Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

[Radrook]

Where did I make such a statement? And it appears that though Jesus was a rather good philosopher, for his time, it appears that is all that he was. The "Ransom Sacrifice" is merely bad theology.

Well, first, I didn't realize it was you who had made that statement. But since it is you, and I know how thorough you are in your examination of data, then I will assume that you do understand what is being taught about Jesus in all its nuances and are just unceremoniously rejecting it as hogwash. Which of course is your right to do so just as it is our right to believe that he is indeed our Lord and savior and that the Flood account is indeed historically accurate.

 

[Radrook]

Ultimately that is the problem with Creation Scientists and Biblical Literal "Science" that tries to "prove" the Noachian Flood or the YEC idea. Ultimately the ONLY way it works is if there is a miracle involved.

I find it somewhat telling that even Creationists feel the need to justify their beliefs through reliance on data. And when that falls apart the argument just gets more desperate until at some point they DO have to wave their hands and say "God Did It".

Seems they could save a lot of time and heartache if they just start off at that point. They could then remove themselves from the discussion of actual data and understanding and leave the real science to do its job (from which they benefit daily).

The problem is that you confuse illogically based unsubstantiated baseless beliefs buttressed with a blatant disregard for cogent reasoning with real science. Up to this point all the arguments specifically presented in the video have been totally ignored. So if indeed they are defective why not bring in the relevant refutations instead of making general denigrating statements concerning the people who disagree with your view?

 

[aachen_hexagon]

The problem is that you confuse illogically based unsubstantiated baseless beliefs buttressed with a blatant disregard for cogent reasoning with real science.

I have already address the science arguments you have posted earlier. You might wish to read them.

So if indeed they are defective why not bring in the relevant refutations instead of making general denigrating statements?

I have addressed scientific points. If you would like to discuss any one single point from your creationist video I would be glad to. Whichever is your favorite.

Of course I have already gone into some detail about the CHEMICAL arguments you seem to prefer. So if you would like to discuss any chemical argument I would be glad to.

 

[Radrook]

Let's cut to the chase here: A true global flood (i.e. covering every area of land and every mountain) is scientifically and physically impossible. Therefore, if you want to argue it happened, you have to argue it as a supernatural/miraculous event. Such events are, by definition, not subject to scientific inquiry, and thus there cannot be scientific evidence for them.

Then you need to specifically hone in on the evidence presented in the video and prove why it is bogus via a detailed counterargument. Otherwise your statement is mere unsubstantiated opinion..

 

[Radrook]

That is why I get rather irate about such articles.

So what exactly is it about the following statement that you find wrong?

Water in the Rock

Pearson’s team confirmed that ringwoodite, due to its crystalline structure, is able to hold a great deal more water than common forms of olivine, between 1 and 2 weight%. “Now that might not sound like a lot of water,” Dr. Snelling explains, “but when one takes into account the volume of this zone in the mantle, there could be at least as much water stored there as in all the world’s oceans.” If this sample is truly representative of the lowermost part of the mantle transition zone (between 520 and 660 kilometers) where ringwoodite should be most stable, that portion of earth’s mantle alone could be holding 1.4 x 1021 kilograms of water, which is equivalent to the mass of all the water in all the world’s oceans combined.
Oceans of Water Locked 400 Miles Inside Earth

BTW
I never heard that ringwooddite explanation before but assumed that aquifers contributed to the upwelling of water as indicated in Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what exactly is it about the following statement that you find wrong?



BTW
I never heard that ringwooddite explanation before but assumed that aquifers contributed to the upwelling of water as indicated in Genesis.

Because the water could not have come out of the mantle for the flood. Snelling knows this, he is not uneducated in geology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you need to specifically hone in on the evidence presented in the video and prove why it is bogus via a detailed counterargument. Otherwise your statement is mere unsubstantiated opinion..

You should really not use words that you do not know the meaning of. There was no evidence in those videos.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, first, I didn't realize it was you who had made that statement. But since it is you, and I know how thorough you are in your examination of data, then I will assume that you do understand what is being taught about Jesus in all its nuances and are just unceremoniously rejecting it as hogwash. Which of course is your right to do so just as it is our right to believe that he is indeed our Lord and savior and that the Flood account is indeed historically accurate.

No, I understand what Jesus taught quite well. Better than most Christians since I don't have to try to change what he said to match my personal beliefs.

 

[bhsmte]

Hilarious thread.

 

[Radrook]

You should really not use words that you do not know the meaning of. There was no evidence in those videos.

Constantly calling people ignorant and stupid and incapable of reasoning isn't conducive to conversation. So this discussion is over.

 

[Speedwell]

Ultimately that is the problem with Creation Scientists and Biblical Literal "Science" that tries to "prove" the Noachian Flood or the YEC idea. Ultimately the ONLY way it works is if there is a miracle involved.

I find it somewhat telling that even Creationists feel the need to justify their beliefs through reliance on data. And when that falls apart the argument just gets more desperate until at some point they DO have to wave their hands and say "God Did It".

Seems they could save a lot of time and heartache if they just start off at that point. They could then remove themselves from the discussion of actual data and understanding and leave the real science to do its job (from which they benefit daily).

But what they really want to do is "prove" Special Creation and the Flood with "real science" so that they can force us to accept their version of Christianity whether we like it or not. So retreating into miracles is not really an option for them.

 

[Radrook]

Well, for the record, I don't think you watched both of those videos, since you responded in only 13 minutes.

And if I'm wrong ... and you have watched them before ... then just put it on my tab.

They seem to prefer to dismiss the video data without addressing it.

 

[aachen_hexagon]

....

 

[AV1611VET]

They seem to prefer to dismiss the video data without addressing it.

So I noticed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Constantly calling people ignorant and stupid and incapable of reasoning isn't conducive to conversation. So this discussion is over.

I have not done so to you. Though you have shown limitations in your ability to reason. That is usually self inflicted with creationists. Why did you get mad? You keep using terms such as "evidence" that you clearly do not understand. For some reason creationists are scared to death to learn what is and what is not evidence. That indicates that deep down inside they know that they do not have any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They seem to prefer to dismiss the video data without addressing it.

There is no data there. I offered to discuss it with you if you brought up claims from the video yourself. Anecdotes are not "data". Clear lies are not "evidence". Snelling knows better. I will not willingly watch a liar.

 

[mnorian]

Mod hat on

By the OP's request
Carry on.​

 

[aachen_hexagon]

I am loathe to watch more videos full of trash science most of which I've heard before, but when I see someone post videos and then DEMAND others respond to them (because they themselves could never formulate a suite of things in the videos they understand or why they agree with them), I often find myself honor bound to respond. And it is ALWAYS a waste of my time. ALWAYS. But I will attempt to slog through his videos and reply. I've got some time.