How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Rise]

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 go by what the Bible says.

-Water burst out from within the earth and fell from the sky.
-Every mountain peak was covered by water.
-From the first day of the flood event, rain fell for 40 days.
-Five months after the first day of the flood event (150 days), the water started to recede.
-On the first of the tenth month (which I presume is 74 days later based on other dates given), the tops of mountains are visible again. Although this is a bit ambiguous. Is it a statement that mountaintops were now visible just from Noah's perspective on the ark while resting on mount ararat, or that this is when mountains over the whole earth first would be visible even though no one was left alive to witness them?
-After another 40 days Noah starts testing the extent of the flood waters receding by sending out a raven.
-After 7 days he tried again with a dove, and a dove returned with a fresh olive branch.
-After 7 more days he did it again, but the dove did not return.
-On the first of the first month (which I presume is 7 days later), the water was dried up from the earth.
-On the 27th of the 2nd month (which I presume is 56 days later), the water on the earth was completely dry. And then God told Noah to leave the ark.
-From the first day of the flood event to leaving the ark, it was presumably 370 days.

I await you attempting to prove this never happened.

 

[ecco]

Your entire list is of discredited and incompetent scientists. Here is a question that you will not be able to answer:

There are over 700 Scientists that have signed a document stating they are unconvinced about Darwinism.

WOW! That's a lot of scientists.





Or is it?


Actually it's about 0.063% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999

What?!? Less than 1%? Less than 1/10th of 1%?

Golly, that's not a lot after all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I go by what the Bible says.

-Water burst out from within the earth and fell from the sky.
-Every mountain peak was covered by water.
-From the first day of the flood event, rain fell for 40 days.
-Five months after the first day of the flood event (150 days), the water started to recede.
-On the first of the tenth month (which I presume is 74 days later based on other dates given), the tops of mountains are visible again. Although this is a bit ambiguous. Is it a statement that mountaintops were now visible just from Noah's perspective on the ark while resting on mount ararat, or that this is when mountains over the whole earth first would be visible even though no one was left alive to witness them?
-After another 40 days Noah starts testing the extent of the flood waters receding by sending out a raven.
-After 7 days he tried again with a dove, and a dove returned with a fresh olive branch.
-After 7 more days he did it again, but the dove did not return.
-On the first of the first month (which I presume is 7 days later), the water was dried up from the earth.
-On the 27th of the 2nd month (which I presume is 56 days later), the water on the earth was completely dry. And then God told Noah to leave the ark.
-From the first day of the flood event to leaving the ark, it was presumably 370 days.

I await you attempting to prove this never happened.

Actually the burden of proof would be upon you. You are the one making an extraordinary claim.

Every science there is tells us that this never happened. But here is a simple on, since you posted in a rather arrogant manner you get an arrogant answer. Does ice float in your world? If that is the case there was no flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are over 700 Scientists that have signed a document stating they are unconvinced about Darwinism.

WOW! That's a lot of scientists.





Or is it?


Actually it's about 0.063% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999

What?!? Less than 1%? Less than 1/10th of 1%?

Golly, that's not a lot after all.

And that is just the U.S. According to the UNESCO Science Report there were 7.8 million full time researchers in the world. That is not just people with a PhD which is all that was required to be on that list. That is the number of active scientists in the world. I would say that clearly less than 700 (if only active scientists are counted) is very small beans. 700 losers and loons out of 7 million, I bet other disciplines wish that they could boast such numbers.

EDIT: Linky:

Facts and figures from the UNESCO Science Report

 

[Rise]

Actually the burden of proof would be upon you. You are the one making an extraordinary claim.

No, look at your thread title and first post:

"How we know that there was no Flood of Noah."
"all of them can be shown to have never occurred."
"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."

You are the one who declared that if I stated what I believed that you would demonstrate why that concept is in error, show why it never occured, and tell how we know it never happened. I await you attempting to fulfill your promise.

Every science there is tells us that this never happened.

Here again you just made a positive assertion that demands proof.
Now the onus is on you to prove your claim is true with some examples of why science tells us this never happened, and why those conclusions from science are known to be true.

Does ice float in your world? If that is the case there was no flood.

You base your conclusion on presumptions that are unproven. Prove first your presumption is true that the icecaps didn't form after the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, look at your thread title and first post:

"How we know that there was no Flood of Noah."
"all of them can be shown to have never occurred."
"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."

You are the one who declared that if I stated what I believed that you would demonstrate why that concept is in error, show why it never occured, and tell how we know it never happened. I await you attempting to fulfill your promise.



Here again you just made a positive assertion that demands proof.
Now the onus is on you to prove your claim is true with some examples of why science tells us this never happened, and why those conclusions from science are known to be true.



