What Would Evidence For God Be Like?

[cvanwey]

I told you again and again, I am responding to your claim that a global flood is falsifiable, because all your evidence are based on assumptions. All what you state (i.e. age of mt everst etc) are just assumptions, some may not even be scentific (can you find one paper on age of mt everst?)

Mount Everest | Geology, Height, Exploration, & Deaths

https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrele...of_himalayas_from_newly_discovered_microplate

The Himalayas [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

The above is no more or less an 'assumption' than the 'assumption' to the asserted age of the earth. Except, in either case, neither is an assumption. The 'approximation' is that they recognize there exists a margin of error, based upon the dates correlated.

You are inferring assumption, in the classical definition: 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.'

Scientists don't throw around numbers based upon a 'hunch' or a 'guess'. Based upon test results, they conclude a range.

Let me give you an example...

You might state the scientists approximation for the age of the earth is an 'assumption', and not a fact. Okay, let's explore for a sec...

'We don't know 100%, of the exact age, therefore, it's still plausible the earth is ~6K years old, like many staunch Bible believers assert?'

You get it now? You are confusing the word assumption, with what scientists actually do.

Scientists conclude the age of the Himalayas/Mt Everest to be millions of years old.

YOU assert that the flood happened BEFORE the rising of such mountains. This would make Noah millions of years old???

And yet, homo sapiens are no more than 300K years old.?.?.?.?

Please explain?

 

[dcalling]

Mount Everest | Geology, Height, Exploration, & Deaths

https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrele...of_himalayas_from_newly_discovered_microplate

The Himalayas [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]

The above is no more or less an 'assumption' than the 'assumption' to the asserted age of the earth. Except, in either case, neither is an assumption. The 'approximation' is that they recognize there exists a margin of error, based upon the dates correlated.

You are inferring assumption, in the classical definition: 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.'

Scientists don't throw around numbers based upon a 'hunch' or a 'guess'. Based upon test results, they conclude a range.

Let me give you an example...

You might state the scientists approximation for the age of the earth is an 'assumption', and not a fact. Okay, let's explore for a sec...

'We don't know 100%, of the exact age, therefore, it's still plausible the earth is ~6K years old, like many staunch Bible believers assert?'

You get it now? You are confusing the word assumption, with what scientists actually do.

Scientists conclude the age of the Himalayas/Mt Everest to be millions of years old.

YOU assert that the flood happened BEFORE the rising of such mountains. This would make Noah millions of years old???

And yet, homo sapiens are no more than 300K years old.?.?.?.?

Please explain?

First, please don't twist my words, I said I believe God raised the mountains after the flood, but I don't know excatly how or when God did it, those are just my assumptions.

Second, as I said again and again, I am here because you claimed the flood is falsifiable, and you keep claiming that, I am not here to claim anything else, other than your claim of fallibility is wrong.

Third, the example you have given. It "suggests that the India and Eurasia plates initially collided 47 million years ago." So first, it is an suggestion, not actual observed fact, that they collided 47 million years ago, and second, when they first collid, mt everst (the peak) might not be even above sea level, do you understand that?

Not only that, the paper you quoted suggested the mt everest grows at 10km/mil year, and yet the mountain is only 8.8km, also there are researchers suggests that now they might be comming apart, so depend on WHEN the plats start to coming apart, it might reached peak even faster. (yes they are all assumptions, from various scientists, see how assumptions and truth are 2 different things even when they are educated guesses)?

Also had to point it out it is very funny when I am arguing that it is possible for homosapiens to exist over 300k years (I don't hold that as truth, just a possibility), you are here claim I am with the same people who claim humans are only 6000 year old. Just shows how good your logic is.

And last, you keep using the assumed 300k homo sapiens as a fact, when it is showing to you again and again it is only an assumption, and you can't falsify others with assumptions. You keep mixing scientific facts which are testable, verifiable and repeatable with events (such as 911 which is rather laughable) or assumptions, and that is why you keep comming up with such claims that xxx if falsiable which just either shows how flawed your logic is or that you just trying best to muddy the waters to save your argument.

