Noah's Ark

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Go back and read the ... exchange.

(ick, no! rather not!)

 

[Obliquinaut]

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

I'd be glad if you simply limited it to water as it rose up over the continents. You don't have to do the entire flood, just tell me how a wedge of water moving up over the continents sufficient to bring 4X10^19 cubic feet of water up on the continents in 150 days would somehow not produce sufficient turbulent flow to cause extensive erosion.

That'd be nice.

(And remember as I've said about a billion times now: I'm not talking about the case of 8000' of water sitting on the continents where presumably you might have no significant flow on the bottom...but rather the fronts as the flow comes up on the continent).

 

[Obliquinaut]

Go back and read the original exchange.

Look, you claimed I said water wouldn't flow around a mountain. SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THAT.

Just...SHOW ME! Honestly! If you make a claim SUPPORT IT!!

Be a man for heaven's sake!

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Unfortunately, the only evidence we have of that three-hour solar eclipse is the Biblical account. And unfortunately the only thing the Biblical account can prove is that a particular passage exists. Unless there is supporting evidence that a passage is true or actually happened, the source itself will not convince the unbeliever.

I think the unbeliever is likely going to be secure in his/her belief that such stories are religious myths with no basis in fact.

The whole story of Jesus itself is pretty incredible in almost all aspects. So how is it that perfect sane and well educated men and women believe while the Atheist cannot and doesn't even want to?

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.--I Corinthians 2:14​

I think that passage, indeed all of I Cor 2, covers a broad spectrum of Biblical events and miracles.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

I do wish this forum allowed for a quick edit or addition. I also intended to say in my post #1545 that the 'three hour eclipse' may not have been an eclipse at all. The earthquake described during that period might have been caused from a small volcanic eruption or from a haboob or dust storm caused by the earthquake or any number of things that could have blotted out the sun for a time. The scriptures are not specific but agree that there was localized geological violence sufficient to tear the temple curtain.

As I wholeheartedly believe, a miracle by natural means is no less a miracle.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'd be glad if you simply limited it to water as it rose up over the continents. You don't have to do the entire flood, just tell me how a wedge of water moving up over the continents sufficient to bring 4X10^19 cubic feet of water up on the continents in 150 days would somehow not produce sufficient turbulent flow to cause extensive erosion.

That'd be nice.

(And remember as I've said about a billion times now: I'm not talking about the case of 8000' of water sitting on the continents where presumably you might have no significant flow on the bottom...but rather the fronts as the flow comes up on the continent).

Sure but let's first agree on the condition of the earth's surface at that time, within the framework of the bible story.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Just as an aside. I read an article written by a scientist who asserted that the water in our lakes changes several times in a year due to the inflow and outflow of the rivers and streams that feed it.

Our chain of lakes are called "drainage lakes" and are actually wide places in that river. What the scientist implied was that the whole lake was refreshed with new water several times a year.

Of course this is false as the river flows through the lake in a somewhat narrow channel or path. Much of the water isn't 'refreshed' much unless wind driven currents, lake turnover, or seepage, moves that water into the main channel.

I figure this out all by myself with no formal training in limnology or hydrology. So there.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Sure but let's first agree on the condition of the earth's surface at that time, within the framework of the bible story.

Knock yourself out.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Knock yourself out.

Mind if I paraphrase that. "It's not at all important as a factor in erosion."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.



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.



Plausible but unnecessary to explain life.



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.

Again I don't respond to chopped up posts.

I will tell my cousin with PhDs in archaeology and anthropology that he is not allowed to believe in miracles that happen scientifically. I would tell his father who headed those divisions at the university that he wasn't allowed to believe that either since I got the phrase "a miracle by natural means is no less a miracle" from him.

Or other scientists I know who applaud that concept.

Einstein is said to have responded to Reichenstein's theory that uncertainty in quantum mechanics allowed for the possibility of miracles. Einstein said something to the effect that he could not accept Reichenstein's argument because it proposed "

Reichenstein asks Einstein about Arthur Liebert’s theory that uncertainty and in-determinism in quantum mechanics allows for the possibility of miracles. Einstein replied that he could not accept the argument because it dealt with "a domain in which lawful rationality does not exist. A miracle, however, is an exception from lawfulness; hence, there where lawfulness does not exist, also its exception, i.e., a miracle, cannot exist.”

 

[Obliquinaut]

Mind if I paraphrase that. "It's not at all important as a factor in erosion."

How do you figure? The surface roughness will be quite important. I'm just curious how you are going to characterize it and how your numbers will work out. I'd go with rms roughness and explain to me how the surface of the earth at the time of Noah lacked sufficient surface roughness to induce turbulent flow.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Mind if I ask why the head-slap? Did my personal opinion in relation to my own desires offend you in some way? Or did my opinion of a topic related only to myself somehow strike you as stupid?

