Noah's Ark

[Obliquinaut]

Meant to deliver sarcasm. You have not only treated my position with sarcasm but with contempt.

I understand that you are unhappy that people have attempted to pick apart your science and it is probably threatening to you since you like to think of yourself as well informed on the topic. And I understand that it is frustrating that some people may have more information about topics you wish to hold forth on than you do. That is something I cannot fix for you.

The reason I dislike your position is that your position misuses science that I am pretty sure I have a bit more experience with than you and your responses are always quite "superior" without any real support.

I cannot explain it to you more simply than that. The fact that you cannot possibly imagine someone standing against your position without calling it "contempt" is more telling of your general inability to debate technical topics. Again, a problem I cannot fix for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

What puzzles me is that science hasn't yet concluded that the whole thing is.......magic (with laws that hold everything together....for now).

"For now" ... as you said.

But wait for the Tribulation, then it will be a different story.

(We won't be here though! )

 

[Obliquinaut]

What puzzles me is that science hasn't yet concluded that the whole thing is.......magic (with laws that hold everything together....for now).

Why would "Magic" need to be invoked at all? I mean no "contempt" for your position, but magic is an unnecessary explanatory variable in the system.

I can explain just about every single point in the geologic record using standard issue perfectly natural laws with ZERO magic involved.

IF, however, I started out with the presupposition that I had to believe one particular set of claims in a book of unknown authorship and those claims were in opposition to the physical evidence, then really the only explanation I would have would be "Magic" (or "miracles", to be less contemptuous of faith).

This is why I've repeatedly told you that your most strategic position is to claim Miracles and ignore physical evidence or science. They are incompatible.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I understand that you are unhappy that people have attempted to pick apart your science and it is probably threatening to you since you like to think of yourself as well informed on the topic. And I understand that it is frustrating that some people may have more information about topics you wish to hold forth on than you do. That is something I cannot fix for you.

The reason I dislike your position is that your position misuses science that I am pretty sure I have a bit more experience with than you and your responses are always quite "superior" without any real support.

I cannot explain it to you more simply than that. The fact that you cannot possibly imagine someone standing against your position without calling it "contempt" is more telling of your general inability to debate technical topics. Again, a problem I cannot fix for you.

Perhaps you should reread your responses to me. It is at best arrogant condescension. Also you have not disproven my 'scientific' assertions. In fact you haven't offered any support for your criticisms beyond just......criticism.

 

[Obliquinaut]

"For now" ... as you said.

But wait for the Tribulation, then it will be a different story.

(We won't be here though! )

I'm sorry but that is insufficient. You cannot claim that for now this position seems incorrect but one day soon it will all be revealed!

That is not a defensible position in the present.

My grandmother went to her grave at age 94 (23 years ago) believing a great deal of her adult life that the end was comin' soon. And, indeed, this belief has held sway among many believers for 2000 years now.

In the interim (which is now >2000 years) we have to work with the best available information. And interestingly this non-miracle-based concept of Flood as Allegory allows us to function in geology and do many things.

Perhaps it will be proven wrong in the fullness of time. But that is a promise that is predicated on no real data. And, in fact, the likelihood of the hypothesis (Flood as Allegory, not LIteral) is FALSE is becoming less and less.

But you won't find any scientists making 100% sure statements such as you justmade.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why would "Magic" need to be invoked at all? I mean no "contempt" for your position, but magic is an unnecessary explanatory variable in the system.

I can explain just about every single point in the geologic record using standard issue perfectly natural laws with ZERO magic involved.

IF, however, I started out with the presupposition that I had to believe one particular set of claims in a book of unknown authorship and those claims were in opposition to the physical evidence, then really the only explanation I would have would be "Magic" (or "miracles", to be less contemptuous of faith).

This is why I've repeatedly told you that your most strategic position is to claim Miracles and ignore physical evidence or science. They are incompatible.

I have proposed the behavior of a great flood upon a primitive earth as described in the story, using scientific principles in my argument. You have declared that I am wrong but have not proven that I am wrong.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Perhaps you should reread your responses to me. It is at best arrogant condescension.

My apologies.

