Is Astrology a science?

[AV1611VET]

... and there is nothing suspicious which happened around 4,400 years ago.

I agree.

There's nothing suspicious which happened around 4,400 years ago.

I believe the population as a whole knew exactly what was happening.

Do you know what the name METHUSELAH means?

 

[Aaron112]

I agree.
There's nothing suspicious which happened around 4,400 years ago.
I believe the population as a whole knew exactly what was happening.
Do you know what the name METHUSELAH means?

Huh? Slang or gang talk for "METH" user ?

/s/h/smile

 

[Astrid]

Can anyone find a truthful science source that explains this correctly ?

You think we are lying?
The ice core info is very widely available
available. So is the utter common sense
that ice floats.

IF the ice was miraculously "stuck down" then the seawater
would leave its sign in the ice. It's not there.
IF the ice floated. It would be gone. Not there.

But hundreds of thousands of years Ice is there.

Denying this is kind of silly.

 

[Aaron112]

You think we are lying?

No.
At least not on purpose.
BUt if I , or anyone, starts with a false premise , then anything from that point on building on false premise is false, no matter a persons heart or motives or honesty at all.

 

[Astrid]

This is between you and Paul. You are going to have to talk with him if you do not understand what he said. I do not consider anyone anything other than good, because God created us and God is good. If you have a negative opinion of yourself, then you should work on that. Because we should always have a positive attitude. Paul would tell you that God is good, He created us to be good and that is what we should be. Or recognize that we are. If people do not have the mind of Christ, then there are going to be things they do not understand.

I don't have a negative opinion of myself
but that's irrelevant.

I've my opinion about "Paul" , you
have yours.

A big difference is, I don't state my
opinions as facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh? Slang or gang talk for "METH" user ?

/s/h/smile

Okay -- that gets an LOL -- but with rolling eyes.

 

[Astrid]

No.
At least not on purpose.
BUt if I , or anyone, starts with a false premise , then anything from that point on building on false premise is false, no matter a persons heart or motives or honesty at all.

That's how I look at preachers.

I dont think they are lying just stating
ZERO evidence opinions as facts.

I don't do that, and you cannot find any
false premise, or opinion stated as fact
in what I said re ice.

So your objection about premises is
void.

The false pre ise in all this is that there was a f.ood.
But that's yours,not mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

You think we are lying?

Perhaps he's merely asking for a second opinion?

 

[AV1611VET]

The false premise in all this is that there was a flood.

You're basing that on academic teachings, which have you to believe:

1. The Egyptians existed at the time, as well as other post-diluvian civilizations.
2. Continents existed at the time.
3. Polar ice caps existed at the time.
4. Et cetera existed at the time.

 

[Tuur]

I kind of doubt the thing about
geologists thinking there were glacial
erratics in Georgia. That would be really
really stupid and sloppy.

It happened. Let me see a map of the fall line...okay, I think they're close to the fall line, but to the north of it. As a rule of thumb, you have sedimentary rocks on the surface south of the fall line in the US due to, well, it being filled up with sediments. North of the fall line you have non-sedimentary rocks close to the surface. So these boulders were where you'd expect to find non-sedimentary rocks, but they were isolated in one area. Plus, they had markings on them that were interpreted to be abrasions from being pushed along by a glacier. So the idea was that the boulders were carried there by a glacier, and when the glacier melted, there the boulders dropped.

At what point geologists determined the marks were caused by logging chains I can't say, but I think it was in the 1970s. It would be interesting to know how they made that determination. Anyway, when geologists determined the marks were manmade, that ended the glacier theory.

I remember the discussion, at least where it attracted the attention of the media. The question was, of course, was there a glacier in Georgia, and likely at what time? So when geologists determined the marks were caused by logging chains, there was amusement in the media.

Now, speaking as someone who studied geology, you say that would be really stupid and sloppy. Perhaps. I'm no geologist. Yet I do know hindsight always has perfect vision. What seems obvious now isn't always obvious then.

 

[Tuur]

Seems like you've got a combo of trying too
hard and not trying hard enough.

Good that you get it that things need depth
of water in order to float.

But I think you you are trying too hard to
defend the indefensible, that being a story
that is readily disproved a thousand other
ways. Even your noted gappist knows all
data is wholly inconsistent with a flood-
but has God miracle all evidence of a
"Flood" to look as if it didn't happen.

It makes a kind of weird sense; proof of God
kind of eliminates a need for faith.

Your experiments to discover an Unknown
factor, an undiscovered power of ice adhesion,
I mean, seriously?

Glaciers are not even stuck down!
They move. You can see rock they slid over
in Central Park NYC and a million other
places.
It's basically a huge ice cube sitting there on the
ground, sliding downhill.
You are proposing that a certain size ice
loses buoyancy? Like it becomes more dense
than water? You do know that water / ice
is incompressible?
When chunks of glaciers break of into the water,
they float.
No "unknown factor" makes them sink.
You seem trying too hard to make the story float!

And not hard enough to see what would
happen. Engineers can figure stresses
or whether a battleship is too dense to float.
Do a little engineering. This is not ice
frozen into a bowl. Of course a little
water on top of that wont float it
Do a relevant experiment with a chunk of ice
a the ground, unconfined. Flood the area and see
ifn it floats.

I asked you to figure the buoyancy, the upward
force exceeding the weight, of ice five miles
thick.
It's going to be about 8% more than the weight
of the ice.
Try calculating the lift excerted on one square foot.

In the absence of any strange unknown factors
and the very well known physics involved, is there
any reasonable way to deny that ice floats?

