Noah's Ark

[Obliquinaut]

Science is so myopic, what CAN we discuss?

Science isn't myopic...it is like a sporting event. There are specific rules. Rules which limit the extent of assurity you can have on any given claim.

It's more than just the 6th grade "Scientific Method" we were all taught. It ultimately gets fleshed out in much deeper discussions of philosophy and inferential logic.

Science puts the limit that you can never know anything with 100% perfect accuracy. That is the limit of the playing field.

In Science we start with a NULL HYPOTHESIS ("there is no effect") and we test against that. In the end the best we can say (and you will see this in just about every scientific paper published) is we either REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS or we FAIL TO REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. And even then there's a needly little detail called a "p-value". This is the probability that you are making an error in rejecting the null hypothesis (a "false positive").

p is never perfectly "0". It can, at best be very, very, very, very small. But never zero.

That is how I approach my atheism! I start from the assumption that there is no God and I test against that hypothesis. It is the only truly honest way I can conceive of approaching a problem given my limitations as a flawed, finite physical being.

So when OldWiseGuy introduces an hypothesis it HAS TO HAVE A METHOD BY WHICH IT CAN BE TESTED AGAINST. Hence the "unfalsifiability" critique.

If I propose an hypothesis that "all oranges are blue" and then proceed to define every fruit that is orange colored to be "apples", then I have created an hypothesis that CANNOT, by definition, be falsified. Even if I were to find an actual orange orange it has already been defined as being an "apple". QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

I dont tell you that, I tell you, and have told you many times that science is a method used to describe physical reality.

Do you correct those who do? or just me?

 

[VirOptimus]

Do you correct those who do? or just me?

When its warranted.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, your claim that topo maps show almost no narrow canyons or deep ravines near a shoreline is a mystery. I assume you don't hunt in those areas.

I didn't say that.

They are literally EVERYWHERE

Scattered everywhere. The vast preponderance of hills and mountains allow water to flow around them. And water approaching from all sides mitigates most erosion.

No my argument is (and has been supported at least by my willingness to show examples or do math) that your points are technically incorrect.

As I've said many times now, just back up any of your arguments with citations, math, just ANYTHING. I'll consider it. (But I know you won't likely because you have no ability to do so.)

Sure. Look at a topo map of Wisconsin. There are virtually no geographic features that would require flood water to go up and over one side and cascade down the other causing great erosion. Many other regions are the same. In fact you would have to look very hard to find features that water wouldn't flow around instead of over anywhere on the continent, the high mountain valleys being an exception.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If your answer is just "magic" then we have left the realm of rationality and nothing is off the table.

We live in a world of irrational thought and behavior.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I didn't say that.



Scattered everywhere. The vast preponderance of hills and mountains allow water to flow around them. And water approaching from all sides mitigates most erosion.

Vast majority? Really? I'd ask you to back that up with a citation of any sort of fact, but I understand now that isn't your bag. You are more the ex cathedra type.

Me? I'll just rely on travels all over the world and my general knoweldge of geology.

Sure. Look at a topo map of Wisconsin. There are virtually no geographic features that would require flood water to go up and over one side and cascade down the other causing great erosion

-sigh- I don't even know where to begin on your cherry picking. Good job. You forgot to mention some of the atolls in the Pacific that are very low topography. Don't forget that.

. Many other regions are the same. In fact you would have to look very hard to find features that water wouldn't flow around instead of over anywhere on the continent.

I found one pretty quickly but I can easily find many many more.

Here's one I've actually been to: Aurlandsfjord in Norway. (Hint: a fjord connects into the ocean and is usually carved out by glaciers, meaning it provides a relatively narrow area in from the ocean):

Now if I were going to look for evidence of a GLOBAL FLOOD a couple thousand years ago I'd look in places like this. And here's the key: I'd look for many examples of places like this all over the world, on dramatically different parts of the globe.... like say THIS FJORD IN NEW ZEALAND (which I've also been to):

That's MILFORD SOUND in New Zealand's South Island. I'd look to date a transgressive event there and see if it matched the one in Norway (take a look at a map if you are unfamiliar with where these places are in relation to each other).

Then I'd go to Alaska to look here:

(I've been to the Kenai Penninsula but not so much the fjord areas). But I'd look there too!

And since the Noachian Flood supposedly occurred just a couple thousand years ago I can date things using something relatively simple like 14-C! I don't even have to rely on complex correlation based time-rock correlations! It's easy peasy!