Also you have not disproven my 'scientific' assertions

But neither have you proven them. I have provided valid criticisms of the hypotheses and you have repeatedly altered the hypothesis or made counterfactual claims.

. In fact you haven't offered any support for your criticisms beyond just......criticism.

Incorrect. I have discussed with you and provided numerous examples of how I would test against your hypothesis. I have provided critiques of your reasoning and asked how you would overcome the fact that none of your hypotheses are supported by known geologic concepts.

It is clear not everyone is made to discuss science. But I would hope you would take the critiques of your hypothesis to learn the science. But I also understand it is hard for you to take any criticism of your position. You have shown your reasoning to be less than robust and requiring so many caveats that it beggars the imagination what kind of planet you are talking about.

And trust me, in the sciences, I'm actually being quite kind to you. Scientific debate is often not all kittens and rainbows. People's failure to know the technical details often becomes a very hard lesson that they must learn.

In other words: don't take your show on the road and expect actual scientists to treat you with the kid gloves you seem to desire. Either that or take my critiques and learn some basic geology which will make your position more defensible should the data line up with it.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I have proposed the behavior of a great flood upon a primitive earth as described in the story, using scientific principles in my argument. You have declared that I am wrong but have not proven that I am wrong.

You haven't really done that.

1. You talked about Laminar flow but failed to explain why the Re would be <4000 at the interface between bottom waters and the surface of the land at the leading edge of the flood

2. You talked about rising sea levels using isostacy (either uplift of the ocean or subsidence of the land) but failed to explain why it would not leave a transgressive sequence (except to make unsubstantiated claims that the earth has almost no topography)

3. You later claimed the flood would have very little to do with Geology thereby making your first and second points untenable.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why would "Magic" need to be invoked at all? I mean no "contempt" for your position, but magic is an unnecessary explanatory variable in the system.

I can explain just about every single point in the geologic record using standard issue perfectly natural laws with ZERO magic involved.

IF, however, I started out with the presupposition that I had to believe one particular set of claims in a book of unknown authorship and those claims were in opposition to the physical evidence, then really the only explanation I would have would be "Magic" (or "miracles", to be less contemptuous of faith).

This is why I've repeatedly told you that your most strategic position is to claim Miracles and ignore physical evidence or science. They are incompatible.

Okay, I have to jump in here.

I know a lot of Christian scientists--archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists, paleontologists, biologists--who see and acknowledge miraculous things all the time. And they respond well to my personal belief that a miracle accomplished via natural means is no less a miracle.

Planet Earth's placement/location in the universe for instance. We are located with an unobstructed view of most of the visible universe that we would not have in many other locations. We are just the right distance from the sun, rotate at just the right speed, are tilted as just the right angle, and our orbit around the sun is just right for all the chemical components to work to create and sustain life. Our moon is just the right size and distance to produce beneficial tides that in turn affect a beneficial jet stream in the atmosphere and the gulf stream and other currents in the ocean. Our atmosphere itself is just the right weight and consistency to sustain life as we know it here. The placement of the large planets--Saturn and Jupiter--protect us from most incoming space objects.

All coincidence? Or by design or as you might describe it, magic?

There is absolutely no scientific explanation for how it all happened this way, while intelligent design is a perfectly plausible explanation.

And no way to prove or disprove either beyond reasonable doubt.

So was there a Noah and a massive flood? Or was he a metaphorical explanation for how it all happened way back then?

Neither of us have any way to prove or disprove either beyond reasonable doubt.

But again it broadens our scope and understanding to think about it with an open mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sorry but that is insufficient.

I can sum your post up in three words: science is myopic.

But I'd like to address the point you made about your grandmother.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

When the time comes, and if I'm alive then, your grandmother is going up before me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Our moon is just the right size and distance to produce beneficial tides that in turn affect a beneficial jet stream in the atmosphere and the gulf stream and other currents in the ocean.

You bring up a good point, Foxfyre.

I want to ask Obliquinaut this:

What caused a three-hour solar eclipse at the crucifixion?

You know as well as I do that solar eclipses only last a few minutes at most.

And when they looked up into the [night] sky, what did they see?

Did your higher education teach you anything about that? or were they more interested in things "under the sun," as Solomon put it?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Okay, I have to jump in here.

