How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[InChrist]

It is just bad science.

You know, the same claim of 'bad science" is made about evolutionists...

"When empirical data are plentiful, though, evolutionists cannot fall back on imaginary stories. That’s when the Darwin rescue team gets into high gear to save the web of belief. Let’s watch how it unfolds in one of evolution’s biggest claimed successes."
How Many More Anomalies Can Darwinism Take? | CEH

 

[InChrist]

Why link to sites written by ignorant or dishonest people? Just because someone puts "scientific" on the label of something does not make it so. In fact it should immediately cause you to question whether it is scientific or not. If it was "scientific" where are the articles in a well accepted peer reviewed journal that support this "science"? If they have none, as is the case with this article, then the odds are enormous that there is no science to their claims.

The problem is that most creationists simply do not understand what is and what is not reliable evidence. Would you like to go over the concept?

In fact your article does not even try to give one whit of scientific evidence against evolution. It is a list, a list of scientists that supposedly oppose evolution, but even that is not true. Your source lied to you. There was a petition circulated years ago about keeping an open mind on evolution. It did not oppose it. Many scientists, not realizing how it was going to be abused, signed it. Later on when they found out that a petition on keeping an open mind, which scientists do try to do, was being used to claim that these scientists doubted evolution and they asked their names to be taken off. None of them were removed. Here is a video that explains that to you:

I will watch this later, don't have time right now,

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will watch this later, don't have time right now,

That is fine. So far your sources are not very reliable. Nor do they have much to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[nPeace]

OK. Sit down, have a drink -- maybe a double -- and give this a chance. I'm going to link to Potty-Mouth again, but this time I've carefully reviewed the video and, while there's still a bit of snark, some scattered irreverence, and some questionable (even by me) hermenuetics, there is no potty-mouthism, and some good points are made.
This video deals with the animals on the arc:

It's really a good thing I didn't get that drink after all, rather than spill it, I might have choked. Gee. That would have been awful... Well maybe not for some.

I saw nothing but some guy trying to inject his thoughts and ideas into the creation account... which I don't find to be different to what many are doing here.

So what was your point for providing the video?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's really a good thing I didn't get that drink after all, rather than spill it, I might have choked. Gee. That would have been awful... Well maybe not for some.

I saw nothing but some guy trying to inject his thoughts and ideas into the creation account... which I don't find to be different to what many are doing here.

So what was your point for providing the video?

You are not coming off well here. You have only been displaying utter ignorance of the sciences and wallowing in that ignorance.

Here is a helpful hint. Let's start with a discussion of the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence. That way you will begin to be able to follow the conversations here.

 

[nPeace]

Subduction Zone said scientific theory or testable hypothesis required scientific EVIDENCES to be true. He didn’t say PROOFS.

Proof and evidence are not the same things in science.

Proof is merely a logical or mathematical statement, like a mathematical equation or a formula, or even a constant. Proof only provide abstract logical solution.

Evidence, on the other hand, provide real-world solution, and you have to be able to observe or detect the evidence (detecting it required instrument or device), measure the evidence, quantify it, test it, or any combination of the above.

Regarding to observing and detecting, for instance, when people work with electricity and electronic, we cannot observe what electricity in wires, circuits, transistors, with our see with our eyes, hear with our ears, smell with our noses, though we could taste with our tongue or feel with touch (I highly don’t recommend the last two).

So how do we safely observe electricity. We used used devices, like the multimeters to measure the current, voltage, power, energy or resistance. Such a device can not only detect the presence of electricity, but safely measure it.

But getting back to proof and evidence.

The difference is, proof is only a statement on logic derived from human reasoning. But what if the person’s mathematical skills are not up to the task, and his equations are faulty or wrong?

Evidence on the other hand, are independent of human reasoning. When a person perform an experiment, then the result (evidence, not proof) will either back his claim or refute it.

Sometimes, the evidences will back up the proof (mathematical equations), but sometimes they don’t.

