Noachian Flood discussion - Bible skeptics vs Lion IRC and friends :)

Subduction Zone · May 2, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Just saying they probably won’t be real eager to overly defend the possibility of the ark, in any way, in an interview with the head of most university science departments… do you?

It is not their job to defend the ark. The burden of proof is upon believers and they cannot find any scientific evidence for the Flood.

inquiring mind · May 2, 2021

myst33 said:
You must always prove the positive statements. Negative statements cannot be proven.

So its on you to prove that what you say that happened, really happened.

I sort of figured you'd say something like that. Just how much of any of these things are demonstrable, one way or the other? It's either believe recorded history or speculative science.

Hans Blaster · May 2, 2021

coffee4u said:
The Bible doesn't use the word planet because it had not been invented then.
Planet was first used in writing around 1300.

When Genesis was edited and redacted the Greeks were already using the term "planetai" for the 7 wandering objects in the sky. More importantly for the Hebrew scribes, their Babylonian masters also had identified planets as well.

What didn't exist yet, and wouldn't for about 2000 years after the text came into its current form, was the understanding that the whole world (i.e. the land and water stretching out at the horizon and accessible by land or sea) was itself a body like 6 of the planets. (The 7th "planetai" was the Sun, which is clearly not a rocky sphere, but a gravitationally confined fusion reactor.)

Tinker Grey · May 2, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Sure, I understand. I just wanted to see if you have any actual evidence (indisputable) that the Flood didn't happen.

myst33 said:
You must always prove the positive statements. Negative statements cannot be proven.

So its on you to prove that what you say that happened, really happened.

Some negative statements can be proven. See Modus tollens - Wikipedia.

In the case of the flood:

P1. A global flood 4K years ago such that left only 8 survivors of humans and two of each "kind" would cause a genetic bottle neck.
P2. There is no genetic bottle neck 4K years ago
C. There was no global flood 4K years ago that left only 8 human survivors and two of each "kind"

This argument is valid. I would argue it is sound. Thus the kind of global flood describe here is disproven. If the conclusion follows from the premises, then the disputant must argue that one of the premises is false.

Another example, if there were such a flood, there would be deposits (see elsewhere in this thread). There are no such deposits. Ergo, no flood.

Etc.

Hans Blaster · May 2, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Ability to do science wasn't even a question, it's getting hired if you advocate the possibility of the ark that was the question. It appears that you think such a view is quackery, I would conclude that persons advocating the possibility of the ark would have a snowball chance getting a job in your science department. IMO you wouldn't be the only one by a long shot... and that could very well influence someone to re-evaluate their view in regard to university science career options (again jmo).

As I said before, this isn't about the students and their career prospects, or my opinion, or academia, or the scientific community. It's about YOU and your seemingly paranoid view about the scientific and academic community having it in for you and your view point just because it conflicts with observable reality.

What did the students do? Having only read the newspaper article, I would gather that they were trying to answer the question: "If you put all of the animals Noah was supposed to have put on that boat, would it even float?" Their intention may have even been to show that it *wouldn't* float.

How would you do such a thing?

Here's what I would do:

* Check Genesis to see what types of animals go on the boat: do birds go on, do insects, do fish?

* Check with zoology references to find the number of species and typical masses of each. Break into fine enough groups to integrate mass correctly, or, in even better physics style, construct a mass distribution function and the integrate it. Once this calculation is done you have the total mass of one of each species of Noachian animal. Multiply by two and you have the total mass of animals that go on the boat.

* Get the dimensions of the boat. Compute the displacement volume and mass of displaced water.

* Check with boat building references about the amount of timber required to build boat, compute mass of said timber.

Now for the finale:

Add the mass of the timber to the mass of the animals, if less than the mass of the displaced water it will float, if not it will not float.

Apparently the students show that all of the types of animals described in Genesis *could* have entered the boat without sinking it. They do not say how long they could survive on said boat or if they could have been gathered from around the world, or if there are signs of global flooding.

Not sinking the boat is about the lowest bar the Noah story could pass.

Apparently their professor liked there analysis enough to have them publish it in a student physics journal.

Subduction Zone · May 2, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Can the Flood actually be disproved, or is it just generally accepted scientific reasoning?

It depends upon your personal version of the Flood. A major problem that believers cannot explain is that all of the evidence tells us that there was no flood. If there was no Flood God would have had to have made false evidence. If God cannot lie, and planting false evidence would be lying, then there was no Flood.

Subduction Zone · May 2, 2021

myst33 said:
You must always prove the positive statements. Negative statements cannot be proven.

So its on you to prove that, what you say that happened, really happened.

Not true. Where did you get the idea that a negative cannot be proven from?

