Scientific proof of flood.

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

God: "ok guys, here's the way it's gonna be. There's all this misinformation running about, because you guys are fallible. There are different religions to choose from, fallacies regarding Jesus and the Bible and all that. Added on top of that, there's this evil guy Satan that I allow to wander my Creation and trying to subvert my followers. Now, I can give you the real deal now, so you have enough information to make an intelligent decision, but I'm not gonna do that until after you're dead and in the places that you've chosen, ok? Sounds good!"

Humans: uuuuuhh......what?

*giggle*

duordi, Asimov makes a good point here. The theological position that you're presenting in this thread really seems to make the Lord look capricious at his best -- and evil at his worst.

Just saying.

 

[gluadys]

You assume that this is the perfect evidence? Amazing. Anyway, the question was related to God existing, not him asking us to follow him or not.

Actually it wasn't. The original question, which duordi totally misconstrued, was this:

I believe God created an objectively real and knowable universe. What kind of universe do you think God created such that all our knowledge would be faith-based rather than evidence-based?

I have since expanded it to this:

Let me try to make it clearer.

Do you think it is true that God made a real world?

Do you think it is true that God made a world of order that follows natural laws and processes?

Do you think it is true that God equipped us with sense, intellect and reason that is capable of comprehending the orderly processes of nature?


If your answer to all the above is yes, then it follows that it does not require faith to know what the orderly processes of nature are. All it takes is study.

If you hold that it requires faith to believe in a scientific conclusion, then you must answer "no" to one or more of those three questions. Which one(s) will you answer "no" to?

 

[duordi]

I don't follow your logic here. Nor do I understand what free will has to do with being able to study nature.



This is all beside the point. I wasn't making a statement about salvation. I was making a statement about creation.

Let me try to make it clearer.

Do you think it is true that God made a real world?

Do you think it is true that God made a world of order that follows natural laws and processes?

Do you think it is true that God equipped us with sense, intellect and reason that is capable of comprehending the orderly processes of nature?


If your answer to all the above is yes, then it follows that it does not require faith to know what the orderly processes of nature are. All it takes is study.

If you hold that it requires faith to believe in a scientific conclusion, then you must answer "no" to one or more of those three questions. Which one(s) will you answer "no" to?



Correct on all counts. That is why sandstone (and other sedimentary rocks) are not dated radiometrically. Igneous rocks (which are derived from molten material) are those used for radiometric dating.

I will also ask you questions.

Would you not allow God to do something you do not understand?
Or must He limit Himself to your abilities to comprehend?
Will you put God on a leash as you do your dog?

As for me I do not pretend to know the depths of Gods charictor.
Or the limits of His universe.
I see and understand God and his universe as I understand shadows.
But the real truth of what He is I can not know yet.

The universe is designed like a parable for they are both created by God.
To the one who desires Gods true charictor they are understood containing logic and beauty.
To the one who will not accept Gods good charictor but must think of God as evil uncaring, non-existent or unenvolved, both Gods parables and God creation has little purpose.

Lets assume you accomplish your goal and "prove" in your own opnion everything can be caused by "natural" events.

What will you have accomplished.
A non-involved God makes no demands but gives no forgivness.


Regarding dating.

Fine I will use molten material it makes no logical difference.

How long has the the maerial reamained molten?
And does the molten material contain decay elements?

When the molten material solidifies does the radioactive clock reset by eliminating all decay elements?

No but you are measureing the material and not the rock.

And how did the molten material get radioactive material in it?

Were less complicated atoms created first step by step until radioactive elements were formed or did radioactive elements magically appear?

How do you know that the trace elements are not part of an unfinished process which would have created more radioactive elements if the conditons for the process had continued?

So for your dating system to be correct, the radioactive elements must magically appear without a trace of construction elements.
And when the rock is formed all previous decay elements magically disappear.

Your faith is great.



Duane

 

[gluadys]

I will also ask you questions.

So you will ask questions but you will not answer mine. Why should I answer yours if you will not answer mine?

