Absurdities of so called science

[Danyc]

That IS how a detective work in his/her mind. Of course, hard evidence is needed to close the case. But the probability is the guidance which leads to the hard evidence. .

Ok, so you now have a "probability" guiding you. Are you saying this "probability" (maybe a flood happened) is going to lead you to evidence.

Foolish. You're back to square one. Produce the hard evidence.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ha ha ... you are confused. Put it this way, should a flood leave any sign? Not being a geologist or a scientist, I think you can not answer this question.

I am a geologist and I can think of several lines of evidence that should be available for a Global Flood.

Not the least of which is the simple matter of a globally correlatable event that has no contemporaneous subareal exposure event anywhere.

But on top of that I'd expect a massive biocoenosis (life assemblage) of fossils marking a massive single point die off all over the globe. We have many examples of mass extinctions in the geologic record at various times. This one would be special because it would look like all animals (save whatever could get on the ark) would be killed nearly simultaneously --and suddenly--. Again correlatable across the globe.

If we are looking at the Biblical Flood then it all has to happen in the relatively recent past (geologically speaking the very recent past!)

For the physical evidence in the sediment record would could look for massive versions of what we see in flood plain deposits all over the earth today. Except these would not be associated with rivers or even bodies of water of any sort! VERY unique and interesting.

We could look in the sediments in the ocean and find an anomalous terriginous layer (different from the usual flux of terriginous sediments, perhaps much further out, or of a different sorting).

Gosh the chances of amazing and unique geology are nearly endless! And the best part is it would be pretty hard to explain some of these things without resort to some more mundane explanation!

It would be absolutely amazing.

 

[keith99]

Wha...? I assume Juvenissun says this because he wants to believe in a global flood but knows no evidence currently exists to support it. So now suddenly a massive event of unprecendented scale and magnitude in science would be expected not to leave a marker? Sorry, Juvenissun, but that isn't rational.

Interestingly enough, as Juvenissun no doubt knows already, geologists know what massive floods leave as a record in the rocks.



ACTUALLY, if a geologist seriously believed in the Flood then they would propose just such research. It would be the first thing they would propose.

The only reason to avoid proposing such research would be if the person either doesn't know geology or what to look for, or they know that there is almost no reason to believe that the evidence will show up.

People who refuse to look for evidence in support of their claims are not scientists.

Someone should ask Juvenissun to explain why such evidence would not be expected to exist but yet the Flood have been real.

I think I've seen it reported that other societies from the same general area have a similar myth and that some research has been done in hte Mediteranian. I thought some evidence had been found. Not of a Global flood as the ultra literalists read Scripture, but of a significant flood in this area.

In short a flood that may have lead to the myth. Or perhaps the myth is true, there was an Ark and it did have many animals, but not everything, just everything to refound society as Noah new it.

I could be mistaken, but a result showing significant local flooding is exactly what both sides do not want. It shows that Bible story has roots, but is not as the Ultra Literalists want it to be.

AS you already have touched on a local significant flood in the last 10-20 thousand years would leave plenty of evidence. (I think the 6000 year old earth idea is a gross misuse of Scripture, ignoring how it abuses science for now).

 

[Hespera]

I asked you because you WANT to see something. Whatever you want to see, I can show you it is either there or not there. If you could not think of anything, then don't ask me to give you "data".

So, water. Yes, we do have theories on where did the water come from. A lot of water, which you can see it in the ocean today. Is that the evidence you like to see? Don't think the shoreline always look like it is today. It was not.

Or the Grand Canyon. Is the canyon there? Is that the evidence you like to see? (No need to tell me how is the canyon made according to you. I know it)

if you have no data you have no evidence of a flood. Simple. You clain there was; you have nothing to show. If there was a flood there would be evidence. There isnt any. Word tricks wont change that.

Amd dont try to condescend with something about how shorelines have changed. I could take you to an ancient ocean beach in Wyoming.

"Theories" about how there could be enough water to cover the entire earth. Not good enough.

Dp you have a point about the grand canyon or other canyons? You think they are evidence of a world wide flood, or what?

