Noah's Ark

[Obliquinaut]

Sure thing, chief.

I gave you the out to claim it was all a miracle at which point I'm in no position to explain it at all. I am free to disbelieve it because I've got no experience with a real miracle.

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

If YOUR answer is that it was a Miracle then I don't have to explain anything.

What are you waiting on? peer review?

No, peer review usually reveals most miracles to be unlikely. But I cannot make any universal negative claims.

 

[Obliquinaut]

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

Don't get me wrong, I dearly loved my grandma. Probably more than anyone else in my entire family. EVERYONE who ever interacted with our family loved my grandma. And I would never have dreamed of trying to take that happiness from her anymore than I'd like to take it from you!

I was merely pointing out you want people to wait until the Tribulation to see the "truth" and I'm merely pointing out that that is no where on the horizon (certainly not near as you claimed) so we are left only with workable systems and science does that just fine.

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

Why would I do that? Have I done that to you? Plus at the time I believed in God, so why would I do anything like that?

I don't want you to disbelieve in miracles, I'm just saying that we can't really be talking about the same thing if you want to somehow make the science comport with the miracle. They are non-overlapping.

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,

You keep going on about this as if it somehow makes becoming an atheist impossible. If that's what you believe then fine, but don't expect ME to adhere to YOUR rules (or the rules you interpret from your reading of the bible).

... what is your "great hope"?

Hmmm, that people can take care of each other.

Beyond that I have no "great hope". I have no desire to live forever. I have no need of it. I would hope that my personal vanity will be quenched sufficiently that I can always be sanguine about that, but my "discipline" comes from trying to walk away from that hackneyed conceit that we must live forever to have value.

Part of me is kind of thrilled by the idea of annihilation. Sure I won't be around to enjoy whatever good things happen in some distant future, but by the same token I won't have to endure any sadness or pain either. The idea of a finite life kind of makes it all the more interesting.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's that thing that chased away the darkness.

They may not have had the answers, but, if they were at all reflective, they would have puzzled over the same sort of questions scientists do today.

Such as, what is this mysterious stuff that both the Sun and the candle give off, which enables us to see? What is it made of?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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

It's that thing that chased away the darkness.

They may not have had the answers, but, if they were at all reflective, they would have puzzled over the same sort of questions scientists do today.

Such as, what is this mysterious stuff that both the Sun and the candle give off, which enables us to see? What is it made of?

No, they simply believed, with none of the ungodly unrighteous worry or so-called 'science' of mankind to disrupt their strong and peaceful and righteous child-like faith.

Technology/ science/ garbage/ man's ways did not and have not helped anyone towards eternal life nor righteous holy character in Christ Jesus,
as disclosed all through the Scriptures (the folly of mankind's learning falsely called 'knowledge' - which leads men away from the Creator)..

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My apologies.



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.



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.

Perhaps you should seek further clarification before asserting that I'm wrong. I'll happily oblige.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, they simply believed, with none of the ungodly unrighteous worry or so-called 'science' of mankind to disrupt their strong and peaceful and righteous child-like faith.

Technology/ science/ garbage/ man's ways did not and have not helped anyone towards eternal life nor righteous holy character in Christ Jesus,
as disclosed all through the Scriptures (the folly of mankind's learning falsely called 'knowledge' - which leads men away from the Creator)..

What arant rubbish. There is nothing ungodly about having an enquiring mind. And if you are that anti-science, stop being a flaming hypocrite, and switch off that computer/smart phone. Better yet, throw it away.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if you are that anti-science, stop being a flaming hypocrite, and switch off that computer/smart phone. Better yet, throw it away.

... Here we go again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

... Here we go again.

He has a valid point. It is rather hypocritical to rely on science and technology and to deny science and technology.

Creationist rarely put their money where their mouth is.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Perhaps you should seek further clarification before asserting that I'm wrong. I'll happily oblige.

I believe I have sought further clarification all along. Which is why I had to keep chasing your evolving point.

You presented information that didn't seem to comport with reality but you provided no real justification for your hypothesis, so I had to point out that as stated your hypothesis could be tested (and would likely fail) by any number of known geologic processes.

I assume you are wrong until you support your claims. Sorry, you have given me no real reason to assume otherwise.

 

[HitchSlap]

He has a valid point. It is rather hypocritical to rely on science and technology and to deny science and technology.

Creationist never* put their money where their mouth is.

Fix'd.

*edit mine

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

What is "Re", and where did you get <4000? The best I can do is to draw you a picture of what I mean. The only diagram I found in my search that explains what I mean is copyrighted and unavailable to insert in my post. Most other diagrams of laminar flow can't be applied to 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)

I said it wouldn't leave substantial evidence of a transgressive sequence, which according to my understanding would take a much longer time period than a few hours and require water movements different from the flood. Regarding topography I said that the earth is mostly flat with gentle hills and with some mountainous areas.

