Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[dlamberth]

Would you prefer I did not say "You"?
Did I accuse you of saying something you did not say?
If I did, please point it out, so that I can correct it if it is false, and apologize if I did an injustice.
Is it the part where I said, "Your claim is you cannot be wrong."

I'm sorry. You did not say, "@dlamberth cannot be wrong", but you did say a few things which suggested to me that you were arguing that you cannot be wrong.
If you are saying you can be wrong, I was wrong to say you claimed you cannot be wrong, and I apologize.
Are you saying you can be wrong?

The whole point of everything is what the earth shows us. The ripples in the OP are an example of what the earth shows us of an ice age flood. The rocks show us the extent of the glacier movement. The rocks also tell us when they were dropped off the glaciers. The volcanic ash help identify when. The layers of silt tell us how many floods occurred. There is absolutely no such evidence of a Global Noah Flood. There's not even any silt that floods leave behind. Look at the muck left behind from the two recent hurricanes so see what I mean. And they would be minor compared to a Noah Global Flood. There's absolutely nothing, Period!

 

[AV1611VET]

There's absolutely nothing, Period!

Keep looking then.

 

[Zaha Torte]

If you change how things are measured, how is that not changing the laws of physics?

I can see how I phrased what I said could have confused you - and for that I apologize - yet the immediate example I gave should have helped alleviate that confusion.

I can't help but feel that you are willfully being obtuse or intentionally misrepresenting what I have said.

My claim has been that there are Laws that we are not aware of - unknown variables - that will affect our measurements.

Which would definitely be changing the laws of physics. "no decay" just isn't how decay works.

What you said make no sense at all.

If there is no decay - at all - either the effect had been suspended or had not yet been introduced (according to Laws that we are not aware of) - then how would that change any other Laws?

The claim that '"no decay" just isn't how decay works' is nonsensical.

This makes no sense at all.

You are of the opinion that we can detect all things everywhere?

No, just other creationists.

You will continue to be confused if you do that as well.

It is hard to get what you are saying. It bears little resemblance to the observed Universe. It suggests you have no idea what the underlying physical processes are, so I make no assumptions that you know them.

I never claimed to know all things - but as I said previously - I feel that you are being obtuse and misrepresenting what I have said - as well as trying to "Joey" me.

Just like how the age of the Earth had nothing to do with my request that you share what convinced you that the rocks claimed that there was no global Flood event - I am not talking about anything that we can observe in the Universe.

I keep mentioning Laws that we are not aware of - that affect us in ways that we cannot discern or measure.

So - you continually misrepresenting what I am saying - and trying to "Joey" me is just you trying to cover up the fact that you are unable to engage or understand.

I have no idea what your point is.

I don't believe you. You know exactly what my point was - you cannot argue against it - so you employed strawmen.

Are you aware of the laws of physics? (You seem to think they can change, which is not good awareness.)

Another strawman.

And yet that cannot be demonstrated.

I cannot replicate acts of God - miracles - that is correct.

You believe that my lack to do so means what exactly?

Huh? Unlawful?

Yes - it would violate the Eternal Laws I have been referencing - this one being the Law of Justice.

Mercy cannot rob Justice - this is why a third party needs to be involved - so Justice can be meted out and Mercy extended.

A Mediator between the Law and the Violator.

That's not how capitalization works in English. Only proper nouns (like English) and the first word of a sentence are capitalized. ("law" and "Unlawful" are among the words you recently capitalized that are not proper nouns. (Unlawful isn't a noun at all.)

Thank you for demonstrating a pathetic attempt at ad hominem.

I will capitalize certain words when I want the reader to notice that I am giving them extra significance or if I am applying a particular meaning.

No, your writing is choppy and fails to communicate your ideas well.

Ad hominem again. You are just trying to excuse your inability to engage or understand.

You make claims about changing laws of physics with out evidence and I already told you that we have measurements of distant (old) galaxies that demonstrate that the laws of the Universe have not changed.

I never claimed that any Laws have been changed - I repeatedly said the opposite - stop misrepresenting what I have said.

And the fact that we can observe and measure anything in the Universe does not affect the claims that I have made.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Yeah, @Zaha Torte I'm not responding to any of that. I don't need to nor want to.

You could say that about anything on this site.

I wonder what made you run away from what I said?

 

[Astrid]

The whole point of everything is what the earth shows us. The ripples in the OP are an example of what the earth shows us of an ice age flood. The rocks show us the extent of the glacier movement. The rocks also tell us when they were dropped off the glaciers. The volcanic ash help identify when. The layers of silt tell us how many floods occurred. There is absolutely no such evidence of a Global Noah Flood. There's not even any silt that floods leave behind. Look at the muck left behind from the two recent hurricanes so see what I mean. And they would be minor compared to a Noah Global Flood. There's absolutely nothing, Period!

