Noah's Ark

[Obliquinaut]

Demanding details is a common debate technique, but is not really necessary for this discussion.

I usually hear that from people who don't know the details.

I already supplied some details but you have mentioned almost none. So of course you would say that I guess.

It take "bed load" to mean the water moved more or less like a gracier,

-sigh-. You do realize that intro geology classes are pretty easily found all over the world, right? You could take just one.

Bed load is that which is moved along the bed of a stream without being suspended. And yes, along the bed of streams sediments do move.

The flood didn't come in that fast.

And again, here I am being the only one to actually bother with any MATH: you are moving 4x10^19 cubic feet of water over the continents in the space of 150 days (per your suggestion) and you are saying it isn't moving very fast? And that it won't somehow move fast through constrictions that are quite common on land?

As soon as the flood hit land it began a climb upward, even if ever so slightly until it hit the foothills. Water at the lower levels would stop moving while water above it would slide over that layer and keep moving until they too were stopped by the increasing elevation.

And I've told you about 5 times now that there is something in geology called a transgressive sequence which shows what sediments do when you have an ocean rising up over land.

Again, it appears you won't debate the technical details because you don't really have them. Which is probably why you wish to dismiss them.

You do what many biblical literalists who wish to leverage science for your beliefs: you throw out some technical sounding terms which you hope no one will question you on. But then when you run into people who actually know at least a little bit about the topic you are talking about, you have to decree that technical details are not important.

They were important enough when you introduced them...but they became unimportant when it became clear that some of us actually may know more than you do about them.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Being surrounded by water doesn't mean drowning in it.

And being surrounded by water means kind of knowing . what it means to be "wet".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Bed load is that which is moved along the bed of a stream without being suspended. And yes, along the bed of streams sediments do move.

And you are applying this to the flood that had but two hydologic events and lasted only one year?

And I've told you about 5 times now that there is something in geology called a transgressive sequence which shows what sediments do when you have an ocean rising up over land.

How much evidence do you think would be left by a single 'transgressive' event. And can the flood actually qualify as such an event?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And again, here I am being the only one to actually bother with any MATH: you are moving 4x10^19 cubic feet of water over the continents in the space of 150 days (per your suggestion) and you are saying it isn't moving very fast? And that it won't somehow move fast through constrictions that are quite common on land?

I think you'll find that if you look at any topographical map you'll find very few such restrictions, even in very hilly terrain. The flood waters would flow around most hills and meet the incoming water on the other side thus eliminating the 'waterfall' effect of water rushing through a restriction. Remember that the water came in from all directions, seeking it's own level everywhere as it came.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I think you'll find that if you look at any topographical map you'll find very few such restrictions, even in very hilly terrain.

Have you ever seen a topographic map? But more importantly have you ever been outside?

Here's a simple example: the La Jolla shore in southern California. Abutted by the Torry Pines Formation (if I recall correctly).

Relatively steep cliffs right at the shoreline. There are number of canyons that cut down into that but if you were to raise the ocean level here they only place it would be able to go forward would be rushing through those little canyons (like the ones above the woman's head in the picture).

I have personally been to a large number of rough shorelines in my lifetime. From the fjords of Norway to the Atlantic coast to the craggy coasts of the Pacific Northwest.

Your claim is incorrect.

 

[Obliquinaut]

And you are applying this to the flood that had but two hydologic events and lasted only one year?

Yes. Why wouldn't I? (Sorry but I don't follow your reasoning here. I mean it is abundantly clear you didn't really look at the Hjulstrom Diagram I posted earlier, and it is even more clear you don't really know much of anything about grain size or the hydrodynamics you briefly threw out several posts ago, so...)

How much evidence do you think would be left by a single 'transgressive' event. And can the flood actually qualify as such an event?

A LOT. And by your description it is a transgressive event.

I mean YOU may not understand that what you were talking about was a "thing" in geology that is pretty well known. I mean you didn't even know enough to explain it in those terms! LOL.

You see, what I see in you is an attempt to talk about science you don't really understand. It's OK! Honestly! Not everyone knows all that stuff about geology!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God sent "strong delusion" to unbelievers, not the faithful.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-13

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie ........"