I'm genuinely curious here.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Again I don't respond to chopped up posts.

I will tell my cousin with PhDs in archaeology and anthropology that he is not allowed to believe in miracles that happen scientifically. I would tell his father who headed those divisions at the university that he wasn't allowed to believe that either since I got the phrase "a miracle by natural means is no less a miracle" from him.

Just let me know when they invoke "Miracle" in any publication they write in the actual scientific literature.

And again, I'm not saying that scientists who are Christians don't believe in miracles. But it is not an appropriate method to explain an event in the sciences. Sorry if that point was not clear.

The best your cousin with the PhD in anthropology would likely be able to say if he or she ran into a case where they were completely incapable of explaining why a certain feature shows up in a dig or on a skeleton is that they are unable to explain it as of this time.

I would love to see them try to get a conclusion publishes along the lines of: "This item is found in the wrong strata and it is clearly because a miracle happened."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Mind if I ask why the head-slap? Did my personal opinion in relation to my own desires offend you in some way? Or did my opinion of a topic related only to myself somehow strike you as stupid?

I'm genuinely curious here.

No, I'm far from being offended, Obliquinaut. Nor did I find your response to be lacking in intelligence. However, I just can't fathom the value of someone else's expressed contentment with an oncoming annihilation/oblivion. My response to this was simply a personal, but nevertheless philosophical, head-slap.

Since this is the physical sciences forum, I won't keep you from the discussion by further digression...

By the way, welcome to CF!

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[VirOptimus]

Just as an aside. I read an article written by a scientist who asserted that the water in our lakes changes several times in a year due to the inflow and outflow of the rivers and streams that feed it.

Our chain of lakes are called "drainage lakes" and are actually wide places in that river. What the scientist implied was that the whole lake was refreshed with new water several times a year.

Of course this is false as the river flows through the lake in a somewhat narrow channel or path. Much of the water isn't 'refreshed' much unless wind driven currents, lake turnover, or seepage, moves that water into the main channel.

I figure this out all by myself with no formal training in limnology or hydrology. So there.

In other words, you don know because you dont know the physics of water. You are guessing, and science is not done on guessing. Its done through dilligent work, observation, calculations and experiment.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.


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



Yep, coincidence, and not a very big one.



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



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 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.

You must not have gotten the memo that I don't respond to chopped up posts like this. Most especially those that come across as condescending and insulting. But do have a wonderful afternoon.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just let me know when they invoke "Miracle" in any publication they write in the actual scientific literature.

And again, I'm not saying that scientists who are Christians don't believe in miracles. But it is not an appropriate method to explain an event in the sciences. Sorry if that point was not clear.

The best your cousin with the PhD in anthropology would likely be able to say if he or she ran into a case where they were completely incapable of explaining why a certain feature shows up in a dig or on a skeleton is that they are unable to explain it as of this time.

I would love to see them try to get a conclusion publishes along the lines of: "This item is found in the wrong strata and it is clearly because a miracle happened."

Discussing miracles in a scientific paper would not be something any of us would likely do nor would we discuss such in math or geometry class or when teaching design or any how to subject. But we certainly those who are Christian would use the term in philosophical or religious discussion in which it would be appropriate. Even Einstein expressed Spinoza's God as an explanation for perfection that was impossible to accept as pure chance or accident--his concession to some sort of universal intelligence involved in the process. I would guess that he would not say there were no such things as miracles, but he would characterize them as being rationally ordered within the laws of nature/science even though we did not yet have the means to explain them.

I will admit to some curiosity as to what convinced you that miracles did not exist? I can fully understand not accepting Noah and the flood as a literal event as i don't do that either, but my faith in God and miracles was not shaken when I came to that conclusion. Nor do those who believe it literally bother me.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I will admit to some curiosity as to what convinced you that miracles did not exist? I can fully understand not accepting Noah and the flood as a literal event as i don't do that either, but my faith in God and miracles was not shaken when I came to that conclusion. Nor do those who believe it literally bother me.

Hmmm. First off I don't believe that I said miracles do not exist. That would be a universal negative claim and I am unable to support universal negatives, but here's my reason for failing to believe in miracles:

I have seen zero evidence in my life of a miracle either directly or indirectly (through reading or watching TV etc.) I have seen PLENTY of examples of people claiming a miracle when it was not a miracle (ie could be explained through something far more mundane and non-miraculous or was outright deception).

As such I have no reason to assume that miracles are real.

If I am shown a miracle then perhaps I will reconsider my position.

Hope that is clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself!