Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

originally posted by: mdl59
The greatest scientific minds have said when taken to logical conclusions, there must have been a creator. Please go catch up with everyone else if your going to comment on threads concerning origins.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You will have of course some proof of that or is it what your preacher told you!

a reply to: Seede

That is impossible because the moment you prove anything then it is not theology. What you really mean is that you believe that no god actually exists. That is theology isn't it?

You do know you can look up in a dictionary what Theology is and means, its a rather simple explanation.

here is a wiki link

en.wikipedia.org...

Ta reply to: InhaleExhale

You do know you can look up in a dictionary what Theology is and means, its a rather simple explanation.

Yes i quite well understand theology and that its realm of usage is religion. Our discussion was in the realm of religion so it was proper to use the word meaning theology. I could also have used the word theoretical which could have overshadowed its meaning but chose theology as relating to the subject. And i did not have to use Wikipedia. Thanks for the lesson in grammatical rules.

originally posted by: mdl59
The thread has to do with origins which, as most scientists know, came from intelligent design. Do your homework before you belittle "religious" people. The greatest scientific minds have said when taken to logical conclusions, there must have been a creator. Please go catch up with everyone else if your going to comment on threads concerning origins.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is a lie; a condescending lie at that. "As most scientists know". No scientists KNOW that. Some believe in god some don't. More don't. You should do YOUR homework before asserting something as ridiculous as the above as fact that all scientists know.

It's never the science supporters that tell blatant lies like this. It's ALWAYS the creationists, despite "Thou shalt not bear false witness". Hilarious. If you're going to have the nerve to be condescending, at least make sure what you are saying is true!

originally posted by: mdl59
The thread has to do with origins

Not even in the ballpark. The title makes it pretty clear that it's about valid scientific evidence for a worldwide flood as described in Hebrew scripture.

which, as most scientists know, came from intelligent design. Do your homework before you belittle "religious" people. The greatest scientific minds have said when taken to logical conclusions, there must have been a creator.

Since this is your claim, what would be the names of these great scientific minds who believe this to be an absolute truth?

Please go catch up with everyone else if your going to comment on threads concerning origins.

Do yourself a favor and go catch up with everyone who is literate. The thread isn't about origins, it's about the plausability of a singular world wide flood event and whether or not science supports it.

a reply to: Cypress

Also, whether you accept it or not, radiometric dating has shown to be rather accurate and until such time that it is proven otherwise, it is considered more than acceptable.

What do you mean rather accurate? Do you mean that it could not be accurate and that this could possibly be shown at a future date? Could it be shown now?

What do you mean considered more than acceptable? We all know that it is accepted by most all secular Humanists. Does acceptance mean accurate? The bible is also accepted but you insist that it is not accurate so does that make the bible not accurate and yet your radiometric dating is accurate? Who is the judge of accepted? Do you mean our modern accepted science which is rated 23rd in the world of over 65 nations?

Pick a rock of your choosing. Can you tell me what the compounds of that rock were when it first became a rock? How can you tell me unless you actually tested that origin with the very same method that you would use today? Could you tell me if those original compounds in that rock were not altered by any means since its origin? So you can prove to me that the world is 4.5 billion years old? Accepted? Not by everyone.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Cypress

Also, whether you accept it or not, radiometric dating has shown to be rather accurate and until such time that it is proven otherwise, it is considered more than acceptable.

What do you mean rather accurate? Do you mean that it could not be accurate and that this could possibly be shown at a future date? Could it be shown now?

What do you mean considered more than acceptable? We all know that it is accepted by most all secular Humanists. Does acceptance mean accurate? The bible is also accepted but you insist that it is not accurate so does that make the bible not accurate and yet your radiometric dating is accurate? Who is the judge of accepted? Do you mean our modern accepted science which is rated 23rd in the world of over 65 nations?

Pick a rock of your choosing. Can you tell me what the compounds of that rock were when it first became a rock? How can you tell me unless you actually tested that origin with the very same method that you would use today? Could you tell me if those original compounds in that rock were not altered by any means since its origin? So you can prove to me that the world is 4.5 billion years old? Accepted? Not by everyone.

funny how radiometric dating is considered questionable until it supports creationist claims. ive seen it happen before.

im fairly certain at this point that you have no intention of coming to any sort of agreement in this thread unless it involves us dropping science like a hot potato and bowing down to creationist theories.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Cypress

Also, whether you accept it or not, radiometric dating has shown to be rather accurate and until such time that it is proven otherwise, it is considered more than acceptable.

