Scientists have found only 1 layer. Why are you implying that another exists?"
I am sure there is one layer in each place, yes.
In some places, it is interpreted as the PT boundary (Permian / Triassic).
"Remember, I told you how you abuse science for your purpose."
My purpose doesn't change the raw data.
My changing interpretations is not abusive against raw data.
Scientists are NOT sacrosanct.
"This is an event that is theorized to have occurred ~250mya."
Whenever the event is theorised to have taken place, I think I read there was an iridium layer involved in that one too.
"But you are going to put it into your timeline of 6,000 years, when you have no justification for doing so"
My timeline of 7200 years, and my justification is historical.
"The scientists know. If you question them, then go do your own research."
I did. I also linked to a short resumé of it involving a long list of links to several parts of my research.
"But you will never find a cat, dog, rabbit, squirrel, or certainly not a human anywhere near there."
Yacoraite find is just slugs. So far.
"I didn’t say you did, so what’s your reason for saying that?"
Since neither the iridium line, nor the dinos are found everywhere on earth, you cannot confidently claim there is any single place where iridium line has been found above a dino.
"That’s a totally senseless comment. But I understand, you are trying to discuss a subject that you know nothing about."
You are being rude for no purpose.
"LOL!! That’s not the issue. The horse and donkey and lion and tiger don’t have barriers. But their offsprings aren’t fertine. That’s the key. LOL"
Fine, and the animals in anyone couple were able to have FERTILE offspring.
"Your article is bullshit for 2 reasons: 1) No ancestor of any species alive today is still alive. So, your “kind” had to do some magic reproduction and then al magically go extinct."
Each species on the ark underwent mutations, geographic insulations, genetic drift and therefore produced barriers to fertile offspring - or at least to mating, but the present catalogue of species involves a claim the 17 hedgehog species are not able to get fertile offspring.
"2) Genetic evidence, which is so reliable it can put people on death row in the US,"
About individual identity. That's what it is reliable about.
"show that every extant species evolved tens of thousands of years before the flood supposedly occurred. No species evolved after the flood."
Other evidence has shown a faster mutation rate and therefore speciations can have occurred faster. Here we are NOT dealing with individual identity. The genetic clock is not reliable. It's supposed parallels in glottochronology for linguistics are not reliable either.
- RationalSkeptic22
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
th moves fast, this results in a collision increasing thickness and bulk of resisting object, resistance increases and resistance slows down movement.*
Where’s your evidence? Where are you calculation showing this is possible?
"That would still be a selection of raw data"
You call it whatever you want, just don’t tell me I’m dealing with “raw data” because that’s a lie.
"You would also not accept Creationist efforts to falsify them"
Damn right!! Science is specifically restricted to providing NATURAL explanations for phenomenon. It cannot accept SUPERNATURAL explanation.
"which is sometimes an implication, you will claim it has "withstood all efforts to falsify it""
It has withstood all SCIENTIFIC efforts to falsify it
"This does not mean a scientific theory cannot be wrong"
Of COURSE it doesn’t. But when they are wrong, only another scientific theory can correct them
"Evidence is only evidence if it is a premiss in proof. Evidence for x is a premiss in a proof for x"
Believe what you want. Are you familiar with the “Static Universe” and “Expanding Universe” theories. The impotant point is that they both were valid explanations for the status of the universe for over 50 years, with some scientists supporting 1, while others scientists supported the other. Neither of them was proved. But later, the “Static Universe” theory was falsified (disproved). BUT THAT DIDN’T PROVE THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE THEORY. It just increased the likelihood that it’s the correct one. Now if you can’t understand that, then frop it because you are wrong
"I'm lecturing on how LOGIC works, which your science teachers obviously neglected"
BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
A person wo believes in talking snakes and donkeys and all of the other ignorant shit in the bible is attacking my ability to reason. Comedy gold!!
"Sorry" LOL!1 I couldn’t agree more
"but if "evidence" for x does not prove x, it is not evidence for x. Sometimes it can be probable evidence for x, that is when it involves probable proof for x"
ROTFLMAO!!
