Sources vs Science

[nPeace]

It would appear to be alluvial, and its contents would largely demonstrate they were water-deposited.

Why would you expect it to be alluvial, and how would you know what is or isn't water deposits today?

It would be a geological flood layer and since the claim is that the whole world was under water, you'd find it everywhere. And every part of it that was datable would date to the same date in the last ten thousand years.

See above.

But of course, you don't find that, nor anything like it. Just your usual flood layers associated with rivers, existing presently or anciently.

Really? Do tell.
You know this?
Why does science not claim to know? Please explain.

Because it will give you a basis for understanding why what you've claimed makes no geological sense. But of course, your technique is not to address the substance, not to go near the hard bits.

Basic understanding of what exactly? Please be specific about what I claimed, and why it makes "no geological sense".

For an apologist, you have flashes of real humor at times, by golly!

Yeah. I do get quite a bit of those on RF.
It's unavailable. LOL

 

[blü 2]

Why would you expect it to be alluvial, and how would you know what is or isn't water deposits today?

What do you think alluvial means?

Now it's your turn. Where do you say the water came from?

It had to cover the top of Mt Everest, so it had to lift present sea levels something a shade under 30,000 feet, and for that you're going to need 1.113 billion cubic miles of water over and above the water on the earth, as you can quickly check by doing your sums. But let's allow a bit because the Himalayas may have risen somewhat due to tectonic forces in that period, and settle for a round billion cubic miles of water.

Where did it come from and where is it now?

 

[nPeace]

What do you think alluvial means?

Now it's your turn. Where do you say the water came from?

It had to cover the top of Mt Everest, so it had to lift present sea levels something a shade under 30,000 feet, and for that you're going to need 1.113 billion cubic miles of water over and above the water on the earth, as you can quickly check by doing your sums. But let's allow a bit because the Himalayas may have risen somewhat due to tectonic forces in that period, and settle for a round billion cubic miles of water.

Where did it come from and where is it now?

You haven't answered my question. Right now you are speculating, so don't expect me to play into your speculations.
Help me understand why you speculate.
Or... Do this... Provide me with credible data, and I will respond to that.
I'm not interested in speculation from skeptics, designed to support their bias.

 

[blü 2]

You haven't answered my question. Right now you are speculating, so don't expect me to play into your speculations.
Help me understand why you speculate.
Or... Do this... Provide me with credible data, and I will respond to that.
I'm not interested in speculation from skeptics, designed to support their bias.

You haven't answered my question. Right now you are speculating, so don't expect me to play into your speculations.

I'm not expecting you to play into my speculations.

It's your water. Where did it come from and where is it now?

And how do you know?

Without the water I have nothing to speculate about, so fill me in.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not expecting you to play into my speculations.

It's your water. Where did it come from and where is it now?

And how do you know?

Without the water I have nothing to speculate about, so fill me in.

No. It is you speculating as I repeatedly said, that the mountain was as tall as you assume it to be, requiring the amount of water you assume must be accounted for.
If you make these assumptions then you are making the story to fit your speculations.

 

[blü 2]

No. It is you speculating as I repeatedly said, that the mountain was as tall as you assume it to be, requiring the amount of water you assume must be accounted for.
If you make these assumptions then you are making the story to fit your speculations.

So you can't give me any water I have to debunk?

I accept your abject surrender, puzzled only as to why it took so long.

(Suggestion: bring your knowledge of geology up to at least the level where you know what and where a geological layer is, and what 'alluvium' means. And look up 'Tectonics' while you're there.)

 

[nPeace]

So you can't give me any water I have to debunk?

I accept your abject surrender, puzzled only as to why it took so long.

(Suggestion: bring your knowledge of geology up to at least the level where you know what and where a geological layer is, and what 'alluvium' means. And look up 'Tectonics' while you're there.)

Have a good one.

 

[blü 2]

Have a good one.

Don't forget ─ you still haven't told me who got it right about the nature of Jesus, and who screwed up.

 

[paarsurrey]

In doing some research, I came across this article. and to be honest, it instantly set me thinking about how men look at science. Do they really take into account its limitations?

Not focusing on the fact that absence of evidence, does not mean scientific evidence...
For example, saying that there is no evidence for a big boat with eight people being carried through the waters of a worldwide flood, is not scientific evidence. Nor is saying that, there is no evidence Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago, scientific evidence. Discovering that a Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago as was, claimed by a document, would be scientific evidence.

What I want to focus on is the limits of science to confirm, verify, or refute a source.
So back to the article The earthquake in the days of Uzziah
Is it necessarily the case that Josephus' story is wrong, or could it be right (not saying it is)?
In otter words, could there have been an earthquake, at the time Josephus said, and one after, at the time scientists calculated, so that two quakes occurred within a two year period? How would scientists know whether a quake occurred shortly before the one they calculated?
Or, should we assume the source would mention two, if they actually were, within a two year period? Could the source have referred to just one - the one personally witnessed, and not referred to the other?

