• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,882
65
Massachusetts
✟402,099.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Oh now that is harsh, very harsh on the lamestreamers. ...And yet another opinion registered doubting the experiment's been done!
"Lamestreamers"? What's a lamestreamer? The only one I'm being harsh on is you, because you are trying to be as offensive as possible while making Christianity look stupid. So where did you get this silly idea that only experiments produce knowledge? Or rather, where did you get the idea that anyone believes that?
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
"Lamestreamers"? What's a lamestreamer? The only one I'm being harsh on is you, because you are trying to be as offensive as possible while making Christianity look stupid. So where did you get this silly idea that only experiments produce knowledge? Or rather, where did you get the idea that anyone believes that?

I don't think for an instant anyone really believes it. It's common knowledge that many, many liars claim that belief. If you haven't encountered them, what's it to me? Maybe you should get out more.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nabobalis

Guest
Found where? Why does your source omit underground water? Why does your source assume ocean depths and mountain heights have not changed? Were they not trying to be thorough or something? Is there merit in superficiality, in playing stupid? Let me guess: there is if leads to the desired conclusion, right?

Because evidence of mount Everest rising in 6000 years would be rather obvious. If you read what I posted it requires 3 times as much water than there is in the oceans , that is a lot of underground water still missing.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Because evidence of mount Everest rising in 6000 years would be rather obvious. If you read what I posted it requires 3 times as much water than there is in the oceans , that is a lot of underground water still missing.

I don't dismiss blatantly intentional superficiality so easily. Your source made no effort to produce anything other than worthless propaganda. That's what they set out to do, and you may congratulate them on a smashing success.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,882
65
Massachusetts
✟402,099.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't think for an instant anyone really believes it. It's common knowledge that many, many liars claim that belief.
I think your common knowledge is wrong. I don't think these people exist -- that's why I want to know where got this idea. If these people are so common, you should have no trouble pointing me to some of them. Who are these people who claim that only experiment (not observation, just experiment) can yield knowledge?

If you haven't encountered them, what's it to me? Maybe you should get out more.
Thanks, but I get out quite a bit. I've certainly never run into a scientist with this belief, and they're the ones whose findings you're questioning.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
For those not familiar with the subject of the sidetracking attempt, there are over a dozen articles at AiG debunking the "where did the water go?" nonsense. Anyone could figure out in 5 minutes that if land elevations increased and ocean depths decreased we don't need a drop more water than is currently present in the oceans. The ''strength'' of the evolutionist is that he can't understand this any more than he can admit fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks are evidence consistent with flooding.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think your common knowledge is wrong. I don't think these people exist -- that's why I want to know where got this idea. If these people are so common, you should have no trouble pointing me to some of them. Who are these people who claim that only experiment (not observation, just experiment) can yield knowledge?

If you have nothing to contribute, you're welcome to depart. (Or is nagging me to prove common knowledge suppose to be a contribution?) I do wonder what makes you so certain there's no experiment.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,882
65
Massachusetts
✟402,099.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If you have nothing to contribute, you're welcome to depart.(Or is nagging me to prove common knowledge suppose to be a contribution?)
Challenging you on your strawman argument is indeed a contribution. So why won't you provide the evidence for your central premise, which is that many people claim only experiments can produce knowledge?

I do wonder what makes you so certain there's no experiment.
I do wonder what you're talking about here. Where have I said anything about whether there was an experiment?
 
Upvote 0
N

Nabobalis

Guest
I don't dismiss blatantly intentional superficiality so easily. Your source made no effort to produce anything other than worthless propaganda. That's what they set out to do, and you may congratulate them on a smashing success.

Propaganda? That is a big one. Anyway, you either have to explain away Mount Everest or explain where the water went and Neptune is not a good answer.

For those not familiar with the subject of the sidetracking attempt, there are over a dozen articles at AiG debunking the "where did the water go?" nonsense. Anyone could figure out in 5 minutes that if land elevations increased and ocean depths decreased we don't need a drop more water than is currently present in the oceans. The ''strength'' of the evolutionist is that he can't understand this any more than he can admit fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks are evidence consistent with flooding.