I would for sure like to see anything that would stand a minutes chance of standing up as evidence of a world wide flood. So would a lot of enquiring minds.

 

[Hespera]

I think I've seen it reported that other societies from the same general area have a similar myth and that some research has been done in hte Mediteranian. I thought some evidence had been found. Not of a Global flood as the ultra literalists read Scripture, but of a significant flood in this area.

In short a flood that may have lead to the myth. Or perhaps the myth is true, there was an Ark and it did have many animals, but not everything, just everything to refound society as Noah new it.

I could be mistaken, but a result showing significant local flooding is exactly what both sides do not want. It shows that Bible story has roots, but is not as the Ultra Literalists want it to be.

AS you already have touched on a local significant flood in the last 10-20 thousand years would leave plenty of evidence. (I think the 6000 year old earth idea is a gross misuse of Scripture, ignoring how it abuses science for now).

You are right up to the point but why would you say that "both sides do not want" evidence of significant local flooding? It is scientists that went out and found the evidence that the mediterranean and black seas flooded. Its cool exciting stuff! The found it because they went out and looked.

People go into research mostly because they are curious and like to find out about things. Its tough, and its not big money.

And of course note that you jumped from saying that it could be the basis for the noah story, to saying that it is the basis. maybe! but who knows.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I think I've seen it reported that other societies from the same general area have a similar myth and that some research has been done in hte Mediteranian. I thought some evidence had been found. Not of a Global flood as the ultra literalists read Scripture, but of a significant flood in this area.

This is quite reasonable. A large flood, as all societies know, even our own has seen quite a few, can be really traumatic. Seen through the eyes of those for whom the world is much smaller would look pretty global.

Certainly could lead to quite a few "myths" passed down through the generations.

I think this is quite reasonable and probably explains why many societies do have such myths.

Floods in general, especially in places like along the Nile where Flooding was essential to the society, can be a powerful metaphor for destruction and re-birth! It's a beautiful analogy.

But, just like literature in the hands of toddlers, analogies when interpretted literally end up looking silly.

I could be mistaken, but a result showing significant local flooding is exactly what both sides do not want. It shows that Bible story has roots, but is not as the Ultra Literalists want it to be.

Speaking as a scientist and atheist I am quite happy and would not in any way be surprised to see evidence of a large, albeit local flood. As a scientist if someone could point to a GLOBAL flood it would be interesting to see that data. I think it would be amazing.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Sorry that I don't like to go back, to quote, to paste, and to explain. So, if you are serious, give me one, and we go from there.

Let's start here:

-Evidence and experimentation shows dinosaur fossils that are over 230 million years old.

That IS how a detective work in his/her mind. Of course, hard evidence is needed to close the case. But the probability is the guidance which leads to the hard evidence. You do not solve the case by having nothing in your mind. For example, you have nothing in your mind to positively consider the global flood. I do.

I'm guessing you didn't intend to accidentally change your position. Probability is VERY different than possibility.

To that end, detectives start with the facts, then start to form some theories based on those facts. They consider the probability of those theories, then proceed to investigate the most probable to determine if additional facts support that theory of the crime.

Oh... and why do I know this? I DID IT. My bachelor's was in criminal justice and criminology, and I even worked in the system after college.

Animal can teach us something here. An injured animal does not live long. Nearly all alive animals are healthy. Ancient people lived like that. And that is good.

To live a few more years on this earth is not the purpose of life. To live a more comfortable (?) life on the earth is not either.

So I guess you believe the sick and the elderly should just be killed? You also don't seem to believe in relieving pain... so does that mean you don't ever go to the doctor or take your children/grand children to the doctor?

I asked you because you WANT to see something. Whatever you want to see, I can show you it is either there or not there. If you could not think of anything, then don't ask me to give you "data".

There is no such thing. A global flood will NOT create a world-wide flood marker. No serious geologist would ever propose such a research.

Are you kidding me? Why would every flood leave a distinctive geological flood marker... but a global flood wouldn't?!