I know a lot of Christian scientists--archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists, paleontologists, biologists--who see and acknowledge miraculous things all the time. And they respond well to my personal belief that a miracle accomplished via natural means is no less a miracle.

I must disagree in principal here. I know many scientists who are Christians through and through (I used to be one myself). But "Miracles" are not allowed when discussing a natural event. While they may believe a miracle happened somewhere else, you would be hardpressed to find any Scientist who is a Christian who says "This particular event that I am investigating can only be described as a miracle" (not in a metaphorical manner).

Now perhaps you are merely referring to the overarching AWE that all scientists feel toward the amazing things in the universe. That's more of a "metaphorical" miracle. "The miracle of life", etc.

NOT the kind of miracle that explains why geologic processes would leave no evidence when there's no other workable reason for there to be no evidence.

Planet Earth's placement/location in the universe for instance. We are located with an unobstructed view of most of the visible universe that we would not have in many other locations. We are just the right distance from the sun, rotate at just the right speed, are tilted as just the right angle, and our orbit around the sun is just right for all the chemical components to work to create and sustain life.

Sorry to break up text like this, I know you don't like it but it is a separate discussion point. This is a somewhat backwards argument for life. The anthropic principle if you will. We are the product of those placements, not the the other way around. It is not miraculous but rather we are the type of life that can survive in these conditions.

There is absolutely no scientific explanation for how it all happened this way, while intelligent design is a perfectly plausible explanation.

Plausible but unnecessary to explain life.

So was there a Noah and a massive flood? Or was he a metaphorical explanation for how it all happened way back then?

Neither of us have any way to prove or disprove either beyond reasonable doubt.

There is plenty of evidence for the lack of a Global Noachian Flood. And that is saying something because it is almost impossible to prove a negative. However starting from the null hypothesis that "There was no Flood" (that's standard scientific reasoning) one can test against that hypothesis (ie look for evidence FOR the flood) and fail to find evidence thereby INCREASING the probability of a Type I error in rejecting that Null Hypothesis.

That's how this all works.

 

[HitchSlap]

Okay, I have to jump in here.

I know a lot of Christian scientists--archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists, paleontologists, biologists--who see and acknowledge miraculous things all the time. And they respond well to my personal belief that a miracle accomplished via natural means is no less a miracle.

Planet Earth's placement/location in the universe for instance. We are located with an unobstructed view of most of the visible universe that we would not have in many other locations. We are just the right distance from the sun, rotate at just the right speed, are tilted as just the right angle, and our orbit around the sun is just right for all the chemical components to work to create and sustain life. Our moon is just the right size and distance to produce beneficial tides that in turn affect a beneficial jet stream in the atmosphere and the gulf stream and other currents in the ocean. Our atmosphere itself is just the right weight and consistency to sustain life as we know it here. The placement of the large planets--Saturn and Jupiter--protect us from most incoming space objects.

All coincidence? Or by design or as you might describe it, magic?

There is absolutely no scientific explanation for how it all happened this way, while intelligent design is a perfectly plausible explanation.

And no way to prove or disprove either beyond reasonable doubt.

So was there a Noah and a massive flood? Or was he a metaphorical explanation for how it all happened way back then?

Neither of us have any way to prove or disprove either beyond reasonable doubt.

But again it broadens our scope and understanding to think about it with an open mind.

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia

 

[Obliquinaut]

What caused a three-hour solar eclipse at the crucifixion?

First off: show me that it happened. If you wish to rely on documentary evidence, please show multiple independent sources for this from different paths along totality.

Then: explain how a 3 hour eclipse would work without the world burning up. If the answer is "It was a MIRACLE" then there's no reason for me to even bother to explain it.

Did your higher education teach you anything about that?

Yes it taught me that people have proclaimed miracles throughout history. Usually they were either simply made up stories or explicable by other features unknown to the observer who reported the miracle. In either way I am unaware of any proven miracles.

or were they more interested in things "under the sun," as Solomon put it?

If you mean by "observable reality" then probably. But if you mean whatever people can imagine then I am sure you were struggling with the Ganesh Milk Miracle in 1995. How close did you come to dropping Christianity and becoming a Hindu then? If not, why not?