Science has its limitation, and sure it cannot cross them, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

Is there scientific evidence for a naturalistic answer to how the universe got here?
How does evolution fit into this evidence?

A hundred years ago there was not a naturalistic explanation of earthquakes or rain. Goddidit!
Two hundred years ago there was not a naturalistic explanation of disease. God's wrath!
Three hundred years ago there was none for eclipses. "God's warnings."
Four hundred years ago it was all magic...

Be patient.
How the universe got here is under active investigation. If you're really interested, read the latest findings. (warning: it's complicated -- NSFR.


NSFR -- Not safe for religious.

 

[Valjean]

Because that is the definition of "creationist".

This is an equivocation error on your part. Creationism arose as an opposition to the theory of evolution.

Exactly!
"Creation" = Magic poofing, not physics or chemistry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly!
"Creation" = Magic poofing, not physics or chemistry.

My Google-fu is weak today. In the past I found an article that attributed the first use of the term "Creationist" to Charles Darwin himself. I cannot find that article today

 

[Brian2]

No, Brian, large regional floods have occurred in past history and in recent history.

But for Noah to being warned about the 100 years before it occur, if the flood was regional, it is utterly senseless to build an Ark, when he could have more easily and safely move his family to area not affected by this local flood.

God did not want to bring the flood and 100 years is probably enough time to give people to repent when Noah told them what he was doing and why, giving them warning.

The Ice Ages ended 7000 YEARS BEFORE THE EARLY BRONZE AGE (3100 - 2000 BCE), so the notion that the ice ages were responsible for the Genesis Flood and for other myths, is rather tenuous, and the evidence don’t support any of them all, regardless if they were worldwide or local/regional.

There are no connection between myths and the ice ages.

Second, the ice sheets mostly covered Northern Europe and Asia, and North America, and some high mountainous regions, eg the Swiss Alps, Caucasian mountains, Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas, the Rocky Mountains, the Andres, etc.

On the Swiss Alps for instance, the ice sheets was isolated, surrounded by areas not covered by the sheets.

And there were no ice sheets in Egypt, the Levant and Mesopotamia.

And don’t confuse what the myths say with geology, because geological evidence don’t show one massive flood, especially covering mountains as Genesis claim.

Genesis says the flood covered all the high hills in the land. That is a legitimate translation.
Years ago the scientific idea was that things had not changed much over time and now science has found that catastrophies weren't that uncommon. These included flooding and large flooding.
The dates vary as to when the flooding took place at the end of the last ice age but that is OK because we do not know when Noah's flood happened. The genealogies of Genesis it seems missed many generations and only included more important characters.
I am told that the sea levels dropped about 400 feet during the ice age so I imagine that people followed the shore line down so they could fish etc. Also people would go to warmer climates where possible no doubt. People put themselves into places where they were flood vulnerable and so a world wide flood above the highest mountains was not needed. (But of course there had been no reason in the past to think that it was not a worldwide flood so no reason to translate the Bible differently----science is good at telling us how parts of the Bible should be understood and translated)
It is science that tells us about these things and the huge floods that happened.
Once it was a case of "no huge floods so no Noah's flood". Uniformitarianism I think it was called. Now we know floods happened, (catastrophism) and huge ones, so there is no reason to put Noah's flood and others reported around the world into the myth basket. But people manage to do that anyway.
Have a look at some of these articles and see what I mean about what science has found and is saying.
Ancient flood brought Gulf Stream to a halt | New Scientist
Ancient flood myths may have a basis in geological history
Megafloods of the Ice Age
It's great the way science is showing the Bible to be correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God did not want to bring the flood and 100 years is probably enough time to give people to repent when Noah told them what he was doing and why, giving them warning.




Genesis says the flood covered all the high hills in the land. That is a legitimate translation.
Years ago the scientific idea was that things had not changed much over time and now science has found that catastrophies weren't that uncommon. These included flooding and large flooding.
The dates vary as to when the flooding took place at the end of the last ice age but that is OK because we do not know when Noah's flood happened. The genealogies of Genesis it seems missed many generations and only included more important characters.
I am told that the sea levels dropped about 400 feet during the ice age so I imagine that people followed the shore line down so they could fish etc. Also people would go to warmer climates where possible no doubt. People put themselves into places where they were flood vulnerable and so a world wide flood above the highest mountains was not needed. (But of course there had been no reason in the past to think that it was not a worldwide flood so no reason to translate the Bible differently----science is good at telling us how parts of the Bible should be understood and translated)
It is science that tells us about these things and the huge floods that happened.
Once it was a case of "no huge floods so no Noah's flood". Uniformitarianism I think it was called. Now we know floods happened, (catastrophism) and huge ones, so there is no reason to put Noah's flood and others reported around the world into the myth basket. But people manage to do that anyway.
Have a look at some of these articles and see what I mean about what science has found and is saying.
Ancient flood brought Gulf Stream to a halt | New Scientist
Ancient flood myths may have a basis in geological history
Megafloods of the Ice Age
It's great the way science is showing the Bible to be correct.