You base your conclusion on presumptions that are unproven. Prove first your presumption is true that the icecaps didn't form after the flood.

You acted poorly here. You combined arrogance and ignorance, always a losing tactic. Your claim was refuted. If you properly asked how I would gladly politely inform you.

So tell me, does ice float in your world?

 

[Rise]

Your claim was refuted.

Which claim?

Either way, you're guilty of the logical fallacy "argument by assertion".
Merely claiming you refuted my points doesn't mean it's true.
You need to demonstrate with facts, logic, and reason why my claim is untrue. And you also need to state what claim you are referring to.

You acted poorly here. You combined arrogance and ignorance, always a losing tactic.

Now you're also dipping into the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
Instead of dealing with the arguments I present, you make personal attacks instead.
But your personal attacks nether prove your argument true nor prove my points to be untrue.

Here I had the impression you wanted to have a discussion based on facts and logic concerning the event of the Biblical flood, but that doesn't appear to be the case so far.

So tell me, does ice float in your world?

I already answered you - if you missed it I can copy/paste it for you:

"You base your conclusion on presumptions that are unproven. Prove first your presumption is true that the icecaps didn't form after the flood."

Since you are the one making the positive assertion that the Biblical account cannot be true because you think the icecaps formed before the flood, the onus is on you to prove your claim is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which claim?

Either way, you're guilty of the logical fallacy "argument by assertion".
Merely claiming you refuted my claim doesn't your statement true.
You need to demonstrate with facts, logic, and reason why my claim is untrue. And you also need to state what claim you are referring to.

Here you gave me the impression you wanted to have a discussion based on facts and logic concerning the event of the Biblical flood. That doesn't appear to be the case so far.



Logical fallacy, ad hominem.
Instead of dealing with the arguments I present, you make personal attacks to ignore having to address my points.
Your personal attacks nether prove your argument true nor prove mine points to be untrue.



I already answered you, if you missed it I can copy/paste it for you:

"You base your conclusion on presumptions that are unproven. Prove first your presumption is true that the icecaps didn't form after the flood."

Every single one. If you want to have a discussion you need to do it properly. One claim at a time, don't spew a ton of nonsense.

And yes, I did refute all of your claims. You have yet learned how to make amends for a bad start on your part.

Lastly, logic is not in your tool box. There was no ad hominem. By claiming there was one when there wasn't you only harm yourself.

You made no argument. I made one that refutes your beliefs.

Are you ready to be polite yet?

 

[74x12]

Sorry, you can't get that water out. It is already under great pressure, and even if it did it would only cook Noah. I don't think it can be liquid at the temperatures it would be under.

You're right that I personally can't get the water out.

If you can't provide a mechanism for said water to be released into the oceans, there's no point citing it to try to provide scientific support for "The Flood". You might as well claim that the water in The Flood came from interstellar space, for all it does to make The Flood story scientifically explainable.

If you believe the Flood happened as described in Genesis as a matter of faith, that's fine. Don't try to shoehorn the scientific evidence into supporting a faith based position, though, because the objective scientific evidence simply doesn't show any evidence of the Flood. If you believe the water was created and dissappeared again miraculously, fine. But don't sorta kinda half claim scientific support with convenient miracles just to fill in the gaps.

... The point of the OP is that it's impossible for there to be a planetary flood. I'm not here to prove the flood happened. I'm providing counter evidence to the OP. The fact is it's not such a cut and dry issue. Enough water does exist.

The "water's" already under huge pressure, and it's not free water but fused into mineral hydrates. How the water could be squeezed out into the atmosphere is anyone's guess, as is how it would get back there.

It's not God's guess. God knows ... He doesn't guess.

 

[nPeace]

Which claim?

Either way, you're guilty of the logical fallacy "argument by assertion".
Merely claiming you refuted my points doesn't mean it's true.
You need to demonstrate with facts, logic, and reason why my claim is untrue. And you also need to state what claim you are referring to.



Now you're also dipping into the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
Instead of dealing with the arguments I present, you make personal attacks instead.
But your personal attacks nether prove your argument true nor prove my points to be untrue.

Here I had the impression you wanted to have a discussion based on facts and logic concerning the event of the Biblical flood, but that doesn't appear to be the case so far.



I already answered you - if you missed it I can copy/paste it for you:

"You base your conclusion on presumptions that are unproven. Prove first your presumption is true that the icecaps didn't form after the flood."

Since you are the one making the positive assertion that the Biblical account cannot be true because you think the icecaps formed before the flood, the onus is on you to prove your claim is true.

Makes you wanna laugh doesn't it?
I got the joke long before this thread started. Honestly, I would have liked it to have had some body too, instead of being hollow, but I think you'll get used to it.
At least now you know your playing field a little better.
Nothing plus nothing will always be nothing.

