Source of water for the flood

[Loudmouth]

God could have sent 10 times that much water, if He would have wanted to.

The author of Genesis could have made up the whole thing. Perhaps this should be your new motto:

Moses made it up, I naively and blindly accept it, that settles it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The author of Genesis could have made up the whole thing. Perhaps this should be your new motto:

Moses made it up, I naively and blindly accept it, that settles it.

Moses didn't write Genesis --- he edited it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The best example I can come up with to show how you guys constantly trump your own evidence is the one I've used before. It's a simple question which, I suspect, is somewhat embarrassing for a "scientist" to answer:

• Was the first Periodic Table of the Elements wrong?

I really don't look forward to anyone answering this because, first of all, it won't be answered with a simple "yes" or "no." Second of all, the answer, I'm sure, will be encouched in plenty of rhetoric. So I'd rather not see anyone "answer" it at all.

But, of course, it's okay for you guys to trump your own evidence --- just don't let the Bible do it, right?

You have a significant problem with "classification" schemes. You seem to think they are somehow supposed to be inerrant.

Mendeleev's periodic table was amazingly prescient based on what was known at the time. The fact that, if I recall, he classified by "atomic mass" rather than atomic number shows that the first periodic table was a reasonable first guess, but not the best.

You see, apparently unlike you, we scientists actually ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.

The current periodic table is an amazing piece of work and an amazing organization of the known elements. The most amazing thing is that Mendeleev predicted the existence of elements that were not in evidence at the time, and again unlike your constant request for things not in evidence, Mendeleev's plan showed us where to look and for what.

And guess what: WE FOUND THE ELEMENTS.

I suggest you don't slag the periodic table because I suppose you have as little interest in what it actually says as you do on all other science. I could be wrong, but I doubt very highly you can navigate your way around a periodic table any more than you can navigate your way around any science textbook.

Prove me wrong. I would love to be proven wrong on this.

 

[Washington]

God could have sent 10 times that much water, if He would have wanted to.

Yup. And two minutes ago he could have created the entire universe and all of us with implanted memories of past events. "God could have" replies are almost always foolish replies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Moses didn't write Genesis --- he edited it.

Then he must have editted out the part that said, "The following is just a story . . . ".

 

[Loudmouth]

The best example I can come up with to show how you guys constantly trump your own evidence is the one I've used before. It's a simple question which, I suspect, is somewhat embarrassing for a "scientist" to answer:

• Was the first Periodic Table of the Elements wrong?

I really don't look forward to anyone answering this because, first of all, it won't be answered with a simple "yes" or "no." Second of all, the answer, I'm sure, will be encouched in plenty of rhetoric. So I'd rather not see anyone "answer" it at all.

Of course it was innaccurate. Every periodic table is somewhat innacurate because the average atomic weights are estimates. Not only that, for isotopes that decay their average atomic weights will decrease. Periodic tables are outdated before the ink dries. So what? No one has ever claimed that Periodic tables are inerrant revelations from a deity nor have they hidden behind the periodic table when the evidence was stacked against them. The map is not the terriotry, and the periodic table is not reality.

 

[Sinful2B]

Hi and welcome

Moses didn't write Genesis --- he edited it.

So you would have thought that he would have said, "I said" instead of "And Moses said".
Why disguise your identity?
OH yes - I know - that's because he took the Cannanite Moon God "HUR" with him when he received the 10 Commandments from his Egyptian solar God ATUM.

Weak attempt.

 

[Psudopod]

Scientists need to go with the Documentation, which explains it better than just empirical observation of His creation.

But it doesn't though, does it? The bible tells us what god did and why, but it doesn’t explain his creation. It tells us there was a flood, it doesn’t explain plate techtonics, earthquakes, mountains or canyons. It tells us why bad things happen, but doesn’t explain why some people develop cancer, or what arthritis is. It tells us childbirth will be painful, but doesn’t explain how to reduce pre- and neonatal mortality rates. If the bible is a science book, it’s a really bad one. But if it is a book documenting the history of god’s interaction with his creation, then that’s a different story.

 

[Sinful2B]

Hi and welcome

God could have sent 10 times that much water, if He would have wanted to.

Your God can do anything you want to write down on paper and try and get away with.

For me, your God is a fabricated deity from an historical evolution of entities for which we have archaeological evidence.
For Christians and the like to come along, AFTER THE EVENT, and actually claim that all these things believed as mythological constructs, ACTUALLY IS REAL, WELL, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM IS, OUR ONE, is laughable. What credit you give your ancient ancestors for imagining a concept as a complete fabrication of ignorance, to actually be real.