"Indeed, I have a school of thought which values logic"
LOL!! Yet you believe that stupid flood story
"And which doesn't fetishize words, as you do with "evidence" not being same word as "proof""
Where’s the logic in thinking you are right and refusing to study the scientific method
"I’m not discussing how science works, but how it should work"
You are a liar. I have repeatedly told you science doesn’t prove anything, yet you are telling me I’m wrong.
"Nice procedure, where is the detail by which this procedure is supposed to reach truth about matters"
Once more for the short bus rider. Science provides the most reasonable explanation for the evidence. It may be true and it may not be true
"You know, like proof in logic?("
LOL!! Pitiful
"To resume my actual point"
You don’t have one. All you are going to do now is bullshit some more
"if the vetters and the "community" share the interpretation of the evidence pieces or raw data"
LOL!!! “evidence pieces of raw data”. You just insist on calling it “raw data”, don’t you.
"given by the scientist, the only chance of them rejecting the theory"
It’s not a *_scientific theory_. It’s a scientific hypothesis. It becomes a *_scientific theory only after completing peer review(vetting).
"is the actual raw data being shown false"
There are many reasons why a pakage can be rejected.
"but this is not the only chance of the theory being false"
It’s not a theory
"There is also such a thing as false interpretation"
Bullshit. Why are you too arrogant to lread and earn how the process works?
"No, I am giving my assessment of why you believe a theory which is obviously false since it contradicts my religion which is true"
Once again for the short bus rider. I don’t believe theories, I’m convinced by the scientific evidence and when I don’t have the ability to understand it, I accept it based on the record the scientists have. After all, they have provided us with 100% of our knowledge of the universe. Your shitty religion has only provided us with superstition, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry and utter nonsense.
"Oh, you are a parrot, sorry, I thought I was debating with a human person"
LOL!! Like I said, the scientists hve provided me with all I know about the universe. So tell me, where should I be getting my information from. Why is that a negative thing, while pulling shit out of your ass like you do a positive thing.
"I've dealt fairly and squarely with the mathematical evidence in the video"
I don’t recall you describing the mechanism by which the tectonic plates were propelled 1,000 times faster than they are moving now.
"Your method would guarantee that, if the ones vetting were infallible"
LOL!!! And you think you are logical. If your god is fallible, why should you expect man to be infallible
"The impact from the meteor on ... shall we say Yucatan"
And you think tis is a good way to debate. Where’s your evidence?
"I'm asking you to believe mathematics : if the Flood waters were only two km above modern sea level, the now water suffices"
According to the scientific evidence the sea level would rise 216 feet if all the ice melted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbiRNT_gWUQ
and if Mt Everest (and some similarily above 2 km, and some even as high as 2 km, but that's incidental) rose afterwards, 2 km of water is sufficient
"Yes, it’s sufficient to raise the sea level 216 feet"
"I am also asking you to believe logic
if there is a scenario where water would have been sufficient, you are asked to drop your argument"
All yo have done is make asspulls. Demonstrate what you are saying
"Models, not definite claims"
If you are not making claims, then no one has to accept what you say
"It seems you are unaware, even a hypothesis, not necessarily a claim, is sufficient to remove provenness from the claim"
That has no relevance for how science works
"if the hypothesis is other than it and also explains data"
That has no relevance in science
"Evidence is a particular moment in the logical presentation of a proof"
That makes zero sense. But even if it did, I have not uttered the word “proof”, except to tell you I haven’t used it. You made a false accusation, and like all creationist, you are saying all kinds of silliness to avoid acknowledging your error.
"//And you are disputing what this video says.// I am disputing it as pretended disproof of Bible story"
WTF happened to you. All of a sudden you can’t write a cogent sentence.
"I have also given a mathematical calculation parallel, but using a different premiss about what the Biblical scenario entails."
LOL!!! The spelling NAZI wrote "premiss"
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @RationalSkeptic22
"Where’s your evidence? Where are you calculation showing this is possible?"