What do you mean rather accurate? Do you mean that it could not be accurate and that this could possibly be shown at a future date? Could it be shown now?

What do you mean considered more than acceptable? We all know that it is accepted by most all secular Humanists. Does acceptance mean accurate? The bible is also accepted but you insist that it is not accurate so does that make the bible not accurate and yet your radiometric dating is accurate? Who is the judge of accepted? Do you mean our modern accepted science which is rated 23rd in the world of over 65 nations?

Pick a rock of your choosing. Can you tell me what the compounds of that rock were when it first became a rock? How can you tell me unless you actually tested that origin with the very same method that you would use today? Could you tell me if those original compounds in that rock were not altered by any means since its origin? So you can prove to me that the world is 4.5 billion years old? Accepted? Not by everyone.

So do you think the world is 6000 years old then

a reply to: Seede

The bible isn't considered accurate because it is a book of testimonials. Testimonials are nice for legal evidence, but they AREN'T scientific evidence since a story can differ GREATLY from person to person. People embellish, forget details, or lie about what happened. The only way to verify a testimonial is to back it up with actual evidence that supports the story (which there is none for the bible). Radiometric dating IS considered accurate because it has scientific evidence backing it up (none of which are testimonials).

originally posted by: Seede

What do you mean rather accurate? Do you mean that it could not be accurate and that this could possibly be shown at a future date? Could it be shown now?

What do you mean considered more than acceptable? We all know that it is accepted by most all secular Humanists. Does acceptance mean accurate? The bible is also accepted but you insist that it is not accurate so does that make the bible not accurate and yet your radiometric dating is accurate? Who is the judge of accepted? Do you mean our modern accepted science which is rated 23rd in the world of over 65 nations?

Pick a rock of your choosing. Can you tell me what the compounds of that rock were when it first became a rock? How can you tell me unless you actually tested that origin with the very same method that you would use today? Could you tell me if those original compounds in that rock were not altered by any means since its origin? So you can prove to me that the world is 4.5 billion years old? Accepted? Not by everyone.

I love how you cherry picked a couple words and tried to twist them around. To answer your question, yes I can take an igneous piece of rock, tell you what the compounds are that make up that piece of rock by analyzing which of the 9 basic minerals are forming, pluck one of those mineral crystal, say a potassium feldspar out of that rock, run a K-Ar analysis on the feldspar and give you a range when that crystal in the rock solidified. Is there some probability involved? absolutely, so you get a range due to the +/- involved but it is accurate and the comparative analysis from thousands of samples support the accuracy.

a reply to: TzarChasm

im fairly certain at this point that you have no intention of coming to any sort of agreement in this thread unless it involves us dropping science like a hot potato and bowing down to creationist theories.

You are quite certain? You are wrong on that assumption also. No that is not my purpose in refuting radiometric dating as being accurate and factual with out assumptions in its delivery. My purpose is that of respect instead of ridicule for the ones who do not buy into your hypothesis. You know, the constant creationist bashing.

The average creationists are always the fall guy and has to prove his or her assumptions whereas the sciences are somehow the gods of knowledge and are immune to any criticism. That is simply nonsense and you know it. There is also theoretical science which is just as far fetched as intelligent design but not one word dare be uttered in regards to the little gods of knowledge.

Another misconception of the parrots of our science is that not all creationists are bible thumping Christians. There is not one living person that can honestly make the statement that science has proof of 4.5 billion years. That is theoretical science at best. Yet that rolls off the tongues of arm chair wannabes by the score. That only proves to me that if you lie long enough it becomes accepted fact. Radiometric dating is accepted based upon assumptions of origin and you very well know it. Even observational studies are flawed even though some are entered into books as fact.

No one knows for certain that a global flood did not happen or did happen even though it cannot be physically proven to the satisfaction of all people. It can be proven through literature on its own foundation but not accepted by the Humanist world. Regardless of those theological beliefs it is no more silly and far more believable, to some, than a 4.5 billion theoretical world or a universe that creates itself.

originally posted by: Seede
My purpose is that of respect instead of ridicule for the ones who do not buy into your hypothesis. You know, the constant creationist bashing.