So even if YOU can find a couple places where water would flow around an object I can find a lot of places where it had no choice but to be channelled and would leave some pretty impressive marks. And they'd all be contemporaneous!

THAT'S how science is done.

 

[Obliquinaut]

OH yeah, one other thing I'd look for to support the Contention of the Noachian Flood: I'd look for massive layers of dead animals and plants, the entirety of the world's life forms dead and buried rapidly. (WHen I say "entirety" I mean every last one of them save the 2 that were on the ark and Noah's family itself).

Because remember: the whole point of the ARk was to save all the life on earth to repopulate afterwards. But that means there would be a nearly 99.9999999999....9% die off and the associated accumulation of masses of dead plants and animals all over the earth.

Again, easy peasy, right?

 

[Obliquinaut]

We live in a world of irrational thought and behavior.

And how do we fight against that? Do we handwave science until our wrists are tired? Do we simply take some random person's word for it all and just move on?

That may work for some, but not all of us.

 

[VirOptimus]

We live in a world of irrational thought and behavior.

I dont. You dont have to. And its very detrimental to your percieved point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OH yeah, one other thing I'd look for to support the Contention of the Noachian Flood: I'd look for massive layers of dead animals and plants, the entirety of the world's life forms dead and buried rapidly. (WHen I say "entirety" I mean every last one of them save the 2 that were on the ark and Noah's family itself).

Because remember: the whole point of the ARk was to save all the life on earth to repopulate afterwards. But that means there would be a nearly 99.9999999999....9% die off and the associated accumulation of masses of dead plants and animals all over the earth.

Again, easy peasy, right?

If you think about it if everything died right now it would leave just one relatively thin layer of bones, etc. Instead we see an almost unmeasureable amount of sea life and more fossilize land life in just one relatively small formation than could all live on the Earth at once:

Why South Africa's Karoo is a palaeontological wonderland

The Karoo Super Formation covers about 2/3 of South Africa. So far over 30,000 fossils have been recovered from it and that is just scratching the surface.

"The fossiliferous beds are of great thickness. In some areas they must be 4,000 - –5,000 feet [1,200 - –1,500 m] thick; in others perhaps only 2,000 feet [600 m]. It would be a very conservative estimate that would put the average thickness at 2,000 feet [600 m]. ... I thus estimate that in the whole Karroo [Karoo] formation there are preserved the fossil remains of at least 800,000,000,000 animals.’

http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm

And that is just one formation, granted it is probably the richest in the world, but it effectively eliminates the claim that fossils came from the flood all by itself.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Vast majority? Really? I'd ask you to back that up with a citation of any sort of fact, but I understand now that isn't your bag. You are more the ex cathedra type.

Me? I'll just rely on travels all over the world and my general knoweldge of geology.



-sigh- I don't even know where to begin on your cherry picking. Good job. You forgot to mention some of the atolls in the Pacific that are very low topography. Don't forget that.



I found one pretty quickly but I can easily find many many more.

Here's one I've actually been to: Aurlandsfjord in Norway. (Hint: a fjord connects into the ocean and is usually carved out by glaciers, meaning it provides a relatively narrow area in from the ocean):

Now if I were going to look for evidence of a GLOBAL FLOOD a couple thousand years ago I'd look in places like this. And here's the key: I'd look for many examples of places like this all over the world, on dramatically different parts of the globe.... like say THIS FJORD IN NEW ZEALAND (which I've also been to):

That's MILFORD SOUND in New Zealand's South Island. I'd look to date a transgressive event there and see if it matched the one in Norway (take a look at a map if you are unfamiliar with where these places are in relation to each other).

Then I'd go to Alaska to look here:

(I've been to the Kenai Penninsula but not so much the fjord areas). But I'd look there too!

And since the Noachian Flood supposedly occurred just a couple thousand years ago I can date things using something relatively simple like 14-C! I don't even have to rely on complex correlation based time-rock correlations! It's easy peasy!

So even if YOU can find a couple places where water would flow around an object I can find a lot of places where it had no choice but to be channelled and would leave some pretty impressive marks. And they'd all be contemporaneous!

THAT'S how science is done.

You are cherry picking.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You are cherry picking.

LOL. Look, I laid out my reasoning and I showed examples widely spaced that should reveal a correlatable event.

That isn't cherry picking.

I am beginning to think you don't even know what stratigraphic correlation is! (YIKES! Is there anything in this topic that you are familiar with on a technical level? I mean correlation is like one of those things they teach in Geology 101 "Rocks for Jocks"!)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL. Look, I laid out my reasoning and I showed examples widely spaced that should reveal a correlatable event.