The earth cannot be wrong.
People said it’s flat.
People who just talk and read books but
don’t bother to look get corrected by reality.

Kind of like people who insist on their opinions, and must speak
falsehood to prop them up

Faced with something solid, like the earth, their vanity
denies what God laid at their feet and declare it flat.

What is real always holds good, withstands all challenge,
needs no lies to help it.

The more they make up lies the more convoluted and absurd it gets.
And as any detective knows, they trip

Like a last Thursdayist smugly calling others
to look for what they said cannot exist.

Insulting God at least twice over and the intelligence of
self and all who hear.



Those who say that such as the “Grand Canyon” are flood- sign
are as bad, saying “ Lo here” but turning away from “there”
where their silly theory is disprove by the very earth at their feet.

Calling up the name of God almighty to
”prove” such foolishness is Truth is a most
shameful act . And the false ones trip on their lies.

For lo, there is written:

”Take not the name of God in vanity”

 

[Astrid]

You could say that about anything on this site.

I wonder what made you run away from what I said?

Me, I find that it’s sufficient to walk away from a dumpster fire.

 

[David Lamb]

The earth cannot be wrong.
People said it’s flat.
People who just talk and read books but
don’t bother to look get corrected by reality.

Kind of like people who insist on their opinions, and must speak
falsehood to prop them up

Faced with something solid, like the earth, their vanity
denies what God laid at their feet and declare it flat.

What is real always holds good, withstands all challenge,
needs no lies to help it.

The more they make up lies the more convoluted and absurd it gets.
And as any detective knows, they trip

Like a last Thursdayist smugly calling others
to look for what they said cannot exist.

Insulting God at least twice over and the intelligence of
self and all who hear.



Those who say that such as the “Grand Canyon” are flood- sign
are as bad, saying “ Lo here” but turning away from “there”
where their silly theory is disprove by the very earth at their feet.

Calling up the name of God almighty to
”prove” such foolishness is Truth is a most
shameful act . And the false ones trip on their lies.

For lo, there is written:

”Take not the name of God in vanity”

I think it is wrong to equate belief in a flat earth with belief in a world-wide Flood in the days of Noah. As has been said many times in the threads about the flat earth notion, the bible nowhere says that the earth is a flat disc. However, it does say very clearly that in the days of Noah there was a flood that covered the whole earth, and only those in the huge ark with Noah were saved. Flat earthers cannot, however hard they try, back up their belief in a disc-world from the bible, but those of us who believe in the Genesis account of the Flood can. That's a very important difference. You say "The earth cannot be wrong." Far more important, God cannot be wrong.

 

[BCP1928]

I think it is wrong to equate belief in a flat earth with belief in a world-wide Flood in the days of Noah. As has been said many times in the threads about the flat earth notion, the bible nowhere says that the earth is a flat disc. However, it does say very clearly that in the days of Noah there was a flood that covered the whole earth, and only those in the huge ark with Noah were saved. Flat earthers cannot, however hard they try, back up their belief in a disc-world from the bible, but those of us who believe in the Genesis account of the Flood can. That's a very important difference. You say "The earth cannot be wrong." Far more important, God cannot be wrong.

And, of course, you cannot possibly be wrong about what you think the Bible is telling us.

 

[David Lamb]

And, of course, you cannot possibly be wrong about what you think the Bible is telling us.

Sorry if I gave you that impression. That was not my intention. I would never claim an infallible knowledge of the bible. All I was attempting to point out was that the bible does mention a flood which covered the whole earth, and destroyed all life except the humans and animals on the ark. Again, apologies for giving you the impression that I was being boastful.

 

[Astrid]

I think it is wrong to equate belief in a flat earth with belief in a world-wide Flood in the days of Noah. As has been said many times in the threads about the flat earth notion, the bible nowhere says that the earth is a flat disc. However, it does say very clearly that in the days of Noah there was a flood that covered the whole earth, and only those in the huge ark with Noah were saved. Flat earthers cannot, however hard they try, back up their belief in a disc-world from the bible, but those of us who believe in the Genesis account of the Flood can. That's a very important difference. You say "The earth cannot be wrong." Far more important, God cannot be wrong.

uh No.

Some assume that there is a god who cannot be wrong.

The false equating is your chosen opinion being the
” Truth of God”.