That had like, nothing to do with the post you are responding to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The reality is that the world is a mess because of a false reality.

If you're talking about religion, I agree.

Look at the world around you and you will see the consequences of unbelief in a better reality.

Ow, yes, I see disastrous policy and behaviour everywhere as a direct result of people refusing to accept facts.

Consequences of thought and action is an end game, and I seem to be winning it, by most measures. The 'reality' of most of mankind is navel gazing and wishful thinking.

Uhu. Pat yourself on the back more.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Regarding science, God uses supernatural means to interfere with his creation. My position is that everything is supernatural (the 'natural' state of the universe is the absence of life) and that science is the study of the creation in a 'steady state'. Because it is actually supernatural it can be altered by the supernatural being that created it.

So how would a natural universe look differently?

It seems to me that the "rules" of nature are pretty reliable.
So, how would our observations be different if your "steady state" stuff isn't the case, and that instead some deity kickstarted the big bang with certain initial parameters and then pretty much just watched it unfold?

As has been suggested God could have 'poofed' the death of those killed in the flood, but he chose to use his creation to accomplish it.

For some reason, he also chose to hide any and all traces of this event. He even went further then that and instead of just removing any and all traces of it, he actually added plenty of false traces of the exact opposite.

Or, of course, we don't make such fantastical, irrational, unreasonable, unsupportable assumptions and just say: the evidence proves that no such event ever took place.

(and yes: proves. it factually never happened as demonstrated by geology as well as the DNA of all living things)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not about to try and 'falsify' my beliefs at this late date; they work just fine.

Ow dear.....

What he means by "unfalsifiable" is that inherent in the idea, there is no way to show it false if it is false. ie, there is no potential pathway that gets you from the idea to a disprove of the idea. There are no experiments that could show it false, if it were false.

This is a problem, because it means that if your beliefs are incorrect, you would have no way of finding out, which means that you'll be stuck believing false things.

That's not really a good thing...

Regarding flood evidence, I believe there is an abundance of it that is just not accepted as such. Probably because Noah's flood wouldn't leave such evidence. Scientists have 'debunked' the flood without having constructing a proper model to study it. It's willful ignorance.

Dude, it's really simple.
You don't even need to go into any elaborate and far fetched fantastical ideas about why it didn't leave any geological evidence. The knock-down evidence is in genetics.

Whatever "model" you come up with concerning how this flood happened, is irrelevant. All those models have 1 thing in common: the extreme numbers of life being killed. The likes of which the world has never seen before.

All living things, supposedly reduced to population sizes that our even doomed to extinction according to biology. This would leave gigantic bottlenecks in all species. No such bottlenecks = no such killing wave.

I shouldn't have to tell you, but there are no such bottlenecks observed. Anywhere.
We've sequenced the genome of plenty species by now. Not a single one so far has the required bottleneck. Yet, ALL species should have it. Instead, none do.

You can stick your head back in the sand, now.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Have you ever seen a topographic map? But more importantly have you ever been outside?

I use topo maps all the time as a hunter.

Here's a simple example: the La Jolla shore in southern California. Abutted by the Torry Pines Formation (if I recall correctly).

Relatively steep cliffs right at the shoreline. There are number of canyons that cut down into that but if you were to raise the ocean level here they only place it would be able to go forward would be rushing through those little canyons (like the ones above the woman's head in the picture).

I have personally been to a large number of rough shorelines in my lifetime. From the fjords of Norway to the Atlantic coast to the craggy coasts of the Pacific Northwest.

Did I say there were no such areas?

Your claim is incorrect.

It seems that your basic argument is insisting that mine is always wrong.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes. Why wouldn't I? (Sorry but I don't follow your reasoning here. I mean it is abundantly clear you didn't really look at the Hjulstrom Diagram I posted earlier, and it is even more clear you don't really know much of anything about grain size or the hydrodynamics you briefly threw out several posts ago, so...)



A LOT. And by your description it is a transgressive event.

