Myth About the Bible - Busted!

[CoreyD]

First off, you need to stop replying with links to websites. It makes you look lazy.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.
However, that opinion is not shared by the majority of person.

Secondly, there's a difference between the assumption of "This test is going to work", which is a reasonable and human assumption to make, and the assumption you claim scientists have made about Mount Everest.

That's what you read... the assumption of "This test is going to work"? You honestly read that?

Buddy, I've repeatedly quoted and linked to the post in question twice now. There's also these amazing little arrows in the top of quoted posts that let you go back and see the actual chain of comments. But I'll be nice and humour you.

In post #16, you claim:


Tropical Wind responds in post #20 with:


You then respond in post #77 with these two comments:




I've bolded the relevant parts of the comments.

You claimed that the age of Mount Everest is based on assumption. It's clear in black and white in plain English to see. Now please answer my questions: Why do you think that scientists 'estimate on an assumption' the age of Mount Everest? What lead you to conclude such an idea?

Again... there is nothing in black and white, from me, on the age of Mount Everest.
Are you listening to me? Or yourself?

I can tell you what I actually said though.
On Assumptions and Mountains

Carmala Nina Garzione is an American geologist who is Professor of Geosciences and Dean of the College of Science at the University of Arizona. Previously, she was Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs at the Rochester Institute of Technology, and prior to that she was a professor at the University of Rochester. She was awarded the 2009 Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists.

The first paper I quoted, says this:
...scientists will have to re-evaluate tectonic processes that build high elevation plateaus, such as those in Tibet and the central Andes.

"These results really change the paradigm of understanding of how mountain belts grow," says Carmala Garzione, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences and co-author of both papers. "We've always assumed that the folding and faulting in the upper crust produced high elevation mountains. Now we have data on ancient mountain elevation that shows something else is responsible for the mountains' uplift."

Basic assumptions of science

1. There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
2. Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.
3. There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.
   • In other words, the same causes come into play in related situations and these causes are predictable. For example, science assumes that the gravitational forces at work on a falling ball are related to those at work on other falling objects. It is further assumed that the workings of gravity don’t change from moment to moment and object to object in unpredictable ways.

Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid
Scientists seek to eliminate all forms of bias from their research. However, all scientists also make assumptions of a non-empirical nature about topics such as causality, determinism and reductionism when conducting research.


The second article, says this:
...the team shows that parts of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California rose up surprisingly fast, over a period of just 1.39 million years — more than twice as fast as expected for the region.

The assumptions on how things happened or progressed in the past, has led to errors in conclusions reached.

Why did I say that scientists gave an estimation on an assumption? Simply because... they did.

"We've always assumed that the folding and faulting in the upper crust produced high elevation mountains. Now we have data on ancient mountain elevation that shows something else is responsible for the mountains' uplift."

Scientists assume there is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.
​

You are mistaken on both.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thank you for sharing your opinion.
However, that opinion is not shared by the majority of person.

Nonsensical English is still nonsensical. You are not the 'majority of person'.

That's what you read... the assumption of "This test is going to work"? You honestly read that?

In a condensed version yes since the article did not at all comment on what you said.

Again... there is nothing in black and white, from me, on the age of Mount Everest.
Are you listening to me? Or yourself?

I can tell you what I actually said though.

And then you go on and copy and paste what someone else says instead of answering my questions:
Why do you think that scientists 'estimate on an assumption' the age of Mount Everest? What lead you to conclude such an idea?

All copying and pasting does is how that you can copy and paste, and along with the fact that you bold and colour in the parts you think are relevant... well, that shows that you can do that for sure.

 

[CoreyD]

Thank you, kindly.

You make an unreasonable leap in logic from the idea that mountains can form faster than we previously expected, to the idea that we can't know how fast they formed, so it could have happened in thousands of years. This doesn't work.

