Ok, so you now have a "probability" guiding you. Are you saying this "probability" (maybe a flood happened) is going to lead you to evidence.
Foolish. You're back to square one. Produce the hard evidence.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That IS how a detective work in his/her mind. Of course, hard evidence is needed to close the case. But the probability is the guidance which leads to the hard evidence. .
Ha ha ... you are confused. Put it this way, should a flood leave any sign? Not being a geologist or a scientist, I think you can not answer this question.
Wha...? I assume Juvenissun says this because he wants to believe in a global flood but knows no evidence currently exists to support it. So now suddenly a massive event of unprecendented scale and magnitude in science would be expected not to leave a marker? Sorry, Juvenissun, but that isn't rational.
Interestingly enough, as Juvenissun no doubt knows already, geologists know what massive floods leave as a record in the rocks.
ACTUALLY, if a geologist seriously believed in the Flood then they would propose just such research. It would be the first thing they would propose.
The only reason to avoid proposing such research would be if the person either doesn't know geology or what to look for, or they know that there is almost no reason to believe that the evidence will show up.
People who refuse to look for evidence in support of their claims are not scientists.
Someone should ask Juvenissun to explain why such evidence would not be expected to exist but yet the Flood have been real.
I asked you because you WANT to see something. Whatever you want to see, I can show you it is either there or not there. If you could not think of anything, then don't ask me to give you "data".
So, water. Yes, we do have theories on where did the water come from. A lot of water, which you can see it in the ocean today. Is that the evidence you like to see? Don't think the shoreline always look like it is today. It was not.
Or the Grand Canyon. Is the canyon there? Is that the evidence you like to see? (No need to tell me how is the canyon made according to you. I know it)
I think I've seen it reported that other societies from the same general area have a similar myth and that some research has been done in hte Mediteranian. I thought some evidence had been found. Not of a Global flood as the ultra literalists read Scripture, but of a significant flood in this area.
In short a flood that may have lead to the myth. Or perhaps the myth is true, there was an Ark and it did have many animals, but not everything, just everything to refound society as Noah new it.
I could be mistaken, but a result showing significant local flooding is exactly what both sides do not want. It shows that Bible story has roots, but is not as the Ultra Literalists want it to be.
AS you already have touched on a local significant flood in the last 10-20 thousand years would leave plenty of evidence. (I think the 6000 year old earth idea is a gross misuse of Scripture, ignoring how it abuses science for now).
I think I've seen it reported that other societies from the same general area have a similar myth and that some research has been done in hte Mediteranian. I thought some evidence had been found. Not of a Global flood as the ultra literalists read Scripture, but of a significant flood in this area.
I could be mistaken, but a result showing significant local flooding is exactly what both sides do not want. It shows that Bible story has roots, but is not as the Ultra Literalists want it to be.
Sorry that I don't like to go back, to quote, to paste, and to explain. So, if you are serious, give me one, and we go from there.
That IS how a detective work in his/her mind. Of course, hard evidence is needed to close the case. But the probability is the guidance which leads to the hard evidence. You do not solve the case by having nothing in your mind. For example, you have nothing in your mind to positively consider the global flood. I do.
Animal can teach us something here. An injured animal does not live long. Nearly all alive animals are healthy. Ancient people lived like that. And that is good.
To live a few more years on this earth is not the purpose of life. To live a more comfortable (?) life on the earth is not either.
I asked you because you WANT to see something. Whatever you want to see, I can show you it is either there or not there. If you could not think of anything, then don't ask me to give you "data".
There is no such thing. A global flood will NOT create a world-wide flood marker. No serious geologist would ever propose such a research.
AS you already have touched on a local significant flood in the last 10-20 thousand years would leave plenty of evidence. (I think the 6000 year old earth idea is a gross misuse of Scripture, ignoring how it abuses science for now).
I would for sure like to see anything that would stand a minutes chance of standing up as evidence of a world wide flood. So would a lot of enquiring minds.
Let's start here:
-Evidence and experimentation shows dinosaur fossils that are over 230 million years old.
Uhh.. I just realized that the "experiment" you said might be the radiometric dating? So, the experiment and the evidence are actually one thing. OK, I accept this one for the moment. I have doubt to the accuracy of the whole dating system.
Your second one, if I remembered, is the 6000 years argument. I, as well as many other Christians, do not recognize this timing mark. So, it is a useless argument.
I'm guessing you didn't intend to accidentally change your position. Probability is VERY different than possibility.
