My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[The Righterzpen]

The only person who doesn't have foggiest clue here is yourself.
My post involved theories, Hans Blaster was referring to scientific laws.
Theories and scientific laws are not the same.

Why don't you try learn something instead of being blissfully ignorant.
For a start this video will explain the differences between theories and scientific laws and hopefully you will understand why theories are not based on presuppositions.

Yep, you've confirmed that you don't have the foggiest clue as to what the conversation is about.

I'd tell you to go back and read the thread; but... I have a theory; that this wouldn't do any good!

 

[AV1611VET]

When it comes to the Genesis Flood, there is NO evidence of said flood.

What would you consider as evidence that God did it?

 

[sjastro]

Yep, you've confirmed that you don't have the foggiest clue as to what the conversation is about.

I'd tell you to go back and read the thread; but... I have a theory; that this wouldn't do any good!

OK I 'm calling your bluff you are obviously a lot smarter than I am so start explaining.

 

[dlamberth]

Do you know how fossils are formed?

Yes.

 

[dlamberth]

What would you consider as evidence that God did it?

The question out there is the total lack of evidence that the Geneses flood happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

The question out there is the total lack of evidence that the Geneses flood happened.

If you can't tell me what to look for specifically, do you mind if I take your point with a grain of salt?

 

[dlamberth]

If you can't tell me what to look for specifically, do you mind if I take your point with a grain of salt?

You have my permission.

What I'd look for are actual evidence of a world wide flood. Something that catastropic would be pretty obvious. Flood events are well understood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Something that catastropic would be pretty obvious. Flood events are well understood.

This was no ordinary flood.

This was a supernatural flood.

 

[jayem]

We can say, that you know your parents are going to die one day, that does mean your not going to grieve when it happens.

That analogy is faulty. It misses the point. Which is this: Suppose I'm an architect. I have a total and complete knowledge of all building materials, including how they will fare in any and every environment.. So why would I be surprised when the homes I designed are falling apart? I might grieve and feel sorry. But shouldn't I have foreseen the outcome?

 

[dlamberth]

This was no ordinary flood.

This was a supernatural flood.

What in the world is a supernatural flood?

 

[Hans Blaster]

(Or in other words: "Awww &@$# - Righterzpen got me.")

No you didn't. And I'm not going to enter the presuppositional spiral of what about this, but what about that, repeat ad infinitum.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Such statement is not possible to prove, though. Its better to say they are improbable/rare. Or not useful for science.

We even have no natural guarantee that the laws of physics/nature will be the same the next minute. The modern theory is that all laws of physics emerge from the "vibrating" strings and we do not know much about them.

And some other physical theories about our underlying reality are even more wild.

String theory, despite the name isn't a proper scientific theory. It predicts nothing that can be tested and isn't even 1 theory, but ~10^50 possilble mathematical theories. I am unconvinced that it isn't worse than useless. It is at this point, just mathematical speculation.

 

[trophy33]

String theory, despite the name isn't a proper scientific theory. It predicts nothing that can be tested and isn't even 1 theory, but ~10^50 possilble mathematical theories. I am unconvinced that it isn't worse than useless. It is at this point, just mathematical speculation.

Do you incline to any other theory (or speculation, if you prefer) about our reality that makes physical laws to be certain and stable every time?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you incline to any other theory (or speculation, if you prefer) about our reality that makes physical laws to be certain and stable every time?

No. I'm not sure why we would need one. Nature is regular. Don't know why. Not sure that it matters. It just is. Perhaps that all it is -- a brute fact. (I'm assuming that by "every time" you mean continuously throughout the history of the Universe.)

 

[trophy33]

I'm assuming that by "every time" you mean continuously throughout the history of the Universe.

In the context of "Things that violate the laws of physics don't happen. If the claimed action violates the laws of physics -- it didn't happen."

I think that without a proper understanding what even creates our reality and the laws of physics, such statement is not possible. Its just our human perception that the universe is regular. But we are unable to detect the vast majority of events in our visible universe and practically none in the invisible one (dark matter, higher dimensions...).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well I'm glad that you are at least able to admit this.

Do you agree with what Hans Blaster has said here:

And here:

I have zero reason to see what he says to be incorrect, but I have many reasons to see what you've said as incorrect.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ya ... I deceived my mom once.

I cleaned my room up so spic & span, she never new it was tore up.

But I left a note detailing what I did, when I did it, what order I did it in, why I did it, and who the eyewitnesses were.

When she got home, I got a spanking for lying to her.

That's not the same thing at all.

As has been said to you many times: a global flood on the scale and magnitude of the Noahic flood would leave massive amounts of evidence not just in geology but in geography, genetics and the fossil record. We see nothing of the sort to even hint at such an event happening.

So either A) God did clean up after the Flood in every single way, thus meaning there is zero evidence for it apart from a single source on paper, and therefore God is a deceiver (which is what you repeatedly make God out to be btw)

Or B) There was no flood, and the story in the Bible is a morality tale only and should not be taken literally, as many passages in the Bible are written as.

I choose B since God is not a deceiver.

 

[AV1611VET]

What in the world is a supernatural flood?

No ordinary one.

 

[AV1611VET]

So either A) God did clean up after the Flood in every single way, thus meaning there is zero evidence for it apart from a single source on paper, and therefore God is a deceiver (which is what you repeatedly make God out to be btw)

And here I thought cleanliness was next to godliness.

You make it sound like cleanliness is next to deception.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What in the world is a supernatural flood?

A flood that levees no evidence except for claims.