Faithless a Choice?

[Audie]

I just wanted to be sure you were basing your belief on science, since you told me you can prove there was no global flood, and as you know, science does not deal with truth or proof... or is that statement wrong?

Also, since there are apparent discrepancies, I wanted to know what made you so sure that your belief in more than... or at least100,000 years was actually correct.

I'll say though that you did present a good argument, because if the ice we have today existed millions of years, or tens of thousands of years, it would call for a serious explanation for a global flood.
So I think you did well with your argument.

... but it's not proof... or do you think it is?

Do I doubt your belief... Is there any reason you think I should not?
Hasn't years of work and research in science been wrong numerous times? Why is this different?

Science does not prove things but it is good at Disproving something like the flood theory.

If my failing to underline a point that should
be well known to all is a "discrepency", fine.

There is a huge amount of data showing the ice
deeply predates the. "Flood".
NO evidence that the data or conclusion is incorrect.
No evidence that the flood claim is true BTW.


Years of research might be wrong...so you
figure that thousands of borehole accurately
matching known dates, counting layers visually,
just might have some fatal flaw and be totally
wrong? Like count back to AD 79 and find Vesuvius every
time is a fluke, coincidence?

Counting with e log always matches...by
coincidence? C14 daring matches by coincidence.

Maybe the dating works great till it approaches
the dread 5000 year mark, and though there is
still a mile of similarly layered ice below 5000
years, it means nothing?

You figure no polar ice is older than 5000
years or that the dating suddenly stops working
at 5000 years?

Your "might be wrong" tightly corresponds with
my new Argument against Australia

1. Its not in the Bible
2. Many explorers came back with
wrong info: islands that don't exist or
are in the wrong place or size and shape.
3. So Australia is fake


So what if some people claim they can disprove
my claim that there is no Australia.
Lots of other travelers have been wrong!

I guess you know if that is reasonable.

 

[nPeace]

Science does not prove things but it is good at Disproving something like the flood theory.

If my failing to underline a point that should
be well known to all is a "discrepency", fine.

There is a huge amount of data showing the ice
deeply predates the. "Flood".
NO evidence that the data or conclusion is incorrect.
No evidence that the flood claim is true BTW.


Years of research might be wrong...so you
figure that thousands of borehole accurately
matching known dates, counting layers visually,
just might have some fatal flaw and be totally
wrong? Like count back to AD 79 and find Vesuvius every
time is a fluke, coincidence?

Counting with e log always matches...by
coincidence? C14 daring matches by coincidence.

Maybe the dating works great till it approaches
the dread 5000 year mark, and though there is
still a mile of similarly layered ice below 5000
years, it means nothing?

You figure no polar ice is older than 5000
years or that the dating suddenly stops working
at 5000 years?

Your "might be wrong" tightly corresponds with
my new Argument against Australia

1. Its not in the Bible
2. Many explorers came back with
wrong info: islands that don't exist or
are in the wrong place or size and shape.
3. So Australia is fake


So what if some people claim they can disprove
my claim that there is no Australia.
Lots of other travelers have been wrong!

I guess you know if that is reasonable.

I'm not interested in contending the science here... although I could.
I'm just letting you know that you haven't proven anything, for the reasons I mentioned.
The first, you have not given any proof to, is that the ice needed to move and did. It doesn't.
You just assumed it did.

The second is that you are using a system that you cannot prove it's correct. So simply saying no data disproves it, does not mean it's correct... as has been repeatedly shown, when new tests are carried out, and new discoveries made.
So you have not disproved the flood.

By the way. Everything does not happen gradually over millions or thousands of year as some assume @Audie.

 

[Audie]

I'm not interested in contending the science here... although I could.
I'm just letting you know that you haven't proven anything, for the reasons I mentioned.
The first, you have not given any proof to, is that the ice needed to move and did. It doesn't.
You just assumed it did.

The second is that you are using a system that you cannot prove it's correct. So simply saying no data disproves it, does not mean it's correct... as has been repeatedly shown, when new tests are carried out, and new discoveries made.
So you have not disproved the flood.

By the way. Everything does not happen gradually over millions or thousands of year as some assume @Audie.

Of course you are not interested and of course
too, you lack the capacity the challenge the
science involved.

We both knew that at the start.
So that's enough for this part
of my study of the cultural anthropology
regarding rustic religious beliefs and
practices.

Thanks for the contribution.

 

[ppp]

I'll say though that you did present a good argument, because if the ice we have today existed millions of years, or tens of thousands of years, it would call for a serious explanation for a global flood.

There are not enough water molecules on the planet to create a global flood.

 

[McBell]

There are not enough water molecules on the planet to create a global flood.

But...
"GodDidIt"

No other explanation needed or required.

 

[Audie]

There are not enough water molecules on the planet to create a global flood.

There's only enough for a bit more than today's sea level.

Adding that much more water ought to do
something odd to earth's orbit.

I learned from an omphalus sort that the wind which
Dids't waft ye flood away actually carried it to Neptune,
where it shines to this day as a warning beacon against
incoming rogue angels!

 

[Sand Dancer]

Why does the world lack faith? Is it because there is lack of evidence, hence disbelief?
According to the Bible, No. This is not the case. To the contrary.