Very general terms : have you ever seen car collisions explained on TV? The two cars don't just go on infinitely, they do slow down, right?
"You call it whatever you want, just don’t tell me I’m dealing with “raw data” because that’s a lie."
But you SHOULD be dealing with raw data. You should question "if scientist x concludes y, what was it he physically actually measured".
"Damn right!! Science is specifically restricted to providing NATURAL explanations for phenomenon. It cannot accept SUPERNATURAL explanation."
Thanks for admitting you are a hidebound ideologue ....
"It has withstood all SCIENTIFIC efforts to falsify it"
Meaning on your terms, all atheistic and non-spiritual, that is materialistic ones.
"Of COURSE it doesn’t. But when they are wrong, only another scientific theory can correct them"
I'm reminded of papacy, except papacy actually has a promise of Christ behind it.
"Believe what you want. Are you familiar with the “Static Universe” and “Expanding Universe” theories. The impotant point is that they both were valid explanations for the status of the universe for over 50 years, with some scientists supporting 1, while others scientists supported the other. Neither of them was proved. But later, the “Static Universe” theory was falsified (disproved). BUT THAT DIDN’T PROVE THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE THEORY. It just increased the likelihood that it’s the correct one. Now if you can’t understand that, then frop it because you are wrong"
I understand you perfectly. This means that for fifty years, same evidence was proof for neither of them, against neither of them and new evidence is proof against the modern Heliocentric version of static universe.
"BWWWWWWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
Enjoy, you seem to need it.
"A person wo believes in talking snakes and donkeys and all of the other ignorant shit in the bible is attacking my ability to reason. Comedy gold!!"
You just here showed an ability to reason in a prejudiced way, but not a trained ability to reason in a systematic way as as per a training in logic and a knowledge of what kind of proof is valid. Disproof is also proof and needs to follow the logical laws for proof to be valid.
"LOL!1 I couldn’t agree more"
arf, arf ...
"ROTFLMAO!!"
You showed your cultural ... rusticism ... ? ... again.
"LOL!! Yet you believe that stupid flood story"
Stupid or not, you have no logical disproof of it.
"Where’s the logic in thinking you are right and refusing to study the scientific method"
I'm not refusing to study it, I'm refusing to replace logic with it.
"You are a liar. I have repeatedly told you science doesn’t prove anything, yet you are telling me I’m wrong."
You told me yourself that science disproved the (modern heliocentric version of) static universe theory.
"Once more for the short bus rider. Science provides the most reasonable explanation for the evidence. It may be true and it may not be true"
The only "most reasonable" I know is proven or most probably proven.
[skipping some of your barbarism]
"LOL!!! “evidence pieces of raw data”. You just insist on calling it “raw data”, don’t you."
Mesuring a level of carbon 14 in relation to carbon 12 and its percentage of the usual present level or that one corrected to pre-industrial levels is not a really raw datum type of raw datum, but it is still a raw datum compared to the assigned age.
"It’s not a *_scientific theory_. It’s a scientific hypothesis. It becomes a *_scientific theory only after completing peer review(vetting)."
Fine, word fetishism and formalism again.
"There are many reasons why a pakage can be rejected."
Does logical reasoning about its philosophical value as a theory ever enter into it? If so, can it involve any criticism such as a supranaturalist would welcome?
"Bullshit. Why are you too arrogant to lread and earn how the process works?"
Who says I don't know how it works? I am not engulfed with it, nor willing to make it the test of truth.
"Once again for the short bus rider. I don’t believe theories, I’m convinced by the scientific evidence and when I don’t have the ability to understand it, I accept it based on the record the scientists have. After all, they have provided us with 100% of our knowledge of the universe. Your shitty religion has only provided us with superstition, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry and utter nonsense."
And a lot of good scientists ...
No, I don't see two possibilities, being convinced by their evidence or accepting it anyway bc of their record, there is a distinct third one of not being convinced, not accepting it, making sure I understand what I reject and that better than you understand what you defend.
