Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[Audie]

Here's a fascinating article, regarding discovered water on the Earth that could've been partially used for the Flood....

There May Be a Second Massive Ocean Deep Beneath the Surface | Smart News | Smithsonian

Whoever is interested, can google "ringwoodite".

But then there is that ancient ice.

 

[ArtieE]

Excerpt from: How Could Noah Fit the Animals on the Ark and Care for Them?

EDIT.....
Combine the latter with this study: ‘Noah’s Ark would have floated’

What's the point of these? It's God right... he just shrunk all the animals and blew them up afterwards.

 

[Audie]

There may be a source that disagrees with me, but I did not find one. I found several that did agree with me. Posting them all would have been overkill. That would appear to be "due diligence" in this case. Of course the word can be used as a verb, but that was not the case in the post that I replied to.

No answer for the related question?

The evidence indicates you are not really
into diligence nearly so much as you are into
confirmation bias. Your research there would
bring you disaster in some settings.

Gooses?

You want it in a sentence? You wont like it

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proposed because it's not actually evidence for materialism. It's put forth as evidence for materialism but doesn't actually support it. Still better than someone pretending they have evidence that for some magic reason they can't produce

Sorry, but it does. Some of the evidence cannot be used in an argument between materialism and dualism, but it can be used in an argument between materialism and mysticism. You were not specific enough and as a result your claim being too general is easily refuted. As I pointed out in your other thread you are demanding exclusive evidence. One needs to know what one is arguing about to decide what is and what is not evidence if one wants to exclude selected pieces of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you want it in a sentence? You wont like it

I might, you never know.

 

[Audie]

I might, you never know.

Reread edited post

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reread edited post

I did. I don't think that this is a case of confirmation bias. The word is well defined at multiple sources. Though since dictionaries do not set the definition of words but rather reflect usage that status could change in the future.

It appears that you know of a way of answering my follow up question. I am not saying or even implying that there is only one, that gooses would be the proper plural of goose. I will not demand "proof".

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is no need for such calculations.

There is well over a hundred thousand years of ice
accumulated at the south pole.

That is incompatible with a world wide flood.

Does it matter? If God there be, he doesnt need
the flood story to be real for him to be.
If there is a god, does it matter if one
goes about telling of his role in a rather horrific act,
when the story is actually a myth?

Worth some thought and study, due diligence and all, no?

I appreciate your civil post.

Some of the basis for assessing the deep age of the ice-core drilling, is based on circular reasoning. (Such as, back in '94, scientists dated the ice core of the Greenland GISP2 through their discernment of what they thought were yearly patterns of much volcanism, dust, ions and isotopes found in the ice, among other details. [Since when are volcanoes, annual?] They determined an age of the 9,000-foot-depth core at about 85,000 years....based on other scientists calculations who had built a “SPECMAP”, a timescale relying on the understanding of a steady accumulation of seafloor sediment, ignoring the volcanism that is abundant in that area! Certainly, the catastrophe of the Flood would have caused an increase in Earth's geology! The Bible indicates that 'mountains rose -- Psalm 104:8.' due to the water.... that was a lot of weight on Earth's crust!)

Circular reasoning can be like finding a fossil next to a fossilized coelecanth, and then assuming it's "at least 65 MYO"! (Scientists thought it went extinct 65 mya, but it still lives.)

Let me ask you this: mountain ranges, like the Himalayas, are determined by leading scientists to be tens of millions of years old. But if you look at them, the mountains' features (not the rocks themselves, but the features they form) are fresh, sharp, and well-defined....nothing like you'd expect from objects that experience a lot of bad weather, i.e., erosion-causing elements! If they were truly that old, they'd be rounded stumps!

I believe the Earth itself could be billions of years old, but not it's topography. I'm not a YEC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appreciate your civil post.

Some of the basis for assessing the deep age of the ice-core drilling, is based on circular reasoning. (Such as, back in '94, scientists dated the ice core of the Greenland GISP2 through their discernment of what they thought were yearly patterns of much volcanism, dust, ions and isotopes found in the ice, among other details. [Since when are volcanoes, annual?] They determined an age of the 9,000-foot-depth core at about 85,000 years....based on other scientists calculations who had built a “SPECMAP”, a timescale relying on the understanding of a steady accumulation of seafloor sediment, ignoring the volcanism that is abundant in that area! Certainly, the catastrophe of the Flood would have caused an increase in Earth's geology! The Bible indicates that 'mountains rose -- Psalm 104:8.' due to the water.... that was a lot of weight on Earth's crust!)

Circular reasoning can be like finding a fossil next to a fossilized coelecanth, and then assuming it's "at least 65 MYO"! (Scientists thought it went extinct 65 mya, but it still lives.)

Let me ask you this: mountain ranges, like the Himalayas, are determined by leading scientists to be tens of millions of years old. But if you look at them, the mountains' features (not the rocks themselves, but the features they form) are fresh, sharp, and well-defined....nothing like you'd expect from objects that experience a lot of bad weather, i.e., erosion-causing elements! If they were truly that old, they'd be rounded stumps!

