|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Then in what way was Noah different and why does it matter.?Continuing to evade the matter does not help you. quote: No.
quote: I am not sure what this is in reference to. The nearest thing is your idea that the year might be a different length.
quote: And yet your comments on Noah’s age relate to biology. And you don’t seem much better at physics, yet you’ve recently made suggestions there.
quote: It is a clear scientific error. But OK explain to me the reason why I should lie about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
What you seem to miss is that we have the geologic record, and there is no evidence of a recent global flood. That's what makes a recent global flood impossible. So, on one hand, you talk geology to "prove" the Flood is not possible.On the other hand, you said Noah is a fictional person, so both Noah and the Flood are not possible. If so, why should I bother to talk to you on geology and science? Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
And yet your comments on Noah’s age relate to biology. And you don’t seem much better at physics, yet you’ve recently made suggestions there......The nearest thing is your idea that the year might be a different length. Does biology today recognize that a human can live 960 years? Why not? The alternative is that the 960 years were counted under an environment different from that of today. It seems both of us agreed on this "possibility". My questions, in two folds, to you are:1. Since it is a possibility, then why do you insist that Noah is a fictional person? 2. How would you reason on that possibility? (how did the earth change its orbit?) One more: Is that (the orbiting time) the only way to explain the longevity? Sigh, I have to ask these questions for you. Do you know to give question is harder than to answer question? Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In principle it might be possible without obvious changes. The ageing process is not well understood and varies between species.
quote: I do not agree that this is a plausible possibility. If you wish to argue otherwise you need a concrete proposal, supported by evidence.
quote: 1. Because the story is an obvious myth and because the scientific evidence is strongly against any literal reading of the story. The age attributed to Noah is more 2. I would consider the fact that the Earth’s orbit would have to drastically change, and that would have effects that should be noticeable. Not to mention that we would need some mechanism for it. It is not something that can be considered at all likely in the timescale available.
quote: That’s not my problem. There is no good reason to consider the supposed longevity fact. Maybe as I suggested there was confusion in the transmission of the stories and months became years. Maybe it’s just a common feature of the myths and legends of that region and time. These are more likely explanations.
quote: Then you should spend more time answering questions instead of ignoring them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
2. I would consider the fact that the Earth’s orbit would have to drastically change, and that would have effects that should be noticeable. Not to mention that we would need some mechanism for it. It is not something that can be considered at all likely in the timescale available. The part I quoted for a reply is the useful part in your response. The rest is not worthwhile to react. So, can you explain HOW should the earth orbit be changed so that the change would be reflected through the time duration of an year? [hint: how many earth day is an year on the Mercury?] If you want to talk in science, then DO NOT dismiss anything with an excuse of myth or imagination. Otherwise, you are not qualified to talk about science and should quit the discussion. Sure, to explain the story of Noah is not your problem. But if you want to dismiss the possibility of the story, then it becomes your problem. You can not say that something is not true. And when asked why? Then you say: it is not my problem. I am now holding your hand to go through YOUR problem. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Oh but it is. The quality of the post has nothing g to do with your personal dislike of the views expressed.
quote: The calculations are reasonably simple, and yes the Earth would have to be closer to the Sun. But it’s your idea, it’s up to you to support it.
quote: If you want to talk about science we have to establish what the evidence actually is. We have a story, written down long after it supposedly happened. In fact we have a composite of two versions of the story. Which are versions of an apparently older story common in the region. The story involves various extreme implausibilities, none of which can be adequately supported with scientific evidence. Myth:
a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon Merriam-Webster We may note the explanation of the rainbow, for instance. So I think on a scientific basis we can be very comfortable with calling it a myth. If you wish to disagree it is for you to produce the evidence. Moreover if we are trying to be scientific we cannot say that the story is definite fact and start inventing ways it could have happened without regard to the evidence. That is apologetics, not science.
quote: I certainly do not have to invent wild interpretations without evidence. I can stick to a plain reading of the text and the fact that the evidence is greatly against that. If you wish to argue for some other reading then it is for you to produce the evidence - including evidence that your ideas even are a viable reading. And you have failed even in that.
quote: And I have not done that. I gave reasons why it is not true, You asked me to help support YOUR ideas and THAT is not my problem.