There is enormous energy involved in lifting that much mass. Putting out that much energy within 6,000 years would melt the mountain and cause catastrophic earthquakes every day. Tectonic plates would have to be moving at a much greater pace. We would be able to tell if that kind of thing happened because of the devastating effects to the surface of the Earth. You wouldn't have to worry about the flood killing everybody off, because the crazy geologic (plus resulting atmospheric) effects would do it first.

Give me an experiment that shows that a mountain cannot reach the height of Mount Everest, within a period of 1 million years.

Now, it's safe to say that there were no mountains as tall as Everest 6,000 years ago. Everest itself was probably around 10-15 meters shorter. That doesn't help your case.

I take note you said probably.
How much are you willing to chop off, given that you can prove no mountain can reach the height of Everest within 1 million years?

 

[CoreyD]

Because the information you’re giving doesn’t gel. As the kids say “the math isn’t mathing.”

I guess we are seeing two different things. It looks gelled to me.

 

[Yttrium]

Give me an experiment that shows that a mountain cannot reach the height of Mount Everest, within a period of 1 million years.

?

I think we got mixed up someplace. I was saying that Everest couldn't form in 6,000 years, not 1 million years.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I guess we are seeing two different things. It looks gelled to me.

Literally three people told you where the issues are. You just keep ignoring it and announcing you’re right.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Literally three people told you where the issues are. You just keep ignoring it and announcing you’re right.

What's worse is that the links he's posted for the mountains don't even say what he claims they're saying.
The summary for the first one even says: "Two new studies by a University of Rochester researcher show that mountain ranges rise to their height in as little as two million years -- several times faster than geologists have always thought."
While the second one only talks about Sierra Nevada mountains, an entirely difference tectonic region and mountain range to the Himalayas, and 1.39 million years is still a massive length of time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just fyi:

Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

This means that, from the top of the highest mountain, up to the surface of the waters, it was 15 cubits.

The highest mountain -- (whatever it was) -- was 15 cubits underwater.

With that in mind:

To estimate the stability of the Ark, one must first determine its draft. The draft is the height that the water comes to along the side of the vessel, measured from its bottom. Dr Morris' calculations assumed a draft of 15 cubits (22.5 feet), which was the depth of the Flood waters over the highest mountains The Bible (Genesis chapter 7 verse 20). However, Collins calculated the draft by estimating the weight of the Ark - for which he gives a figure of 7240 long tons. From this, he estimated that the centre of weight would have been approximately 18.5 feet above the bottom of the Ark, and he derived a draft of 7.5 feet. A smaller draft gives a less stable vessel, and Collins points out that in ship design it is standard practice to adopt the lower estimate.

SOURCE

This simply means that, if the Ark -- by coincidence -- happened to pass over the highest mountain on earth, it was still 7.5 feet over the mountain.

More than enough to keep it from running aground.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just fyi:

Genesis 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

This means that, from the top of the highest mountain, up to the surface of the waters, it was 15 cubits.

The highest mountain -- (whatever it was) -- was 15 cubits underwater.

With that in mind:

To estimate the stability of the Ark, one must first determine its draft. The draft is the height that the water comes to along the side of the vessel, measured from its bottom. Dr Morris' calculations assumed a draft of 15 cubits (22.5 feet), which was the depth of the Flood waters over the highest mountains The Bible (Genesis chapter 7 verse 20). However, Collins calculated the draft by estimating the weight of the Ark - for which he gives a figure of 7240 long tons. From this, he estimated that the centre of weight would have been approximately 18.5 feet above the bottom of the Ark, and he derived a draft of 7.5 feet. A smaller draft gives a less stable vessel, and Collins points out that in ship design it is standard practice to adopt the lower estimate.

SOURCE

This simply means that, if the Ark -- by coincidence -- happened to pass over the highest mountain on earth, it was still 7.5 feet over the mountain.

More than enough to keep it from running aground.

I was going to ask if that draft accounted for the weight of the animals or not. Then I remembered who I was going to ask...