Regarding dating.

Fine I will use molten material it makes no logical difference.

How long has the the maerial reamained molten?

I don't know that it matters.

And does the molten material contain decay elements?

When the molten material solidifies does the radioactive clock reset by eliminating all decay elements?

My understanding is that a number of decay products are removed by the liquification of the rock e.g. argon gas. But you should read the links I gave you and follow up with other scientific papers to get all the details. This is not my field of expertise.

No but you are measureing the material and not the rock.

And how did the molten material get radioactive material in it?

Various elements are distributed both in the earth's crust and in the mantle beneath.

Were less complicated atoms created first step by step until radioactive elements were formed or did radioactive elements magically appear?

When? At the beginning of the universe or during a process on earth? I already described the chronology of the beginning of the universe. All the elements on/in the earth were present when the earth was formed. They don't need to be formed anew whenever a volcano erupts.

 

[duordi]

Here, I thought the stock market crash was caused by margin buying and over speculation and it didn't help that people freaked and defaulted on their loans.

What the heck is morally wrong with giving rights to people? I rather like being able to vote, go to an engineering school, get a degree, and be recognized in the field (which I'll admit is still hard). What is morally wrong about that?

Cocaine's for horses and not for men...

There was no judgement intended on my part as they made choices based on what they knew at the time.
The intent of the paragraph was to indicate the change in social beliefs at the time.

Duane

 

[Girl_4_God]

Has anyone ever heard of Kent Hovind? He is a creationist. He has some really good creations vrs. evolution movies
Jenny

 

[Matthew777]

Dude. I don't even know why we need to debate this anymore. There is only enough water in the earth to flood 22% of the earth's surface. This does not mean that Noah's flood did not happen; it was a local Mesopotamian event.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[Lucretius]

Has anyone ever heard of Kent Hovind? He is a creationist. He has some really good creations vrs. evolution movies
Jenny

Yeah, Hovind is just one of those guys who is able to confuse people who know nothing about science. Talk about taking advantage of the idiot masses!

 

[Dal M.]

He is a creationist.

This is true.

He has some really good creations vrs. evolution movies

This is not. Still, if you'd like to sing Kent's praises, I suggest you start a new thread. It will be enthusiastically received, I promise.

 

[Tomk80]

There was no judgement intended on my part as they made choices based on what they knew at the time.
The intent of the paragraph was to indicate the change in social beliefs at the time.

Duane

That is not true. I'll quote you again:

The great depression started with the stock market crash of 1929 and was caused by moral chaos during the decade before. Questioning of commonly held moral and social standards was commonpleace. Gay rights, women’s rights, and acceptance of drug use was a sign of the times. Coke ( the soft drink ) had cocaine (the drug) in it, that is why it is called Coke today.

You did not simply indicate a change in social beliefs. You specifically stated that a change in moral beliefs caused the stock market crash. Sheseala answered this by providing the normal explanation for this (ie, no, not changing morals but irresponsible envesting was the cause). You have not provided sources for your explanation, you have not given a response to this yet and as far as all of us know, what you are saying in the above is just plain false. Care to back up your statement?

 

[gluadys]

Has anyone ever heard of Kent Hovind? He is a creationist. He has some really good creations vrs. evolution movies
Jenny

Most people here are very familiar with Kent Hovind and all the laughable lies he tells. He's a bad joke.

If you really want to learn about evolution go to real sources of information. You might begin here.

btw did you know that millions of Christians accept evolution? You don't have to stop believing in God or the bible to accept good science.

 

[duordi]

That is not true. I'll quote you again:
[/i]
You did not simply indicate a change in social beliefs. You specifically stated that a change in moral beliefs caused the stock market crash. Sheseala answered this by providing the normal explanation for this (ie, no, not changing morals but irresponsible envesting was the cause). You have not provided sources for your explanation, you have not given a response to this yet and as far as all of us know, what you are saying in the above is just plain false. Care to back up your statement?

