- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadGiven that the data is for just the USA, which makes up only ~2% of the Earth's surface...
Where do you get that figure from again for your 'coincidence'? It sure isn't in the link you gave. The article you linked to says that he has so far found evidence of the rock beneath the US and no indication of whether it is found elsewhere. If there are any estimates of how much water there is then it is almost entirely guess work. Certainly nothing down to a 'forty feet' type of accuracy.
I would say that estimates of total volume are exceedingly provisional.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorumWell I am afraid the historicity of even a local 'great flood' is disputed contrary to your claim. There are flood stories in many cultures world wide because floods are not uncommon. There is no reason to believe all the middle eastern stories stem from one event, nor that there was one particularly 'great' event.
Yes, I do not support the theory of a flood of 'global proportions'; I do believe that there was a great flood.
28 Apr 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not particularly invested in the semantics of 'great'. Can we agree that any evidence for any "flood", of whatever proportion, is no evidence for creationism?
Well I am afraid the historicity of even a local 'great flood' is disputed contrary to your claim. There are flood stories in many cultures world wide because floods are not uncommon. There is no reason to believe all the middle eastern stories stem from one event, nor that there was one particularly 'great' event.
29 Apr 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadhttps://www.icr.org/article/842/
Well I am afraid the historicity of even a local 'great flood' is disputed contrary to your claim. There are flood stories in many cultures world wide because floods are not uncommon. There is no reason to believe all the middle eastern stories stem from one event, nor that there was one particularly 'great' event.
Real Evidence for a Worldwide Flood
29 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by dominuslatrunculorumBasic geology says there was no world wide flood. FLOODS for sure, obviously. But LOCAL only. AND not at the same time:
How does this in any way vindicate creationism? The historicity of a great flood is not disputed (and indeed historical memory of a great flood is found in a number of Near East traditions), but this is far from being evidence of a six day creation of the universe.
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-evolution-basic-geology-creationism.html
And yes, even if it was somehow proven there was some kind of world wide flood, that is not evidence for the plagiarized 6 day creation myth.
29 Apr 15
Originally posted by vivifysupport doesn't equal science.
Regarding the writers of the bible, adding that the entire earth was covered, and to the point where the highest mountains were submerged by forty feet---that's about how much water is contained in those crystals. That's a rather lucky coincidence, isn't it?
As far evidence that a flood actually happened, let's be fair: don't scientists make a big deal ...[text shortened]... nt issue, is that a huge support for creationism exists, that didn't exist just a few years ago?
science doesn't rely on popular opinion.
29 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThe problem is as follows:
Real Evidence for a Worldwide Flood
A world wide flood would violate a very large proportion of science including a lot of geology, and much of biology (the life forms we see today simply could not have evolved from a few pairs of animals on an ark in the amount of time given). So if the flood happened, then either there were large scale miracles going on at the time, or much of science is wrong.
If there were miracles, then you cannot produce scientific evidence for the flood, because miracles are unscientific by definition and we cannot rely on science.
If there were no miracles, then much of science is wrong. Again, producing scientific evidence of the flood is a waste of time because science has just been proven unreliable and not to be trusted.
29 Apr 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadA worldwide flood would not violate any science. But a worldwide flood would change the currently accepted worldview of the science evidence. The acceptance of a worldwide flood would just require an adjustment of the current interpretation of the science evidence. 😏
The problem is as follows:
A world wide flood would violate a very large proportion of science including a lot of geology, and much of biology (the life forms we see today simply could not have evolved from a few pairs of animals on an ark in the amount of time given). So if the flood happened, then either there were large scale miracles going on at the ...[text shortened]... flood is a waste of time because science has just been proven unreliable and not to be trusted.
29 Apr 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou mean like this evidence of NO world wide flood?:
A worldwide flood would not violate any science. But a worldwide flood would change the currently accepted worldview of the science evidence. The acceptance of a worldwide flood would just require an adjustment of the current interpretation of the science evidence. 😏
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-evolution-basic-geology-creationism.html
They are not even involving evolution here, just basic geology. Note the emphasis on 'Basic'.
Originally posted by RJHindsAllowing all the plants and animals to survive the flood and then somehow get to where they are now would violate science in a very big way.
A worldwide flood would not violate any science.
If I understand our previous conversation on cats correctly, there were two cats on the ark and from them are descended the domestic house cat, the lion, the jaguar, the tiger etc. And all this in the short space of time between the supposed flood and the first pictures of these animals recorded by the Egyptians / Chinese etc.
But far more damning from a science perspective is where the huge variety of human genes came from in such a short space of time. For someone who thinks macro evolution cant happen, you sure do believe in extremely fast so called micro evolution. But the obvious explanation is you simply don't understand what I am talking about - which begs the question: How the hell did you know that a worldwide flood would not violate any science given that your scientific knowledge is practically non-existent?
29 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSo tell me this: What kind of feline was aboard the Ark? Is a housecat the same 'kind' as a tiger? Also, what kind of plants did they take aboard? And there were, what, 10 people onboard? How do you explain the genetic diversity we see in all of the above, plants, animals, humans? There is no way all that diversity could come about in 5000 odd years. Or 50,000 years. Or 500,000 years.
A worldwide flood would not violate any science. But a worldwide flood would change the currently accepted worldview of the science evidence. The acceptance of a worldwide flood would just require an adjustment of the current interpretation of the science evidence. 😏
That FACT, Jack, is just one more nail in the coffin of the flood BS tale.
29 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Holy Bible does not tell us which kinds of felines were aboard the ark. We simply trust God that He brought what was needed to the ark. 😏
So tell me this: What kind of feline was aboard the Ark? Is a housecat the same 'kind' as a tiger? Also, what kind of plants did they take aboard? And there were, what, 10 people onboard? How do you explain the genetic diversity we see in all of the above, plants, animals, humans? There is no way all that diversity could come about in 5000 odd years. Or 50, ...[text shortened]... Or 500,000 years.
That FACT, Jack, is just one more nail in the coffin of the flood BS tale.