 

[juvenissun]

AS you already have touched on a local significant flood in the last 10-20 thousand years would leave plenty of evidence. (I think the 6000 year old earth idea is a gross misuse of Scripture, ignoring how it abuses science for now).

OK, let's see one of such evidence of a big local flood (e.g. Mediterranean) 10,000 years old. What is it? Would it be a layer of mud on land across the Mediterranean region? I would say it again, there is no such thing exist.

 

[juvenissun]

I would for sure like to see anything that would stand a minutes chance of standing up as evidence of a world wide flood. So would a lot of enquiring minds.

If you have no idea on what that "thing" is, then how could you be convinced when I showed you such thing? If you could not imagine it, then even it sits right in front of you, you won't recognize it.

If you CAN imagine it, then what is it look like? Want to give a try?

 

[juvenissun]

You seems make decent discussions. I don't like reply with multiple quotes because it diffuses the focus. But I will do it once for you.

Let's start here:

-Evidence and experimentation shows dinosaur fossils that are over 230 million years old.

Uhh.. I just realized that the "experiment" you said might be the radiometric dating? So, the experiment and the evidence are actually one thing. OK, I accept this one for the moment. I have doubt to the accuracy of the whole dating system.

Your second one, if I remembered, is the 6000 years argument. I, as well as many other Christians, do not recognize this timing mark. So, it is a useless argument.

I'm guessing you didn't intend to accidentally change your position. Probability is VERY different than possibility.

I see. I did not pay attention to the difference. So it is not proper to say, e.g. 40% possibility, right?

To that end, detectives start with the facts, then start to form some theories based on those facts. They consider the probability of those theories, then proceed to investigate the most probable to determine if additional facts support that theory of the crime.

Yes, I worked on the possibility (probability?) of Noah's Flood the same way. Very well said.

Oh... and why do I know this? I DID IT. My bachelor's was in criminal justice and criminology, and I even worked in the system after college.

Good for you. Geology, in general, works the same way.

So I guess you believe the sick and the elderly should just be killed? You also don't seem to believe in relieving pain... so does that mean you don't ever go to the doctor or take your children/grand children to the doctor?

Not be killed. We should try to save the person in a reasonable way. The modern medicine don't always do that. If I am sick, I will go to doctor. But if I got a chronic disease, then I will be my own doctor. If I have to use a lot of money to maintain my life, then I will stop spending the money. In short, the modern medicine would only make sense if it can help on a short time basis. One thousand years ago, a person might died of pneumonia at age 30. Today, such a person would be cured at age 30, but may die at age 70. Nevertheless, the length of life itself does not mean anything. There were people who died at 30 and some died at 70 one thousand years ago. To us, they were the same.

Are you kidding me? Why would every flood leave a distinctive geological flood marker... but a global flood wouldn't?

No kidding. Two reasons: there are other processes that also make deposits (marker) and could not be distinguished from flood deposits; And flood deposits do not stay on land for long. One more: big flood may leave a very small marker or even no marker (erosional rather than depositional)

 

[Hespera]

OK, let's see one of such evidence of a big local flood (e.g. Mediterranean) 10,000 years old. What is it? Would it be a layer of mud on land across the Mediterranean region? I would say it again, there is no such thing exist.

well Juv it is time to tell us why you self-identify as a 'scientist" and say you can talk geology.

it is also time to see if you are man enough to admit you are wrong when you are obviously wrong.

Mediterranean flooding:

1. i sent you a link about it earlier today. its ok if you didnt read it, but i did semd one in connection with large scale flooding.

2. the web has link after link after link. An actual scientist of any sort, esp with an interest in geolgoy would already know about it. If he didnt, he'd surely be eager to learn once he heard of it. go for it!

3. you look it up. type in "mediterranean flooding" or some such.

4. The entrance to the med is shallow; water level dropped 300 ft in the ice age; the entrance was cut off. so it dried up. a look at an underwater topo would show you this, its easy.

5. thick salt bed (evaporite) are to be found on the bottom of the med.