 

[Rise]

Every single one. If you want to have a discussion you need to do it properly. One claim at a time, don't spew a ton of nonsense.

I've only made one claim so far. I'll copy/paste it for you:

-----------------
No, look at your thread title and first post:

"How we know that there was no Flood of Noah."
"all of them can be shown to have never occurred."
"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."

You are the one who declared that if I stated what I believed that you would demonstrate why that concept is in error, show why it never occured, and tell how we know it never happened. I await you attempting to fulfill your promise.

-------------------------------

So you're claiming this is wrong? Well, then the onus is on you to demonstrate why my reading of your own words is in error, or why my conclusions from your words are in error.

You don't win a debate just by claiming the other person is wrong and then repeating that claim over and over.

And yes, I did refute all of your claims.

Now you're committing the logical fallacy of argument ad nauseum.

Your argument by assertion fallacy of claiming you refuted me, without demonstrating why, is not anymore true just because you repeat your claim.

There was no ad hominem.

Ad Hominem definition:
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Since your post contained no logical arguments directed at my arguments, but instead only contains personal attacks in their place, you commit a textbook ad hominen fallacy. It is a fallacy designed to avoid dealing with the issue by attacking the person instead.

You made no argument.

I made one right here;

---------------------

No, look at your thread title and first post:

"How we know that there was no Flood of Noah."
"all of them can be shown to have never occurred."
"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."

You are the one who declared that if I stated what I believed that you would demonstrate why that concept is in error, show why it never occured, and tell how we know it never happened. I await you attempting to fulfill your promise.

----------------------------

Still waiting for you to deal with the points raised in a logical way.

I made one that refutes your beliefs.

You've only made one so far:
"Does ice float in your world? If that is the case there was no flood."

But then you failed to even attempt to argue or prove why your claim is true, as per my response:
You base your conclusion on presumptions that are unproven. Prove first your presumption is true that the icecaps didn't form after the flood.

You are guilty of a fallacy of presumption.
And by refusing to prove the presumption underlying your conclusion is true, yet continue to insist you are right, that makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of argument by assertion and argument ad nauseum. Just because you claim something, and claim it repeatedly, doesn't make it true.

Are you ready to be polite yet?

Logical fallacy, tone policing.

Definition:
is an ad hominem and antidebate appeal based on genetic fallacy. It attempts to detract from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.

You are trying to avoid dealing with the points I raised by attacking the tone you believe they are presented in.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're right that I personally can't get the water out.

Neither did your version of God. Do you remember the one assumption that I said that I made? If there is a God he can't lie. Events like you propose would leave evidence The lack of such evidence tells us that it did not happen.

... The point of the OP is that it's impossible for there to be a planetary flood. I'm not here to prove the flood happened. I'm providing counter evidence to the OP. The fact is it's not such a cut and dry issue. Enough water does exist.

Not on the surface where it is needed. So another fail.

It's not God's guess. God knows ... He doesn't guess.

And remember the assumption that God does not lie. If you want to claim that God lies then one can't disprove the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Makes you wanna laugh doesn't it?
I got the joke long before this thread started. Honestly, I would have liked it to have had some body too, instead of being hollow, but I think you'll get used to it.
At least now you know your playing field a little better.
Nothing plus nothing will always be nothing.

No, he was rude and arrogant. He got the same as a response. If he could debate properly I would have answered him. Instead he made false claims about me.

Once again, a losing tactic.

 

[Rise]

If he could debate properly I would have answered him.

I find this a quite ironic statement, since in a space of only a couple posts you've managed to commit no less than five logical fallacies.
The very definition of "debating properly" is to never make the mistake of committing logical fallacies.
If your position is based in truth then you don't need to commit rampant fallacies to prop up your position.

 

[nPeace]

I did not know that you were scientifically illiterate. That can be cured by education. Are you willing to learn?

I already got educated by you remember. Coming to this thread has given me the same result. Zero plus zero is still zero.

 

[nPeace]

No, he was rude and arrogant. He got the same as a response. If he could debate properly I would have answered him. Instead he made false claims about me.

Once again, a losing tactic.

Well he did respond to the OP honestly, and according to the OP's request, and what did you give him.
Since I am familiar with you from the get-go, I wasn't going where I had already been. I took a different path, but it still led me to the same dead end.

 

[nPeace]

It's been described countless times, over thousands of years. -- it's pretty hard to miss, after all. We can also examine and date the geology, artifacts, fossils, &c.

What do you mean? What exactly are you referring to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've only made one claim so far. I'll copy/paste it for you:

-----------------
No, look at your thread title and first post:

"How we know that there was no Flood of Noah."
"all of them can be shown to have never occurred."
"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."