"LOL!! Like I said, the scientists hve provided me with all I know about the universe."
Your breakfast this morning was not in the universe? Or you have no knowledge of it?
"So tell me, where should I be getting my information from."
As long as you accept no religion, which is a beginning, the information should be gotten by:
- senses
- conclusions from sense data.
If you provide either on your own, fine, if someone else provides, ask how he is supposed to know, and whether his reasoning is valid, and don't reserve it for members of the opposite team. Get a habit of judging that equally on your own side and someone else's (like Creationists').
"Why is that a negative thing, while pulling shit out of your ass like you do a positive thing."
When you have raw data directly answering a question, don't contradict them.
When you don't, pull as much shit out of your ass, eliminate the shit, keep what's not shit.
"I don’t recall you describing the mechanism by which the tectonic plates were propelled 1,000 times faster than they are moving now."
I mentioned meteorite on Yucatan, I'll fill in details : crushed some water reservoirs open, leading to a domino effect, leading to tectonic plates gliding wildly.
I am not a geologist, if you are give me the problems and I will see what I can do.
"LOL!!! And you think you are logical. If your god is fallible, why should you expect man to be infallible"
Yes, I think I am logical :
- 1) I am not admitting God is fallible
- 2) I am not allowing claims of infallibility to creep in where there is only fallible man with no promised help by God.
Therefore, I think I am logical to reject a confidence which would be well placed only if the vetters were infallible, like the confidence they adressed all issues.
"And you think tis is a good way to debate. Where’s your evidence?"
I think I do very well not to pretend to know a place name which I can't pronounce. My evidence is the same as yours about that meteorite.
"According to the scientific evidence the sea level would rise 216 feet if all the ice melted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbiRNT_gWUQ"
You are missing that the Oceanic basins are also a heritage from receding Flood. No Mariana basin before the Flood any more than an Everest. So we are NOT speaking of water in ice caps, we are speaking of water in today's Oceans.
"Yes, it’s sufficient to raise the sea level 216 feet"
Deliberately missing the point by pretending my scenario only deals with ice caps.
"All yo have done is make asspulls. Demonstrate what you are saying"
I already did demonstrate that 2 km of water involves no more than the total amount of water we have on earth today, most of it not in ice caps, but in Oceans.
"If you are not making claims, then no one has to accept what you say"
Do you have to accept a calculation?
"That has no relevance for how science works"
That's the exact idiocy with modern scientists.
"That has no relevance in science"
That's the exact idiocy with modern scientists.
"That makes zero sense."
Just because you are a barbarian in logic ....
"But even if it did, I have not uttered the word “proof”, except to tell you I haven’t used it."
I have already noted that word fetishism.
"You made a false accusation, and like all creationist, you are saying all kinds of silliness to avoid acknowledging your error."
You have shown everything needed for it and you attempt a word fetishism to avoid the conclusion.
"WTF happened to you. All of a sudden you can’t write a cogent sentence."
With your grasp of grammar, what you consider so is not a definite criterium.
"LOL!!! The spelling NAZI wrote "premiss""
When exactly was I a grammar Nazi about spelling? I have been so about word usage. I did once correct "can" to what you probably meant as "can't".
1863, George Eliot, Romola, Volume III, Book III, Chapter XVII, page 173
[…] that he might have no excuse for evading the test, the Franciscan declared himself willing to be a victim to this high logic, and to be burned for the sake of securing the necessary minor premiss.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/premiss
- II
- I had
- doubleposted the one Scott E answered, here is under the thread where that one is single:
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 1:51 You are presuming Mt Everest was as high as or even existed before and during the Flood.
- Sol Roth
- Aren't you presuming it didn't?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Sol Roth I am concluding it didn't from Bible being history.
- Sol Roth
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ok, but the bible doesn't mention everest, and it does mention mountains
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Sol Roth Correct on both.
Know what?
Mount Judi is one mountain claimed at times to be the landing place of the Ark.
It is two km high at its highest point.
