Is Astrology a science?

[AV1611VET]

The ice is there, so, the flood wasn't.

HOW TO SCIENTIFICALLY DISPROVE THE FLOOD

1. Take a sheet of paper.
2. Draw seven continents on it -- (the Bible has only one continent at the time).
3. Draw in polar ice caps -- (the earth was a tropical paradise at the time).
4. Invoke deep time and claim those polar ice caps were there millions of years ago -- (Earth was created in 4004 BC).

And there you have it.

Scientists have disproved the Flood.

On paper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ice floats, breaks up and melts.
What else is there to say?

Well there went your evidence then.

A hundred million years of ice cores, broken up and melted away.

 

[dlamberth]

I wonder, though, what evidence we would see, based on nothing more than something I observed once. It was during a major flood. One location was maybe a mile from the river, another was maybe half a mile. Both were situated where the water backed onto the sites without much of a current. The result was no erosion and nothing in the way of sediment deposit. The only sign after the water went down was a stain on a wire fence.

How is this anecdote possibly applicable? Because the Genesis account of the flood not only says it rained, but that the water also came up from what it describes as the springs of the deep. Possibly making it similar to that event I observed? Don't know. A lack of current would have an impact on erosion, and that in turn on the amount of sediment.

This idea is double-edged, though. If it didn't cause significant erosion, some of the cited arguments in favor of the flood become meaningless. I'll also offer a counter-argument with the Antarctic ice cap with the question of why wouldn't it float off.

Just tossing out something. Not arguing about it one way or the other.

Assuming that the Genesis Flood happened, why did it not wash away the evidence of the Ice Age Floods of the Northwest? The Ice dam broke multiple times between 18,000 and 15,000 years ago. When was the supposed Genesis flood? Something like 4000 years ago? There's no way the amount of water required from the Genesis flood would not have left behind major signs of it's passage.

I'm a member of the Ice Age Floods Institute here in the North West. The flood features left behind on the geology of the land are crystal clear to see. Canyons and coulees were etched into the basalt and giant current ripples left behind from the fast moving water. Where I live the water would have been 250 feet deep. Those features are all still there and not washed away from a supposed Genesis flood.

The basalt mentioned is another geological feature of importance in the Northwest. In some places it ran for 300 miles, over in the Pasco area the basalt is over 3 miles deep. Hundreds of different flows that covered 10million years. If you look at a gelogical map you'll see the Yellowstone hotspot beginning in South East Oregon about the same time that the Basalt flows began.

Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail (U.S. National Park Service)

At the end of the last Ice Age, 18,000 to 15,000 years ago, an ice dam in northern Idaho created Glacial Lake Missoula stretching 3,000 square miles around Missoula, Montana. The dam burst and released flood waters across Washington, down the Columbia River into Oregon before reaching the...

www.nps.gov

 

[Kylie]

HOW TO SCIENTIFICALLY DISPROVE THE FLOOD

1. Take a sheet of paper.
2. Draw seven continents on it -- (the Bible has only one continent at the time).
3. Draw in polar ice caps -- (the earth was a tropical paradise at the time).
4. Invoke deep time and claim those polar ice caps were there millions of years ago -- (Earth was created in 4004 BC).

And there you have it.

Scientists have disproved the Flood.

On paper.

You have absolutely no idea how science works.

 

[Tuur]

Assuming that the Genesis Flood happened, why did it not wash away the evidence of the Ice Age Floods of the Northwest? The Ice dam broke multiple times between 18,000 and 15,000 years ago. When was the supposed Genesis flood? Something like 4000 years ago? There's no way the amount of water required from the Genesis flood would not have left behind major signs of it's passage.

I'm a member of the Ice Age Floods Institute here in the North West. The flood features left behind on the geology of the land are crystal clear to see. Canyons and coulees were etched into the basalt and giant current ripples left behind from the fast moving water. Where I live the water would have been 250 feet deep. Those features are all still there and not washed away from a supposed Genesis flood.

The basalt mentioned is another geological feature of importance in the Northwest. In some places it ran for 300 miles, over in the Pasco area the basalt is over 3 miles deep. Hundreds of different flows that covered 10million years. If you look at a gelogical map you'll see the Yellowstone hotspot beginning in South East Oregon about the same time that the Basalt flows began.

Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail (U.S. National Park Service)

At the end of the last Ice Age, 18,000 to 15,000 years ago, an ice dam in northern Idaho created Glacial Lake Missoula stretching 3,000 square miles around Missoula, Montana. The dam burst and released flood waters across Washington, down the Columbia River into Oregon before reaching the...

www.nps.gov

The idea that a flood as described in Genesis would wash away things like signs of the dam giving way, or sediment deposits, is more in line with a high level of water originating from a single point. But a global flood where there's not that much of a difference? There's a stronger argument against the flood with the Antarctic ice cap, and I'm not so certain there. Not that ice doesn't float, but how much it would have floated.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have absolutely no idea how science works.

Science works?

No, science doesn't work.

When it comes to miracles, that is.

So whether I'm ignorant as a hay rake when it comes to science; or whether I'm omniscient when it comes to science; science doesn't apply.

 

[Astrid]

Assuming that the Genesis Flood happened, why did it not wash away the evidence of the Ice Age Floods of the Northwest? The Ice dam broke multiple times between 18,000 and 15,000 years ago. When was the supposed Genesis flood? Something like 4000 years ago? There's no way the amount of water required from the Genesis flood would not have left behind major signs of it's passage.

I'm a member of the Ice Age Floods Institute here in the North West. The flood features left behind on the geology of the land are crystal clear to see. Canyons and coulees were etched into the basalt and giant current ripples left behind from the fast moving water. Where I live the water would have been 250 feet deep. Those features are all still there and not washed away from a supposed Genesis flood.

The basalt mentioned is another geological feature of importance in the Northwest. In some places it ran for 300 miles, over in the Pasco area the basalt is over 3 miles deep. Hundreds of different flows that covered 10million years. If you look at a gelogical map you'll see the Yellowstone hotspot beginning in South East Oregon about the same time that the Basalt flows began.

Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail (U.S. National Park Service)

At the end of the last Ice Age, 18,000 to 15,000 years ago, an ice dam in northern Idaho created Glacial Lake Missoula stretching 3,000 square miles around Missoula, Montana. The dam burst and released flood waters across Washington, down the Columbia River into Oregon before reaching the...

www.nps.gov

Been there, seen that.
Very impressive.

The idea that a flood as described in Genesis would wash away things like signs of the dam giving way, or sediment deposits, is more in line with a high level of water originating from a single point. But a global flood where there's not that much of a difference? There's a stronger argument against the flood with the Antarctic ice cap, and I'm not so certain there. Not that ice doesn't float, but how much it would have floated.

How much? Not sure what you mean.
If it floats, it floats.

Ocean currents would remove it.

What is to stop it?

I don't understand your point.

 

[dlamberth]

Then give me a timeframe, please.

For the Genesis flood that didn't happen?

 

[AV1611VET]

Assuming that the Genesis Flood happened, why did it not wash away the evidence of the Ice Age Floods of the Northwest?

Because that evidence came later?

Remember the story Frankenstein? written during a little ice age?

Doesn't that famous picture of Washing Crossing the Delaware have ice on the Delaware River because it's during an ice age?

Didn't we have a "year without a summer" in 1816?

 

[AV1611VET]

For the Genesis flood that didn't happen?

If you're going to claim there is zero evidence for a global flood, then just deny anything that's given to you, then let's just stop wasting each other's time with this.

If meandering rivers, white cliffs, and the lack of giants on the earth mean nothing as far as the Flood is concerned, then it's time to stop casting pearls, isn't it?

This is standard tactic with unbelievers.

They ask good questions outwardly, but they're really fishing for information to store in their AUTODENY folder.

 

[dlamberth]

If you're going to claim there is zero evidence for a global flood, then just deny anything that's given to you, then let's just stop wasting each other's time with this.

If meandering rivers, white cliffs, and the lack of giants on the earth mean nothing as far as the Flood is concerned, then it's time to stop casting pearls, isn't it?

This is standard tactic with unbelievers.

They ask good questions outwardly, but they're really fishing for information to store in their AUTODENY folder.

I'm very much a Lover of God, AV. My tactics is not of an "unbeliever". I see God's activity in nature and the Earth and even in the changes of life we have come to label "evolution". Yes, a different posture than you. I find myself fully trusting what the Earth is saying about it's own geological changes over time...why? Because the Earth can not lie. And as a Lover of God, I have total and complete faith in God's Creation of the Earth (Because it is of God) and life on it and the story it tells of itself. The thing is, there is no Global flood in that story. It's just not there.