EDIT: Dang it! I guess I should spend a bit more time here. That was already corrected by @Tinker Grey

inquiring mind · May 2, 2021

Tinker Grey said:
In the case of the flood:

P1. A global flood 4K years ago such that left only 8 survivors of humans and two of each "kind" would cause a genetic bottle neck.
P2. There is no genetic bottle neck 4K years ago
C. There was no global flood 4K years ago that left only 8 human survivors and two of each "kind"

I guess it would cause a bottleneck... I'm just not sure of the '4,000 years ago' part. What we need to remember is that what ended in a Flood, started as a cataclysm (that word may not have been used, but the description fits), and as such there would be flood dynamics we can’t comprehend.

Subduction Zone · May 2, 2021

inquiring mind said:
I guess it would cause a bottleneck... I'm just not sure of the '4,000 years ago' part. What we need to remember is that what ended in a Flood, started as a cataclysm (that word may not have been used, but the description fits), and as such there would be flood dynamics we can’t comprehend.

The bottleneck would have nothing to do with the "dynamics" of the Flood.

Of course geology refutes the Flood as well. You cannot simply say "dynamics" and reject the evidence of chalk cliffs. Or of the embedded meander that I posted. Or the other endless geologic evidence that tells us that there was no Flood. Once again, the Flood was first refuted by Christian geologists.

inquiring mind · May 2, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
The bottleneck would have nothing to do with the "dynamics" of the Flood.

No it wouldn't... I didn't say it did. We were talking about the Flood causing a bottleneck.

trophy33 · May 2, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Not true. Where did you get the idea that a negative cannot be proven from?

EDIT: Dang it! I guess I should spend a bit more time here. That was already corrected by @Tinker Grey

You can prove a negative claim only by bringing some positive claim that was proven (and both are mutually exclusive).

For example I cannot prove that I was not in the USA yesterday, per se. I can prove I was in the Czech republic, though, and therefore I was not in the USA.

Subduction Zone · May 2, 2021

inquiring mind said:
No it wouldn't... I didn't say it did. We were talking about the Flood causing a bottleneck.

That is what the Bible claims. Do you know what a bottleneck is?

Subduction Zone · May 2, 2021

myst33 said:
You can prove a negative claim only by bringing some positive claim that was proven (and both are mutually exclusive).

For example I cannot prove that I was not in the USA yesterday, per se. I can prove I was in the Czech republic, though, and therefore I was not in the USA.

A better way to say it is that there are events that would leave evidence. If a friend claimed that a bomb blew up the tallest building in my city and I drove by that building and there was no damage that would "prove" that the event he claimed did not happen. That is the sort of negative that we can prove in regards to the flood. There would be clear evidence of it and that evidence is lacking.

AV1611VET · May 2, 2021

Tinker Grey said:
Some negative statements can be proven. See Modus tollens - Wikipedia.

In the case of the flood:

P1. A global flood 4K years ago such that left only 8 survivors of humans and two of each "kind" would cause a genetic bottle neck.
P2. There is no genetic bottle neck 4K years ago
C. There was no global flood 4K years ago that left only 8 human survivors and two of each "kind"

In the case of the aftermath of the Flood:

P1. There was a genetic bottle neck 4K years ago.
P2. God blessed them and told them to replenish the earth.
P3. The earth is populous today.
C. Modus tollens can take a hike.

AV1611VET · May 2, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
A major problem that believers cannot explain is that all of the evidence tells us that there was no flood.

Key phrase: all of the evidence.

Do you really think you have all of the evidence?

(This is a YES or NO question please.)

AV1611VET · May 2, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
That is the sort of negative that we can prove in regards to the flood. There would be clear evidence of it and that evidence is lacking.

Lacking doesn't mean it isn't existing.

It just means it hasn't been found yet.

And until it is, people [incorrectly] assume it didn't happen.

VirOptimus · May 2, 2021

AV1611VET said:
Key phrase: all of the evidence.

Do you really think you have all of the evidence?

(This is a YES or NO question please.)

I’m sure there are even more, right now, unknown data supporting that there was no worldwide flood.

VirOptimus · May 2, 2021

AV1611VET said:
Lacking doesn't mean it isn't existing.

It just means it hasn't been found yet.

And until it is, people [incorrectly] assume it didn't happen.

Or, physical reality is correct and you are in error.

driewerf · May 2, 2021

AV1611VET said:
I love your videos.
Was this supposed to be a problem?

If so, here's the solution: C2H3NaO2.

Also, are you assuming the Ark was just three dimensional?

Sodium acetate?

Bradskii · May 2, 2021

AV1611VET said:
In the case of the aftermath of the Flood:

P1. There was a genetic bottle neck 4K years ago.
P2. God blessed them and told them to replenish the earth.
P3. The earth is populous today.
C. Modus tollens can take a hike.

Noachian Flood discussion - Bible skeptics vs Lion IRC and friends :)

Regular Member

and a discerning heart

Rocket surgeon

Wanderer

Rocket surgeon

Regular Member

Regular Member

and a discerning heart

Regular Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

A nihilist who cares.

A nihilist who cares.

a day at the Zoo

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Similar threads