You are really not doing yourself any credit by just announcing something doesnt exist, when you havent bothered to see if it does or not.

so juv... man enough to admit you were wrong, and to tell us why you call yourself a scientist?

 

[Hespera]

If you have no idea on what that "thing" is, then how could you be convinced when I showed you such thing? If you could not imagine it, then even it sits right in front of you, you won't recognize it.

If you CAN imagine it, then what is it look like? Want to give a try?

Now Juv it is true we are not pals, but making up things about me in order to insult me says more about you than it does about me. lets stick to issues.

No fair trying to excuse your bad / nonexistent evidence by saying in advance you know i wouldnt even know what it was. Actually, im not so dumb as that. Go ahead, show me something. ONE thing, if you have it.

i am going to take the liberty of copy of Thau's post for a bunch of examples of what a world wide flood would do.

.....several lines of evidence that should be available for a Global Flood.

Not the least of which is the simple matter of a globally correlatable event that has no contemporaneous subareal exposure event anywhere.

But on top of that I'd expect a massive biocoenosis (life assemblage) of fossils marking a massive single point die off all over the globe. We have many examples of mass extinctions in the geologic record at various times. This one would be special because it would look like all animals (save whatever could get on the ark) would be killed nearly simultaneously --and suddenly--. Again correlatable across the globe.

If we are looking at the Biblical Flood then it all has to happen in the relatively recent past (geologically speaking the very recent past!)

For the physical evidence in the sediment record would could look for massive versions of what we see in flood plain deposits all over the earth today. Except these would not be associated with rivers or even bodies of water of any sort! VERY unique and interesting.

We could look in the sediments in the ocean and find an anomalous terriginous layer (different from the usual flux of terriginous sediments, perhaps much further out, or of a different sorting).

Gosh the chances of amazing and unique geology are nearly endless! And the best part is it would be pretty hard to explain some of these things without resort to some more mundane explanation!

It would be absolutely amazing. QUOTE

So Juv! there's a bunch of stuff.

here is one that would utterly and forever convince me: ANY strata with in situ fossils that mix eras. For example, artifacts with dinosaurs or trilobites; any modern mammals birds or reptiles, fish, plants or life form mixed with sediments from the Devonian, or carboniferous, say.

Flooding either causes erosion of deposition. so show me the strata that shows these effects, all over the world, for the same date. no geologist has ever found such stuff, so i kinda doubt you can.

or hey surprise me. come up with something. You keep tyring to put this on me. You think there was a flood; you say you are a scientist and know geology; you show your stuff.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Uhh.. I just realized that the "experiment" you said might be the radiometric dating? So, the experiment and the evidence are actually one thing. OK, I accept this one for the moment. I have doubt to the accuracy of the whole dating system.

Your second one, if I remembered, is the 6000 years argument. I, as well as many other Christians, do not recognize this timing mark. So, it is a useless argument.

First, you have to at least recognize that many christians DO take the bible literally and believe in YEC. If you're not one of them, that's fine... but let's set the record straight so that we don't confuse each other: do you take the bible literally or not?

I see. I did not pay attention to the difference. So it is not proper to say, e.g. 40% possibility, right?

Correct, that would not be proper. The chance of an event occuring, or having occurred, is known as its probability.

For example:
-There is a 99.9999999% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow. The remaining .0000001% represents the combined probability of all events which could conceivably prevent the sun from rising, such as the sudden halt of the earth's rotation, the spontaneous collapse of the sun... etc etc etc.

Probable cause, in the world of law enforcement, is defined as the standard of proof where a reasonable person would think that something was more probable than not.

For example:
-An officer makes a traffic stop, approaches the car, immediately detects the smell of marijuana and notices the driver behaving strangely. A reasonable person would conclude that it is more probable than not that there are drugs or drug paraphenalia inside the car. The officer can proceed to search the car based on probable cause.

Yes, I worked on the possibility (probability?) of Noah's Flood the same way. Very well said.

Now that we've explained what probability is, I would simply ask what facts you have observed that led you to believe it was more probable than not that a global flood occurred.