To give an example, Superstring Theory is not a “scientific theory” despite connotating the word “Theory” in its name. It is not a scientific theory, because it isn’t back up by testable scientific evidences. But Superstring Theory does have proofs, and these are in forms of complex equations.

Superstring Theory falls under the category of “theoretical” physics.

Other theoretical physics, like M-Theory (a subset of String Theory), Multiverse cosmology, etc, have proofs but no empirical evidences.

Theoretical science are actually in hypothetical phase in scientific model, it is a proposed solution that are currently untestable at this stage.

Theoretical physics rely on proofs, thus they relied on solving complex equations, but have no real world solution as in no empirical evidences.

Einstein’s Relativity actually started out being theoretical physics, relying on mathematical solutions and simulation like logical models or representation.

It were other scientists who verified Einstein’s works with repeatable experiments and empirical evidences, which turn his theoretical physics into experimental physics.

It is the scientific evidences that test hypothesis/theory, not some mathematical proofs.

If you can measure, quantify, test or detect/observe the phenomena, then these are evidences, not proof.

In science, there are no such things as “empirical proofs”. The right word to use is evidence, so “empirical evidences” make much more sense.

ev·i·dence
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.

When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.

inferred evidence
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

How Scientists Make Inferences
Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly. For example, scientists cannot see dinosaurs, the bottom of the ocean, or atoms and molecules. Still, scientists want to know more about these things, so they gather evidence about them in other ways. For example, they make observations of fossil dinosaur droppings or measure the amount of time it takes sound to travel to the bottom of the ocean.
Although atoms and molecules are too small to see, scientists use very powerful microscopes to gather evidence about them. Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating. For example, when scientists figure out what is in a fossil dinosaur dropping, they can then make inferences about what the dinosaur ate when it was alive. They are not observing the dinosaur eating—they are using evidence to make an inference.

Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable. For example, scientists cannot directly observe an extinct organism or the surface of a faraway planet. In these instances, scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking emerge.

I am using evidence according to the definition of evidence, as provided by credible sources.

A primary source provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work of art. Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, audio and video recordings, speeches, and art objects.
Primary and Secondary Sources Explained by Common Craft (VIDEO)

The event of a global flood is referred to by later historical figures, and there is evidence to indicate that the event is true - did happen.
Matthew 24:38 Jesus Christ
Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view)
2 Peter 2:5 Simon Peter
Josephus - The Antiquities of the Jews

CHAPTER 3. Concerning The Flood; And After What Manner Noah Was Saved In An Ark, With His Kindred, And Afterwards Dwelt In The Plain Of Shinar

Scientific Evidence of Flood May Give Credence to Legend of China’s First Dynasty
Fossil Graveyards | Genesis Park

 

[Subduction Zone]

ev·i·dence
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.

When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.

inferred evidence
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

How Scientists Make Inferences
Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly. For example, scientists cannot see dinosaurs, the bottom of the ocean, or atoms and molecules. Still, scientists want to know more about these things, so they gather evidence about them in other ways. For example, they make observations of fossil dinosaur droppings or measure the amount of time it takes sound to travel to the bottom of the ocean.
Although atoms and molecules are too small to see, scientists use very powerful microscopes to gather evidence about them. Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating. For example, when scientists figure out what is in a fossil dinosaur dropping, they can then make inferences about what the dinosaur ate when it was alive. They are not observing the dinosaur eating—they are using evidence to make an inference.

Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable. For example, scientists cannot directly observe an extinct organism or the surface of a faraway planet. In these instances, scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking emerge.

I am using evidence according to the definition of evidence, as provided by credible sources.

A primary source provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work of art. Primary sources include historical and legal documents, eyewitness accounts, results of experiments, statistical data, pieces of creative writing, audio and video recordings, speeches, and art objects.
Primary and Secondary Sources Explained by Common Craft (VIDEO)

The event of a global flood is referred to by later historical figures, and there is evidence to indicate that the event is true - did happen.
Matthew 24:38 Jesus Christ
Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view)
2 Peter 2:5 Simon Peter
Josephus - The Antiquities of the Jews

Scientific Evidence of Flood May Give Credence to Legend of China’s First Dynasty
Fossil Graveyards | Genesis Park

All that demonstrates is that you can copy and paste and then not following your own definition. Your number one failure is that you are not using credible resources.

