My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And here I thought cleanliness was next to godliness.

You make it sound like cleanliness is next to deception.

That's a comment on PERSONAL hygiene not God covering the world in water, then clearing away every single shed of evidence and relying on some random nobody from an island in the middle of the Pacific to go "HEY! You want evidence for the Flood? Stop following science! READ THE BIBLE!".

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a comment on PERSONAL hygiene ...

And as I've said before:

God cleaned up the mess for safety and sanitary reasons.

... not God covering the world in water, then clearing away every single shed of evidence and relying on some random nobody from an island in the middle of the Pacific to go "HEY! You want evidence for the Flood? Stop following science! READ THE BIBLE!".

Hafa adai from Guam, where America's day begins!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And as I've said before:

God cleaned up the mess for safety and sanitary reasons.

And at the same time: got rid of every single shred of evidence to such a degree that the only thing hinting at the Noahic Flood is a claim in a book. That does not make a grand case for evidence in any sense of the word.

Your entire thread can really just be boiled down to: READ THE BIBLE.

 

[AV1611VET]

And at the same time: got rid of every single shred of evidence to such a degree that the only thing hinting at the Noahic Flood is a claim in a book.

If there was evidence all over the place, how would it point to a Noahic flood?

Unbelievers would just say it happened and be done with it.

So yes, it is the Bible that says God did it.

Else science would be saying Mother Nature did it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If there was evidence all over the place, how would it point to a Noahic flood?

Unbelievers would just say it happened and be done with it.

So yes, it is the Bible that says God did it.

Else science would be saying Mother Nature did it.

... okay, now that part does have me stumped since all it would be is evidence for a global flood, but not specifically the Noahic flood.

But, that's exactly the sort of problem you'd also run into if there was evidence of it too.

 

[AV1611VET]

But, that's exactly the sort of problem you'd also run into if there was evidence of it too.

I think my Boolean standards and prime directive could handle it.

 

[jayem]

You raise valid questions here; although this is a subject for a totally different thread.

There are some explanations; but just as with many subjects, the explanations usually aren't complete. And in regards to your questions here specifically; the answers are incomplete because the totality of them is actually unknowable to us; because we are not omniscient.

You can message me about this subject if you'd like and I will give you as best of an explanation as I'm capable of.

Thanks for your reply. That’s interesting. If you could post some links to articles that discuss this, I’ll find time to read them. I’m always up for learning something new.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think my Boolean standards and prime directive could handle it.

Only on paper.

 

[The Righterzpen]

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

Go back and read the thread and then you tell me what you think the subject I'm addressing is.

 

[The Righterzpen]

@dlamberth AV1611VET asked:

What would you consider as evidence that God did it?

You replied:

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

I asked:

Do you know how fossils are formed?

You said yes.
So the next question I'm going to ask is for you to explain your understanding of how fossils are formed.

 

[The Righterzpen]

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.

I accept your admission that you do understand, that what you believe about the data can not be proven.
You really are the perfect example of Romans 1:18-23

 

[The Righterzpen]

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.

LOL
Hans Blaster said a belief and a presupposition can not be proven. (I agree with him.)

Then he admits that his understanding of natural law is based on an assumption that natural does not change and that there are no instances where it can change; or that it has ever changed. THAT assumption is a presupposition that he can't prove! (Because presuppositions are unprovable.)

Thus Hans Blaster is admitting there is the possibility that things could happen that he can't explain. And if he admits there are things that could happen that he can't explain; that opens the door to the possibility that there are things that have happened that he can't explain either.

Thus how he interprets the data he's looking at is based on a belief system! A belief system that's different than my belief system; so thus he stands on the same "unprovable belief" grounds that he states disproves my belief system.

And this is why Hans Blaster is having a melt down about the fact that he's caught in a corner that he can't back out of.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

LOL
Hans Blaster said a belief and a presupposition can not be proven. (I agree with him.)

Then he admits that his understanding of natural law is based on an assumption that natural does not change and that there are no instances where it can change; or that it has ever changed. THAT assumption is a presupposition that he can't prove! (Because presuppositions are unprovable.)

Thus Hans Blaster is admitting there is the possibility that things could happen that he can't explain. And if he admits there are things that could happen that he can't explain; that opens the door to the possibility that there are things that have happened that he can't explain either.

Thus how he interprets the data he's looking at is based on a belief system! A belief system that's different than my belief system; so thus he stands on the same "unprovable belief" grounds that he states disproves my belief system.

And this is why Hans Blaster is having a melt down about the fact that he's caught in a corner that he can't back out of.

So what? You're still wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I accept your admission that you do understand, that what you believe about the data can not be proven.
You really are the perfect example of Romans 1:18-23

Many atheists are the perfect example of vs 22:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Paraphrase:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be [Homo sapiens], they became [atheists],

Homo sapiens, as you know, means "wise man."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Many atheists are the perfect example of vs 22:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Paraphrase:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be [Homo sapiens], they became [atheists],

Homo sapiens, as you know, means "wise man."

So... professing to be human makes people atheists. As opposed to what? Sea cucumbers?

Buddy, you need to really stop and have a think about what you add and take away from the Bible when you think you're making a point.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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...).

When I see such a thing I'll let you know.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I accept your admission that you do understand, that what you believe about the data can not be proven.
You really are the perfect example of Romans 1:18-23

Frankly I doubt you make the same claim about someone who identified as a Christian. There is nothing in this thread that I wouldn't have written if I'd stayed a Christian. My positions have literally nothing to do with my non-belief in your deity.

 

[AV1611VET]

So... professing to be human makes people atheists.

Is that what I said?

Maybe you should read it again?

As opposed to what? Sea cucumbers?

Dust of the ground.

Buddy, you need to really stop and have a think about what you add and take away from the Bible when you think you're making a point.

Do you know what paraphrasing is?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is that what I said?

Maybe you should read it again?

Yes. Homo Sapiens is the biological term to refer to modern humans. So calling themselves humans, they become atheists. That makes no sense.

Dust of the ground.

Stay away from vacuum cleaners then.

Do you know what paraphrasing is?

But you're not paraphrasing. You're dramatically altering the text, post fact, to get the text to say something completely and radically different. You are altering scripture to your own end.

 

[trophy33]

When I see such a thing I'll let you know.

That would be just anecdotal, anyway. Irregularities that cannot be repeated are not too useful for science.

However, we do not have any legs to stand on in claiming there are none. Our reality itself and what constitutes it in the first place is quite mysterious and nothing certain (considering science; theologically its God, of course).