 

[cvanwey]

First, please don't twist my words, I said I believe God raised the mountains after the flood, but I don't know excatly how or when God did it, those are just my assumptions.

Your words have not been twisted

If 'God raised the mountains after the flood', then Noah would have had to be alive before the flood. Which means you must reconcile two scientific certainties:

1. The Himalayas/Mt Everest are very old; and have been around far longer than humans.
2. Since humans have only been around for a fraction of the amount of time of this mountain range, it kinda of makes it hard for a claimed man, by the name of Noah, to have already existed prior to this later raised mountain range

Second, as I said again and again, I am here because you claimed the flood is falsifiable, and you keep claiming that, I am not here to claim anything else, other than your claim of fallibility is wrong.

It is falsifiable. And once we get through with [you] trying to 'muddy the waters', by confusing the word 'assumption' between your blind wishful hunch, verses following evidence to lead to a range in time, we can explore

Third, the example you have given. It "suggests that the India and Eurasia plates initially collided 47 million years ago." So first, it is an suggestion, not actual observed fact, that they collided 47 million years ago, and second, when they first collid, mt everst (the peak) might not be even above sea level, do you understand that?

I'm feeling generous... Let's grant that scientists, and their findings are off, way off. There still exists a very large disparity between the age of this mountain range, verses the age of humans, don't you think?.?.? (see below for further details)...

Not only that, the paper you quoted suggested the mt everest grows at 10km/mil year, and yet the mountain is only 8.8km, also there are researchers suggests that now they might be comming apart, so depend on WHEN the plats start to coming apart, it might reached peak even faster. (yes they are all assumptions, from various scientists, see how assumptions and truth are 2 different things even when they are educated guesses)?

Let's chuck all science out the window, and instead read the Bible for truth, right? Before science, anyone whom read the Bible 'assumed' the world was under 10K years old. Many still do, in favor of an ancient book, over human discovery.

Scientists are not dump. It is not purely as simple as 'the mountains raised 10km/year, so why is it only 8.8 kms high?' Seriously

Also had to point it out it is very funny when I am arguing that it is possible for homosapiens to exist over 300k years (I don't hold that as truth, just a possibility), you are here claim I am with the same people who claim humans are only 6000 year old. Just shows how good your logic is.

Actually, it has nothing to do with 'logic'. You simply need to read what I wrote

post #281 ''We don't know 100%, of the exact age, therefore, it's still plausible the earth is ~6K years old, like many staunch Bible believers assert?'

'Many' does not mean you. I'm aware you could be an 'older earther', or other...

But you missed my main point, which is...

The mountain range is much older than humans. Regardless of how much leeway you wish to invoke. But since we 'were not there', or have to approximate using science, then let's throw our hands in the air, and go with the Bible's assertions instead

And last, you keep using the assumed 300k homo sapiens as a fact, when it is showing to you again and again it is only an assumption, and you can't falsify others with assumptions. You keep mixing scientific facts which are testable, verifiable and repeatable with events (such as 911 which is rather laughable) or assumptions, and that is why you keep comming up with such claims that xxx if falsiable which just either shows how flawed your logic is or that you just trying best to muddy the waters to save your argument.

Incorrect. What [you] are doing is 'assuming' It has been very clear, from the get-go, you are doing nothing more than pulling pure wishful answers out of your hooha, when you cannot reconcile the scientific conclusions, concluded by their findings.

Again, you are confused about the definition of 'assumption', comparing between what you are doing with the term, and what science actually does.

Based upon scientific discovery, a couple hundred years ago, scientists guestimated the world was about 2 billions years, as time has gone on, this number has changed. Now we are at 4.54 billion. But since this is an 'assumption', we must then conclude we may, in the future, find new evidence to lead all our conclusions back to what the Bible states, right?.?.?.?

So I ask you seriously...

If the concluded age of the earth is a scientific 'assumption', then there IS a chance the world is under 10K years old? Just asking. Because again, you are confused about how [you] use 'assumption', verses the scientific arena.