I mean YOU may not understand that what you were talking about was a "thing" in geology that is pretty well known. I mean you didn't even know enough to explain it in those terms! LOL.

You see, what I see in you is an attempt to talk about science you don't really understand. It's OK! Honestly! Not everyone knows all that stuff about geology!

I know that the flood of Noah didn't look like any man has ever seen, and on an earth that man cannot imagine. What you and others are doing is projecting todays earth (surface) into a flood event that didn't happen, then claim there's no evidence for it. A classic straw man argument.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So how would a natural universe look differently?

It seems to me that the "rules" of nature are pretty reliable.
So, how would our observations be different if your "steady state" stuff isn't the case, and that instead some deity kickstarted the big bang with certain initial parameters and then pretty much just watched it unfold?



For some reason, he also chose to hide any and all traces of this event. He even went further then that and instead of just removing any and all traces of it, he actually added plenty of false traces of the exact opposite.

Or, of course, we don't make such fantastical, irrational, unreasonable, unsupportable assumptions and just say: the evidence proves that no such event ever took place.

(and yes: proves. it factually never happened as demonstrated by geology as well as the DNA of all living things)

I believe this.

Hebrews 1:2-4King James Version (KJV)

2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power................."

"All things" includes the law of physics, which God can surely interfere with at will.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you're talking about religion, I agree.

It's not adhering to religious tenets that's the problem.

Ow, yes, I see disastrous policy and behaviour everywhere as a direct result of people refusing to accept facts.

More like ignorance of truth.

Uhu. Pat yourself on the back more.

Just citing a fact (with a little dig added I must admit).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe this.

Hebrews 1:2-4King James Version (KJV)

2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power................."

"All things" includes the law of physics, which God can surely interfere with at will.

Instead of preaching, perhaps you should just answer my question....

So how would a natural universe look differently?

I already know what you believe. I'm trying to find out why you believe what you believe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not adhering to religious tenets that's the problem.

Really?
So, which tenets would that be?

Why don't you pick a specific example and then point to where and how it causes problems...

More like ignorance of truth.

Sure, that too.

Just citing a fact (with a little dig added I must admit).

Your opinions aren't facts simply because you happen to hold them.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I use topo maps all the time as a hunter.

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.

Did I say there were no such areas?

They are literally EVERYWHERE.

It seems that your basic argument is insisting that mine is always wrong.

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.)

 

[Obliquinaut]

I know that the flood of Noah didn't look like any man has ever seen

So your defense again is: the Flood left no evidence because it was unlike anything in the world and one of those things is that it will leave no evidence?

Wow. If you do go back to take a geology class at some point, also drop by the philosophy department and take a logic class.

, and on an earth that man cannot imagine.

So the Bible describes and event using normal terms (fountains, rain, flood, etc.) but these are magical and we are incapable of even beginning to understand them?

What you and others are doing is projecting todays earth (surface) into a flood event that didn't happen, then claim there's no evidence for it. A classic straw man argument.

Well, kudos at least for knowing the term "Strawman".

But here's the facts of the matter: you believe in the Flood because the BIBLE tells you so. That's fine. But science doesn't. Science says just about the opposite (barring the inability to prove a negative). So I'm left wondering why you even tried to rely on science?

And science you clearly are incapable of explaining on a technical level? Were you just hoping none of us on here had heard of "laminar flow"? That would be impressive and we'd just back down because you used a technical term?

It must be frustrating to see when someone asks you about the Re or Hjulstrom Diagrams or actual science.

 

[VirOptimus]

I believe this.

Hebrews 1:2-4King James Version (KJV)

2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power................."

"All things" includes the law of physics, which God can surely interfere with at will.

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

It answers everything and therefore nothing. You use the same nothing arguments that dad and avet use and have just as little support from physical reality, i.e. none.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Instead of preaching, perhaps you should just answer my question....

So how would a natural universe look differently?

I already know what you believe. I'm trying to find out why you believe what you believe.

It wouldn't in it's state of being "upheld".

I believe as an article of faith that the story is true. I'm not trying to prove that the flood happened, I'm speculating about how it might have happened.