I believe the Earth itself could be billions of years old, but not it's topography. I'm not a YEC.

You need to provide a link for your claim about volcanism.

You probably did not understand your source or made the error of using a creationist source, they almost always get the science wrong. Specific layers of ice can be dated by using volcanic dust and radiometric dating. It is one of several checks on the age of an ice core.



There nice and civil for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appreciate your civil post.

Some of the basis for assessing the deep age of the ice-core drilling, is based on circular reasoning. (Such as, back in '94, scientists dated the ice core of the Greenland GISP2 through their discernment of what they thought were yearly patterns of much volcanism, dust, ions and isotopes found in the ice, among other details. [Since when are volcanoes, annual?] They determined an age of the 9,000-foot-depth core at about 85,000 years....based on other scientists calculations who had built a “SPECMAP”, a timescale relying on the understanding of a steady accumulation of seafloor sediment, ignoring the volcanism that is abundant in that area! Certainly, the catastrophe of the Flood would have caused an increase in Earth's geology! The Bible indicates that 'mountains rose -- Psalm 104:8.' due to the water.... that was a lot of weight on Earth's crust!)

Circular reasoning can be like finding a fossil next to a fossilized coelecanth, and then assuming it's "at least 65 MYO"! (Scientists thought it went extinct 65 mya, but it still lives.)

Let me ask you this: mountain ranges, like the Himalayas, are determined by leading scientists to be tens of millions of years old. But if you look at them, the mountains' features (not the rocks themselves, but the features they form) are fresh, sharp, and well-defined....nothing like you'd expect from objects that experience a lot of bad weather, i.e., erosion-causing elements! If they were truly that old, they'd be rounded stumps!

I believe the Earth itself could be billions of years old, but not it's topography. I'm not a YEC.

One more. You clearly have no clue as to how fossils are used in dating strata, your mention of coelacanth tell us that. First Coelacanth is not a species of fish. It is an entire family. Thinking that a modern coelacanth is the same as an ancient one is as big of an error as thinking that a human is the same as a tarsier. We are both primates, but there is quite a difference between us.

Specific species of fossils that can be radiometrically dated at one point are used as part of a bracketing process. With enough fossils and enough dates of when those fossils are found we can date a stratum by the fossils that are found in it. Again, these are specific species of fossils that exist for a limited time. It is never based upon the finding of just one fossil in a stratum. That does not give a very good date. Multiple fossils in a stratum are used to date it.

 

[Jean Valjean]

f(x)=y

3y=x

x=y

f(x)=ao

x=ao

You could if you try...

 

[Jean Valjean]

its impossible to date history... we don't know which day we'd start from..

 

[Audie]

I did. I don't think that this is a case of confirmation bias. The word is well defined at multiple sources. Though since dictionaries do not set the definition of words but rather reflect usage that status could change in the future.

It appears that you know of a way of answering my follow up question. I am not saying or even implying that there is only one, that gooses would be the proper plural of goose. I will not demand "proof".

Of course it is confirnation bias, you quit
looking before you found out that is a
correct, if clunky and genrrally obsolete way
to pluralize. You quit too early researching
a contract and you will be very sorry.

It is very insensible to correct someone when
you are wrong, which was my original point.
Also insensible to think it is ever Subz right- Audie
wrong. Wont happen.

Is that like a trick question about gooses?
Coz the way to use "gooses" is so obvious.

 

[Audie]

I appreciate your civil post.

Some of the basis for assessing the deep age of the ice-core drilling, is based on circular reasoning. (Such as, back in '94, scientists dated the ice core of the Greenland GISP2 through their discernment of what they thought were yearly patterns of much volcanism, dust, ions and isotopes found in the ice, among other details. [Since when are volcanoes, annual?] They determined an age of the 9,000-foot-depth core at about 85,000 years....based on other scientists calculations who had built a “SPECMAP”, a timescale relying on the understanding of a steady accumulation of seafloor sediment, ignoring the volcanism that is abundant in that area! Certainly, the catastrophe of the Flood would have caused an increase in Earth's geology! The Bible indicates that 'mountains rose -- Psalm 104:8.' due to the water.... that was a lot of weight on Earth's crust!)

Circular reasoning can be like finding a fossil next to a fossilized coelecanth, and then assuming it's "at least 65 MYO"! (Scientists thought it went extinct 65 mya, but it still lives.)

Let me ask you this: mountain ranges, like the Himalayas, are determined by leading scientists to be tens of millions of years old. But if you look at them, the mountains' features (not the rocks themselves, but the features they form) are fresh, sharp, and well-defined....nothing like you'd expect from objects that experience a lot of bad weather, i.e., erosion-causing elements! If they were truly that old, they'd be rounded stumps!

I believe the Earth itself could be billions of years old, but not it's topography. I'm not a YEC.

Oh dear. I wish I had the time and resources at hand to
help you with this, the reality of how research is doneand the
things that have been done is so very nuch more interesting
than the things told by those creationist sites.

Just one little thing- on erosion, and sharp fresh features.

How do you suppose a knife ridge between two valleys
might be formed? Will erosion round it off or was erosion
what formed it?