Not be killed. We should try to save the person in a reasonable way. The modern medicine don't always do that. If I am sick, I will go to doctor. But if I got a chronic disease, then I will be my own doctor. If I have to use a lot of money to maintain my life, then I will stop spending the money. In short, the modern medicine would only make sense if it can help on a short time basis. One thousand years ago, a person might died of pneumonia at age 30. Today, such a person would be cured at age 30, but may die at age 70. Nevertheless, the length of life itself does not mean anything. There were people who died at 30 and some died at 70 one thousand years ago. To us, they were the same.

I am absolutely astounded by your callousness. Are you completely oblivious to all of the people who went on to live productive lives after being trated for serious illnesses? Or are you just indifferent?

As for the difference between someone who is 30 and someone who is 70... consider this: We spend 18 years developing and being educated just to be self-sufficient in the world. Some spend another 4-8 in higher education learning advanced skills. Working off the 4, that puts most people at 22-24 years of age before they contribute anything of substance to society! A person who dies at 30 only had about 6 years to help advance society, reproduce, and raise their children. A person who dies at 70 had 46 years to do all of that and more!

The difference between someone who dies at 30 and someone who dies at 70? An almost 8-times greater contribution to society.

No kidding. Two reasons: there are other processes that also make deposits (marker) and could not be distinguished from flood deposits; And flood deposits do not stay on land for long. One more: big flood may leave a very small marker or even no marker (erosional rather than depositional)

Have you been reading thaumaturgy's posts? I think he might have a few disagreements with you... and he tends to back up his posts with facts... which, you know, kinda helps.

 

[Split Rock]

There is no such thing. A global flood will NOT create a world-wide flood marker. No serious geologist would ever propose such a research.

You see that big bright globe up in the sky during the day? I bet you think its the Sun. It is NOT. That bright white object you see during the night... I bet you think its the Moon. It is NOT. No serious astronomer would ever purpose such a thing.

 

[juvenissun]

First, you have to at least recognize that many christians DO take the bible literally and believe in YEC. If you're not one of them, that's fine... but let's set the record straight so that we don't confuse each other: do you take the bible literally or not?

I am a YEC and I take the Bible literally. But, the Bible does not give the 6000 years figure. Also, the Y in YEC is relative. As long as the earth is not billion years old, it could be called YOUNG. In fact, I do not know how old is the earth. But I think the billion years figure is not real. I know exactly how are those numbers obtained. I personally created a couple hundreds of them. I don't like what I did.

Now that we've explained what probability is, I would simply ask what facts you have observed that led you to believe it was more probable than not that a global flood occurred.

There are, in fact, many. Just name one or two: When you count the amount of water on the earth and the amount of land above the oceanic floor, the water is enough to cover the entire land many times. Yes, the problem is that the land mass is all piled up together, so even its volume is small, it built up and ended up being higher than the sealevel. However, we do know the land mass was not like today in the earlier time. The volume of land was much smaller and the elevation of land in relative to the ocean is much lower (i.e. the earth was much flatter).

I don't know if you get the picture. But this is an important clue to me that a global flood did happen. A related thought is that if this type of flood happened, it most likely only happened once and would not have chance to happen again. This is exactly what the Bible says.

As for the difference between someone who is 30 and someone who is 70... consider this: We spend 18 years developing and being educated just to be self-sufficient in the world. Some spend another 4-8 in higher education learning advanced skills. Working off the 4, that puts most people at 22-24 years of age before they contribute anything of substance to society! A person who dies at 30 only had about 6 years to help advance society, reproduce, and raise their children. A person who dies at 70 had 46 years to do all of that and more!

The difference between someone who dies at 30 and someone who dies at 70? An almost 8-times greater contribution to society.

Yes, the significant point in your argument is "having more time to contribute to the society". And this is also exactly my argument. We did have millions and millions of hours of good work contributed to our society in the history. However, our society DOES NOT become better except the technology. The technology is really a cosmetic smoke screen. It covers the original ugliness of the society which did not advance a single inch no matter how much hours people have contributed to it. Technology gives us TV, but it also gives us bomb. I rather not have the TV but still fight with a sword. Technology prolonged our life a little bit. But the consequence is a huge global problem we are facing now. More people died in 20th Century than any time in our history. Why should anyone live longer to make more useless contribution to the society?