It is a common layman's misconception to say that Uniformitarianism says that since there are no large floods today that there were no large floods in the past. All that uniformitarianism says is that the physical laws of today are the physical laws of the past. You probably accept uniformitarianism.

The large floods of the past do refute the Noah's Ark myth. Large floods leave evidence of their existence. There is no evidence of a flood as told in the Bible. Even you have to reinterpret the Bible to only the tall hills being covered. Though it does not limit it to that. If you demote the flood to just the high hills in a lowland being covered that means that for the vast majority of the world there would have been no flood and the Ark was superfluous. You just refuted the myth with your interpretation. Congratulations.

 

[Brian2]

Exactly!
"Creation" = Magic poofing, not physics or chemistry.

Creation is a belief just as any scientific version of how things came to be would be a belief. It would not be science, just speculation and magic speculation at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creation is a belief just as any scientific version of how things came to be would be a belief. It would not be science, just speculation and magic speculation at that.

You do not appear to know the difference between knowledge and belief. Creationism is a mere belief. One that has been refuted. The sciences are evidence based. That allows a much more rational belief.

 

[gnostic]

Genesis says the flood covered all the high hills in the land. That is a legitimate translation.

Excuse me, but Genesis 8:4 the following:

4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

Mount Ararat aren’t hills, Brian. They are mountains, which have 2 peaks,

1. Greater Ararat, over 5100 m high (elevation), and
2. Little Ararat, nearly 3900 m elevation.

Both are dormant volcanoes. There are evidence that have both seismic activities and volcanic eruption that occur around 2500-2400 BCE, but no evidence of mass flood around that time.

Large regional flooding always leave evidence in the areas, but there are no massive flooding in the Middle East in the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BCE.

Flood occurred annually in the 3rd millennium BCE Mesopotamia, and the Sumerians living along the Euphrates and Tigris have managed to use these flood waters to irrigate the fields for crops.

There have been some more damaging flood along the Euphrates, especially at the city state called Shuruppak, there real evidence of flood around 2900 BCE.

Shuruppak was the homeland of Ziusudra, the original legendary flood hero, who saved his family from the river flood (eg WB62 Sumerian king list, Eridu Genesis, Death of Bilgames), and the sources for other Akkadian Atrahasis (Epic of Atrahasis, 17th century BCE) and the Babylonian Utnapishtim (Epic of Gilgamesh).

It is clear that the Genesis Noah was adapted from the myth of Ziusudra/Atrahasis/Utnapishtim. Even a fragment of the clay tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh exist in the Bronze Age Megiddo and Ugarit, which tell us the 2nd millennium BCE Canaanites knew of Utnapishtim myth, which would means that the 1st millennium Israelites would have known about Utnapishtim and Gilgamesh too.

Anyway, the point is that geologists and archaeologists would know where to find evidence of any fire, any earthquakes, any volcanic eruptions and any major flooding in the sites.

The problem isn’t with Genesis flood myth, but with your interpretations of this myth, trying to twist “mountains” into “hills”. Genesis 8:4 are mountains of Ararat, not “tall hills”.

 

[Brian2]

It is a common layman's misconception to say that Uniformitarianism says that since there are no large floods today that there were no large floods in the past. All that uniformitarianism says is that the physical laws of today are the physical laws of the past. You probably accept uniformitarianism.

The large floods of the past do refute the Noah's Ark myth. Large floods leave evidence of their existence. There is no evidence of a flood as told in the Bible. Even you have to reinterpret the Bible to only the tall hills being covered. Though it does not limit it to that. If you demote the flood to just the high hills in a lowland being covered that means that for the vast majority of the world there would have been no flood and the Ark was superfluous. You just refuted the myth with your interpretation. Congratulations.

You do not understand what my view is and what the Bible could be speaking of.
I don't mind refuting what you might think the Bible is saying. I use science to understand what the Bible could mean, that is the way it has always been.
Many very large floods could have devastated the societies of say 10000 years ago all over the world.

 

[Brian2]

You do not appear to know the difference between knowledge and belief. Creationism is a mere belief. One that has been refuted. The sciences are evidence based. That allows a much more rational belief.

The idea that God created everything has not been refuted even if a young earth creationism has.
It is good when science starts showing us that what the Bible tells us is true. IMO that is happening.
Science is evidence based but it is not rational to say that science shows us that there is no God.
Actually with science showing that the history of the early earth as shown in the Bible is correct, that would make it rational to believe the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The idea that God created everything has not been refuted even if a young earth creationism has.
It is good when science starts showing us that what the Bible tells us is true. IMO that is happening.
Science is evidence based but it is not rational to say that science shows us that there is no God.
Actually with science showing that the history of the early earth as shown in the Bible is correct, that would make it rational to believe the Bible.

I have never claimed that God has been disproved. Only certain versions of God have been disproved. The Bible does not agree with science for the early Earth. That takes some very creative reinterpreting. It is best to treat all of Genesis as allegory. It can work that way.