Beliefs that are contradicted by reality yet constantly pushed as "truth", followed by incompetent debunking of the scientific evidence that refutes them (i.e. every creationist argument ever) will not be respected by any rational person.
This idea that everyone's beliefs should be "respected", regardless of how intellectually bankrupt they are, is woefully naive. No one's beliefs are automatically granted respect. If you don't want your beliefs to be "disrespected", don't air them on a public forum and spuriously bash solid scientific evidence in the process simply because it's inconvenient for your beliefs.

a reply to: Cypress

TextI love how you cherry picked a couple words and tried to twist them around. To answer your question, yes I can take an igneous piece of rock, tell you what the compounds are that make up that piece of rock by analyzing which of the 9 basic minerals are forming, pluck one of those mineral crystal, say a potassium feldspar out of that rock, run a K-Ar analysis on the feldspar and give you a range when that crystal in the rock solidified. Is there some probability involved? absolutely, so you get a range due to the +/- involved but it is accurate and the comparative analysis from thousands of samples support the accuracy.

I love the way you also twist and turn. Your quote -" Is there some probability involved? absolutely, so you get a range due to the +/-" Then you do have a range of error? Is that not what I said?

a reply to: Seede

Hello,

I have a question for you, and I hope you don't mind satisfying my curiosity.

Even if you do not accept that the measuring of radiometric decay schemes results in an accurate answer, can you explain the precision of the method? More specifically, why is it that certain index fossils (most notably graptolites or conodonts), which allow for the construction of the relative geologic timescale, are found in rocks that repeatedly (precisely) give similar absolute dates by means of radioisotopic study?

I'm very curious as to how you would respond to this very relevant issue.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: Seede

You are quite certain? You are wrong on that assumption also. No that is not my purpose in refuting radiometric dating as being accurate and factual with out assumptions in its delivery. My purpose is that of respect instead of ridicule for the ones who do not buy into your hypothesis. You know, the constant creationist bashing.

the global flood is tentpole in the creationist argument. without creationism theres no need to try to prove it by trying to attack established scientific methods that we know work. but your right, this isnt about creationism.

The average creationists are always the fall guy and has to prove his or her assumptions whereas the sciences are somehow the gods of knowledge and are immune to any criticism. That is simply nonsense and you know it. There is also theoretical science which is just as far fetched as intelligent design but not one word dare be uttered in regards to the little gods of knowledge.

the conflict i think is rooted in how science actually pulls it off. it wields authority and people allow it. but why do they allow it? in a word...because it works. science gets results. and those results tell us that the global flood is not only fiction, but a physical impossibility.

Another misconception of the parrots of our science is that not all creationists are bible thumping Christians.

fair point.

There is not one living person that can honestly make the statement that science has proof of 4.5 billion years.

i invite you to say that to Neil deGrasse on live television so the whole world can see his response. hed probably tell you that its a well supported theory, which is a much better position to be in than an absolute declaration that defies the possibility of correction, like some theories we encounter around here. problem being, the corrections you see as being necessary are not corroborated by the evidence. sorry.

No one knows for certain that a global flood did not happen or did happen even though it cannot be physically proven to the satisfaction of all people. It can be proven through literature on its own foundation but not accepted by the Humanist world. Regardless of those theological beliefs it is no more silly and far more believable, to some, than a 4.5 billion theoretical world or a universe that creates itself.

overwhelming evidence in favor of zero global floods. what are you gonna do, ignore the evidence and invent your own proof? oh wait...

it does amuse me that you are arguing so fiercely in defense of an event that you just admitted may not have happened. no one knows, you said. including you. you want to watch your footwork, you are beginning to slip.

a reply to: GetHyped

Beliefs that are contradicted by reality yet constantly pushed as "truth", followed by incompetent debunking of the scientific evidence that refutes them (i.e. every creationist argument ever) will not be respected by any rational person. This idea that everyone's beliefs should be "respected", regardless of how intellectually bankrupt they are, is woefully naive. No one's beliefs are automatically granted respect. If you don't want your beliefs to be "disrespected", don't air them on a public forum and spuriously bash solid scientific evidence in the process simply because it's inconvenient for your beliefs.