Even you Christian’s can’t agree on what the god you
all believe in “clearly” said! Flood is allegory or metaphor,
it’s a glorified rendering of a local flood, or it was global.

So Don’t try to give me “God can’t be wrongg” with its subscript that
YOU personally can’t be wrong about “flood”.

As elsewhere noted, “ Take not the name of gods in vanity”

The ego of claiming to know more than any researcher on earth,
and of infallible understanding of a bible passage!,

If you dont think flat earth an apt comparison, think again.
It was the universal interpretation, along with sun circling the earth
For many centuries and Christians who suggested otherwise got tortured.

FINALLY, those capable of listening heard the earth and sky telling them
they were wrong. And the church changed its tune.

Continuing to say earth is flat and center , or that all the earth
was flooded-is to discredit Christianity and mock God.

Its a little harder to read the “ no flood” proof, or the deep age of earth.

it’s not THAT hard tho!

Bit if you want to play the fool, bring mockery to your otherwise noble faith, that’s on you.

You don’t seem the fool, tho, nor disrespectful.

So chances are you will consider well whether it behooves you to study and rethink.



ps an easy one on flood- there’s a half million years ice accumulation at South Pole.

ice floats



sorry For typos, tiny mobile on subway

 

[Piers Plowman]

FINALLY, those capable of listening heard the earth and sky telling them
they wrong.

the only thing 'earth' and 'sky' ever 'talk' about is praise to God.
all the creation praises God-- except some human beings, for some inexplicable reason.

 

[Astrid]

And, of course, you cannot possibly be wrong about what you think the Bible is telling us.

Hey that’s what I said!!!

i just used far more words.

 

[Piers Plowman]

Hey that’s what I said!!!

i just used far more words.

Not sure why you two think we need your input as to what the Bible says.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't think flat earth an apt comparison, think again.

And why did they think that?

Science backed them, didn't it?

After all, it was the empirical interpretation of reality at the time.

So why wouldn't science back them?

It was the default interpretation, along with sun circling the earth for many centuries ...

Sure it was.

And science backed them all the way.

... and Christian’s who suggested otherwise got tortured.

What about scientists who suggested otherwise as well?

Did they get tortured too?

I'm sure the colleges and universities back then didn't immediately buy into Copernicus' model of the universe; and continued to teach the Ptolemaic model for years.

But when Ptolemy's science eventually took a hike, and Copernicus' model took over, the reigning church still held to the Ptolemaic model as a matter of faith.

And if they tortured anyone over it, it was in spite of the Bible, not with respect to It.

Eventually even they acquiesced and accepted Copernicus' model.

But my point is, science did it too.

So quit laying this at the feet of Christianity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You could say that about anything on this site.

You know, that is very true and I cannot fault that logic really.

I wonder what made you run away from what I said?

It's not 'running away'. Saying that I have no desire nor need to respond to anything you wrote because it's massively off-topic and talks about things that are unrelated to the thread is not 'running away'. It's called realising that I don't want to nor need to converse with you anymore, or disengaging from the conversation.

It's an amazing skill.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can see how I phrased what I said could have confused you - and for that I apologize - yet the immediate example I gave should have helped alleviate that confusion.

They did not, nor at least did not convince me that you knew what you were talking about.

I can't help but feel that you are willfully being obtuse or intentionally misrepresenting what I have said.

My claim has been that there are Laws that we are not aware of - unknown variables - that will affect our measurements.

What you said make no sense at all.

If there is no decay - at all - either the effect had been suspended or had not yet been introduced (according to Laws that we are not aware of) - then how would that change any other Laws?

The claim that '"no decay" just isn't how decay works' is nonsensical.

A world without decay (a claim you made) would have different physics than the world we live in. That would mean the laws of physics changed. We have strong evidence that the laws of physics haven't changed over the history of the Universe. As for measurements, measurements are made with physical interactions and are subject to the unchanging laws of physics as well.

You are of the opinion that we can detect all things everywhere?

I never said that.

You will continue to be confused if you do that as well.

Are you not a creationist? (In particular, you present as a YEC.)

I never claimed to know all things - but as I said previously - I feel that you are being obtuse and misrepresenting what I have said - as well as trying to "Joey" me.

It is hard to parse what you are saying. It's like your mind exists in a different "reality" than the rest of us. And I have no idea what "Joey" is. I don't play games with science. I leave that to others.

Just like how the age of the Earth had nothing to do with my request that you share what convinced you that the rocks claimed that there was no global Flood event - I am not talking about anything that we can observe in the Universe.

