The Flood

[TheBear]

Thanks --- I'll let you know my final decision, and why, when I get one.

Your 'final decision'? That's an interesting choice of words. At any rate, be sure you make an informed 'decision', with real-world evidence to support it.

(Assuming you're interested.)

Oh, please. You think I would go through all this if I didn't have an interest in you reasoning things through for yourself? Besides, I'm also in it for the children.

 

[TheOutsider]

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

Obviously you don't know your chemistry history. The elements that Peter is talking about is Plato's Four Elements (stoicheia): Fire, Air, Water, and Earth. The modern idea of elements didn't come around until Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier in the late 19th century. Then Dmitri Mendeleev (my favorite chemist of all time) came up with the Periodic Table in 1869.

 

[dukeofhazzard]

Thanks --- I'll let you know my final decision, and why, when I get one.

(Assuming you're interested.)

I know *I'm* interested.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know *I'm* interested.

This is my favorite explanation to date.

It's lengthy, and has a lot of science in it.

The part about condensation nuclei particularly interested me.

I love to see science explained from a Christian perspective.

 

[NailsII]

This is my favorite explanation to date.

It's lengthy, and has a lot of science in it.

The part about condensation nuclei particularly interested me.

I love to see science explained from a Christian perspective.

Sorry, I think I missed something.
Like the science bit?
How can any statement which infers that there were no volcanos before an event of which we have no evidence (not of th magnitude that is claimed) be even loosley termed scientific?
Volcanos have been a feature on the earth since its formation (since the surface cooled, to be more precise) and that is based on hard science.
This link describes a human footprint found in cooling lava dated at around 400,000 years ago - surely hard evidence that contradicts your theory of a global flood around 5,000 years ago.
http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030...l;jsessionid=8EA251451100B694DB127058B9174778

And your comment also shows one crazy idea that belittles the work of genuine scientist - preconceptions based on supernatural or unsupported phenomena.
Chistian science is a crazy idea for the simple reason that some science contradicts the bible; it is therefore unreasonable to reject that which doesn't conform in favour of stone-age beliefs.
It is as irrational as a surgeon having a fear of blood.

Mind you, it does explain why some of your posts are lacking in reason and evidence....

 

[Vene]

This is my favorite explanation to date.

It's lengthy, and has a lot of science in it.

The part about condensation nuclei particularly interested me.

I love to see science explained from a Christian perspective.

Sorry, but I just saw scientific terms being misused.

 

[AV1611VET]

http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030...l;jsessionid=8EA251451100B694DB127058B9174778

I guarantee you --- if I was walking on cooling lava --- my footprints would look like I'm 1.5 meters tall, too!

 

[NailsII]

I guarantee you --- if I was walking on cooling lava --- my footprints would look like I'm 1.5 meters tall, too!

I'm sorry, are you trying to assert something or is this another brand of 'creationist humour'?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sorry, are you trying to assert something or is this another brand of 'creationist humour'?

I'm trying to assert something --- I don't believe it.

 

[Vene]

I guarantee you --- if I was walking on cooling lava --- my footprints would look like I'm 1.5 meters tall, too!

I bet you would, as a meter is just over 3 feet long. Though I guess that does put you at just under 5 ft tall. (1.5*3.281[SIZE=-1]≈ 4.92 ft)
[/SIZE]

 

[NailsII]

I bet you would, as a meter is just over 3 feet long. Though I guess that does put you at just under 5 ft tall. (1.5*3.281[SIZE=-1]≈ 4.92 ft)[/SIZE]

Which would gave been my next point.....

 

[NailsII]

I'm trying to assert something --- I don't believe it.

I wonder what you do believe then.
Do you believe in the power of nuclear weapons?
X-rays?
Radiation?
Atomic theory?
Gamma radiation?
Light and the electromagnetic spectrum?
Do you believe that alpha-particles can be ejected by an atom?
How about the aurora borialis?
The science behind all of these is the same science which describes radioactive decay, and is use as an estimate of age.