This is a science based discussion. That means that you should be using science based resources. Creationist sources often require their workers to swear not to use the scientific method. Hardly a valid source for such discussions.

Would you care to try again?

 

[Earthling]

There are many different interpretations of the Noah's Ark myth in Genesis. From my experience all of them can be shown to have never occurred. My only assumption here will be that it God exists he does not lie.

Of course I can't demonstrate a concept to be in error until people clearly state their beliefs. So please tell us what you mean by the Floor and we can discuss your version.

i don't have the faith in science that you have.

 

[nPeace]

All that demonstrates is that you can copy and paste and then not following your own definition. Your number one failure is that you are not using credible resources.

This is a science based discussion. That means that you should be using science based resources. Creationist sources often require their workers to swear not to use the scientific method. Hardly a valid source for such discussions.

Would you care to try again?

After you. When you take time to read my posts.

 

[gnostic]

It went into the oceans and back underground. Again we don't know what the sea level was before the flood. We only know what it is now. According to ancient accounts the Atlantic ocean was considered impassible for ships because it was muddy. This was attributed to the sinking of Atlantis. The stories of Atlantis themselves may be memories of the antediluvian world.

You actually don’t know what you are talking about, 74x12.

In the Levant, before the Bronze Age Phoenician cities, three Neolithic towns were settled on Mediterranean coastline. At that time, there were no recorded names to these towns, but they would later be called in the Bronze Age and Iron Age, Ugarit, Byblos and Sidon.

The Neolithic began with the retreat of the ice sheets from the northern regions of Eurasian continents, around 11,500 BCE, and started with farming, as in agriculture began very early on.

The earliest settlements in the Neolithic period on the coast were:

• Ugarit, certainly before 6000 BCE, where early town was actually fortified by 6000 BCE.
• Byblos, is the oldest, with evidences of settlement, existing as early as 8800 BCE.
• Sidon, as a city flourished from about 4000 BCE, but evidences of human inhabitants in the area exist as early as about 5800 BCE.

With Byblos, only Jericho and Damascus are older than Byblos, but they are landlocked, where as Byblos earliest settlement was built on the coast. And we are talking about “sea level”.

I would like to focused on Byblos and Sidon, because these continued to be inhabited since Neolithic time.

Do you understand what I am saying here, 74x12, with “continuously inhabited”?

Both Byblos and Sidon showed that they were inhabited since Neolithic period (10,000 - 3800 BCE), and throughout the Chalcolithic period (3800 - 3100 BCE) and Bronze Age (3100 - 1000 BCE).

If Genesis Flood was true, then it would have dated around 2400 and 2100 BCE, depending on how you would read Exodus 12:40-41. This would coincide with the 5th and 6th dynasties in Egypt.

But there are no evidences to show that Byblos or Sidon ever destroyed by such Flood. That Byblos and Sidon, as well as Tyre, existing throughout 3rd millennium BCE, without evidences of their destruction, would indicate that the sea level didn’t change much in the Mediterranean.

There are signs that Sidon was destroyed twice in ancient times, but that was during the Iron Age (1st mi, and due to wars, not flood.

 

[74x12]

You actually don’t know what you are talking about, 74x12.

In the Levant, before the Bronze Age Phoenician cities, three Neolithic towns were settled on Mediterranean coastline. At that time, there were no recorded names to these towns, but they would later be called in the Bronze Age and Iron Age, Ugarit, Byblos and Sidon.

The Neolithic began with the retreat of the ice sheets from the northern regions of Eurasian continents, around 11,500 BCE, and started with farming, as in agriculture began very early on.