 

[Larniavc]

Since π is an irrational number with an infinite number of decimal places, a geometrical model representation as found in Kings will by definition be an approximation.
Similarly the Babylonians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Indians and Chinese used geometrical models to calculate π to various degrees of accuracy.
Although the Greeks introduced the idea of the irrational number, π was proven to be an irrational number in the 18th century.

In the 14th century Indian mathematicians who were centuries ahead of their Western European counterparts in the field of trigonometry found inverse trigonometric functions such as arctan(x) could be expressed as a series expansion from which π could be expressed as the series.

View attachment 355413

This series was found by the Indian mathematician Madhava in the 14th century and independently discovered by Isaac Newton’s great rival Gottfried Leibnitz three hundred years later.
By summing more terms in series resulted in a greater accuracy of π.

When π was found to be irrational the series was modified to the following.

View attachment 355418

What this equation states π is a limit, since the number of terms summed can only be finite the more terms summed the closer the limit is reached without ever attaining it.

This is illustrated by a computer code I wrote up for the Madhava-Leibnitz series summing it from 1 term to 20000 terms in increments of 10.
Note the summed terms will never reach the value of π irrespective of how many terms I used to sum the series.

View attachment 355415​

Man, I wish I were better at maths so I could grasp that. More than straight forward algebra is beyond me.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was going to ask if that draft accounted for the weight of the animals or not. Then I remembered who I was going to ask...

Let's assume -- for sake of argument -- that the Ark, sat lower in the water than the mountains were high.

Meaning it was running the risk of running aground.

Do you know what I'm going to say to that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Let's assume -- for sake of argument -- that the Ark, sat lower in the water than the mountains were high.

Meaning it was running the risk of running aground.

Do you know what I'm going to say to that?

Something something miracle?

 

[durangodawood]

Let's assume -- for sake of argument -- that the Ark, sat lower in the water than the mountains were high.

Meaning it was running the risk of running aground.

Do you know what I'm going to say to that?

The highest mountains at the time were probably thousands of miles away. So no problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

Something something miracle?

Well -- okay -- let's set miracles aside for a moment.

What are the odds of the Ark hitting the top of the highest mountain on earth at the time?

I would calculate it at 360 to 1.

Since the Ark could have moved in any direction on the compass; and since there are 360 degrees on a compass, that means the odds would be 360 to 1.

 

[AV1611VET]

The highest mountains at the time were probably thousands of miles away. So no problem.

That too.

And it only had a limited time to get there.

 

[BCP1928]

Wait! Is it seriously being proposed that Mt Everest grew to its present height from a relatively low level in the time since the flood--2350 BC according to the literalists--and nobody noticed, not even the people living there?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait! Is it seriously being proposed that Mt Everest grew to its present height from a relatively low level in the time since the flood--2350 BC according to the literalists--and nobody noticed, not even the people living there?

Psalm 65:6 Which by his strength setteth fast the mountains; being girded with power:

Pretty strong, isn't He?

 

[David Lamb]

Wait! Is it seriously being proposed that Mt Everest grew to its present height from a relatively low level in the time since the flood--2350 BC according to the literalists--and nobody noticed, not even the people living there?

I don't know whether that was being proposed. As I understand it, a world-wide flood would have caused a cataclysmic upheaval of the pre-flood landscape, including, perhaps, pushing up the rocks etc. to make the post-flood mountains higher than before the flood.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well -- okay -- let's set miracles aside for a moment.

What are the odds of the Ark hitting the top of the highest mountain on earth at the time?

I would calculate it at 360 to 1.

Since the Ark could have moved in any direction on the compass; and since there are 360 degrees on a compass, that means the odds would be 360 to 1.

I don't really think that's how probability works... but I'll be honest, I do not really care either way.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know whether that was being proposed. As I understand it, a world-wide flood would have caused a cataclysmic upheaval of the pre-flood landscape, including, perhaps, pushing up the rocks etc. to make the post-flood mountains higher than before the flood.

And such a vast output of energy to do such a thing would be easy to verify and find, since it would a catastrophic release of energy. And we find none of that in the world.