You are the one who declared that if I stated what I believed that you would demonstrate why that concept is in error, show why it never occured, and tell how we know it never happened. I await you attempting to fulfill your promise.

Correct, and one assumption in a discussion is that one's opponent is going to be polite and honest. You failed right off the bat.

-------------------------------

So you're claiming this is wrong? Well, then the onus is on you to demonstrate why my reading of your own words is in error, or why my conclusions from your words are in error.

You don't win a debate just by claiming the other person is wrong and then repeating that claim over and over.
[//quote]

And I did show it to be wrong. I also explained to you that you got a rude answer for a rude post. If you want to have a more complete answer you need to be more polite.

Now you're committing the logical fallacy of argument ad nauseum.

Your argument by assertion fallacy of claiming you refuted me, without demonstrating why, is not anymore true just because you repeat your claim.

Not a logical fallacy, and the "ad nauseum" is a reaction to your poor behavior. All you have to do is argue properly. Being polite is necessary for that.

[quoite]



Ad Hominem definition:
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Since your post contained no logical arguments direct at my position, but instead only contains personal attacks in there place, you commit a textbook ad hominen fallacy. It is a fallacy designed to avoid dealing with the issue by attacking the person instead.

Actually that is a bit cherry picked. A better definition is saying that someone is wrong because they are an @#$@ (pick your own insult) You were rude. You are ignorant. Those are observed facts. i never said that you were wrong because of those fact.

I made one right here;

---------------------

No, look at your thread title and first post:

"How we know that there was no Flood of Noah."
"all of them can be shown to have never occurred."
"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."

You are the one who declared that if I stated what I believed that you would demonstrate why that concept is in error, show why it never occured, and tell how we know it never happened. I await you attempting to fulfill your promise.

----------------------------

Still waiting for you to deal with the points raised in a logical way.

And that is just a claim and not an argument.

You've only made one so far:
"Does ice float in your world? If that is the case there was no flood."

But then you failed to even attempt to argue or prove why your claim is true, as per my response:
You base your conclusion on presumptions that are unproven. Prove first your presumption is true that the icecaps didn't form after the flood.

You are guilty of a fallacy of presumption.
And by refusing to prove the presumption underlying your conclusion is true, yet continue to insist you are right, makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of argument by assertion and argument ad nauseum. Just because you claim something, and claim it repeatedly, doesn't make it true.

And another false claim. You should never say that someone presumed something if you do not know better. Nor did you answer my question. Once again, I asked you a question rudely because you were rude.

Logical fallacy, tone policing.

And you confirm my earlier claim that you do not understand logical fallacies. I have found that when people that are rude like you are that they very rarely respond to logic and evidence. I am merely saying that being polite goes a long way.

Definition:
is an ad hominem and antidebate appeal based on genetic fallacy. It attempts to detract from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.

You are trying to avoid dealing with the points I raised by attacking the tone you believe they are presented in.

Sorry, you don't get to make up your own poorly based fallacies. I will attack tone. I have not attacked you.

One more time, would you care to try to argue politely and properly?

 

[Misunderstood]

Thanks Audie for taking the time to respond to one of my posts. I don't think we have interacted before, it is always nice to get a response to something you say just so you know someone is listening. I only wish I had made a better impression.

Can we say with some confidence that you have
no familiarity with either physics or geology?

Yes, you can, I will not argue with you there. I do not feel I am the brightest bulb in the pack. I do not have a degree in Physics or Geology. I did like the Mathematics and Physics classes I took and always got A's, can't remember ever getting a A- or below. Now on Geology I did not do so good, even though ironically it seems like I do more work in that field.

There used to be people who would claim that
they invented a way to run a car on water,
instead of gasoline. A person who knows
nothing of chemistry might believe it.
Some did.

The only problem with this is that you say 'There Used to be people...' I guess there still are people like that, I would claim that and even believe it is possible. I would put electrodes into a container of water and separate the hydrogen and oxygen in separate containers and burn that in my car.

But I guess I tend to believe almost anything. I always thought the question 'is the glass half full or half empty' as silly and would answer it is full and overflowing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well he did respond to the OP honestly, and according to the OP's request, and what did you give him.
Since I am familiar with you from the get-go, I wasn't going where I had already been. I took a different path, but it still led me to the same dead end.

He was rude from the start, though I do admit that he did state what he believed.

Did you note my one assumption? That God cannot lie if he exists. All of the events that he claimed would have happened would have left massive evidence. That alone disproves his beliefs. Before you make the same sort of logical errors as he has:

Lack of evidence can be evidence against. If an event is expected to leave clear cut evidence the lack of that evidence tells us that the event did not happen. If a friend called and said a giant herd of buffaloes just stampeded through his kitchen and you ran over to his house and it was pristine would you deduct that he was telling the truth or not?