Some seem to feel that geology is nerdy and dull,
but from my pov, once you understand what you are
looking at the landscape comes alive, rich in details,
and you can in effect run the video forward and backward from
the frame you are looking at. See how it got like this
and where it is going.

Maybe you could find time to study.

One more. The coelacanth thing is not remotely
as you describe it. We're in my territory here- trust me.
That is not at all the story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it is confirnation bias, you quit
looking before you found out that is a
correct, if clunky and genrrally obsolete way
to pluralize. You quit too early researching
a contract and you will be very sorry.

It is very insensible to correct someone when
you are wrong, which was my original point.
Also insensible to think it is ever Subz right- Audie
wrong. Wont happen.

Is that like a trick question about gooses?
Coz the way to use "gooses" is so obvious.

That is a rather poor excuse since language is always evolving. There is a correct usage today, I don't really care if one goes into old enough English that it can be thought to be correct. That sort of attitude hinders communication, it does not aid it. For example "homely" use to have an almost totally opposite meaning from what it has today. That was not a case of confirmation bias. If one needs to find an outdated exception it is still wrong today.

And yes, case where "gooses" is a correct plural is obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh dear. I wish I had the time and resources at hand to
help you with this, the reality of how research is doneand the
things that have been done is so very nuch more interesting
than the things told by those creationist sites.

Just one little thing- on erosion, and sharp fresh features.

How do you suppose a knife ridge between two valleys
might be formed? Will erosion round it off or was erosion
what formed it?

Some seem to feel that geology is nerdy and dull,
but from my pov, once you understand what you are
looking at the landscape comes alive, rich in details,
and you can in effect run the video forward and backward from
the frame you are looking at. See how it got like this
and where it is going.

Maybe you could find time to study.

One more. The coelacanth thing is not remotely
as you describe it. We're in my territory here- trust me.
That is not at all the story.

Just for fun, whether erosion produces sharp or rounded objects is dependent upon quite a few variables. What was the eroding agent? How rapid is the erosion? What material is being eroded? Or to be more precise what materials are being eroded. If one has sedimentary strata alternating between shale and limestone combination of the two can easily be formed. And yes, the landscape tells us quite a bit about the past. One of my favorite images when dealing with believers in the flood is this one:

You can go to this site and click on it once, and after it loads click on it again and it will be roughly six times the size of your screen:

Goosenecks State Park - Wikipedia
That erosional feature alone refutes the global flood myth.

 

[Audie]

That is a rather poor excuse since language is always evolving. There is a correct usage today, I don't really care if one goes into old enough English that it can be thought to be correct. That sort of attitude hinders communication, it does not aid it. For example "homely" use to have an almost totally opposite meaning from what it has today. That was not a case of confirmation bias. If one needs to find an outdated exception it is still wrong today.

Uh, no.
I am not reaching back to the 18th century.
Nor is one "correct" the other "wrong".

Preferred by some in some settings? Sure. Each
in its own.

And you are not bothering to check.

Try google, it is your friend. Try something like
"is evidences plural of evidence".

The moral of the tale is that if you will play
grammar nazi it may backfire.

Oh, re attitude, and hindrance to communication?

You sure you enhanced it by challenging someone on their usage?
Attitude that you know when you dont?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uh, no.
I am not reaching back to the 18th century.
Nor is one "correct" the other "wrong".

Preferred by some in some settings? Sure. Each
in its own.

And you are not bothering to check.

Try google, it is your friend. Try something like
"is evidences plural of evidence".

The moral of the tale is that if you will play
grammar nazi it may backfire.

Oh, re attitude, and hindrance to communication?

You sure you enhanced it by challenging someone on their usage?
Attitude that you know when you dont?

It may not do any good, but then nothing tends to do much good when dealing with creationists. And I did find sources that say it was proper in the past, not so much today. And I even found one source that explained how it can be correct even today, though it is a rather specific usage. When one is discussing a set of different forms of evidence that set can be said to be a collection of "evidences".

https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-plural-of/evidence.html

For example in a legal trial the evidences may include finger print evidence, DNA evidence, and eyewitness evidence. Three different forms of evidence making a collection of evidences.

The biggest risk I have found from posting grammar corrections is breaking Muphry's law - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

It may not do any good, but then nothing tends to do much good when dealing with creationists. And I did find sources that say it was proper in the past, not so much today. And I even found one source that explained how it can be correct even today, though it is a rather specific usage. When one is discussing a set of different forms of evidence that set can be said to be a collection of "evidences".

https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-plural-of/evidence.html

For example in a legal trial the evidences may include finger print evidence, DNA evidence, and eyewitness evidence. Three different forms of evidence making a collection of evidences.

The biggest risk I have found from posting grammar corrections is breaking Muphry's law - Wikipedia

Articles on usage are badly written.

Ever try to read a technical article written by a linguist or grammarian?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Articles on usage are badly written.

Ever try to read a technical article written by a linguist or grammarian?

I have no such interest. I am sure that it would be similar to eating a nice crunch bowl of drywall.