 

[dcalling]

Your words have not been twisted

If 'God raised the mountains after the flood', then Noah would have had to be alive before the flood. Which means you must reconcile two scientific certainties:

1. The Himalayas/Mt Everest are very old; and have been around far longer than humans.
2. Since humans have only been around for a fraction of the amount of time of this mountain range, it kinda of makes it hard for a claimed man, by the name of Noah, to have already existed prior to this later raised mountain range

1. Yes Mt Everest (or the location of it) can be very old, but do you know the height of it when humans first appeared?

2. Now do you see your issues with question 1?

It is falsifiable. And once we get through with [you] trying to 'muddy the waters', by confusing the word 'assumption' between your blind wishful hunch, verses following evidence to lead to a range in time, we can explore



I'm feeling generous... Let's grant that scientists, and their findings are off, way off. There still exists a very large disparity between the age of this mountain range, verses the age of humans, don't you think?.?.? (see below for further details)...



Let's chuck all science out the window, and instead read the Bible for truth, right? Before science, anyone whom read the Bible 'assumed' the world was under 10K years old. Many still do, in favor of an ancient book, over human discovery.

Scientists are not dump. It is not purely as simple as 'the mountains raised 10km/year, so why is it only 8.8 kms high?' Seriously



Actually, it has nothing to do with 'logic'. You simply need to read what I wrote

post #281 ''We don't know 100%, of the exact age, therefore, it's still plausible the earth is ~6K years old, like many staunch Bible believers assert?'

'Many' does not mean you. I'm aware you could be an 'older earther', or other...

But you missed my main point, which is...

The mountain range is much older than humans. Regardless of how much leeway you wish to invoke. But since we 'were not there', or have to approximate using science, then let's throw our hands in the air, and go with the Bible's assertions instead



Incorrect. What [you] are doing is 'assuming' It has been very clear, from the get-go, you are doing nothing more than pulling pure wishful answers out of your hooha, when you cannot reconcile the scientific conclusions, concluded by their findings.

Again, you are confused about the definition of 'assumption', comparing between what you are doing with the term, and what science actually does.

Based upon scientific discovery, a couple hundred years ago, scientists guestimated the world was about 2 billions years, as time has gone on, this number has changed. Now we are at 4.54 billion. But since this is an 'assumption', we must then conclude we may, in the future, find new evidence to lead all our conclusions back to what the Bible states, right?.?.?.?

So I ask you seriously...

If the concluded age of the earth is a scientific 'assumption', then there IS a chance the world is under 10K years old? Just asking. Because again, you are confused about how [you] use 'assumption', verses the scientific arena.

For your second question, I actually asked the same on the forum a long time ago about evidence of live before 6ky, and two people pointed out findings that showed how we can accuratly date back to around 8ky people are living (can't remember the details but it is about some living parsites hardening and the process take a long time so it should be much more accurate then carbon dating).

However as with everything else, there is always a chance of something happening, either below 8k or over billions of years, the chance of that however likely fits a gausian curve.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[cvanwey]

1. Yes Mt Everest (or the location of it) can be very old, but do you know the height of it when humans first appeared?

Plate tectonics, means the mantel moved the plates/crust.

On average, Mt Everest increases in height of 4mm/year, due to the Indian-Australian and the Eurasian plates colliding. It also slightly shortens, due to erosion. Also factor in a massive earth quake once every 100 years or so, which may accelerate the mountain upwards. I will again, be very generous, and 'assume' the mountain raises, on average of 10 mm/year instead of 4mm.

Add in a large amount of leeway on top of that, for grins, and then do the math. Also factor in that humans require supplemental oxygen at elevated altitudes (~3700 meters above sea level).

If you can find a way to 'assume' your way out of this conclusion, then we can move forward with the beginning of the falsification process of why a global flood presents lack of, or an absence of required positive evidence.

For your second question, I actually asked the same on the forum a long time ago about evidence of live before 6ky, and two people pointed out findings that showed how we can accuratly date back to around 8ky people are living (can't remember the details but it is about some living parsites hardening and the process take a long time so it should be much more accurate then carbon dating).