For myself at least, that in no way takes God out of the picture. Not at all. But to carry on with an ancient people's creation or even flood story? Call it a "tactic" or what ever, I just can't do that. God calls me to what He Created to get these answers.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm very much a Lover of God, AV. My tactics is not of an "unbeliever". I see God's activity in nature and the Earth and even in the changes of life we have come to label "evolution". Yes, a different posture than you. I find myself fully trusting what the Earth is saying about it's own geological changes over time...why? Because the Earth can not lie. And as a Lover of God, I have total and complete faith in God's Creation of the Earth (Because it is of God) and life on it and the story it tells of itself. The thing is, there is no Global flood in that story. It's just not there.

For myself at least, that in no way takes God out of the picture. Not at all. But to carry on with an ancient people's creation or even flood story? Call it a "tactic" or what ever, I just can't do that. God calls me to what He Created to get these answers.

You keep telling me what the earth told you.

But I get the impression, since the earth DIDN'T TELL YOU about the Flood, you think it didn't happen.

Perhaps your earth doesn't want to tell you?

Maybe she's keeping it a secret?

I don't care how much you love her, if she's keeping information from you (for whatever reason), that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Tuur]

How much? Not sure what you mean.
If it floats, it floats.

Ocean currents would remove it.

What is to stop it?

I don't understand your point.

To be honest, I don't understand it, either. It's more of a question. Part of it in the back of my mind is possible resistance to floating due to complete ground cover. Sea ice, well, that's already floating on water, so it's buoyed up. All that ice on ground? Sure, ice is less dense than water, but does water have to work it's way under it first? It's not quite the same as the experiment where you put a thin wooden stick under a sheet of newspaper laying flat above it and feel the resistance due to air pressure, but in the back of my mind is something along that order. It's a unknown, a possibility.

 

[Tuur]

Because the Earth can not lie.

But people can misunderstand its testimony.

 

[Astrid]

But people can misunderstand its testimony.

People sure misunderstand the Bible.

 

[Larniavc]

No one has ever proven truthfully that the flood did not happen.

Yes it has. There is no species wide genetic bottleneck at the time of the Noachian flood. Therefore there could have been no worldwide flood.

 

[Astrid]

To be honest, I don't understand it, either. It's more of a question. Part of it in the back of my mind is possible resistance to floating due to complete ground cover. Sea ice, well, that's already floating on water, so it's buoyed up. All that ice on ground? Sure, ice is less dense than water, but does water have to work it's way under it first? It's not quite the same as the experiment where you put a thin wooden stick under a sheet of newspaper laying flat above it and feel the resistance due to air pressure, but in the back of my mind is something along that order. It's a unknown, a possibility.

Let's make the assumption that the flood covers
the land, everything goes underwater.

If one wants to go lalaland with "hydroplate theory"
and that the earth was all tropical lowland 4000
years ago, it's beyond any sane discussion.

So I will assume you are sane and understand numbers,
and continue.

The average thickness of antarctic ice is 2,160
meters. So let's just use that number.

Here comes the flood, and now the ice is overlooked
by water. Ice floats.

Put an ice cube in a glass. Add water. It floats.

Is glacial ice " stuck down" like ice in a sidewalk?

Let's say it is.

Density of water is 1g / cc at 4 degrees C
At -40 it's .96, at 100, it's also ,96


Ice is O.917 g / cc, though it becomes slightly denser
if it's very cold. 0.934g /cc at -180 C.

Let's have the water at 4 C. I g / cc and the ice
is 0.917 g/ cc.

In very round numbers, ice is 8% less dense than
water. Who could guess the salinity of the "flood"
so let's disregard the greater buoyancy of seawater.

What would be the buoyancy of 1000 kilos of ice?
Shouldn't it be able to hold 80 kilos?

Walrus climb up on ice flows without sinking them.

A square meter of ice 2000 meters tall is what,
2000 cubic meters. A cubic meter is 1000 kg
A cubic meter of ice is 917 kg.
The buoyancy- it's lifting power- is 83 kg per cubic meter. 2000 meter thick ice would have a buoyancy
of lets see...186,000 kg per square meter.

You see how IF water flooded over a glacier, it's gonna float?

For fun calculate how high out of the water 2000
meters of ice would float.

 

[Astrid]

Yes it has. There is no species wide genetic bottleneck at the time of the Noachian flood. Therefore there could have been no worldwide flood.

One of so many ways

 

[Astrid]

But people can misunderstand its testimony.

Can. The less one thinks or studies the easier.
But really, an awful lot is not open to realistic doubt or
misinterpretation.

There's no mistaking a terminal moraine or your
fossil ripple marks for something made by a volcano.

Or ftm, sandstone from dunes for an alluvial deposit.

What do you think there is in geology that is in
doubt and "open to misinterpretation"?

 

[Nithavela]

I think this is the first time I see everyone on this forum agree on something.