Another Flood Question

[Justatruthseeker]

Recessional velocity is the velocity of separation of the galaxies due to the metric expansion of space. This results in a Doppler (red) shift.

No. See above.

I see, so now you want two objects to be increasing in distance at an increasing rate, but not be accelerating. Please show me this magic in the laboratory. And their redshift value indicates they are receeding at fractions of c. Or are you now saying no, it’s not actually recessional velocity?

Please show me any expanding space in the laboratory. Or is your theory simply unfalsifiable by any known means because it only happens way out thataway and so is no theory at all?

Expansion only came about when technology increased and the redshift values got to high. A band aide to save their falsified theory of redshift from the trash bin.

So if expansion is correct, then why do binary stars consisting of a hotter and cooler companion show different redshift when they must both orbit a common center at the same axial velocity? Expansion should affect both equally.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There is no empirical evidence that would lead logically to the conclusion that there was a world wide flood, sans Genesis. Global extinction events have been shown to be the result of phenomenon for which evidence actually exists and it is the evidence, not religious beliefs that not all agree upon.

What evidence? That all remains are found in sedimentary strata?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What about dinosaurs that lived in the oceans? Why didn't they survive?

Because you forget the increased mud in the waters, reducing oxygen content and also visibility to hunt prey. When you can’t breathe or find food, well, it tends to lead to extinction.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The big bang.

The Big Bang says nothing in and of itself about expansion of space.

But now the Bible says God stretched out the heavens. Probably where the priest that originated the Big Bang got the idea from. The one who proposed expansion later, not Hubble.

Hubble didn’t believe in expansion, but they blame it on him anyways since his name lends credibility.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's plenty - flood sediments would be in that 73%.

Then why ask for more if that’s plenty?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Millions of years for strata? And so mass dinosaur graveyards where they are all jumbled together in strata believed to encompass millions of years, all died separately, then magically became jumbled together at a later date?

World's Largest Dinosaur Graveyard Linked to Mass Death

Hmm, large storm, hurricanes, flood. I believe someone said that earlier and you all dismissed the idea, because you said no evidence, and here the paleontologist speak...

Europe's Largest Mass Dinosaur Grave to Date Discovered

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Usually evidence isn't attributed to a flood and that is due to religious implications. Scientifically, there is many claims as to an ice age (ice=water, hence flood), and/or a catastrophic asteroid or something hitting the earth, which would lead to a flood. It helps to not be so narrow minded when it comes to these matters. As both science and religion can be correct at the same time. Leaning on your own understanding leads to error.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Usually evidence isn't attributed to a flood and that is due to religious implications. Scientifically, there is many claims as to an ice age (ice=water, hence flood), and/or a catastrophic asteroid or something hitting the earth, which would lead to a flood. It helps to not be so narrow minded when it comes to these matters. As both science and religion can be correct at the same time. Leaning on your own understanding leads to error.

Almost every story is dismissive. Such as they were browsing near a river and a flood..... or in the one quoted above, massive storm, hurricane, flood. Mass graveyards don’t happen unless it’s catastrophic and then requires instant burial in sediment.

Millions of Buffalo were killed, their carcasses left to rot. You can’t but rarely find even a bone now, and none certainly are undergoing fossilization. Not even local floods we see today are causing any animals to begin fossilization. The sediment is simply not thick enough to prevent oxidation and bacterial decay. One can see their stories for what they are, excuses to avoid the truth that only a global flood could provide the required sedimentation to cause fossilization, because not a single flood in our lifetime has started this process.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Exactly the reason scriptures advise against debates of science falsely so called. You can't witness to non-believers through science. You can hand truth to non-believers and they walk away from it. Hardened hearts, they know it all, so it gets nowhere. It genders nothing but strife. People can't use their imagination to explore possibilities.. Which is a shame. When the original post was would people be searching for a flood if it had not been in Genesis. I think they still would. That's my piece, and peace.

 

[Skreeper]

You can hand truth to non-believers and they walk away from it. Hardened hearts, they know it all, so it gets nowhere.

It's easy to claim that you have "the truth" without any justification or demonstration. There are plenty of Christians who I enjoy talking to about science, because most don't reject science like Creationists like to do in order to protect their faith.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

It's easy to claim that you have "the truth" without any justification or demonstration. There are plenty of Christians who I enjoy talking to about science, because most don't reject science like Creationists like to do in order to protect their faith.

scroll to my other post that you did not respond to. I am not as narrow minded as you make me out.

 

[Jimmy D]

Usually evidence isn't attributed to a flood and that is due to religious implications.

A strange assertion. Can you provide any instances?

Scientifically, there is many claims as to an ice age (ice=water, hence flood),

Specifically?

and/or a catastrophic asteroid or something hitting the earth, which would lead to a flood.

A global flood?

It helps to not be so narrow minded when it comes to these matters. As both science and religion can be correct at the same time. Leaning on your own understanding leads to error.

Indeed.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

A strange assertion. Can you provide any instances?



Specifically?



A global flood?



Indeed.