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

My point was that the 'geology' was already in place when the hydrological event took place. The flood didn't affect geology very much given the scope of the flood. You presented landforms that may seem plentiful but are still few given the entire land mass of the earth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I believe I have sought further clarification all along. Which is why I had to keep chasing your evolving point.

You presented information that didn't seem to comport with reality but you provided no real justification for your hypothesis, so I had to point out that as stated your hypothesis could be tested (and would likely fail) by any number of known geologic processes.

I assume you are wrong until you support your claims. Sorry, you have given me no real reason to assume otherwise.

I said that water likes to flow around things rather than over them. You said this is wrong. Where does that leave us?

 

[Obliquinaut]

What is "Re", and where did you get <4000?

That is the REYNOLDS NUMBER. It is a dimensionless number that helps you determine if you are in the LAMINAR or TRUBULENT flow regimes.

You can read more about it here: Reynolds Number

 

[Obliquinaut]

I said that water likes to flow around things rather than over them. You said this is wrong. Where does that leave us?

No, I did NOT say that. I said that there is plenty of reason to assume that the contact between an advancing front of water and the surface of the ground would tend to lead to erosion. I also noted (with many examples) of where water would be channeled thus increasing the flow rate locally. And I explained how CORRELATION worked over a broad geographic distribution.

So, again, you are incorrect in characterizing my statements. In this case you are 100% WRONG.

 

[Heissonear]

Sure thing, chief.

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

There weren't any paths of totality.

It wasn't a solar eclipse.
You mean like Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego didn't burn up? or the burning bush that Moses saw that didn't burn up?

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

What are you waiting on? peer review?

Science has become an idol for many, how things are to be seen and understood.

The Scriptural items you pointed out cannot be scientifically determined. The Power and Substance involved was beyond the natural, physical process realm.

Some think if science cannot explain it then it never happened. Like if science is the baseline to determine what is real and if it happened.

Scientifically finding Jesus's footprints in the water is a no go. Some let science close the door to events brought about through Power from on High.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Science has become an idol for many, how things are to be seen and understood.

The Scriptural items you pointed out cannot be scientifically determined. The Power and Substance involved was beyond the natural, physical process realm.

Am I correct in assuming it would be idolatrous to discount miracles when a scientific explanation using natural processes can describe the event but it would not comport with the literal language of the bible, but it would not be idolatrous to simply assume that the words of the Bible are literally true even when the evidence is not in support of the claim?

Some think if science cannot explain it then it never happened. Like if science is the baseline to determine what is real and if it happened.

Hmmm, there's a logic error in there somewhere. Yeah, it's the first sentence there. If science can't explain it they may agree something happened (assuming there is evidence for it) but they may withhold judgement of how it occurred in order to explain it later.

Scientifically finding Jesus's footprints in the water is a no go. Some let science close the door to events brought about through Power from on High.

Scientists wouldn't "disprove" Jesus' walking on water by saying they can't find a footprint in water. No, the way science works is to start off with a null hypothesis: "Jesus didn't walk on water" and test against that.

Now of course they wouldn't look for footprints on water since that is patently absurd. BUT they might look for what Jesus was described as being: fully human (we'll ignore the fact that he is also fully God for the time being). Being fully human he would have mass and density. Since most humans are incapable of walking on water (owing to a mass too large to be supported by water's surface tension) and a density that likely made floating at the surface unlikely we will assume for now that he didn't walk on water (I fail to reject the null hypothesis).

If I reject the null hypothesis but have no reason to do so I am making an irrational choice.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, I did NOT say that. I said that there is plenty of reason to assume that the contact between an advancing front of water and the surface of the ground would tend to lead to erosion. I also noted (with many examples) of where water would be channeled thus increasing the flow rate locally. And I explained how CORRELATION worked over a broad geographic distribution.

So, again, you are incorrect in characterizing my statements. In this case you are 100% WRONG.

I suggest that you go back and re-read that exchange. You 'went off' on that rant totally ignoring what I had proposed.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I suggest that you go back and re-read that exchange. You 'went off' on that rant totally ignoring what I had proposed.

I NEVER CLAIMED WATER WILL NOT FLOW AROUND MOUNTAINS. Sorry, but there is no reason why I would say that EVER.

I can't imagine a reality in which I would say water will not flow around things.

Wow.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is the REYNOLDS NUMBER. It is a dimensionless number that helps you determine if you are in the LAMINAR or TRUBULENT flow regimes.

You can read more about it here: Reynolds Number

So you want me to calculate the Reynolds Number for the flood?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I NEVER CLAIMED WATER WILL NOT FLOW AROUND MOUNTAINS. Sorry, but there is no reason why I would say that EVER.

I can't imagine a reality in which I would say water will not flow around things.

Wow.

Go back and read the original exchange. I think you are guilty of 'skimming' what I say instead of reading it carefully.