My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[Aussie Pete]

1. Was the Flood story scientifically researched?

2. If so, was it thoroughly researched to see if it comported to how it was documented in the Bible?

3. If not, what parts were researched and what parts weren't?

4. Is there anything more that can be researched?

5. What is the scientific consensus of opinion on the Flood so far?

Research: Been done, decades ago. It's being done as we speak. Scientific consensus? Who cares? There are countless youtubes on the subject. Unbelievers will stay unbelievers. Believers will continue to believe. The undecided? Up to them.

 

[Aussie Pete]

As a matter of fact... you're wrong. Faith can't be demonstrated.

Let me ask you a simple question... can my computer perform an act of faith?

The obvious answer is no. Why? Because it lacks free will. It can only do what it's programmed to do.

But the same holds true for you and me. Until we can demonstrate that we have free will we can't possibly demonstrate that we've performed an act of faith. Unfortunately, it's impossible to prove that we have free will, thus you and I may have no more capacity for acts of faith than my computer does. So any claims of faith may be nothing more than an illusion.

If a person does not have free will, how can he be held morally culpable for his actions? God gave man free will in Eden. I see nowhere that God rescinded that. The opposite, man is responsible before God (and man) for his actions. Of course, everyone has faith. Air travel depends on it. Do you test the pilots personally to see if they are competent? No. You trust them. That's faith.

 

[partinobodycular]

Of course, everyone has faith. Air travel depends on it. Do you test the pilots personally to see if they are competent? No. You trust them. That's faith.

Hmmm... well let's test that theory.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that my pilot may not be competent to perform his duties, and we may all crash and die. Or on a more timely basis, my submersible may not be as seaworthy as advertised. So while these do indeed involve acts of faith, they come with the caveat that they might actually be wrong.

But the question is... are you willing to admit that your faith in God might also be wrong? That your hallowed God may not exist?

If you're not willing to admit that, then your faith and my faith are not the same. Mine is realistic... yours isn't.

 

[The Righterzpen]

There is nothing scientific about religion, and faith is by nature unprovable... What else ya got?

"Scientific theory" is fundamentally unprovable too; because there's all manner of possible factors that can't be accounted for. Scientific theory assumes natural law does not change; yet that is an assumption and can not be proven to have been the case through the course of history.

For the measurable things that are consistent; you have two choices; it either appeared by random chance or it was intelligently designed. And the mathematical probability of random chance is pretty much 0.... Which lands on the reality that the scientists are in the same boat they accuse the religious of. It's mere belief that Bible stories didn't happen because they "couldn't". Yet you have no proof to say that they couldn't!

What else ya got?

 

[The Righterzpen]

After being painted into a corner you need to engage in this diversionary tactic of word salad and questioning my credentials as a Christian and “scientist”.
I’m am not going to play your game and it is none of your business enquiring about my profile given the obvious bigoted motives behind it.
Since you are avoiding discussing the science with me like the plague but providing “science like” snippets to @Hans Blaster like these.

The Scripture is suppose to be the authority of the Christian. So.... what's wrong with you?

Doesn't matter if you're right; it only matters if I'm right! (You haven't explained that.)

 

[The Righterzpen]

Entropy is a property of ensembles of things, not individual particles or atoms.

Here is your big opportunity to put your money where your mouth is and explain how entropy can affect the hydrogen atom and magnesium lines in the quasar spectrum.

This is pretty easy guys; read the definition of entropy.

Definition of ENTROPY

a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

No, I would not. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old, but the Cosmos is probably eternal.

So basically the cosmos is your god.

Divinity is meaningless to me as a property or otherwise. I don't really care about how you want to toss that word about.

Then why do you get mad if I call you a liar? If there's no Divine authority; your moral opinion (just like your interpretation of the data sets you look at; is no more valid then mine. (Moral relativity.)

Only if you think gods are real. I don't. And I certainly am not "suppressing" any "knowledge of god". If I knew about a god, I wouldn't not believe in any. I would certainly think it was there. (Obeying, worshipping, or even liking such a being is a completely different question, from accepting it exists. I see no reason to think any god is real based on the utter lack of evidence of any god.)

LOL - Your not going to believe in the neo-marxists until they throw yo in the gulag either; now are you? You realize this paragraph contradicts itself don't you? Or is this your admission of Romans 1? I know God exists; but I'm gong to stick my fingers in my ears and run the other way like a 4 year old. Well that's a real...... scientific thing to do!

I never said the cosmos was randomly created. (In fact I think it was uncreated and always existed.) I'm not sure how the Universe arose from the Cosmos, but that's a different question.

So the cosmos is omnipotent, immortal, omnipresent omniscient and eternal (Romans 1:25!) Or in other words; the cosmos is your God.

 

[Bradskii]

If a person does not have free will, how can he be held morally culpable for his actions? God gave man free will in Eden. I see nowhere that God rescinded that. The opposite, man is responsible before God (and man) for his actions. Of course, everyone has faith. Air travel depends on it. Do you test the pilots personally to see if they are competent? No. You trust them. That's faith.

There's a difference between a reasonable expectation and faith. Maybe you have a reasonable expectation that God exists. Or would you call it faith?

 

[Bradskii]

For the measurable things that are consistent; you have two choices; it either appeared by random chance or it was intelligently designed. And the mathematical probability of random chance is pretty much 0....

Your maths is as good as your most science.

The chances of dealing 4 aces in a row are the same thing as any other 4 cards. The odds are dependent on you nominating IN ADVANCE what is going to to be dealt.

Maybe you can give me some examples so we can investigate them. It might be fun.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Scientific theory assumes natural law does not change; yet that is an assumption and can not be proven to have been the case through the course of history.