The concept has a history of proven mythology, and we all know that anything is only as good as it's weakest link.

That's yours!!!

 

[TheManeki]

Scientists need to go with the Documentation, which explains it better than just empirical observation of His creation.

Where does the Documentation actually say that the beginning of Genesis is a literal account?

 

[Sinful2B]

Hi and welcome

Let me make a suggestion: Build a machine that can do this ---

2 Kings 6:17And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

--- and until you do --- science isn't qualified to speak against God.

Oh yes it is.
Try this.
Find your nearest dodgy dealer, hand over some well earned, open packet, snort hard, and whooppee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You could do that easily, and without a machine!!!
You'll even believe it's true!!!

 

[AV1611VET]

You have a significant problem with "classification" schemes. You seem to think they are somehow supposed to be inerrant.

Mendeleev's periodic table was amazingly prescient based on what was known at the time. The fact that, if I recall, he classified by "atomic mass" rather than atomic number shows that the first periodic table was a reasonable first guess, but not the best.

You see, apparently unlike you, we scientists actually ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.

The current periodic table is an amazing piece of work and an amazing organization of the known elements. The most amazing thing is that Mendeleev predicted the existence of elements that were not in evidence at the time, and again unlike your constant request for things not in evidence, Mendeleev's plan showed us where to look and for what.

And guess what: WE FOUND THE ELEMENTS.

I'll take that as a "no" --- PR style.

I suggest you don't slag the periodic table because I suppose you have as little interest in what it actually says as you do on all other science. I could be wrong, but I doubt very highly you can navigate your way around a periodic table any more than you can navigate your way around any science textbook.

Prove me wrong. I would love to be proven wrong on this.

I told my wife when we were first married, and she started hanging pictures and stuff on the wall, that there were two things I wanted hung on the wall:

1. The Periodic Table of the Elements
2. A map of the world - in Mercator Projection

The Periodic Table is, in my opinion, a graphic representation of God's [creative] handiwork; and a map of the world is, in my opinion, a graphic representation of God's power.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yup. And two minutes ago he could have created the entire universe and all of us with implanted memories of past events.

According to His documentation though, He clearly didn't.

"God could have" replies are almost always foolish replies.

So are "God.didn't" replies when God did.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course it was innaccurate. Every periodic table is somewhat innacurate...

Sorry, Loudmouth --- I stopped right here.

I didn't say "innaccurate" --- I said "wrong."

I could have just as easily have asked if the first drawing of our solar system by a scientist was wrong, but I like the Periodic Table example.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it doesn't though, does it? The bible tells us what god did and why, but it doesn’t explain his creation. It tells us there was a flood, it doesn’t explain plate techtonics, earthquakes, mountains or canyons. It tells us why bad things happen, but doesn’t explain why some people develop cancer, or what arthritis is. It tells us childbirth will be painful, but doesn’t explain how to reduce pre- and neonatal mortality rates. If the bible is a science book, it’s a really bad one. But if it is a book documenting the history of god’s interaction with his creation, then that’s a different story.

I'm surprised no one has complained that the Bible isn't a very good cook book, or that It doesn't tell someone how to change the oil in their car, or build a better mousetrap.

Not to mention solve quadratic equations, the proper method of dental hygiene, or the use of anti-earthquake technology.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'll take that as a "no" --- PR style.

You are a gem. You ask clearly nuanced questions that defy a yes-or-no style answer, then feel somehow justified when you don't get a simple yes or no answer.

You know what's really funny? If you want a yes or no answer, I believe the answer would be a resounding "NO, it was NOT wrong." It was a classification based on the atomic masses which, if I am remembering correctly were right to the limit they were known at the time. But more overtly it was a classification based on chemical nature of the elements, which as you'll see later, proved very prescient indeed.

And yet it was "improvable". A better classification scheme came along.

I told my wife when we were first married, and she started hanging pictures and stuff on the wall, that there were two things I wanted hung on the wall:

1. The Periodic Table of the Elements
2. A map of the world - in Mercator Projection

The Periodic Table is, in my opinion, a graphic representation of God's [creative] handiwork; and a map of the world is, in my opinion, a graphic representation of God's power.

Good! You have a periodic table on your wall. Do you know the real beauty of the Periodic Table? The thing that Mendeleev noticed the second he started arranging them? Do you know why it is called "The PERIODIC Table"?

But let's go one step further:

Here's Mendeleev's Periodic Table from 1869:

Tell me, when you compare it to the one on your wall, do you see anything STRIKINGLY AMAZING ABOUT IT? Like, maybe most of those elements that are there are in the proper order? Note how Pt and Ir are reversed. This is because of similarities of atomic masses, once people started organizing based on atomic number this fell into line with Ir at Z=77 and Pt at Z=78.