Belief is a choice. Unbelief is the default position.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Noah's flood according to Biblical chronology, occured around 5,000 years ago.
Why are you so confident of your belief on that amount of years... What do you base it on?

Audie’s point is really moot.

First off, the waters from above would have created a somewhat temperate climate, pre-Flood. (That’s why A&E could go around naked.)
Oh, ice would’ve existed in certain extreme northern and southern places. So a build up of ice could have occurred.
But once the waters in the canopy descended, drastic climatic changes would have happened...hence, permafrost & the animals found in it. IN it, not above it.

The suspended waters falling down, turned to ice & snow, adding more weight to the already-existing ice, compressing / packing it even further.

I think, though, that most of the permafrost came from the “springs of the vast watery deep.” The drastic change in atmosphere would have frozen that water, too.....in the high northern & southern latitudes, of course.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We've been here before.

Well, you keep making the same mistakes.............................

You are talking about something foreign to me

Yes: evidence based belief; rationality; reason

, and I am talking about something foreign to you

Yes: faith based belief; irrationality, unreasonable beliefs

So until we can get on the same page, there is no use in us talking. Agreed?

So unless we agree, we have no points of discussion?

That's...; strange. It seems to me that the exact opposite is true... that there is nothing left to talk about, if we agree on stuff.

The whole point of discussion is to present different viewpoints and then discuss the differences.

But I get the message.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks. You have given enough. So how old do you believe it is?

Her personal beliefs are irrelevant.
The correct question to ask is: "what age is determined based on this data"


You are so entrenched in this whole "belief on faith" thingy, that you can't even seem to imagine or comprehend the idea of having data dictate the answer instead of merely "believing" things that sound nice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Noah's flood according to Biblical chronology, occured around 5,000 years ago.

Demonstrably never happened.

Why are you so confident of your belief on that amount of years... What do you base it on?

She JUST told you no more then 2 posts before the one you are replying to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not interested in contending the science here... although I could.

No, you couldn't. You could certainly pretend to do so, but you actually couldn't.

The second is that you are using a system that you cannot prove it's correct. So simply saying no data disproves it, does not mean it's correct... as has been repeatedly shown, when new tests are carried out, and new discoveries made.

The ages determined by counting the layers, can be cross referenced with other dating methods.
As she told you, you can also double check these dates with OTHER events of which you KNOW the date, like certain volcano eruptions and see if it adds up - and it does.

When you have multiple lines of evidence all converging on the same answers - that's when you KNOW that you have a solid and trustworthy model.

So you have not disproved the flood.

Please.

The flood makes several testable predictions and none of them check out. That alone, already disproves the flood.

By the way. Everything does not happen gradually over millions or thousands of year as some assume @Audie.

But plenty of things do.

 

[Audie]

Audie’s point is really moot.

First off, the waters from above would have created a somewhat temperate climate, pre-Flood. (That’s why A&E could go around naked.)
Oh, ice would’ve existed in certain extreme northern and southern places. So a build up of ice could have occurred.
But once the waters in the canopy descended, drastic climatic changes would have happened...hence, permafrost & the animals found in it. IN it, not above it.

The suspended waters falling down, turned to ice & snow, adding more weight to the already-existing ice, compressing / packing it even further.

I think, though, that most of the permafrost came from the “springs of the vast watery deep.” The drastic change in atmosphere would have frozen that water, too.....in the high northern & southern latitudes, of course.

Your silly and completely evidence-free story really should include the thing about excess water going to Neptune. Kind of caps off the
narrative in style.

You've never responded to my question about
whether you continue to deny that erosion can and does produce spires, knife ridges etc. You've maintained it only produces smooth / rounded structures.

 

[Audie]

No, you couldn't. You could certainly pretend to do so, but you actually couldn't.



The ages determined by counting the layers, can be cross referenced with other dating methods.
As she told you, you can also double check these dates with OTHER events of which you KNOW the date, like certain volcano eruptions and see if it adds up - and it does.

When you have multiple lines of evidence all converging on the same answers - that's when you KNOW that you have a solid and trustworthy model.



Please.

The flood makes several testable predictions and none of them check out. That alone, already disproves the flood.



But plenty of things do.

Re " not everything takes millions of years".

That one really has layers,

No, you couldn't. You could certainly pretend to do so, but you actually couldn't.



The ages determined by counting the layers, can be cross referenced with other dating methods.
As she told you, you can also double check these dates with OTHER events of which you KNOW the date, like certain volcano eruptions and see if it adds up - and it does.

When you have multiple lines of evidence all converging on the same answers - that's when you KNOW that you have a solid and trustworthy model.



Please.

The flood makes several testable predictions and none of them check out. That alone, already disproves the flood.



But plenty of things do.

Yup, some things go fast, others slow.

Kind of weird, our hero presumingvto teach me a lesson from intro to pre remedial geology.

Like I'd never guess that a volcano doesn't take a million years to blow up.

A trace of tres amusing in there, as Christians were all catastrophists until somecwoke up to
the facts that science was turning up about how geological processes actually work.