I see. I did not pay attention to the difference. So it is not proper to say, e.g. 40% possibility, right?
To that end, detectives start with the facts, then start to form some theories based on those facts. They consider the probability of those theories, then proceed to investigate the most probable to determine if additional facts support that theory of the crime.
Yes, I worked on the possibility (probability?) of Noah's Flood the same way. Very well said.
Oh... and why do I know this? I DID IT. My bachelor's was in criminal justice and criminology, and I even worked in the system after college.
Good for you. Geology, in general, works the same way.
So I guess you believe the sick and the elderly should just be killed? You also don't seem to believe in relieving pain... so does that mean you don't ever go to the doctor or take your children/grand children to the doctor?
Not be killed. We should try to save the person in a reasonable way. The modern medicine don't always do that. If I am sick, I will go to doctor. But if I got a chronic disease, then I will be my own doctor. If I have to use a lot of money to maintain my life, then I will stop spending the money. In short, the modern medicine would only make sense if it can help on a short time basis. One thousand years ago, a person might died of pneumonia at age 30. Today, such a person would be cured at age 30, but may die at age 70. Nevertheless, the length of life itself does not mean anything. There were people who died at 30 and some died at 70 one thousand years ago. To us, they were the same.
Are you kidding me? Why would every flood leave a distinctive geological flood marker... but a global flood wouldn't?
No kidding. Two reasons: there are other processes that also make deposits (marker) and could not be distinguished from flood deposits; And flood deposits do not stay on land for long. One more: big flood may leave a very small marker or even no marker (erosional rather than depositional)
OK, let's see one of such evidence of a big local flood (e.g. Mediterranean) 10,000 years old. What is it? Would it be a layer of mud on land across the Mediterranean region? I would say it again, there is no such thing exist.
If you have no idea on what that "thing" is, then how could you be convinced when I showed you such thing? If you could not imagine it, then even it sits right in front of you, you won't recognize it.
If you CAN imagine it, then what is it look like? Want to give a try?
Uhh.. I just realized that the "experiment" you said might be the radiometric dating? So, the experiment and the evidence are actually one thing. OK, I accept this one for the moment. I have doubt to the accuracy of the whole dating system.
Your second one, if I remembered, is the 6000 years argument. I, as well as many other Christians, do not recognize this timing mark. So, it is a useless argument.
I see. I did not pay attention to the difference. So it is not proper to say, e.g. 40% possibility, right?
Yes, I worked on the possibility (probability?) of Noah's Flood the same way. Very well said.
Not be killed. We should try to save the person in a reasonable way. The modern medicine don't always do that. If I am sick, I will go to doctor. But if I got a chronic disease, then I will be my own doctor. If I have to use a lot of money to maintain my life, then I will stop spending the money. In short, the modern medicine would only make sense if it can help on a short time basis. One thousand years ago, a person might died of pneumonia at age 30. Today, such a person would be cured at age 30, but may die at age 70. Nevertheless, the length of life itself does not mean anything. There were people who died at 30 and some died at 70 one thousand years ago. To us, they were the same.
No kidding. Two reasons: there are other processes that also make deposits (marker) and could not be distinguished from flood deposits; And flood deposits do not stay on land for long. One more: big flood may leave a very small marker or even no marker (erosional rather than depositional)
There is no such thing. A global flood will NOT create a world-wide flood marker. No serious geologist would ever propose such a research.
First, you have to at least recognize that many christians DO take the bible literally and believe in YEC. If you're not one of them, that's fine... but let's set the record straight so that we don't confuse each other: do you take the bible literally or not?
I am a YEC and I take the Bible literally. But, the Bible does not give the 6000 years figure. Also, the Y in YEC is relative. As long as the earth is not billion years old, it could be called YOUNG. In fact, I do not know how old is the earth. But I think the billion years figure is not real. I know exactly how are those numbers obtained. I personally created a couple hundreds of them. I don't like what I did.
Now that we've explained what probability is, I would simply ask what facts you have observed that led you to believe it was more probable than not that a global flood occurred.
There are, in fact, many. Just name one or two: When you count the amount of water on the earth and the amount of land above the oceanic floor, the water is enough to cover the entire land many times. Yes, the problem is that the land mass is all piled up together, so even its volume is small, it built up and ended up being higher than the sealevel. However, we do know the land mass was not like today in the earlier time. The volume of land was much smaller and the elevation of land in relative to the ocean is much lower (i.e. the earth was much flatter).