The earliest settlements in the Neolithic period on the coast were:

• Ugarit, certainly before 6000 BCE, where early town was actually fortified by 6000 BCE.
• Byblos, is the oldest, with evidences of settlement, existing as early as 8800 BCE.
• Sidon, as a city flourished from about 4000 BCE, but evidences of human inhabitants in the area exist as early as about 5800 BCE.

With Byblos, only Jericho and Damascus are older than Byblos, but they are landlocked, where as Byblos earliest settlement was built on the coast. And we are talking about “sea level”.

I would like to focused on Byblos and Sidon, because these continued to be inhabited since Neolithic time.

Do you understand what I am saying here, 74x12, with “continuously inhabited”?

Both Byblos and Sidon showed that they were inhabited since Neolithic period (10,000 - 3800 BCE), and throughout the Chalcolithic period (3800 - 3100 BCE) and Bronze Age (3100 - 1000 BCE).

If Genesis Flood was true, then it would have dated around 2400 and 2100 BCE, depending on how you would read Exodus 12:40-41. This would coincide with the 5th and 6th dynasties in Egypt.

But there are no evidences to show that Byblos or Sidon ever destroyed by such Flood. That Byblos and Sidon, as well as Tyre, existing throughout 3rd millennium BCE, without evidences of their destruction, would indicate that the sea level didn’t change much in the Mediterranean.

There are signs that Sidon was destroyed twice in ancient times, but that was during the Iron Age (1st mi, and due to wars, not flood.

Thank you. I know you mean well, but I don't need a history lesson. Sidon was made after the flood. Dating methods used for archaeology are especially tricky.

Various means. Radiometric dating, geomagnetic reversals.

Please, you don't know a lick of science and are grasping at straws. If you want to learn people here can help you. If you insist on keeping yourself ignorant you will only look bad.

I know more than you realize. I'm not worried about the way I appear to you and your fellow atheists or secularists. No offense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

i don't have the faith in science that you have.

Faith is not needed. That is your weakness not mine. And if you don't have faith in science, as you put it, you should not be on the internet. Your use of science marks your actions as hypocritical.

 

[Earthling]

Faith is not needed. That is your weakness not mine. And if you don't have faith in science, as you put it, you should not be on the internet. Your use of science marks your actions as hypocritical.

Nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know more than you realize. I'm not worried about the way I appear to you and your fellow atheists or secularists. No offense.

I seriously doubt that. If that were true it would mean that you are incredibly dishonest. Now you may want to claim that about yourself. I personally am not willing to insult you in that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense.

Yes, nonsense is all that you can post here. Why not try to learn instead?

 

[Earthling]

Yes, nonsense is all that you can post here. Why not try to learn instead?

I tried that, remember, all you kept saying was I was stupid for not believing the same thing as you. You wouldn't teach me, you wouldn't even answer one simple question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

After you. When you take time to read my posts.

I don't read your post. At best you do not understand your failure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I tried that, remember, all you kept saying was I was stupid for not believing the same thing as you. You wouldn't teach me, you wouldn't even answer one simple question.

I never said that you were stupid. And from what I remember you do not even know enough to ask a proper question. At this point you should be concentrating on learning.

You refused to even try to learn. That may have merited name calling, but I did not stool to that.

 

[74x12]

Faith is not needed. That is your weakness not mine. And if you don't have faith in science, as you put it, you should not be on the internet. Your use of science marks your actions as hypocritical.

So do we need faith in science or not? You say it is not needed and then you contradict yourself in the next sentence.

And how can anyone be hypocritical against science? It's not a creed, it's not a religion. It's just science. It's just the advancement of learning. It has many fields, many theories. We don't have to walk in lock step with your idea of science to be for or against science. That's cult-like thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So do we need faith in science or not? You say it is not needed and then you contradict yourself in the next sentence.

It appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word "faith" since I did not contradict myself. Faith is belief without reliable evidence.I

And how can anyone be hypocritical against science? It's not a creed, it's not a religion. It's just science. It's just the advancement of learning. It has many fields, many theories. We don't have to walk in lock step with your idea of science to be for or against science. That's cult-like thinking.

Using devices that rely on the science that one denies is hypocritical.