Did you disbelieve the Hindu Milk Miracle? If so, why?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I can sum your post up in three words: science is myopic.

And I can explain your position in three words: Religion is imaginative.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

When the time comes, and if I'm alive then, your grandmother is going up before me.

No doubt, no doubt. But it will be at least 23 years after her death and probably another 50 or after she initially started to believe the End Was Near.

And even further for the people who heard Jesus proclaim it to be imminent in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it will be at least 23 years after her death and probably another 50 or after she initially started to believe the End Was Near.

And even further for the people who heard Jesus proclaim it to be imminent in the Bible.

Well I'm sorry your grandmother relied on her "great hope" and was "comforted with these words."

I'm sure you set her straight before she died, didn't you?

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1 Thessalonians 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

And now that you've seen the light (electromagnetic spectrum?) and thrown off the Light (Jesus Christ) and all this ...

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... as well as this ...

Psalm 51:12a Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation;

... what is your "great hope"?

 

[lesliedellow]

And now that you've seen the light (electromagnetic spectrum?) and thrown off the Light (Jesus Christ) and all this ...

They may not have known what light was in Jesus' day, but they would sure have been able to recognise figurative language.

 

[AV1611VET]

First off: show me that it happened.

Sure thing, chief.

You want me to show you Jesus' footprints on the sea of Galilee as proof He walked on water as well?

If you wish to rely on documentary evidence, please show multiple independent sources for this from different paths along totality.

There weren't any paths of totality.

It wasn't a solar eclipse.

Then: explain how a 3 hour eclipse would work without the world burning up.

You mean like Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego didn't burn up? or the burning bush that Moses saw that didn't burn up?

If the answer is "It was a MIRACLE" then there's no reason for me to even bother to explain it.

What answer? you haven't given me one yet.

What are you waiting on? peer review?

 

[AV1611VET]

They may not have known what light was in Jesus' day,

It's that thing that chased away the darkness.

Just ask any blind person today who stared at the sun on [science tested / science approved] LSD.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, I have to jump in here.

I know a lot of Christian scientists--archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists, paleontologists, biologists--who see and acknowledge miraculous things all the time. And they respond well to my personal belief that a miracle accomplished via natural means is no less a miracle.

From my experience when miracles are investigated they turn out not to be so miraculous after all. That is one reason why the Amazing Randi's challenge went unclaimed.

Planet Earth's placement/location in the universe for instance. We are located with an unobstructed view of most of the visible universe that we would not have in many other locations. We are just the right distance from the sun, rotate at just the right speed, are tilted as just the right angle, and our orbit around the sun is just right for all the chemical components to work to create and sustain life. Our moon is just the right size and distance to produce beneficial tides that in turn affect a beneficial jet stream in the atmosphere and the gulf stream and other currents in the ocean. Our atmosphere itself is just the right weight and consistency to sustain life as we know it here. The placement of the large planets--Saturn and Jupiter--protect us from most incoming space objects.

Somebody filled you with a load of nonsense. The list of "just rights" that you listed are not "just right". The Goldilocks zone is much larger than you were told. There are quite a few pieces of work on it and depending on what one argues the zone goes inside of Venus to out past Mars, though most put it from about 2/3 of the way from Earth to Venus and from Earth to Mars:

Circumstellar habitable zone - Wikipedia

All coincidence? Or by design or as you might describe it, magic?

Yep, coincidence, and not a very big one.

There is absolutely no scientific explanation for how it all happened this way, while intelligent design is a perfectly plausible explanation.

You really should not get your "science" from creationist sites.

And no way to prove or disprove either beyond reasonable doubt.

So was there a Noah and a massive flood? Or was he a metaphorical explanation for how it all happened way back then?

Neither of us have any way to prove or disprove either beyond reasonable doubt.

That is not true. Tell me which version of the flood you believe in and I can explain to you why it did not happen. Scientists refuted that idea far past a reasonable doubt long ago.

But again it broadens our scope and understanding to think about it with an open mind.

But as the saying goes, not with a mind so open that it fall out onto the kitchen floor.

If you have an open mind I am willing to discuss why we know that it did not happen, but I need details of your version of the ark story.