 

[thaumaturgy]

This is my favorite explanation to date.

It's lengthy, and has a lot of science in it.

The part about condensation nuclei particularly interested me.

I love to see science explained from a Christian perspective.

I bet. Let's look at a couple of these "science" explanations!

"the standard answer has been that primarily the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. If that happened, wouldn’t you expect to find a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California? It’s not there. " (source)

Of course this is not accurate.

Until the early 20th century the Colorado River ran free from its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado south into Mexico, where it flowed into the Gulf of California. Significant quantities of nourishing silt from throughout the Colorado River Basin were carried downstream, creating the vast Colorado River Delta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Delta

Wanna see a picture of it from SPACE?

(SOURCE)

Gosh. If only this "science" presented with a Christian perspective was accurate!

Then it would be interesting!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Oh it gets better!

From the Center for Creation Science webpage:

In response to why Creationists don't publish in leading science journals:

Seldom would a science journal publish a paper more than 6 pages in length. (That also prevents the hydroplate theory, pages 102–302, from being published in a journal.) (SOURCE)

Of course this is also quite incorrect.

Just as a random sampling, I grabbed 5 of my own PEER-REVIEWED publications:

8 pages,
8 and a half pages
7 and a half pages,
7 pages

In fact so far I've only found one that was 6 pages.

And usually when a huge topic is published it can be reasonably broken down into smaller subsections.

You are talking to people here who, for a living, look through countless scientific journals on a weekly basis.

 

[thaumaturgy]

More from the Center for Creation Science site:

For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available to enter the atmosphere from decaying vegetation. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere would increase. If the atmosphere’s ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things that lived soon after the flood would appear to be one half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages. If that ratio quadrupled, organic remains would appear 11,460 (2 x 5,730) years older, etc. Therefore, a “radiocarbon year” would not correspond to an actual year. (Source)

Am I missing something?

If the relative amount of 14-C was doubled shortly after the flood then the plants that grew up after the flood would look one half life younger, wouldn’t they?

14-C/12-C ratio changes because 14-C decreases relative to the 12-C. As a thing gets older it will have less and less 14C relative to the 12C. If we start off with double the amount of 14C in the plant tissue versus “normal” levels then after one half-life there would still be more 14C than if we were looking at a “normal” 14C/12C ratio plant, which means it would look younger.

Am I missing something here?

Maybe it's just my brain working slowly after a week stuck in the house breathing soot and ash.

 

[FishFace]

I don't put my sword up for nobody; but in this case I'll make an exception.

But I promise you, the first time you cross the line and contradict it, I'll put it out and use it to divide you soul and spirit and joints and marrow.

Your "sword" is blunt.

 

[Elduran]

Your "sword" is blunt.

And quite possibly not a sword

 

[AV1611VET]

I wonder what you do believe then.
Do you believe in the power of nuclear weapons?
X-rays?
Radiation?
Atomic theory?
Gamma radiation?
Light and the electromagnetic spectrum?
Do you believe that alpha-particles can be ejected by an atom?
How about the aurora borialis?

Yes to all the above.

The science behind all of these is the same science which describes radioactive decay, and is use as an estimate of age.

And behind the science?

 

[AV1611VET]

I bet. Let's look at a couple of these "science" explanations!




Of course this is not accurate.

[sarcasm]Of course not.[/sarcasm]

Oh it gets better!

From the Center for Creation Science webpage:

In response to why Creationists don't publish in leading science journals:

Of course this is also quite incorrect.

[sarcasm]Of course.[/sarcasm]

Okay --- thank you for convincing me it didn't rain before the Fall.

 

[Patashu]

Here's the thing, AV1661VET:

If radiometric dating is wrong, everything we know about atomic theory is also wrong.
Everything we know about atomic theory isn't wrong (atom clocks work, atom bombs work, radioactive decay rates have been measured over and over again, etc etc) therefore radiometric dating is accurate.