I'm glad that you agree. Solid scientific evidence? You meant theoretical science. As you have so ignorantly postulated, you can judge the intellect of a person simply because that person does not agree with your ignorance. Is that what the case truly is? It seems that you have aired your own ignorant beliefs on a public forum which by the way you have contributed nothing to the table of intelligence. Your self centered egotistical ignorance is nothing but hatred spewing from your foul mind. You are lost and do not even know that you are lost. Nothing more can be said that would enlighten your asininity. In other words you seem to be a loud mouth bully. Go get hyped.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: GetHyped

Beliefs that are contradicted by reality yet constantly pushed as "truth", followed by incompetent debunking of the scientific evidence that refutes them (i.e. every creationist argument ever) will not be respected by any rational person. This idea that everyone's beliefs should be "respected", regardless of how intellectually bankrupt they are, is woefully naive. No one's beliefs are automatically granted respect. If you don't want your beliefs to be "disrespected", don't air them on a public forum and spuriously bash solid scientific evidence in the process simply because it's inconvenient for your beliefs.

I'm glad that you agree. Solid scientific evidence? You meant theoretical science.

All science is theoretical. Nothing in science is 100% proven. So that term is redundant.

As you have so ignorantly postulated, you can judge the intellect of a person simply because that person does not agree with your ignorance. Is that what the case truly is? It seems that you have aired your own ignorant beliefs on a public forum which by the way you have contributed nothing to the table of intelligence. Your self centered egotistical ignorance is nothing but hatred spewing from your foul mind. You are lost and do not even know that you are lost. Nothing more can be said that would enlighten your asininity. In other words you seem to be a loud mouth bully. Go get hyped.

Um he never said that he was judging the intellect of the person, just the intellectual merit of the ideas being pushed by creationists. Smart people can hold dumb opinions, and his point was that having an opinion doesn't necessitate it being a good opinion. You should stop twisting the words of the people you are speaking to, it is in very poor form and highly insulting. I think your emotions may be bleeding through into your posts.

a reply to: Seede

See? This is that whole "incompetent debunking of the scientific evidence" thing I was talking about.

our self centered egotistical ignorance is nothing but hatred spewing from your foul mind. You are lost and do not even know that you are lost. Nothing more can be said that would enlighten your asininity. In other words you seem to be a loud mouth bully.

Nice ad hominem. You're behaving like someone who lacks the emotional maturity and intellectual honesty to engage in any form of discussion where there's a danger that people won't credulously accept what you say. I would argue that is, ironically enough, "egotistical" and "self-centered" of you. Throw in a victim complex simply because the ignorant beliefs and attacks on science you air are challenged ("bullying"... right!) and I think it's probably best you don't attempt to engage in online discussion in the future as you appear ill-equipped to do so.

a reply to: Seede

Radiometric dating IS accurate. This is why we have such technologies as atomic clocks.

I would gladly pick a rock and tell you what the compounds (minerals) were when it first became a rock. The methods I would use to help me determine this would include preparing a thin section and undertaking a visual investigation of the minerals under a microscope to determine whether there was any incipient recrystallisation, migration, growth, rotation, textural clues, alteration products etc etc. I might possibly wish to undertake x-ray fluorescence (XRF) or x-ray diffraction (XRD) to also help determine the mineralogy if I was having trouble working out the mineralogy from optical mineralogy. I would use David Shelley's 'Optical Mineralogy' text and Deer, Howie and Zussman's " Rock-Forming Minerals' to aid my investigation. These texts are based on fact, and repeatability.
You see, we CAN determine whether the minerals are in their original state or have been altered.

originally posted by: Seede

No one knows for certain that a global flood did not happen or did happen even though it cannot be physically proven to the satisfaction of all people.

Look at the geological record. There would be evidence of a global flood, but there isn't. There is evidence of localised floods, however.

originally posted by: Seede It can be proven through literature on its own foundation but not accepted by the Humanist world.

'Lord of the Rings', the Norse sagas, stories of gods, of elves, of dragons, etc can all be proven on their own foundation because they exist so are proof of an active imagination. Are they fact? No.