Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

The Bible says the water came suddenly, and mentions no other atmospheric disruptions.
The "water" deep in the Earth is mineral bound. It's not going to suddenly unbind, rush to the surface for a couple of months then rush bask to re-ensconce itself into the rock.
I don't -- nor do I understand what this would have to do with my analogy.

Do you understand what an analogy is, or how one works?

The analogy doesn't work because the two subjects do not equate. Water can "suddenly unbind" when God wants it to. It does not have to have a natural cause and it only happened once according to the scriptures. Good night.

 

[Valjean]

The biblical account speaks of waters coming from above and below.. Right now that's all I'm saying because many people have been taught that it rained for 40 days & 40 nights, which it did, but the Bible says water also came from below. . "All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." (Genesis 7:11) We can go into dates perhas another time.

Did you see Aron Ra's videos explaining the implausibility of The Flood, that I cited some years ago?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMJP95iZJqEjmc5oxY5r6BzP

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not talking about timing. I'm talking about the fact that the Bible says the water came from the watery deep, and science is now attesting to the idea that there was and is lots of water deep in the earth. Massive 'ocean' discovered towards Earth's core | New Scientist

No, you are abusing the Bible. That water is locked away, it can come out very very slowly. You are ignoring the context of the Bible and desperately looking for any matches. That is not only abusing science. It is abusing the Bible too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The biblical account speaks of waters coming from above and below.. Right now that's all I'm saying because many people have been taught that it rained for 40 days & 40 nights, which it did, but the Bible says water also came from below. . "All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." (Genesis 7:11) We can go into dates perhas another time.

And the water locked away deep in the Earth could not come up here. To get any significant amount to the surface you would have to destroy the crust. And you would not only cook Noah and family you would vaporize them. Please drop this silly argument.

 

[Valjean]

The analogy doesn't work because the two subjects do not equate. Water can "suddenly unbind" when God wants it to. It does not have to have a natural cause and it only happened once according to the scriptures. Good night.

The analogy wasn't about The Flood, it was about atheism, comparing a-theism to a-unicornism.

As for the flood, you're doing exactly what @TagliatelliMonster says in post 4024. When rationality, facts or science fail to support your position, you fall back on magic.

 

[YoursTrue]

The analogy wasn't about The Flood, it was about atheism, comparing a-theism to a-unicornism.

As for the flood, you're doing exactly what @TagliatelliMonster says in post 4024. When rationality, facts or science fail to support your position, you fall back on magic.

Your analogy doesn't make sense. I am sticking to what I understand from scientific opinions, plus I must say that the waters that come from the deep would necessarily come with soil from a looonnngggg time ago. Therefore time dating wouldn't really work.

 

[YoursTrue]

And the water locked away deep in the Earth could not come up here. To get any significant amount to the surface you would have to destroy the crust. And you would not only cook Noah and family you would vaporize them. Please drop this silly argument.

Yeah well the scientists said that waters did come from down below, not necessarily hot spring waters but people generally don't roast in hot spring waters. Besides, yes, aside from speculation as to when, the dates might be figured from the soil that came along with the water, obviously older on the bottom and changing the surface of the earth anyway. So now you've shown me that hardly any of the dating process can be believed when it comes to fossils. Thanks y'all!!!

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, that is well known. During the last glaciation sea level dropped. A lot. but when the ice sheets melted they did not melt over night. They took over a thousand years to to that. The slow rise from the ice sheets melting is a source for some flood myths. For example near where I live there were about 40 major flood caused by a glacial lake repeatedly breaking through temporary walls. Please note, not one flood Forty of them. A

Channeled Scablands - Wikipedia

Also the Black Sea flood that would not have killed anyone but did eat some cities was also likely due to rising sea levels.

After I read your all's posts and offerings about what you think "really happened," what you have done is convince me that what the Bible says is true. And add to that the dating process of the soil, rocks and fossils, well -- thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

The salient point is that there is no physical evidence for such a flood, and a great deal of multidisciplinary evidence not only that it didn't occur, but couldn't have occurred.
In essence, an atheist's opinion of God is the same as an a-unicornist's opinion on unicorns: lack of belief, pending evidence.
This has been explained here in RF a thousand times. I don't understand how you haven't picked up on this.

Again, by comparing an atheist's opinion with that of lack of belief in unicorns is not a really good comparison. But that's how I think, obviously not how you think. But now that you mention it, maybe something in the horse category did have a horn coming out of his head. Oh I checked. Better get rid of your analogy, because guess what?

Yes, Unicorns Were Real — and Now We Have the Fossils to Prove It

Turns out, they looked way different than we thought.

www.goodhousekeeping.com

Scientists say unicorns existed!! Hey, look at that! Just not in the timetable I would agree to, but really -- hey -- they did exist!! (Say the scientists.) Get rid of that analogy now you can believe in -- unicorns.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your analogy doesn't make sense. I am sticking to what I understand from scientific opinions, plus I must say that the waters that come from the deep would necessarily come with soil from a looonnngggg time ago. Therefore time dating wouldn't really work.

How would the water, that is actually part of the rock at that depth get to the surface? Here is a hint cracks won't do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah well the scientists said that waters did come from down below, not necessarily hot spring waters but people generally don't roast in hot spring waters. Besides, yes, aside from speculation as to when, the dates might be figured from the soil that came along with the water, obviously older on the bottom and changing the surface of the earth anyway. So now you've shown me that hardly any of the dating process can be believed when it comes to fossils. Thanks y'all!!!

No, they did not. You misunderstood that article. And we are not talking hot springs here . That water would be live steam. And no, you.have just shown unbelievable ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

After I read your all's posts and offerings about what you think "really happened," what you have done is convince me that what the Bible says is true. And add to that the dating process of the soil, rocks and fossils, well -- thanks.