I don't know if you get the picture. But this is an important clue to me that a global flood did happen. A related thought is that if this type of flood happened, it most likely only happened once and would not have chance to happen again. This is exactly what the Bible says.
As for the difference between someone who is 30 and someone who is 70... consider this: We spend 18 years developing and being educated just to be self-sufficient in the world. Some spend another 4-8 in higher education learning advanced skills. Working off the 4, that puts most people at 22-24 years of age before they contribute anything of substance to society! A person who dies at 30 only had about 6 years to help advance society, reproduce, and raise their children. A person who dies at 70 had 46 years to do all of that and more!
The difference between someone who dies at 30 and someone who dies at 70? An almost 8-times greater contribution to society.
Yes, the significant point in your argument is "having more time to contribute to the society". And this is also exactly my argument. We did have millions and millions of hours of good work contributed to our society in the history. However, our society DOES NOT become better except the technology. The technology is really a cosmetic smoke screen. It covers the original ugliness of the society which did not advance a single inch no matter how much hours people have contributed to it. Technology gives us TV, but it also gives us bomb. I rather not have the TV but still fight with a sword. Technology prolonged our life a little bit. But the consequence is a huge global problem we are facing now. More people died in 20th Century than any time in our history. Why should anyone live longer to make more useless contribution to the society?
Have you been reading thaumaturgy's posts? I think he might have a few disagreements with you... and he tends to back up his posts with facts... which, you know, kinda helps.
He always disagrees with me no matter what I said. If necessary, he will simply insult me to save his failing argument.
Just take what I explained to you on the global flood as an example. When I said I see some facts of a global flood earlier, instead of saying: "back up your statement", you asked me what are the facts. That is how the conversation here should be. I am not obligated to back up anything I said here. If you have problem with what I said, then simply raise up the question and we will talk about it. My principle on this is: I do not bother to back up what I said unless there is an argument directly against it, or there is a sincere request for explanation. Those who do not like me may quote the red text out of context to against me. But, hey, why should I care? They have said much worse things about me.
.here is one that would utterly and forever convince me: ANY strata with in situ fossils that mix eras. For example, artifacts with dinosaurs or trilobites; any modern mammals birds or reptiles, fish, plants or life form mixed with sediments from the Devonian, or carboniferous, say
You hit a hard one (not your original idea, though). I don't have simple explanation on that. However, your argument is based on that the global flood took place after these lives. What if the flood took place before these lives? I never said the Flood happened 6000 years ago.
Flooding either causes erosion of deposition. so show me the strata that shows these effects, all over the world, for the same date. no geologist has ever found such stuff, so i kinda doubt you can.
Take something you can understand. Think about TODAY. Right at this moment, there are erosion, and deposition taking place global-wise. So, there are some "strata" built up now and there are some others eroded now. That does not mean we have a global flood at this moment.
Any more questions?
.
You hit a hard one (not your original idea, though). I don't have simple explanation on that. However, your argument is based on that the global flood took place after these lives. What if the flood took place before these lives? I never said the Flood happened 6000 years ago.
Take something you can understand. Think about TODAY. Right at this moment, there are erosion, and deposition taking place global-wise. So, there are some "strata" built up now and there are some others eroded now. That does not mean we have a global flood at this moment.
Any more questions?
You didnt answer any of them, including whether you can admit you were wrong about the facts on Mediterranean flooding. Cant, or wont admit you are ever wrong?
What you said about why fossils of organisms from different eras are never mixed is nonsense. My argument is not "based on" when an imaginary flood happened. I didnt "hit a hard one", I pointed out something that makes the biblical aco[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] impossible.
I see you are back to trying to be condescending with me, talking about 'what I can understand".
it is kind of funny tho, because your own words show so clearly you don't understand the first thing about geology.
Telling me about erosion and deposition is like assuming i dont even know how to count, let alone do calculus. Your ideas are barely grade school level.
Take remedial English and try to learn about things like punctuation and verb agreement. I've only been speaking English full time for 12 years now, it's not impossible to learn.
Amyway, this is not worth doing. You are so profoundlyu ignorant you dont even know you dont know anything. There is no way to carry on a discussion with you when you are so totally out of your depth and dont even know it.
Oh yeah.... you going to admit you know nothing about geology, and that you were wrong about the Mediterranean flooding?
.it is kind of funny tho, because your own words show so clearly you don't understand the first thing about geology.
Take remedial English and try to learn about things like punctuation and verb agreement.
Amyway, this is not worth doing. You are so profoundlyu ignorant...
Typos != such a mess like Juv's grammar.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?