Think what you wish. My only interest is previous observation that water can be on top of ice without ice floating to the top. If that doesn't agree with some notion...shrug.

In any event, I've taken a small disposable 3 ounce (88.7 ml) plastic cup, of the type common in the US, tore of the corner of 60 grit sandpaper, roughed the bottom and not the sides, and have filled it about 1/8th of the height with water. It now resides in the freezer. I've also taken another disposable 3 ounce plastic cup, filled it to about 1/8th of the way to the top with water, and have it chilling in the refrigerator. And we shall see what we shall see.

The great thing about experiments, especially simple ones like this, is that anyone can try it for themselves.

 

[Kylie]

That's true.

In the above case, it was Estrid that said science was irrelevant.

And I agreed with her.

No, she was saying that YECers generally have a poor understanding of science, and that science is irrelevant to their position, because they don't use a tool that have a poor understanding of.

 

[Kylie]

You missed a keyword: Miracles. We have to go beyond what Science can do. Remember the women in the Bible that spent all her money and never found a cure? Until she found Jesus and He healed her and did not charge her. If Science had the cure and all the answers, we would have no need for Jesus and the Bible.

I've never seen a report of a miracle that was examined in a rigorous scientific manner and the conclusion from the scientists was, "Well, this is impossible, it can't be happening."

 

[AV1611VET]

No, she was saying that YECers generally have a poor understanding of science, and that science is irrelevant to their position, because they don't use a tool that have a poor understanding of.

Science is irrelevant to young earth creationism.

Science played no part in the creation of the universe whatsoever.

The creation of the universe was performed by a series of miracles that raised the level of mass/energy from zero to its current amount.

So notice that not even the Law of Conservation of Mass existed at the time.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've never seen a report of a miracle that was examined in a rigorous scientific manner and the conclusion from the scientists was, "Well, this is impossible, it can't be happening."

How would they deem it a miracle prior to testing it?

 

[Diamond72]

Science played no part in the creation of the universe whatsoever.

They play a part, they gather the evidence, both natural and artifacts. That does not give them the right to push their opinions on us. But we can not ignore the evidence because it comes from God. He wants us to know what He has done.

 

[AV1611VET]

They play a part, they gather the evidence, both natural and artifacts.

What evidence?

 

[Diamond72]

No, she was saying that YECers generally have a poor understanding of science, and that science is irrelevant to their position, because they don't use a tool that have a poor understanding of.

Kurt Patrick Wise has a degree from Harvard University in Evolution, yet he is still a YEC creationist.

 

[Aaron112]

You're basing that on academic teachings, which have you to believe:

1. The Egyptians existed at the time, as well as other post-diluvian civilizations.
2. Continents existed at the time.
3. Polar ice caps existed at the time.
4. Et cetera existed at the time.

Perhaps Estrid had another reason? Yes, it would be a lot better, or so it seems , if the correct premise: "there was a flood", was realized.
But there might even be a reason in God's Plan, for instance, others who lied about a lot of things that it would be far far worse to trust them at the time, and far far better not to trust them, but to find out from God or from others who are in God's Plan, without the dangers, faults, or destruction of those who are too much wrong about other things even if they agree there was a flood.... Does that make sense yet ?

It might be worse for someone to believe the various things some one or group says, even if that someone or group agrees there was a flood,
because that someone or group believing in the flood also has too much or more 'baggage' that is counter-productive and must be rejected in order not to be led down a false path.

 

[sjastro]

Lets look at the Antarctic ice sheet which flows due to plastic deformation under its own weight which would an ideal test case of water flowing over an ice covered continent.
Antarctic ice core samples can be analyzed using mass spectrometry for elements.

If there was a great flood, sea levels would rise which would inundate the ice sheet leaving a concentration of ions such as Na⁺, Cl⁻, SO²₄⁻, Mg²⁺, Ca²⁺ and K⁺ in a given layer of the core.
Not only is such a concentration not found but the ice core can also be dated by counting layers and there is nothing suspicious which happened around 4,400 years ago.

I'd like to remind the fundamentalists in this thread accusing posters of being liars or the science of ice core sampling being fraudulent without any supportive evidence is against forum rules.

Threads started, or responses made, to simply disparage science will be considered off topic to the forum.

To continue the theme of how the science refutes the evidence of a global flood the presence of Na (sodium) has been found in ice core samples in the Taylor dome and Taldice sites in Antarctica.

The top graphs show the Na concentration from ice core samples from the Taylor dome (a) and Taldice (b) sites from the present to 12,000 years ago.
The geographical location provides a clue of what is going on.
The variations of Na with time does not come from a rising and a receding of the Ross Sea level initiated by a global flood but from the sea ice itself.

The causes of the recent increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, characterised by large regional contrasts and decadal variations, remain unclear. In the Ross Sea, where such a sea ice increase is reported, 50% of the sea ice is produced within wind-sustained latent-heat polynyas. Combining information from marine diatom records and sea salt sodium and water isotope ice core records, we here document contrasting patterns in sea ice variations between coastal and open sea areas in Western Ross Sea over the current interglacial period. Since about 3600 years before present, an increase in the efficiency of regional latent-heat polynyas resulted in more coastal sea ice, while sea ice extent decreased overall. These past changes coincide with remarkable optima or minima in the abundances of penguins, silverfish and seal remains, confirming the high sensitivity of marine ecosystems to environmental and especially coastal sea ice conditions.​

Furthermore as mentioned in my previous post there is nothing out of the ordinary of Na levels from 4,400 years ago from either site.