And I told you where I got my facts about the non-exiting flood. It was standard information from geology as presented by geology. If you want to know what that information is, you can find it easily. All I have been saying is that my mind wasn't polluted with non-facts about non-events.

Since you don't seem to want to do the work here are some results that come up from a simple search about the topic. (Content warning: your religious position might be challegened by these sources that are specifically attacking/debunking the notion of Noah's flood. I avoided making such a list so that it wouldn't look like I was trying to attack your position. Oh well, it seem to be the only response that might reach you.)

Flood geology - Wikipedia

The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology | National Center for Science Education

https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr38Reasons.pdf

I keep mentioning Laws that we are not aware of - that affect us in ways that we cannot discern or measure.

This is what we call "waving of the hands". It's the thing where you put your hands out, palms down, and make horizontal circles, while saying "the cause is in their somewhere with something". There is no evidence for the "hidden laws" we know nothing of and as such they are useless as an "explanation" for anything.

So - you continually misrepresenting what I am saying - and trying to "Joey" me is just you trying to cover up the fact that you are unable to engage or understand.

I don't believe you. You know exactly what my point was - you cannot argue against it - so you employed strawmen.

Another strawman.

If I knew what you are talking about I would say so. I'm also not sure you know what a strawman is. Your explainations are incoherent to anyone using actual physics as a reference point.

I cannot replicate acts of God - miracles - that is correct.

That wasn't what I said. I said your claim that your god works withing the laws of physics can't be demonstrated. I don't need you to replicate any miracles.

You believe that my lack to do so means what exactly?

Yes - it would violate the Eternal Laws I have been referencing - this one being the Law of Justice.

Mercy cannot rob Justice - this is why a third party needs to be involved - so Justice can be meted out and Mercy extended.

A Mediator between the Law and the Violator.

This mercy/justice thing is a completely separate topic. I'll let it drop now.

Thank you for demonstrating a pathetic attempt at ad hominem.

I will capitalize certain words when I want the reader to notice that I am giving them extra significance or if I am applying a particular meaning.

Ad hominem again. You are just trying to excuse your inability to engage or understand.

I have not claimed your position is invalid because of some non-relevant fact about you (an actual ad hominem). Rather, I am trying to express to you that your position is hard to understand because it is written in a poor and incoherent fashion. The idiosyncratic capitalization only contributes to the difficulty in comprehension.

I never claimed that any Laws have been changed - I repeatedly said the opposite - stop misrepresenting what I have said.

And the fact that we can observe and measure anything in the Universe does not affect the claims that I have made.

You claim that the laws haven't changed, but the things you say happened (no decay transitions to having decay) DO actually represent changes in the laws of physics. That is what would be required for such a thing to happen -- physics would have to change. I've been trying to explain this to you and can do so in more detail if you like.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think it is wrong to equate belief in a flat earth with belief in a world-wide Flood in the days of Noah. As has been said many times in the threads about the flat earth notion, the bible nowhere says that the earth is a flat disc. However, it does say very clearly that in the days of Noah there was a flood that covered the whole earth, and only those in the huge ark with Noah were saved. Flat earthers cannot, however hard they try, back up their belief in a disc-world from the bible, but those of us who believe in the Genesis account of the Flood can. That's a very important difference. You say "The earth cannot be wrong." Far more important, God cannot be wrong.

Look at it this way. If there were an all-powerful creator god, then the universe itself is a direct communication to you about what he did ... it's right there.

God wrote two books: 1) Creation, a first-hand account, and 2) the Bible, a 3rd-hand retelling at best.

 

[Zaha Torte]

You know, that is very true and I cannot fault that logic really.



It's not 'running away'. Saying that I have no desire nor need to respond to anything you wrote because it's massively off-topic and talks about things that are unrelated to the thread is not 'running away'. It's called realising that I don't want to nor need to converse with you anymore, or disengaging from the conversation.

It's an amazing skill.

How is discussing the Biblical narrative about a proposed Biblical event "off-topic"?

How is discussing how God operates in relation to the topic event and others "off-topic"?

How is pointing out that you cannot back up your claims about the Bible "off-topic"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How is discussing the Biblical narrative about a proposed Biblical event "off-topic"?

How is discussing how God operates in relation to the topic event and others "off-topic"?

How is pointing out that you cannot back up your claims about the Bible "off-topic"?

Because your commentary is off-topic.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Because your commentary is off-topic.

You were the one who claimed that the Bible was not credible and when pressed the only example you gave was easily explained away.

If discussing the Bible is "off-topic" - in a discussion about a Biblical event - then don't make claims about it that you cannot support?