That isn't cherry picking.

I am beginning to think you don't even know what stratigraphic correlation is! (YIKES! Is there anything in this topic that you are familiar with on a technical level? I mean correlation is like one of those things they teach in Geology 101 "Rocks for Jocks"!)

You showed a few widely spaced examples. Mine are all over the place.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OH yeah, one other thing I'd look for to support the Contention of the Noachian Flood: I'd look for massive layers of dead animals and plants, the entirety of the world's life forms dead and buried rapidly. (WHen I say "entirety" I mean every last one of them save the 2 that were on the ark and Noah's family itself).

Because remember: the whole point of the ARk was to save all the life on earth to repopulate afterwards. But that means there would be a nearly 99.9999999999....9% die off and the associated accumulation of masses of dead plants and animals all over the earth.

Again, easy peasy, right?

Noah's flood wouldn't do that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL. Look, I laid out my reasoning and I showed examples widely spaced that should reveal a correlatable event.

That isn't cherry picking.

I am beginning to think you don't even know what stratigraphic correlation is! (YIKES! Is there anything in this topic that you are familiar with on a technical level? I mean correlation is like one of those things they teach in Geology 101 "Rocks for Jocks"!)

Did they teach "Noah's Flood 101"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And how do we fight against that? Do we handwave science until our wrists are tired? Do we simply take some random person's word for it all and just move on?

That may work for some, but not all of us.

Science's idea of rational thought cannot save us. Our problems are spiritual. Science believes if they make enough "thingy's" and "widgets" our problems will go away.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL. Look, I laid out my reasoning and I showed examples widely spaced that should reveal a correlatable event.

That isn't cherry picking.

I am beginning to think you don't even know what stratigraphic correlation is! (YIKES! Is there anything in this topic that you are familiar with on a technical level? I mean correlation is like one of those things they teach in Geology 101 "Rocks for Jocks"!)

They correlate along the mountainous coasts but most of the earth doesn't look like those areas. In fact those areas are but a very small part of the earth's land mass.

 

[Obliquinaut]

They correlate along the mountainous coasts but most of the earth doesn't look like those areas.

Sorry, I shouldn't be too brutal. As I said it is clear that not everyone has taken even an intro geology course and it is irrational to assume everyone should know basic geology. But it's always kind of frustrating to see someone make all these claims about geology while seeming to know so little about it.

This is your faith. I am NOT questioning or denigrating your faith, I'm questioning your version of geology. Your faith claims are not informed by geology so I should cut you some slack. I just wish you weren't trying to leverage geology in service to your beliefs. It isn't a good fit.

Your faith is yours and that's great. Enjoy it! But do be aware that when you try to use other people's areas of knowledge to justify it you might run into issues.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Science's idea of rational thought cannot save us.

Agreed, but we aren't talking soteriology here. We're talking Noah's Flood and you tried to use science to explain your hypotheses about that flood.

Our problems are spiritual. Science believes if they make enough "thingy's" and "widgets" our problems will go away.

If I were to make sweeping (and incorrect) generalizations about religion I'm guessing you'd take me to task if I didn't understand religion. It seems to me that you are doing the reverse of that. You make sweeping generalizations about science (incorrect) and expect everyone to give you a pass on the science.

You tried to trot out some science but it was clear you were outgunned on the topic, so now you are trying to run away from science. It's pretty clear what the game is here. I just wish we didn't have to play it over and over and over with YEC and various other literalists who wish to leverage science incorrectly to support their beliefs.

Why can't you just be happy with a "miracle" and leave science out of it?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Did they teach "Noah's Flood 101"?

Actually yeah, they did. It's part and parcel of the history of the development of geology! Every geology student learns about the development of the science from it's origins and the debates. One of the most famous geologists of all time, Nicolas Steno was an interesting character who found his science running up against a literal biblical interpretation in the 17th century. Granted he stayed with the faith and moved on to become a Bishop in the Catholic Church but the discussion was afoot from his early work on geologic relationships.

We all learn that in the 18th century the young earth and much of the Biblical Literal tradition was incapable of explaining the geology that was being investigated.

(Now to be hyperpedantic it must be noted that Werner's "Neptunism" hypothesis and the development of all rocks from a primeval ocean was not necessarily the Noachian Flood, but the general idea was somewhat related mechanistically to what many Biblical literalists might ascribe to.)