The Flood

[Vene]

Huh?

That went over my head!

I drive a green car. How on earth is anyone going to "hypothetically find it red?" If they do, they need laser surgery --- or something.

Falsifiable means that it would be possible for some sort of evidence to show that it is wrong. It doesn't meant that it is a wrong idea though. For your green car example, a picture of you driving a red car (assuming that the car is yours and not borrowed) would be sufficient to falsify it. Or if we see your registration and see that it is classified as a truck that would falsify that you drive a green car. It doesn't mean that this evidence exists, just that is could be found in a hypothetical situation.

To look at another theory (gravity) if somebody were to just start floating (levitation) of their own will it would falsify gravity. If somebody were to launch a fireball out of their hands it would falsify the law of conservation of energy. It doesn't mean that these events will occur, it's just a hypothetical scenario that would disprove the claim. I hope this clears it up a little bit.

 

[AV1611VET]

Falsifiable means that it would be possible for some sort of evidence to show that it is wrong. It doesn't meant that it is a wrong idea though. For your green car example, a picture of you driving a red car (assuming that the car is yours and not borrowed) would be sufficient to falsify it. Or if we see your registration and see that it is classified as a truck that would falsify that you drive a green car. It doesn't mean that this evidence exists, just that is could be found in a hypothetical situation.

To look at another theory (gravity) if somebody were to just start floating (levitation) of their own will it would falsify gravity. If somebody were to launch a fireball out of their hands it would falsify the law of conservation of energy. It doesn't mean that these events will occur, it's just a hypothetical scenario that would disprove the claim. I hope this clears it up a little bit.

Okie-doke --- thanks, Vene.

 

[Vene]

Not a problem. So, is there any evidence that could falsify the flood?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not a problem. So, is there any evidence that could falsify the flood?

q.v Post 299

 

[Vene]

I see (I missed that part of your post, sorry), I think I'll look at the rainbow assertion first.

When a rainbow appears the drops of liquid water in the atmosphere work as a prism.




The above graphic shows what happens to light energy when it passes through the glass of a prism. It is (simple term) split into it's constituent wavelengths. This is also why the colors are always arranged in the same order. It's actually quite easy to duplicate the effects of a rainbow without waiting for one to occur in nature. On a sunny day just go outside and spray a garden hose in the air. As the light energy hits it you will see the colors appear.

God could be the one driving this, but it can be completely explained without invoking the supernatural.

 

[TheBear]

9 No rainbows.

How did water affect light before the flood? If there was no refraction and prism effects, how did the light travel through water?



(Vene beat me to it. )

 

[AV1611VET]

This is also why the colors are always arranged in the same order. It's actually quite easy to duplicate the effects of a rainbow without waiting for one to occur in nature. On a sunny day just go outside and spray a garden hose in the air. As the light energy hits it you will see the colors appear.

God could be the one driving this, but it can be completely explained without invoking the supernatural.

That's neat --- now take your garden hose and do it like God did it in Genesis.

[bible]Genesis 9:13-14[/bible]

Let me know how easy it was.

 

[AV1611VET]

How did water affect light before the flood? If there was no refraction and prism effects, how did the light travel through water?

[Here we go.]

What on earth are you talking about?

There were no rainbows --- no rain = no rainbows.

[bible]Genesis 2:4-6[/bible]

 

[Patashu]

Huh?

That went over my head!

I drive a green car. How on earth is anyone going to "hypothetically find it red?" If they do, they need laser surgery --- or something.



That's a good question --- I like it.

Where do I start?

If there were two earths, identical to each other in every detail (let's call them Earth One and Earth Two), and Genesis 6-9 occurred on Earth One, but not Earth Two --- this is what, in my opinion, we would find on Earth Two:

1. A water canopy surrounding it.
2. A race of giants.
3. A universal, tropical climate.
4. No nationalities --- that is, no brown-skinned, black-skinned, etc.
5. Possible overcrowding.
6. Extreme debauchery --- everywhere.
7. Possibly no Grand Canyon.
8. No rainfall --- with the surface being watered by a mist.
9. No rainbows.
10. Dinosaurs roaming the planet.

Okay, this is a start.

Never forget that there are more than two possible world histories for planet Earth, though.

 

[Vene]

I was only stating that the circumstances could be duplicating without invoking the supernatural. As per Occam's Razor adding an extra entity is not logically defendable. I admit that it could have been different in the past, but no empirical evidence exists that the properties of light and water were different in the past.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, this is a start.

Never forget that there are more than two possible world histories for planet Earth, though.

Earth One and Earth Two are two different planets --- not one planet with two different scenarios.

Let's not get confused here.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was only stating that the circumstances could be duplicating without invoking the supernatural. As per Occam's Razor adding an extra entity is not logically defendable. I admit that it could have been different in the past, but no empirical evidence exists that the properties of light and water were different in the past.

Are we about through?

 

[Vene]

Are we about through?

Not really. Can you provide me with evidence that chemical properties were different in the past?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really. Can you provide me with evidence that chemical properties were different in the past?

No --- except in Genesis 1.

 

[Vene]

Chemistry is mentioned in Genesis? I have never heard that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Chemistry is mentioned in Genesis? I have never heard that.

If you're looking for a specific chapter that mentions chemicals, then there is no way to answer Post 313.

Peter mentions what is now the Periodic Table, but that's about as close at it gets.

(The writer of Hebrews infers atoms.)

 

[Vene]

Well, in my previous post I was asking for physical evidence, not biblical. But now I am curious. I thought that the periodic table was arranged in the 19th century.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, in my previous post I was asking for physical evidence, not biblical. But now I am curious. I thought that the periodic table was arranged in the 19th century.

That's probably true --- but Peter mentions what is today the elements on it.


[bible]2 Peter 3:10-12[/bible]

 

[Vene]

Just the interpretation of a heretic here, but somehow I don't see that passage providing any detail of the elements aside from them melting. And the ancient Greeks knew that you could melt elements. (bronze is a metal they used and bronze is a copper alloy, often mixed with tin)

 

[TheBear]

There were no rainbows --- no rain = no rainbows.

Forgetting about rainbows seen in water fall and whitewater mists, what year did it start raining?