This one bugs me the most: Yes, it is an assumption that natural laws will not change. But it is also a fact that we have never seen those natural laws change and any claims that they have are just that: claims. Anecdotes, one-off stories and such are not evidence that natural laws change.

So why is it a bad thing for scientists to say that natural laws cannot and will not change?

 

[sjastro]

This is pretty easy guys; read the definition of entropy.

Definition of ENTROPY

a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Unbelievable.
I asked you a question of how entropy can affect the hydrogen atom and the magnesium lines in a quasar's spectrum.
I did not ask you what entropy is and neither did @Hans Blaster who indirectly answered my question by explaining to you why this is not possible.
It indicates you are so comprehensively out of your depth you can't even recognize an answer let alone understands its details.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me ask you a simple question... can my computer perform an act of faith?

No.

The obvious answer is no.

Correct.

Why? Because it lacks free will.

It lacks a soul.

It only has a body.

No soul, no spirit.

 

[partinobodycular]

It lacks a soul.

It only has a body.

No soul, no spirit.

So do you believe that men can act in a manner contrary to God's will?

If not, then man's free will is an illusion and consequently acts of faith are also an illusion. We can only do what God wills us to do. Our actions are no more free than my computer's are, and our faith is just as non-existent.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

6. Would you even actually care if anyone answered in the negative or positive to any of your questions?

Seriously: you already believe that the Flood happened as described in the Bible, adding in your own unique and very a-Biblical twists onto the story, and you have said time and time and time and time again that no amount of evidence will change your mind. So why go through this song and dance every time?

I do still feel this is a very pertinent question to ask regarding any of AV's 'challenge' threads.

 

[AV1611VET]

So do you believe that men can act in a manner contrary to God's will?

Sure.

You're doing it now, as an agnostic.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Any unbeliever is a walking testament that freewill exists.

If not, then man's free will is an illusion and consequently acts of faith are also an illusion. We can only do what God wills us to do. Our actions are no more free than my computer's are, and our faith is just as non-existent.

Psalm 106:15 And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is pretty easy guys; read the definition of entropy.

Definition of ENTROPY

a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Your websearch for a dictionary definition of entropy doesn't even come close to satisfying your claim about "entropy" of atoms and affecting quasar spectra. Not. Even. Close. It's also clear that you have no idea what you are talking about regarding entropy. (The definition you found clearly says "system". An atom isn't a system.)

So basically the cosmos is your god.

I have no need for such things.

Then why do you get mad if I call you a liar? If there's no Divine authority; your moral opinion (just like your interpretation of the data sets you look at; is no more valid then mine. (Moral relativity.)

Moral relativity has nothing to do with the interpretation of data. This makes me think you know anything of data or morality. (And I don't believe for a second you don't understand why people don't like being called a liar.)

LOL - Your not going to believe in the neo-marxists until they throw yo in the gulag either; now are you?

LOL indeed. The neo-marxists are nothing. A minor fringe with no influence.

You realize this paragraph contradicts itself don't you? Or is this your admission of Romans 1? I know God exists; but I'm gong to stick my fingers in my ears and run the other way like a 4 year old. Well that's a real...... scientific thing to do!

I thought I was clear. I don't believe in god -- at all. The only "evidence" I ever had for its existence was the claims made by my elders about it. That is it. Nothing more. That was the only thing that convinced me to believe. The end of my belief was the slow shedding of the importance of that "authority". I am completely unconcerned about the possiblity that your god might exist and "punish" me for not believing in it. Not in the slightest.

So the cosmos is omnipotent, immortal, omnipresent omniscient and eternal (Romans 1:25!) Or in other words; the cosmos is your God.

You clearly don't understand what I have written. The Cosmos (the whole of everything including the Universe) almost certainly has always existed. I see no physical mechanism to create something from actual nothing, so there must have been a something (i.e., the Cosmos) prior to the start of the Universe. That does not make the Cosmos a god. It does not imply it needs worship. It certainly isn't "my* god as I have none. I have no need for one. I have no interest in finding one. Gods are not useful to me. (I don't believe anything could be omnipotent or omnipresent.)

Would you kindly stop trying to tell me what I believe. Argue the facts and ideas, not the private beliefs (or lack there of).

 

[AV1611VET]

I do still feel this is a very pertinent question to ask regarding any of AV's 'challenge' threads.

They are thought-provoking challenges, made to make you think.

What I consider my best challenge of all time here is my apple challenge:

If I created an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand, what evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

This challenge shows those who think there should be evidence for creatio ex nihilo that even they can't think of anything that would constitute evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

My second favorite of all time is my raisin bread challenge, that shows God is not a deceiver creating something in an instant of time that has age (raisins are processed grapes).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They are thought-provoking challenges, made to make you think.

What I consider my best challenge of all time here is my apple challenge:

If I created an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand, what evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

This challenge shows those who think there should be evidence for creatio ex nihilo that even they can't think of anything that would constitute evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

My second favorite of all time is my raisin bread challenge, that shows God is not a deceiver creating something in an instant of time that has age (raisins are processed grapes).

But it still begs the question: even if anyone answered negatively or positively to you questions, so what? You already have your mind made up on the matter, and they're not challenges in the slightest since you know that you're not challenging people's ideas on the ideas you put forward.

You already know there can be no evidence for the Flood ("God cleaned it all up for safety and sanitation!" after all), so what's the point of even pretending to approach this sort of thing from a scientific viewpoint?

And yes, God is not a deceiver, but all the comments and claims you put forward paint him as one.

 

[JohnEmmett]

You already know there can be no evidence for the Flood

Solon … you remember one deluge only, whereas there were many of them

From Plato's Timaeus

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Solon … you remember one deluge only, whereas there were many of them

From Plato's Timaeus

I do not care about anything you say. I need to say it.

 

[JohnEmmett]

I do not care about anything you say.

because if you did you would be wrong