Have you been reading thaumaturgy's posts? I think he might have a few disagreements with you... and he tends to back up his posts with facts... which, you know, kinda helps.

He always disagrees with me no matter what I said. If necessary, he will simply insult me to save his failing argument.

Just take what I explained to you on the global flood as an example. When I said I see some facts of a global flood earlier, instead of saying: "back up your statement", you asked me what are the facts. That is how the conversation here should be. I am not obligated to back up anything I said here. If you have problem with what I said, then simply raise up the question and we will talk about it. My principle on this is: I do not bother to back up what I said unless there is an argument directly against it, or there is a sincere request for explanation. Those who do not like me may quote the red text out of context to against me. But, hey, why should I care? They have said much worse things about me.

 

[juvenissun]

here is one that would utterly and forever convince me: ANY strata with in situ fossils that mix eras. For example, artifacts with dinosaurs or trilobites; any modern mammals birds or reptiles, fish, plants or life form mixed with sediments from the Devonian, or carboniferous, say

.

You hit a hard one (not your original idea, though). I don't have simple explanation on that. However, your argument is based on that the global flood took place after these lives. What if the flood took place before these lives? I never said the Flood happened 6000 years ago.

Flooding either causes erosion of deposition. so show me the strata that shows these effects, all over the world, for the same date. no geologist has ever found such stuff, so i kinda doubt you can.

Take something you can understand. Think about TODAY. Right at this moment, there are erosion, and deposition taking place global-wise. So, there are some "strata" built up now and there are some others eroded now. That does not mean we have a global flood at this moment.

Any more questions?

 

[Hespera]

.

You hit a hard one (not your original idea, though). I don't have simple explanation on that. However, your argument is based on that the global flood took place after these lives. What if the flood took place before these lives? I never said the Flood happened 6000 years ago.



Take something you can understand. Think about TODAY. Right at this moment, there are erosion, and deposition taking place global-wise. So, there are some "strata" built up now and there are some others eroded now. That does not mean we have a global flood at this moment.

Any more questions?

You didnt answer any of them, including whether you can admit you were wrong about the facts on Mediterranean flooding. Cant, or wont admit you are ever wrong?

What you said about why fossils of organisms from different eras are never mixed is nonsense. My argument is not "based on" when an imaginary flood happened. I didnt "hit a hard one", I pointed out something that makes the biblical aco[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] impossible.

I see you are back to trying to be condescending with me, talking about 'what I can understand".

it is kind of funny tho, because your own words show so clearly you don't understand the first thing about geology.

Telling me about erosion and deposition is like assuming i dont even know how to count, let alone do calculus. Your ideas are barely grade school level.

Take remedial English and try to learn about things like punctuation and verb agreement. I've only been speaking English full time for 12 years now, it's not impossible to learn.

Amyway, this is not worth doing. You are so profoundlyu ignorant you dont even know you dont know anything. There is no way to carry on a discussion with you when you are so totally out of your depth and dont even know it.

Oh yeah.... you going to admit you know nothing about geology, and that you were wrong about the Mediterranean flooding?

 

[AV1611VET]

it is kind of funny tho, because your own words show so clearly you don't understand the first thing about geology.

Take remedial English and try to learn about things like punctuation and verb agreement.

Amyway, this is not worth doing. You are so profoundlyu ignorant...

.

 

[WilliamduBois]

Typos != such a mess like Juv's grammar.

 

[Hespera]

Typos != such a mess like Juv's grammar.

Out come the typo police. Do you have a point to make?

I don't know if you are agreeing with av or not but anyone can find typos.

A snark will think its worthwhile to make something of it.

There are plenty of grammatical errors in Av's writing, but while he doesn't make sense, he can at least be understood. Juv writes things that are so scrambled and ambiguous nobody could figure out what he is trying to say.