Anyone with at least some semblance of an education can agree with the generalized statements I have made as to an ice age or a catastrophic event. In fact, it is one of the major theories taught in school as to the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs.
That being said, if an ice age did in fact occur according to science, then it could be possible that the world wasn't completely all ice, and some water was not frozen, which inevitably would be the flood referred to, as the ice age was worldwide from my understanding.
An asteroid hitting the earth, and blanketing the whole earth in a sort of "nuclear winter" blocking out the sun, could have initially caused a massive flood in proportions that the world had never seen. Those are plausible theories with evidence. Non-bible thumpers could even agree with that, from a scientific standpoint

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Specific instances?? Tell someone who doesn't believe in the Bible, that the flood happened. They will refute it based solely on the fact, that it came from the Bible. After all, how could something that is made up, have any truth in it? Because if it were full of actual truth, then it disrupts everything people think they know, and they cant have that. In much the same fashion, people who argue against the Bible feel the same way about the scientific evidence for no God.

 

[Jimmy D]

Anyone with at least some semblance of an education can agree with the generalized statements I have made as to an ice age or a catastrophic event. In fact, it is one of the major theories taught in school as to the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs.
That being said, if an ice age did in fact occur according to science, then it could be possible that the world wasn't completely all ice, and some water was not frozen, which inevitably would be the flood referred to, as the ice age was worldwide from my understanding.
An asteroid hitting the earth, and blanketing the whole earth in a sort of "nuclear winter" blocking out the sun, could have initially caused a massive flood in proportions that the world had never seen. Those are plausible theories with evidence. Non-bible thumpers could even agree with that, from a scientific standpoint

Oh yeah, there have undoubtedly been major floods through out the Earth's history.

Specific instances?? Tell someone who doesn't believe in the Bible, that the flood happened. They will refute it based solely on the fact, that it came from the Bible. After all, how could something that is made up, have any truth in it? Because if it were full of actual truth, then it disrupts everything people think they know, and they cant have that. In much the same fashion, people who argue against the Bible feel the same way about the scientific evidence for no God.

They will refute it because there is no evidence of a flood occuring as described in the Bible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I see, so now you want two objects to be increasing in distance at an increasing rate, but not be accelerating. Please show me this magic in the laboratory. And their redshift value indicates they are receeding at fractions of c. Or are you now saying no, it’s not actually recessional velocity?

I already explained recessional velocity. I'm curious how else you'd explain it.

If the galaxies are moving through space, what motive force do you think is accelerating each galaxy uniformly through space? How is it arranged so that almost every galaxy is moving away from almost every other galaxy in three dimensions (that each galaxy sees itself as the centre of expansion)? How is it that each galaxy sees the velocities of almost every other galaxy increasing with their distance from it?

Expansion only came about when technology increased and the redshift values got to high. A band aide to save their falsified theory of redshift from the trash bin.

Meh - it's the current mainstream explanation; you're not obliged to agree with it.

So if expansion is correct, then why do binary stars consisting of a hotter and cooler companion show different redshift when they must both orbit a common center at the same axial velocity? Expansion should affect both equally.

I'm not sure quite what you're referring to - a citation or reference would help - but binary stars orbit each other, so if we see their peculiar motion across the plane of rotation, one will generally be approaching and one receding. But I'm no astrophysicist - I suggest you ask one of the forum members who knows the field better.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Big Bang says nothing in and of itself about expansion of space.

That's what the big bang was - a rapid expansion of space:

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. In other words, the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space.[5] Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then why ask for more if that’s plenty?

I haven't asked for any; perhaps you've mistaken me for someone else.

 

[Astrophile]

So if expansion is correct, then why do binary stars consisting of a hotter and cooler companion show different redshift when they must both orbit a common center at the same axial velocity? Expansion should affect both equally.

Can you give a reference for this statement that the components of binary stars show different radial velocities? Binary stars belong to our own galaxy, which is not taking part in the expansion of the universe.

Also, even if binary stars were receding from us as part of the expansion of space, their recession velocities would be too small to be measured; since the Hubble constant is about 70 km/s/Mpc, a star at a distance of 1000 parsecs (3260 light-years) would be receding at only 70 metres per second; this is much less than the radial velocities that can be measured by normal stellar spectroscopy.

 

[Astrophile]

Specific instances?? Tell someone who doesn't believe in the Bible, that the flood happened. They will refute it based solely on the fact, that it came from the Bible. After all, how could something that is made up, have any truth in it? Because if it were full of actual truth, then it disrupts everything people think they know, and they cant have that. In much the same fashion, people who argue against the Bible feel the same way about the scientific evidence for no God.

Of course there was a flood, although not a world-wide one. Throughout recorded history Mesopotamia, or the flood plain of the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates, has been subject to destructive floods, due to snow-melt in the mountains of Turkey and Iran and to heavy rain. (So far as I know, there is no evidence of flooding due to marine incursions.) The Bible even preserves a measurement by some ancient surveyor recording that the water level during one such flood rose by fifteen cubits (6.85 metres) - Genesis 7:20; this is an impressive height in a flat country.