The order of fossils in the geological column

[TLK Valentine]

Thanks for the laugh.

Oh wait, were you serious?

Calls for one of my favorite clips...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

 

[OldWiseGuy]

One, I would still like to see some evidence of the Amazon River basin sinking.

Sorry, it's only three inches.

Earth Sinks Three Inches Under Weight Of Flooded Amazon

The earth is still rebounding from the weight of the glaciers in many areas of the north. If the continents sink under the weight of a massive flood there is enough water to cover the mountains of Ararat. The weight of the mountains themselves would aid in this. Your 'egg' example is interesting because under my model the earth would 'egg out', or become misshapen, as if the land were squeezed inward and the seafloors bulged out.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Since Noah preached many years while building the ark, one assumes folks had some general idea, but did not believe it. Possibly one of the biggest structures in the pre flood world, the ark would likely have been seen for miles in several directions. I don't recall that Noah got some message to flee to the wilderness to build the ark either.

If there were slow rains, the wicked would have had weeks to try to burn or break into or somehow destroy the ark. They had metal in those days, so they had metal implements to do so. The pitch on the ark was likely some sort of accelerant to fire, and attacking a wooden structure with pitch inside and out in a mere slow rain would probably be no great deterrence.


I would say the picture is one od sudden destruction, where oceans of water poured down, and gushed up, utterly destroying life in short order...even though some folks would have sought higher ground in a hurry, and possibly survived some days longer.

There is no indication that Noah preached that a flood was coming if folks didn't repent. It is unlikely that they knew the true purpose of the ark. The story has them conducting 'business as usual' right up to the time the flood came. The forty days of rain might have obscured the main flood as well. Those nearer to the sea would not have time or presence of mind to send a warning to those on higher ground. I'm guessing that most people lived near the sea, as they still do. Anyway, the story has the ark surviving both the people and the flood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OldWiseGuy said, "I think the many poetic terms and phrases obscures what might have actually happened. Also the translators had to work within the framework of the language, and within the framework of what they believed, and/or what was expedient, at the time."

Can you give some specific examples?

The bible is filled with metaphor, and with 'choices' of the translators. The "eyes of God running to and fro through the earth" is a poetic reference to the angelic corps of Gabriel.

That Eve 'gave' (the fruit) to Adam and he did eat is a translators choice. That Eve 'put upon' Adam to eat of it is a much more accurate translation. The translators made that arbitrary choice probably because they were all married and feared the consequence of revealing the real meaning.

 

[Loudmouth]

What features would your mom have if she lived through the flood? What features would the geologic formation need to exhibit if the spaghetti monster slept on them? Try coming up with sound questions.

Try answering the question.

What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify your flood model?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know.

That is a serious problem. It indicates that you already have the conclusion in mind, and are trying to invent ways that the evidence can fit your model, no matter how ludicrous.

If every potential observation would be consistent with your model, then you don't have a model.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is a serious problem. It indicates that you already have the conclusion in mind, and are trying to invent ways that the evidence can fit your model, no matter how ludicrous.

If every potential observation would be consistent with your model, then you don't have a model.

I'll just wait until science, famous for constantly changing it's conclusions, finally supports my model.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'll just wait until science, famous for constantly changing it's conclusions, finally supports my model.

Science uses falsifiable models. You don't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science uses falsifiable models. You don't.

I'm not ready to surrender my model to failure.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not ready to surrender my model to failure.

I'm not asking you to. I am asking you to think about what your model predicts, and then think of potential evidence that, if found, would run contrary to those predictions. This is what we call "forming a hypothesis" in the world of science. Rutherford isn't known of coming up with the idea that there was a small atomic nucleus made up of positively charge molecules. He is known for coming up with the way to test the idea. Over and over again, the great scientists are those who can take an idea and make it testable. That is what science really is.

 

[Queller]

Sorry, it's only three inches.

Earth Sinks Three Inches Under Weight Of Flooded Amazon

Thanks.

The earth is still rebounding from the weight of the glaciers in many areas of the north. If the continents sink under the weight of a massive flood there is enough water to cover the mountains of Ararat.

No, there isn't. I already showed you that if the earth were a perfectly smooth ball the water depth would only be 1.6 miles, nowhere near deep enough to cover the mountains of Ararat. Remember, ~70% of the earth's surface is ALREADY covered by water. Distributing that water evenly while raising the seafloor is going to lessen the pressure on the continental plates overall.

The weight of the mountains themselves would aid in this. Your 'egg' example is interesting because under my model the earth would 'egg out', or become misshapen, as if the land were squeezed inward and the seafloors bulged out.

If you think the egg example helps you, then you misunderstood the example.

 

[Queller]

The bible is filled with metaphor, and with 'choices' of the translators. The "eyes of God running to and fro through the earth" is a poetic reference to the angelic corps of Gabriel.

That Eve 'gave' (the fruit) to Adam and he did eat is a translators choice. That Eve 'put upon' Adam to eat of it is a much more accurate translation. The translators made that arbitrary choice probably because they were all married and feared the consequence of revealing the real meaning.

Can you give some specific example related to the Flood since that is what we are discussing?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are still ignoring both what the Bible says about the characteristics of the Flood and the scientific evidence we see.

This is how I envision Noah's flood coming in; like an ocean tide. No surge, no tsunami.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/z_zbgBC-vLc/mqdefault.jpg

 

[Loudmouth]

This is how I envision Noah's flood coming in; like an ocean tide. No surge, no tsunami.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/z_zbgBC-vLc/mqdefault.jpg

A tsunami is created by the raising of the sea floor. The massive tsunami in the Indian ocean a few years ago was caused by the sea floor rising about 15 feet. Just thought I would mention that.

 

[Queller]

I'll just wait until science, famous for constantly changing it's conclusions, finally supports my model.

Do you see the idea of science changing to fit the evidence as a bad thing?

 

[Queller]

I'm not ready to surrender my model to failure.

The problem is that your model has no evidence, you have not demonstrated any way for what you are proposing to actually happen, and you have made no determinations as to what would falsify your model. Therefore I would say that what you have is not a "model" in the scientific sense but a more of a "wild guess".

 

[lasthero]

I'll just wait until science, famous for constantly changing it's conclusions, finally supports my model.

Well, you've been waiting for about 74 years, and it hasn't done that yet. I wouldn't be too optimistic, were I you.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you see the idea of science changing to fit the evidence as a bad thing?

Hey, some have to find something bad about science, don't they?

If something is wrong or could be improved upon, you acknowledge that, with additional evidence. I guess that is bad.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can you give some specific example related to the Flood since that is what we are discussing?

Sure. The 'windows of heaven' being 'opened' is poetic language for rain falling from the sky.

 

[EternalDragon]

A tsunami is created by the raising of the sea floor. The massive tsunami in the Indian ocean a few years ago was caused by the sea floor rising about 15 feet. Just thought I would mention that.

So what if most of the entire sea floor did this? (runaway subduction) It would flood the continents in a world wide flood. And leave evidence like a long trench like scar under the ocean. (Mid Atlantic Ridge?)

I think you have just answered all the many questions I have heard of "Where did all the water for the flood come from?"