But the real beauty behind the Periodic Table is that Mendeleev had the insight to arrange them in groupings according to chemical nature. How they reacted and interacted in reactions.

Unlike your beloved "Prophecies", this left open the door to real predictions. Look at the little "?" at the number 45. It was discovered 10 years later in 1879.

Mendeleev predicted that an element should exist that would resemble boron in its properties. He therefore called it ekaboron, (symbol Eb). Per Theodor Cleve found scandium oxide at about the same time. He noted that the new element was the element ekaboron predicted by Mendeleev in 1871.(SOURCE)

Chemists were fascinated by Mendeleev's prediction. Could he really tell them how to look for a new element? And could he tell them what that element would be like?
One of the chemists who took up the challenge was Nilson. Nilson analyzed two minerals known as gadolinite and euxenite, in search of the missing element. By 1879, he announced the discovery of "ekaboron." He suggested the name scandium, in honor of Scandinavia, the region in which Nilson' homeland of Sweden is located. (See accompanying sidebar on Nilson.)
Nilson's discovery was very important in chemistry. It showed that Mendeleev's periodic law was correct. The law did show how elements are related to each other. It could be used to describe elements that had not even been discovered!
(SOURCE)

So do tell us about "prophecy". This is the real thing. No mystical "guesses". Just hard data telling you where to look and what it will look like.

You see, when I hear Fundamentalists talk non-stop about the "End of the World is Nigh!" All I need do is look back at history over the last millenium or two and say "oh, they've been predicting the apocalypse since the days after Jesus."

Prophecy-schmofecy.

If you want to pick on the Periodic Table it would appear you might have chosen a poor discussion topic.

Perhaps instead of just looking at the pretty picture of the Periodic Table, like you look at the pretty KJV you might wish to investigate it further, deeper and with more insight and understanding.

This appears to be your main problem with science. You think it's some surficial thing you can just pretend to understand and pay lipservice to while you simultaneously would gut it of any value or meaning.

Things are seldom "black-or-white" or "yes-or-no". But that subtlety is often lost on people who draw a line in the sand and say things like:

The only number I'm interested in is 1611.

You see, learning is ongoing and permanent. You can't just stop learning a good 300+ years before you were born. That's more appropriately called brain-dead.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry, Loudmouth --- I stopped right here.

I didn't say "innaccurate" --- I said "wrong."

I could have just as easily have asked if the first drawing of our solar system by a scientist was wrong, but I like the Periodic Table example.

Is this map wrong?

And how do we know it is wrong? What if I told you that God wrote this map? Would you tell us that America was a figment of our imagination?

 

[Quantic]

Was the first Periodic Table of the Elements wrong?

No, it was only incomplete. Oh, you don't like this answer? To bad. This is how science operates.
Thaumaturgy answers you very well. I just want to put in another voice.

I'm sorry that you don't like that science doesn't provide the "ultimate truth", but then again science isn't in that job. No one has access to "ultimate truth" and if they claim they do, and don't present evidence, they're liars.

Oh, I would also suggest that you investigate what scientific evidence actually IS, because words in a book are not evidence; despite massive amounts of wishful thinking.

 

[juvenissun]

If you believe that there was at some point a global flood that covered all the mountains: [BIBLE]Genesis 7:19[/BIBLE]
Then where did the water come from? If it used to be underground, then the crust would have to have a porosity of about 50%; in reality, we find that it is about 1% due to the extreme pressures (source: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ278607 ). If it came from the atmosphere, then the sheer enormity of the amount of water present beforehand would introduce similar problems, as well as raise the question of why it didn't rain beforehand.

There are 98 posts here, but none of them can answer your question. Sorry for the late. But I am answering it now. It is quite disappointed that all the evolution people in this forum do not know much about science.

In fact, the water content of earth material was probably less then 1/100 of a percent to begin with. You may calculate how much water would there be if you time the tiny percentage to the volume of the earth's mantle. So, if you think the ocean holds most of water on earth today, you ain't see nothing yet.

 

[Molal]

There are 98 posts here, but none of them can answer your question. Sorry for the late. But I am answering it now. It is quite disappointed that all the evolution people in this forum do not know much about science.

In fact, the water content of earth material was probably less then 1/100 of a percent to begin with. You may calculate how much water would there be if you time the tiny percentage to the volume of the earth's mantle. So, if you think the ocean holds most of water on earth today, you ain't see nothing yet.

So, I would think you would suggest that no water is released during a volcanic eruption. Would that be correct?