Now, 2 km is perfectly within the possibilities of water now present on Earth to have covered, if Oceanic bottoms were lifted up to sea level, with quite a lot of water to go around for there having been seas in the pre-Flood world too.
This means, 2 km above sea level is about as high as it can have been.
Now, a piece of land that is 2 km high is termed a mountain, like Mount Judi.
What we must deduce is, mountains much higher, like Andes or Himalayas, cannot have existed pre-Flood, and I don't think the Alps did so either (fossils of whales and seals are found in Austrian alps, so I think Alps were coastline area in pre-Flood times).
But this doesn't mean no mountains existed, it only means some exist now which didn't exist then. For Mount Hekla, that is obvious ...
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- added
- Sorry, I meant Surtsey:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtsey
I also found Eldfell, while looking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldfell
- Sol Roth
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Mount Judi is one mountain claimed at times to be the landing place of the Ark"
Not in the bible it isn't, how come only you can propose a mountain not mentioned in the flood?
"What we must deduce is, mountains much higher, like Andes or Himalayas, cannot have existed pre-Flood"
why?
"and I don't think the Alps did so either (fossils of whales and seals are found in Austrian alps, so I think Alps were coastline area in pre-Flood times)"
I don't follow, whales and seals exist now, so they must have existed pre flood, so how can their fossils be used to determine anything?
"Sorry, I meant Surtsey"
Surtsey is a volcano, but volcanic activity isn't the only way mountains form.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sol Roth
//Mount Judi is one mountain claimed at times to be the landing place of the Ark//
"Not in the bible it isn't, how come only you can propose a mountain not mentioned in the flood?"
"MountainS of Armenia" may refer to mountains near Cizre which long had an Armenian community.
// What we must deduce is, mountains much higher, like Andes or Himalayas, cannot have existed pre-Flood //
"why?"
Bc, as the video correctly says, Mount Everest being covered with water would imply more than three times more water than there is.
// and I don't think the Alps did so either (fossils of whales and seals are found in Austrian alps, so I think Alps were coastline area in pre-Flood times) //
"I don't follow, whales and seals exist now, so they must have existed pre flood, so how can their fossils be used to determine anything?"
Whales weren't swimming around in the high mountains.
Whales could have been dragged across long stretches of land by flood waters, but if so would have disintegrated and left no beautiful whale fossils.
Now, we do have Cetotherium Lintiacum.
Dito for seal fossils, we do have Praepusa Vindobonensis.
So, Lienz was open sea, Vienna (specifically Nussdorf where the seal was found) close to a coastline.
// Sorry, I meant Surtsey //
"Surtsey is a volcano, but volcanic activity isn't the only way mountains form."
My point was exegetical. That the text mentions there were mountains cannot mean all mountains existing now must have existed then, since we know mountains have formed since then.
- Sol Roth
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
"My point was exegetical"
So was mine.
"That the text mentions there were mountains cannot mean all mountains existing now must have existed then"
It doesn't have to.
The bible acknowledges the existence of mountains, it's reasonable to use the height of a mountain as currently observed as the baseline for the amount of water required to flood the earths surface.
I can't see the logic of using a lower mountain other than to try to mitigate the absurdity of the story.
Bc, as the video correctly says, Mount Everest being covered with water would imply more than three times more water than there is
Ah, I understand you a little better now, there isn't enough water to cover everest, the bible is true, therefore everest couldn't have existed. Right?
"Whales weren't swimming around in the high mountains"
I agree
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Sol Roth
// My point was exegetical //
"So was mine."
I'm checking it.
// That the text mentions there were mountains cannot mean all mountains existing now must have existed then //
"It doesn't have to."
It would seem, on your view it actually has to. You see, you are picking one specific mountain, the highest. That means, either you presume without any evidence another mountain as high as it existed, or, more probably, you presume Mt Everest existed.
My point is, you cannot prove that from the text.
"The bible acknowledges the existence of mountains, it's reasonable to use the height of a mountain as currently observed as the baseline for the amount of water required to flood the earths surface."
And why the very highest of them?