So why did you start this thread then if you already know the answer?
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Challenging you on your strawman argument is indeed a contribution. So why won't you provide the evidence for your central premise, which is that many people claim only experiments can produce knowledge?

Oh wow! Accusing me of making a straw man argument - that's impressive! I suppose evopushers never make false accusations, do they? You get out all the time, and you've never seen that - just got ''inspired'' on the spot, just innovated, huh?

And no, you don't get to put words in my mouth. My central premise is that if there were an experiment proving the flood didn't take place as so universally reported, I would like to know about it. Have I made any claim about the significance of the absence of such an experiment? Have I? C'mon, Mr. False Accusation, Mr. Put-Words-in-the-mouths-of-others, show me where I've said such.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nabobalis

Guest
Oh wow! Accusing me of making a straw man argument - that's impressive! I suppose evopushers never make false accusations, do they? You get out all the time, and you've never seen that - just got ''inspired'' on the spot, just innovated, huh?

And no, you don't get to put words in my mouth. My central premise is that if there were an experiment proving the flood didn't take place as so universally reported, I would like to know about it. Have I made any claim about the significance of the absence of such an experiment? Have I? C'mon, Mr. False Accusation, Mr. Put-Words-in-the-mouths-of-others, show me where I've said such.

You started by saying that some people believe that only knowledge comes form experiment only, which is a strawman position because no one does and you have yet to show anyone that does. Thus you set up a position and knocked it down which never even existed.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,882
65
Massachusetts
✟402,099.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Oh wow! Accusing me of making a straw man argument - that's impressive! I suppose evopushers never make false accusations, do they? You get out all the time, and you've never seen that - just got ''inspired'' on the spot, just innovated, huh?
Hmm. I don't see any evidence in this paragraph. Sarcasm, yes, and insult, but no evidence. (A suggestion: stop trying to be condescending. I can out-condescend you til the cows come home. Why not just engage in conversation, instead? For some reason you think that there should be an experiment ruling out a worldwide flood. Why do you think that? Cut the hostility and just talk to people, as if they were, you know, human beings and, in many cases, fellow Christians.)
And no, you don't get to put words in my mouth. My central premise is that if there were an experiment proving the flood didn't take place as so universally reported, I would like to know about it. Have I made any claim about the significance of the absence of such an experiment? Have I? C'mon, Mr. False Accusation, Mr. Put-Words-in-the-mouths-of-others, show me where I've said such.
You wrote, "If knowledge can only be obtained via experiment, surely someone had to have done one." See that first clause, the one that starts with "if"? That's a premise. The conclusion follows in the second clause. You wrote it, not me, so you should be able to support it. Your initial question also only makes sense in light of that premise: if there are other ways of ruling out a worldwide flood besides an experiment, why assume there should have been one? So please support your premise, or withdraw your question.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Delphiki

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2010
4,342
162
Ohio
✟5,685.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
So, the ''no evidence'' turns out to be untrue already! But THIS claim of ''no evidence'' is sure to hold up? Nevermind the evidence of vast amounts of underground water, huh?

IIRC, the underground water is moisture embedded in rock, not actually in the form of the large oceanic pockets you seem to be insinuating. Regardless of what shape the underground water might take, it's still not enough to flood the entire planet. Of course you could always go with NephilimFree of youtube fame and try to claim that earth's ancient waters injected into space are where we get out comets from. But I'm hoping you're not that stupid.

I hope you realize I don't simply take the word of atheists at wiki.
The article isn't supposed to de-convert you, it merely explains what the deluge theory is in case you are unfamiliar with it.

Now before the denial-of-evidence mantras get out of hand, why not wait and see if just maybe someone did an experiment? Wouldn't you feel silly if it turns out one has been done?
Not really. Though, since you're making that claim that the global flood happened, the burden of proof is actually on you to develop and carry out such an experiment. So, get crackin'!

Now, if you think experiment is the only way to find truth, then tell me what successful experiments have you performed to validate anything else in the bible as fact?
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You started by saying that some people believe that only knowledge comes form experiment only, which is a strawman position because no one does and you have yet to show anyone that does. Thus you set up a position and knocked it down which never even existed.