However as with everything else, there is always a chance of something happening, either below 8k or over billions of years, the chance of that however likely fits a gausian curve.

This response appears greatly disconnected from my prior reply. What question of mine specifically are you addressing?

However, one of my prior questions remains unanswered... You stated that God raised the mountains (after) the flood. So I ask again....

Why would God raise these specific mountains after the flood?
Where does it designate this conclusion, even in the Bible?

 

[dcalling]

Plate tectonics, means the mantel moved the plates/crust.

On average, Mt Everest increases in height of 4mm/year, due to the Indian-Australian and the Eurasian plates colliding. It also slightly shortens, due to erosion. Also factor in a massive earth quake once every 100 years or so, which may accelerate the mountain upwards. I will again, be very generous, and 'assume' the mountain raises, on average of 10 mm/year instead of 4mm.

Add in a large amount of leeway on top of that, for grins, and then do the math. Also factor in that humans require supplemental oxygen at elevated altitudes (~3700 meters above sea level).

If you can find a way to 'assume' your way out of this conclusion, then we can move forward with the beginning of the falsification process of why a global flood presents lack of, or an absence of required positive evidence.

Well, your increases of 4mm/year is incorrect, as recently scientist just found Mt everst is raising just a bit over 6cm/year (which showed how fast scientists changes their estimates, and it goes back again to your constant using assumptions as facts). And your OWN paper you showed me quoted that it raise 10km in a million years, which I pointed out and you chose to ignore.

This response appears greatly disconnected from my prior reply. What question of mine specifically are you addressing?

However, one of my prior questions remains unanswered... You stated that God raised the mountains (after) the flood. So I ask again....

Why would God raise these specific mountains after the flood?
Where does it designate this conclusion, even in the Bible?

Those are just my assumptions (and is not in the Bible), and God can do what ever HE wants to, the reasons I don't claim to know.

I am just addressing your issue of unable to use logical reasoning, i.e. you keep trying to use assumptions as scientific fast, that you even present 911 as it is one of the repeatable, testable and verifiable facts. And that is what lead to you keep claiming assumptions (i.e. mt everst is 60mil year old) as facts. And you refuse to acknowledge that you made such mistakes, either knowingly or just unable to distinguish....

 

[cvanwey]

Well, your increases of 4mm/year is incorrect, as recently scientist just found Mt everst is raising just a bit over 6cm/year (which showed how fast scientists changes their estimates, and it goes back again to your constant using assumptions as facts). And your OWN paper you showed me quoted that it raise 10km in a million years, which I pointed out and you chose to ignore.



Those are just my assumptions (and is not in the Bible), and God can do what ever HE wants to, the reasons I don't claim to know.

I am just addressing your issue of unable to use logical reasoning, i.e. you keep trying to use assumptions as scientific fast, that you even present 911 as it is one of the repeatable, testable and verifiable facts. And that is what lead to you keep claiming assumptions (i.e. mt everst is 60mil year old) as facts. And you refuse to acknowledge that you made such mistakes, either knowingly or just unable to distinguish....

I really don't think yer gett'n it.......

Regardless of what metric one decides to use, Mt Everest is older than homo sapiens. If you wish to live in denial and wishful thinking, in favor of 'ancient book', that's fine.

Not gonna address things, over and over again, in which have already been answered sufficiently time and time again.

Thus, a flood claim is falsifiable, due to testable and repeatable evidence, or lack there-of, left behind. If you wish to explore, great. If not, I do not care to go backwards.

Lemme know...?

 

[dcalling]

I really don't think yer gett'n it.......

Regardless of what metric one decides to use, Mt Everest is older than homo sapiens. If you wish to live in denial and wishful thinking, in favor of 'ancient book', that's fine.

Not gonna address things, over and over again, in which have already been answered sufficiently time and time again.

Thus, a flood claim is falsifiable, due to testable and repeatable evidence, or lack there-of, left behind. If you wish to explore, great. If not, I do not care to go backwards.