Mount Judi is currently observable, and its height is giving ample viability to the Flood waters = present waters solution, since it is little over 2 km high.
"I can't see the logic of using a lower mountain other than to try to mitigate the absurdity of the story."
Or remove an articifially tacked on absurdity alltogether.
"Bc, as the video correctly says, Mount Everest being covered with water would imply more than three times more water than there is"
Exactly.
"Ah, I understand you a little better now, there isn't enough water to cover everest, the bible is true, therefore everest couldn't have existed. Right?"
Part of it. Other part, top of Mt Everest has been under sea water. Flood is an excellent occasion providing such.
// Whales weren't swimming around in the high mountains //
"I agree"
Thank you, then you will also agree Alps must have been under sea.
Meaning within Biblical history, they were sea up to the Flood. Meaning, sth as high as Alps has risen since the Flood covered all mountains.
- III
- I also
- sook out someone to respond to after his response to video:
- Barry Sabahat
- Hard to believe that people try to defend the veracity of the claims of Noah in the face of logic.
The numbers are so staggering that whatever reasonable discount you give them, they still won't make a difference.
The number of animals were overestimated? Really? Ok, even if you reduce the numbers significantly, it is still an impossible task to get them on board and keep them alive for a year.
The mountains were lower and the sea floor sank? Ok! But sea floor sinking in one place would raise the mountain tops elsewhere. No difference. The amount of rainfall was so much that there would have to be nearly a sheet of water dumping. At the heights these guys are talking about, the temperature would be below freezing. It wouldn't rain. It'd snow.
The source of water wasn't rain. Really? That's what the bible says. Aren't we going by the Old Testament?
If this claim was made in any other context, these same people would laugh at it. But because it's in the context of religion, they defend it in the face of significant evidence to the contrary.
Believe what you want. But don't force it on my kids.
Someone I blocked?- added sth I cannot see?
- added sth I cannot see?
- Barry Sabahat
- What conclusion do you think these facts support?
- Barry Sabahat
- Good point.
- End (so far)
- of "invisible" dialogue. Here is my answer:
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "The source of water wasn't rain. Really? That's what the bible says. Aren't we going by the Old Testament?"
Check the actual text:
Genesis 7: [11] In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: [12] And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights
TWO sources : fountains of the great deep + flood gates of heaven where their opening involves rain.
"The number of animals were overestimated? Really? Ok, even if you reduce the numbers significantly, it is still an impossible task to get them on board and keep them alive for a year."
Even with just 500 pairs?
Creation vs. Evolution : What Taxonomic Level Needs Representation on the Ark?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/01/what-taxonomic-level-needs.html
"The mountains were lower and the sea floor sank? Ok! But sea floor sinking in one place would raise the mountain tops elsewhere. No difference."
Thank your for showing the difference!
When this happened, solids on Earth were more unevenly distributed vertically, meaning that waters could cluster on the lower half of that height (or even more, if Mariana Basin is deeper than Mt Everest is high) so that the higher half could restore the dry land.
"The amount of rainfall was so much that there would have to be nearly a sheet of water dumping."
Supposing we deal with a Flood zone of 8 km water above current sea level. With just 2 km, ten to twenty times the rainfall in Cilaos, Reunion, 16.III.1952 would be adequate if we also add waters of the deep giving a significant portion.
"At the heights these guys are talking about, the temperature would be below freezing. It wouldn't rain. It'd snow."
You are confusing absolute height over centre of earth with height over sea level. As sea levels were raised, 2 km above present sea level was just sea level. At sea level it would rain.
"Believe what you want. But don't force it on my kids."
So you believe school compulsion is wrong? Fine ... so do I! (If your point is instead school compulsion is fine as long as other parents' children have evolution driven down their throat, you are a hypocrite.) (Oh, btw, you did use "force" correctly? As in enforced school attendance forcing someone's children to read what neither they nor their parents want to read and to limit whatever criticism they would want to add? Just allowing your children to read it on free time involves no forcing anyone ...)