Judgement indicates that I said it was good or bad.
Change and chaos does not indicate good or bad, but a condition of change.

Moral chaos indicates a lack of rules.

A lack of rules, or limitaions, on how much financial leverage is acctable caused the stock market crash.

But this social climate caused many other changes as well.
Which ones were good and which ones were bad depends on your point of view.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Despite not seeing the point of that in any way, here you go.

No it is not. The intention of the chain letter is harmless. The personal freedom of the subjects participating in chain letters is not compromised in any way, neither does it limit the participants in anyway to develop themselves as humans. Chain letters in postal form also cost the persons participating little money (a few stamps, that's it).

Chain letters in e-mail form cost society more money and might thus be regarded as immoral. However, the cost of those is negligable when compared to the cost of spam-mail. Next to that, the participants again make the choice of sending the e-mail themselves, it is not forced upon them. And if it is a chain letter that is funny, it would have been send through anyway.

So, no. The persons receiving and sending the chain mail are not inflicted personal harm, and the cost to society as a whole because of chain mail is negligable.

The chain mail I was referring to was of the form of scam artist.

If you are not familiar with this type of a chain letter it is probably not worth the time to explain it.

The point was do you think it is immoral to "trick people" into giving you money, by playing on their greed, fear or other forms of emotional manipulation.

If you think it is OK then the stock market crash was a good thing.

Duane

 

[duordi]

So you will ask questions but you will not answer mine. Why should I answer yours if you will not answer mine?

Oh, but I did answer your questions.

Do you think it is true that God made a real world?

Yes

Do you think it is true that God made a world of order that follows natural laws and processes?

Yes, but some we don't understand.

Do you think it is true that God equipped us with sense, intellect and reason that is capable of comprehending the orderly processes of nature?
No, not completely.

The intension of these answers can be found in my original post.

I have listed them here to make it very clear.

My understanding is that a number of decay products are removed by the liquification of the rock e.g. argon gas. But you should read the links I gave you and follow up with other scientific papers to get all the details. This is not my field of expertise.

You are correct about argon gas, but when the argon gas is removed makes no difference.

It is not in the rock when we finally test the rock.

Various elements are distributed both in the earth's crust and in the mantle beneath.

You are correct again.

When? At the beginning of the universe or during a process on earth? I already described the chronology of the beginning of the universe.

So the decay process has been going on from the beginning of the universe by your judgement.

All the elements on/in the earth were present when the earth was formed. They don't need to be formed anew whenever a volcano erupts.

If I tested the molten material before it hardened and after it hardened one hour later it would give the same age?

Yes it would.

Would this age be zero or do decay isotopes exist?

They exist, so the age given is a reference to the creation of the radioactive element.

But if trace isotopes are formed in the creation of the radioactive element then even one minute after the radioactive element was formed ( at the beginning of the universe ) there would be trace isotopes which appear to be decay elements, but in fact are caused by the building process of the radioactive element.

So what does the radioactive dating indicate?

It indicates nothing unless it is calibrated with another time measuring instrument.

So radioactive dating is a faith based instrument.

It works like an echo, giving you back just what you tell it.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Good article. Very clear.



By what process is the rock formed?





No. Elements have isotopes. Every atom is an isotope of its element. i.e. every atom has a number of electrons, protons and neutrons which give it an atomic weight. Most of this weight is in the protons and neutrons. The two charged particles (electrons and protons) have to balance each other electromagnetically. If their number changes, you have a different element (and that only happens if the element is unstable and therefore radioactive.) But changing the number of neutrons does not affect what the element is or how it interacts with other elements. So when atoms of the same element have different numbers of neutrons, they are the same element, but they have different atomic weights. Each of these is an isotope. The creation of different atomic isotopes would begin with the very formation of atoms long before the earth existed.



It is true that a lot of radioactive elements are complex (check out the periodic table of elements). And it is true that these were created later than the light elements. The first atoms to be created were simple hydrogen and helium atoms. (Note that even these have different isotopes although they are not radioactive isotopes.) More complex atoms did not appear until stars were formed, as they required the nuclear fusion reactions in the heart of stars to fuse simple atomic nuclei together into more complex ones.