Lemme know...?

Actually you don't get it, at all, as when I bring up repeatable, verifiable and testable scientific evidences you bring up 911, and won't even acknowledge your errors.

And You keep making the same mistakes that claim thousands or even millions year of flood is falsifiable.

And you keep avoiding my other question, how high is Mt everst when homosapiens first appear? do you even understand why I ask this question?

 

[cvanwey]

Actually you don't get it, at all, as when I bring up repeatable, verifiable and testable scientific evidences you bring up 911, and won't even acknowledge your errors.

This has been addressed many times sufficiently. As stated prior, I care not to repeat, or move backwards. If you do not see the difference, that is on you. Please re-read the many replies already devoted to this apparent concern of yours.

And You keep making the same mistakes that claim thousands or even millions year of flood is falsifiable.

A flood claim is falsifiable. If you care to proceed, we can start the process. As stated prior, we know what evidence a flood would leave behind, especially one of this claimed magnitude.

And you keep avoiding my other question, how high is Mt everst when homosapiens first appear? do you even understand why I ask this question?

Nope, I answered it already. You might want to read the prior responses again.

But in regards to a rather large question, I am curious... One in which you did not respond...

Why would God raise the mountains [after] a flood?
Where in the Bible does it state God heightened mountains post flood?

This, again, is the difference between how [you] use the word 'assumption', versus scientists

Pulling random answers out of your 'hooha', is a pure 'assumption'

Again, there exists a large disparity between the age of such a mountain range, versus the age of homo sapiens. At any metric one chooses, the rate in height of such a mountain range far exceeds the plausible age of humans.

Let me know if/when you actually want to get started on the actual falsification process of why a global flood, as told by the Bible, is not possible. Because again, I fully understand much of what is claimed in the Bible is not falsifiable (resurrections, walking on water, etc...). Hence, the reason I'm addressing the flood specifically.

(i.e.)

"No flood, no Bible"

 

[dcalling]

This has been addressed many times sufficiently. As stated prior, I care not to repeat, or move backwards. If you do not see the difference, that is on you. Please re-read the many replies already devoted to this apparent concern of yours.



A flood claim is falsifiable. If you care to proceed, we can start the process. As stated prior, we know what evidence a flood would leave behind, especially one of this claimed magnitude.
Nope, I answered it already. You might want to read the prior responses again.

You are just trying to muddy up water at this point, as when I bring up repeatable, verifiable and testable scientific evidences you bring up 911, and won't even acknowledge your errors.

Just because part of the process is repeatable, testable and verifiable, does not mean the whole process also falls in the same criteria. Do you understand what I meant?

But in regards to a rather large question, I am curious... One in which you did not respond...

Why would God raise the mountains [after] a flood?
Where in the Bible does it state God heightened mountains post flood?

I already responded again and again. such question hold no value. The Bible didn't specify any such things and those are my assumptions, I don't know the answer to those just the same I don't know why God made light both a wave and a practice.

This, again, is the difference between how [you] use the word 'assumption', versus scientists

And to your case you are treating assumptions or educated guesses as scentific facts, which I showed you again and again and you refuse to acknowledge. You think that 911 is a scentific fact the same as H2 and O2 forms water.

Pulling random answers out of your 'hooha', is a pure 'assumption'

Again, there exists a large disparity between the age of such a mountain range, versus the age of homo sapiens. At any metric one chooses, the rate in height of such a mountain range far exceeds the plausible age of humans.

Let me know if/when you actually want to get started on the actual falsification process of why a global flood, as told by the Bible, is not possible. Because again, I fully understand much of what is claimed in the Bible is not falsifiable (resurrections, walking on water, etc...). Hence, the reason I'm addressing the flood specifically.

(i.e.)

"No flood, no Bible"

I keep asking you what the height of mt everst is when homo sapien first appears, and you keep avoiding the answer. Even your own link contradicted your own post, likely you quoted from an older source, which showed you how science keeps finding new stuff that invalid the prior assumptions. You keep failing to acknowledge this, and keep putting up assumptions as facts.