That is only because you can't be honest.

That is a bit sad. I need to remind you that you do not even have a middle school level of scientific literacy.

You cannot refute anything when you don't know anything.

 

[Audie]

"The Hebrews got their flood myth from the Neo-Babylonians (6th century BCE, during their exile in Babylon) or even earlier by the Neo-Assyrians (7th century BCE)"


Who did the Neo-Babylonians get their flood story from?

At some point someone made it up

 

[Audie]

The Bible says the water came suddenly, and mentions no other atmospheric disruptions. The cited article says "...they [the oceans] have stayed the same size for millions of years."

The "water" deep in the Earth is mineral bound. It's not going to suddenly unbind, a few thousand years ago, rush to the surface for a couple of months, then rush bask to re-ensconce itself into the rock.
I don't -- nor do I understand what this would have to do with my analogy.

Do you understand what an analogy is, or how one works?

Identify the mineral, how deep, what chemical or other process
”binds” the water, what it takes to get it in, and out.

 

[Audie]

OK, thanks for explaining that. Meantime I was reading more about the possibility of a worldwide flood and ti's very interesting. Not that it agrees entirely with the Bible which I know you don't believe, but anyway, here's a bit from an article in the New Scientist: "This was a time when the earth looked very different from what we are used to today. Thick ice sheets extended down from the North Pole as far as Chicago and New York City. All that water had to come from somewhere, so ocean levels were about 400 feet lower than they are today." This is of interest to me and I'll try to tell you later more about this.

Is that actually the first you ever heard of it?

 

[Audie]

The analogy wasn't about The Flood, it was about atheism, comparing a-theism to a-unicornism.

As for the flood, you're doing exactly what @TagliatelliMonster says in post 4024. When rationality, facts or science fail to support your position, you fall back on magic.

Kent it amazing what people will come up with, add to the Bible rather than admit they don’t understand the Bible?
( have a clue what they are talking about)

My fav such is one guy came up with the excess water being wafted to Neptune
where it shines to this day, serving as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Water can "suddenly unbind" when God wants it to.

yeah, sure........

When you start from a premise that an entity that "can do anything" exists, then you can literally account for "anything". Including that which is otherwise impossible by any rational extent.


How you think this is useful or worthy of even a second of rational consideration, though............

 

[Valjean]

Your analogy doesn't make sense. I am sticking to what I understand from scientific opinions, plus I must say that the waters that come from the deep would necessarily come with soil from a looonnngggg time ago. Therefore time dating wouldn't really work.

You don't understand the analogy. It's about credibility and relationships of ideas.
Q: Why don't you believe in leprechauns, or unicorns, or Thor, or little green men in flying saucers? I'm saying that the reason you don't believe in these is the same reason I don't believe in God.

Yeah well the scientists said that waters did come from down below, not necessarily hot spring waters but people generally don't roast in hot spring waters. Besides, yes, aside from speculation as to when, the dates might be figured from the soil that came along with the water, obviously older on the bottom and changing the surface of the earth anyway. So now you've shown me that hardly any of the dating process can be believed when it comes to fossils. Thanks y'all!!!

They're saying this happened billions of years ago, before there was any life on Earth. This has nothing to do with any worldwide flood, or Noah, or arks.

Again, by comparing an atheist's opinion with that of lack of belief in unicorns is not a really good comparison. But that's how I think, obviously not how you think. But now that you mention it, maybe something in the horse category did have a horn coming out of his head. Oh I checked. Better get rid of your analogy, because guess what?

Yes, Unicorns Were Real — and Now We Have the Fossils to Prove It

Turns out, they looked way different than we thought.

www.goodhousekeeping.com

Scientists say unicorns existed!! Hey, look at that! Just not in the timetable I would agree to, but really -- hey -- they did exist!! (Say the scientists.) Get rid of that analogy now you can believe in -- unicorns.

Stop it, please. The analogy is not about unicorns. It's about reasons for belief. The unicorn was just an example of something you don't believe in. You could substitute anything you don't believe in for 'unicorn'.

 

[cladking]

Not my fault that you have no idea how science works.

This was in response to;

"Very concise, very telling, and couldn't be more wrong.

Of course you believe the same illusions Darwin did.

Who needs experiment when you have Darwin and Consensus Opinion?

You actually believe that word games and gainsaying constitute "truth" so long as it agrees with Peers. In this case even the peers won't agree with you."

How does a reasonable man argue with someone who refuses to argue and says that science is deflection, obfuscation, word games, and gainsaying?

Science is experiment. Darwin's illusion is that contemplating fossils constitutes experiment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This was in response to;

"Very concise, very telling, and couldn't be more wrong.

Of course you believe the same illusions Darwin did.

Who needs experiment when you have Darwin and Consensus Opinion?

You actually believe that word games and gainsaying constitute "truth" so long as it agrees with Peers. In this case even the peers won't agree with you."

How does a reasonable man argue with someone who refuses to argue and says that science is deflection, obfuscation, word games, and gainsaying?

Science is experiment. Darwin's illusion is that contemplating fossils constitutes experiment.

No, science is evidence based. Models are created and then tested. Now if you want to define every test as an experiment, and I would be okay with that, then you can say that science is based upon experiment.

And I am sure that you have already been informed that Darwin did not rely on fossils for the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution was formed during the infancy of paleontology. The evidence was lacking back then because only a small percentage of today's fossil lifeforms had been discovered. Darwin said that the fossil record would eventually support his theory, and it did. During his lifetime the first clear transitional fossil was discovered. But he never relied on fossils for his work at all.

You are fractally wrong once again.