quote: You certainly aren’t doing that at all. You’re still trying to get me to help you support your ideas. Which is your job. Edited by PaulK, : Restored lost text, corrected tags
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Juvenissun writes:
I think that we all need to pause but for a moment and remember which side of the Forum we are on. Forum Guidelines If you want to talk in science, then DO NOT dismiss anything with an excuse of myth or imagination. Otherwise, you are not qualified to talk about science and should quit the discussion. Perhaps a clarification of what differentiates a Science Forum from a Faith/Belief Forum might be a starting point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
The calculations are reasonably simple, and yes the Earth would have to be closer to the Sun. You still talk toooo much. The quote above is the only meat in your reply. We do think the year on the earth could become longer and longer when the earth went away from the sun farther and farther. Would that be enough to count for the longevity of Noah and other patriarchs? Why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Perhaps a clarification of what differentiates a Science Forum from a Faith/Belief Forum might be a starting point. That is quite simple. In a scientific argument, one does not dismiss the problem as a myth or a faith. That is it. If the issue sounds like a myth, then give logic or scientific reasons to show its very very low possibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So you don’t even care that I have strong reasons for considering the Flood story a myth. And you obviously can’t answer them. And the fact that you can’t write decent posts - that you deliberately curtail them to avoid making your ideas clear is no reason for me to emulate you. If I did that constructive discussion would be impossible.
quote: It could do but so what? Where is the relevance?
quote: Because you need a - much - shorter year to account for the supposed longevity. A longer year is no good at all. If the years of Noah’s age are even longer than our years the problem gets worse, not better (and if they are our years then the problem remains). Of course the whole idea that the Earth’s orbit has changed that much in the relatively short period of time available is daft anyway. How could it happen? Where is the evidence? So let me be clear again. If you want to be scientific about this you need to construct a sufficiently detailed scenario that we can examine it. Your vagueness doesn’t even rise to the level of inventing fiction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Only if there is an actual problem. An assertion in a story written long after the supposed events isn’t even as good as anecdotal evidence - and anecdotal evidence is too weak to be worth anything.
quote: That there was a world-wide flood in recent geological history has already been examined and dismissed by science. The practical problems of getting pairs of all the species on the Ark, with the necessary supplies, and of keeping them alive for a year is equally implausible. Then there is the problem of accounting for the observed biogeographic diversity. And we can throw in Noah’s age which you yourself claim to be biologically impossible for a normal human and the origin of the Rainbow. Hey, we can even throw in the Curse of Ham, the mythical justification for the Hebrews ens,a night their fellow Canaanites, too. If an implausible element occurs in an obvious myth why should it not be considered part of the myth? That is the sensible way to treat it - unless you have other evidence. And you don’t.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I dont think it is wise--at least in a Science Forum--to present a myth as a conclusion and then challenge science to disprove it. We need to first separate myths from facts. How would we know, for example, that humans once lived hundreds of years?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.- Francis A. Schaeffer The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.- Criss Jami, Killosophy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
So you don’t even care that I have strong reasons for considering the Flood story a myth. And you obviously can’t answer them. I thought you want to talk about Noah, not the Flood. I have talked about the Flood (without Noah) since the beginning of my post. Where was you response to my arguments about the Flood?
Of course the whole idea that the Earth’s orbit has changed that much in the relatively short period of time available is daft anyway. How could it happen? This question is an improvement. So we can move forward a little bit. (I said, if you do not improve, I will just stop). Post in this forum gives you a very bad habit: can't help yourself to insult others. I am very sorry for that. Please try to talk in a more civilized way. There are some ways that the earth could change its orbit suddenly. One possibility is that the earth could be attracted (or pushed) by another passing by celestial body in the solar system, for example, the moon or another planet/comet. The gravity interaction should be able to drive the earth's orbit suddenly farther away from the sun. Notice that the movement should be a deceleration process, so the length of an earthly year gradually increased.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1308 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
We are try to evaluate the description in a few chapters of the Bible by science. Do not forget this root purpose. Don't jump to the "myth" conclusion until you reasoned about it in a scientific way. If you think it is a myth, i.e. scientifically unreasonable, then you can quit (no need to reason any more). If I talk about it in science, and you do not, then I can quit. The talk won't continue unless both sides can talk in science.
Science is data plus reason. Only rootlessly yell evidence, evidence won't make any science discussion. Without a solid theoretical background, no one can recognize any evidence. Started from my first post, I said the strongest evidence of the Flood is the ocean of the earth. Can you understand the evidence? Of course you can not. What I was doing is to explain to you why is that a strong evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You wanted to know why why I considered Noah’s age a feature of the myth. It was necessary to talk about the rest of the story to explain that. Again, the fact that you don’t like what I am saying - and cannot answer it - does not render it useless or irrelevant.
quote: My answers to your vague assertions - they do not deserve to be called arguments - is in an earlier series of posts I made to this thread.
quote: By which you mean I am too good, and you are threatening to run away because of it.
quote: Given that you started doing that very quickly I think it was already your habit.
quote: There is nothing uncivilised about my posts.
quote: That is untrue.
quote: The moon is not massive enough, and a comet certainly is not.Other planets might be, but again their orbits would also need to be changed and in ways that lead to the current orbit. Also, there would be evidence. Not only would the forces involved cause devastation on the surface, the orbital change would also considerably change the solar energy reaching the Earth. Which would have serious effects on earthly conditions.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024