The heaviest elements required even more than ordinary stellar fusion. They required the immense pressures of a super-nova. However, all these elements had been created before our solar system came into being. So as far as the earth is concerned we can consider that all the elements in all their isotopes already existed.



Actually evolution says the egg came first. However radiometric dating has nothing to do with evolution.

Very clear except the part about how the decay elements are determined to be caused only from when the rock was created.

They assume a non radioactive rock started out with the same amount of decay elements as the radioactive rock.

This is not logical.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Has anyone ever heard of Kent Hovind? He is a creationist. He has some really good creations vrs. evolution movies
Jenny

As you have realized by now most of the posters here reject the idea that God preforms miracles.
Some believe He dosen't exist.
Some believe He does exist.
I haven't figgured out yet if there is a difference between believing in a God that can't do anything or believing there is no God.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Dude. I don't even know why we need to debate this anymore. There is only enough water in the earth to flood 22% of the earth's surface. This does not mean that Noah's flood did not happen; it was a local Mesopotamian event.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

My peaceful spirit considers that the Earth was smother.

The current oceans contain enough water to flood the Earth to the depth indicated in Geneses.

I can’t take credit for this idea as it is posted about once a week.

Duane

 

[Tomk80]

The chain mail I was referring to was of the form of scam artist.

If you are not familiar with this type of a chain letter it is probably not worth the time to explain it.

The point was do you think it is immoral to "trick people" into giving you money, by playing on their greed, fear or other forms of emotional manipulation.

If you think it is OK then the stock market crash was a good thing.

Duane

It seems that you are referring to a ponzi scheme here. At least my suspision was that that would come next, followed by stock markets. However, there are some essential differences in those.

A ponzi scheme can indeed be compared to a chain letter, only the schemer poses as a legitimate corporation. He will tell people that he is investing the money and that those investments give the large returns they expect. However, this is not the case. It is in fact the people who invest after you that give the large returns. At some point this construction will crash. However, one of the things with ponzi schemes is that they deceive people by telling them something that is not true. This way, people do not have the possibility to make an informed decision. This is what I think is morally objective about it.

This is not the same as the stock market crash, were a large number of people were speculating with borrowed money. This, of course, is also bound to blow up when an economical setback is on the way. However, people are informed on what their options are and the construction is open. While careless, I have no reason to see moral objections against it.

And no, the stock market crash was not okay. However, given the wild speculation going on in times of optimism, it was inavoidable.

But this is not the real discussion. You were specifically stating that the stock market crash was caused by the questioning of old morals, tying the stock market to women's rights and gay marriage. However, in the real world the stock market crash was caused by wild speculation, and would have happened regardless of women's rights or gay marriage or other 'moral decline'. Have you got any good reason to tie those moral values in with the stock market crash? That is what I want to know. I think that the best you can say is that both the stock market crash and the reevaluating of 'old morals' were both results of the optimism in the 30's, however, one did not cause the other.

 

[Tomk80]

As you have realized by now most of the posters here reject the idea that God preforms miracles.

Not those who are christian, and there are a number of evolutionists amongst those.

Some believe He dosen't exist.
Some believe He does exist.

true

I haven't figgured out yet if there is a difference between believing in a God that can't do anything or believing there is no God.

But this is not what most people here believe. I think you should work on your reading comprehension if you haven't figured that out yet.

What also should be noted is that you utterly failed to answer the question. The question was whether people have heard of Kent Hovind? Now, from various responses it is obvious that they have and that they are not impressed. Not because those people do/do not believe in a God or believe that this God performs miracles or not, but because Hovind is a liar and a deceiver. He has no honor.

 

[leccy]

Wow this thread has certainly gone off on some strange tangents. Is there any chance of it getting back to the discussion of the (lack of) scientific evidence for a global Noachian flood?