 

[Audie]

Belief is a choice. Unbelief is the default position.

" Choosing to believe " is a euphemism
for defaulting to intellectual dishonesty.

Picyure a researcher who just chooses to believe his theory is correct, regardless of a lack of evidence, in spite of all evidence.

Here, take this vaccine! Choose to believe like I do! i made it myself!

Weirdly, for "spiritual" folks, this is a virtue.

 

[nPeace]

Of course you are not interested and of course
too, you lack the capacity the challenge the
science involved.

We both knew that at the start.
So that's enough for this part
of my study of the cultural anthropology
regarding rustic religious beliefs and
practices.

Thanks for the contribution.

Seems you believe know what you don't know, but you believe it, so that's okay.
We were talking about your proof that there was no flood, and you haven't provided any.
I do appreciate your argument though. Thanks.

There are not enough water molecules on the planet to create a global flood.

Why? Is it because you assume the earth, back then was exactly as it is now? Would you like to explain a bit more?
I don't mind hearing.

Belief is a choice. Unbelief is the default position.

Not always. Ignorance is a... to use your words, "default position". Willful ignorance is a choice. There is also willful disbelief. That's a choice.
Some people say I am both - willfully ignorant and disbelieving.
I like to think of myself more as a willful believer, but I think it's based on reason. Maybe I am ignorant about that.

Audie’s point is really moot.

First off, the waters from above would have created a somewhat temperate climate, pre-Flood. (That’s why A&E could go around naked.)
Oh, ice would’ve existed in certain extreme northern and southern places. So a build up of ice could have occurred.
But once the waters in the canopy descended, drastic climatic changes would have happened...hence, permafrost & the animals found in it. IN it, not above it.

The suspended waters falling down, turned to ice & snow, adding more weight to the already-existing ice, compressing / packing it even further.

I think, though, that most of the permafrost came from the “springs of the vast watery deep.” The drastic change in atmosphere would have frozen that water, too.....in the high northern & southern latitudes, of course.

I was staying away from assuming. I could assume an explanation but don't want to.

Well, you keep making the same mistakes.............................



Yes: evidence based belief; rationality; reason



Yes: faith based belief; irrationality, unreasonable beliefs



So unless we agree, we have no points of discussion?

That's...; strange. It seems to me that the exact opposite is true... that there is nothing left to talk about, if we agree on stuff.

The whole point of discussion is to present different viewpoints and then discuss the differences.

But I get the message.

You left me here. Which shows you are not interested in discussing anything. You just want to say what you like.
No matter how wrong you are.

Her personal beliefs are irrelevant.
The correct question to ask is: "what age is determined based on this data"


You are so entrenched in this whole "belief on faith" thingy, that you can't even seem to imagine or comprehend the idea of having data dictate the answer instead of merely "believing" things that sound nice.

I have reasons for believing. So do you. What's your problem, Tag?

 

[ppp]

Why? Is it because you assume the earth, back then was exactly as it is now? Would you like to explain a bit more?
I don't mind hearing.

I don't understand your question. The earth was different 10 minutes ago from what it is now.

 

[metis]

There is no objective evidence that there was a worldwide flood.

I believe it is likely that the Flood narrative was in refutation of the earlier and much more widespread Babylonian account that was polytheistic. IOW, it likely was a myth, which doesn't mean falsehood in this context, so as to relate God to our world and what will happen if humans disobey God.

 

[nPeace]

I don't understand your question. The earth was different 10 minutes ago from what it is now.

I just wanted to understand why you thought to mention that the earth does not have enough water molecules to create a global flood.
The earth was once covered by water, according to the Genesis account.
Then it explains what happened with the water and the land.
So I wanted to hear the reason for your comment.
It's no problem though.

 

[Audie]

Seems you believe know what you don't know, but you believe it, so that's okay.
We were talking about your proof that there was no flood, and you haven't provided any.
I do appreciate your argument though. Thanks.



Why? Is it because you assume the earth, back then was exactly as it is now? Would you like to explain a bit more?
I don't mind hearing.



Not always. Ignorance is a... to use your words, "default position". Willful ignorance is a choice. There is also willful disbelief. That's a choice.
Some people say I am both - willfully ignorant and disbelieving.
I like to think of myself more as a willful believer, but I think it's based on reason. Maybe I am ignorant about that.



I was staying away from assuming. I could assume an explanation but don't want to.



You left me here. Which shows you are not interested in discussing anything. You just want to say what you like.
No matter how wrong you are.



I have reasons for believing. So do you. What's your problem, Tag?

I described how the global flood can be deproved. One of many ways.
There is abundant access to the data.

Nothing could disprove it to YOU.
I knew that all along.

My interest is in the weird and varied ways
that people do denial.

One creationist I talked to could see that
if antarctic ice was flooded, it would float.
But he figured it would stay in place due to
circumpolar current.

When I pointed out how setting back
in the right place is a problem he went
dark for a couple of days.

Then he decided (made it up) that the ice was frozen
down like ice to a sidewalk!

I calculated for him the buoyant force of
Ice two miles thick, per square foot.

More than enough to tear a car apart,
let alone break ice free from rock.

After that he wouldn't talk to me.