Sure I did...
Nobody's ever told me, so I thought I'd ask. One would think the experiment which proved all the stories from around the world to be untrue might've received a little notice. Anyhow, I'd like to know the logic involved, the dates, and the individuals who performed this should-be-famous experiment.

So, still no experiment?
 
Upvote 0

visa

Active Member
May 15, 2011
156
22
✟311.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
there are over a dozen articles at AiG debunking the "where did the water go?" nonsense. Anyone could figure out in 5 minutes that if land elevations increased and ocean depths decreased we don't need a drop more water than is currently present in the oceans. The ''strength'' of the evolutionist is that he can't understand this any more than he can admit fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks are evidence consistent with flooding.
So in order for the AiG debunkings to work we must assume that the world was not as it is today with no Mt Everest or deep oceans, perhaps the world had no bumps or dips at all just like a pool ball? (the flood would not work on the earth as it is today so let's change the earth so it would work, we will make the earth virtually bump free, don't worry the creationists will buy into it)

What proponents of the flood seem to forget is that the vast underground water reserves got there from the surface? right so far? if the water should miraculously find itself on the surface what's stopping it from running straight back underground? what would keep the water on the surface? a miracle?

The people who wrote the flood story are the same people who designed and built those fantastic machines that take a hundred steps to break an egg into a bowl, then when it still doesn't break the egg into the bowl they call for a miracle.

Why doesn't AiG send people to look into the evidence for a flood? we all know why they don't because they know there is none, why should they anyway? creationists believe what they tell them without them needing to prove anything,
they know all they need to do is sit there and make up crazy answers for the creationists to feed on, they just change reality to make the bible appear to be true, and creationists fall for it all.
 
Upvote 0

Orogeny

Trilobite me!
Feb 25, 2010
1,599
54
✟24,590.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
You know what's awesome CTD? That when the story of the flood was made known, it speaks about the springs of the earth opening up and flooding the world, now many were claiming for a long time that there is not enough water on earth to flood the entire planet, until recent discoveries such as this -

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | LiveScience
Oh cool. A re-post of the same article flooders have been using for the last 4 years! Unfortunately you kids still misunderstand the article.

There's not a literal 'ocean' in the Earth, there's not a void filled with water. The article is discussing slab dehydration, a process we understood pretty well before this study. Slab dehydration is simply a dehydration of hydrous mineral phases within a subducting slab. It happens at a pretty consistent depth (it happens at around 100km, and again, for a different phase, at 660km depth), and it happens at virtually every subduction zone. This dehydration fluxes the mantle with fluid, causing flux and decompression melting, which feeds arc vulcanism on the overriding slab. Slab dehydration and subsequent flux melting is why we have the Andes, the Cascades, and the island of Japan. This is not news to anybody who knows a bit of tectonics, and it is anything but evidence of the flood as described in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Hmm. I don't see any evidence in this paragraph. Sarcasm, yes, and insult, but no evidence. (A suggestion: stop trying to be condescending. I can out-condescend you til the cows come home. Why not just engage in conversation, instead?
Why try so hard to change the topic? And you're welcome to think you can out-whatever me here. I'll not be easily GOADED into breaking the rules.
For some reason you think that there should be an experiment ruling out a worldwide flood. Why do you think that?
I don't think that. I know people are told everything in scofferdom's been ''proven by the scientific method''.
Cut the hostility and just talk to people, as if they were, you know, human beings and, in many cases, fellow Christians.)
Oh yes, oh yes, the hostility paintbrush. You accuse me of a strawman fallacy, and play whatever silliness you can to divert the discussion, and I'm hostile. That's workin'. I'm sure every scoffer who stumbles along will buy it hook line & sinker. I'm equally sure nobody else will.
You wrote, ''If knowledge can only be obtained via experiment, surely someone had to have done one.'' See that first clause, the one that starts with ''if''?
See that first word in that clause, the one that's spelled I-F? In English, the word 'if' alters the context and meaning of the entire sentence, rendering what follows conditional.

Time for a new game yet? 'Cause we all know you ain't goin' back to the topic.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0