What The Genesis Noaic Flood Would Not Produce.

Heretic!Burn in Minneapolis!The Ghost of Landry will haunt you!

Since you're equating the validity of the flood to that for the Big Bang, let's compare evidence from the real world. For every one piece of evidence I provide for the Big Bang, you'll provide one piece of evidence for the flood.I'll go first: Your turn.--Percy

Your mama! Would that I could. *sigh* The spirit of Bud Grant will kick the ghost of Tom Landry's ass seven ways from sundown, pal!Oh, and one more thing: In your face, loser!

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

I would also point out that this is a prediction that was made before the actual existence of CBR was known, making it a true prediction rather than a retrodiction. I'd argue that Buz must provide a true prediction made based on the flood, rather than some lame post hoc rationalization.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

I'm not sure what you're talking about, (abe: Coragyps. Please make yourself more understandable. Are you talking pre flood or post flood. I was talking pre-flood. Considering my position so far, what's your problem with my comment relative to seas? Edited by Buzsaw, : Correct name.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This coming from the guy who speaks in parables la 2007 Ms. Teen U.S.A South Carolina.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

LoL, Percy. You need to reread my analogy. I was referring specifically to the unknown aspects of the alleged singularity when the entire energy and mass of the Universe allegedly was comprised of a submicroscopic area having no space into which it could have existed, no known before or time in which it could have happened and no outside of in which to expand.There is no observable model even imaginable, let alone logical for such a belief. If you people think the possibility of a designing higher intelligence operative in the universe is faith based, such a premise for the alleged BB is really, really faith based being so far fetched from reality.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

So basically, you think that as long as there is any question that science can't yet answer, that justifies you simply pulling fecal matter out of your anal orifice and pretending that that it's equivalent. You really haven't a clue what critical thinking means, do you?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Hey, you said something true! Of course, no astronomer or physicist actually believes that that was the case. See, that is something you made up, because you either are incapable of understanding what it actually says, or (and this is even worse) don't want to know what it says. Let me tell you it is completely faith based. this is because you made it up, instead of stating what the actual physicist think about the big bang.Making shit up and dodging and weaving does a better job at undermining your position than any evidence ever could, because you do this yourself.

quote:

---

There is no observable model even imaginable, let alone logical for such a belief. If you people think the possibility of a designing higher intelligence operative in the universe is faith based, such a premise for the alleged BB is really, really faith based being so far fetched from reality.

---

Let us note that that Buzsaw's fictional believer is here asserting that reality must be limited by his imagination. To the extent that his assertions accurately describe the Big Bang Theory there is a model - and that model produced the prediction that Percy referred to.The only equality between the Big Bang theory and the ad hoc speculations of the "believer" is that the "believer" is almost entirely ignorant of the relevant science in each case. The "believer's" claims therefore are merely an arrogant bluff. For instance he has not the slightest idea of how the flood could possibly mess up so many different dating systems yet still have them producing consistent results.To the "believer" his ignorant and irrational opinions are not only on a par with, but better than a scientific theory which has been worked on by many great minds doing real scientific research. And he whines about "bias" when people fail to share his high opinion of the nonsense he has made up, founded only in his ignorance and prejudice - ideas which even an informed layman can easily see through.And so we see the picture that Buz paints for us. A figure who uses arrogance to cover up the pitiful reality of his existence - but is not prepared to do the slightest work to bring himself up even to the level of being able to make a reasonable case for his views. And I have to admit that harsh as it is, Buzsaw's attack on fundamentalist Christianity is not entirely false. The attitude that he displays, playing the role of the fictional believer is not far from that of Kent Hovind in the courtroom - the behaviour that landed him in jail.But harsh it is, and we must remember that not all creationists are that bad.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

For the sake of discussion let's say that your string of misstatements about the Big Bang are actual scientific speculations. All that would mean is that scientists are speculating about a natural phenomenon for whose existence we have evidence.You, on the other hand, are speculating about a phenomenon, the flood, for whose existence you have no evidence.Others in this thread have pointed out how your speculations violate known physical laws, and your only defense against these explanations seems to be your inability to understand them.So first things first. First find evidence for your flood, then speculate and form hypotheses about it. What's your evidence?--Percy

I see you're fast making friends around here, as always.Well, at least you have an almost inhuman perseverance (until irrefutably cornered by logic, then it is usually cut and run).Remember when you stated that people who engaged in 'popular culture' were somehow inferior to you because you spent all your valuable time either reading the Bible or listening to sermons, over at the Dreamcatcher forum? I will quote it direct should your memory prove fallible.Since from that post, you evidently consider all human activity unworthy of study, be it science, humanities, the arts, or other cultures including their history, religions, and legends; and that the study of nature is somehow unworthy of the true believer; I was wondering why anyone should consider you an authority on anything other than the wrinkles in your own navel.Not that it may occur to you that the factual and the artistic may actually supplement the spiritual, rather than be enemies. Perhaps the idea that God's creation is the enemy of God is only a delusion of yours and the false prophets you admire.In fact, I have never even seen you defend Jesus' position concerning the treatment of the poor, the sick, and the outcast. To me it casts doubt upon any claim of Biblical expertise, but rather that of parroting an anti-gospel doctrine of hate and fear prevalent in any authoritarian fundamentalist dogma of any stripe. Your views on women, children, minorities, in fact anyone 'different' reminds me of some pre-1960s Latin American tinhorn dictator playing a seemingly eternal (to them at the time) game of musical chairs.Yet when faced by overwhelming evidence, all we get in reply is your 'infallible' interpretation of Christianity and reality.Did it ever occur to you that you may be wrong?As usual, I expect no reply.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Why do your answers depend upon science's answers? If Huntard asked me for the architectural hight of the Flatiron Building (285 feet), do you think I'd have to consider how long he thinks the clear span of the Mackinac Bridge is (3,800 feet) before I could answer?Your answers should be independent of us misguided fools. What part of "Just a number" did you not understand? I'm trying to be good to you, Buz. You keep telling everyone how busy you are especially now that it's coming on to the nice weather and when you're given the opportunity to satisfy a question with a mere half dozen key stroke and you're off tho the races, what do you do: Stuff a sentence full of "allegedlies" and irrelevancies.I wasn't posing any arguments, Buz. I wanted to know when you thought the flood occurred. If you think it happened yesterday then the right answer to my question would be "yesterday". If you don't know, you don't know. From what I've read from you it's really one of the best answers you'll ever have. From you this is a moment of supreme clarity, and I hope to award it with a solution to this problem. First, I accept that there was no sea level before the flood due to the lack of sea. When faced with this problem on Mars, say what is done is to select an arbitrary elevation, a "datum", from which to measure all other points. Taking 14,883 (40 automatic measurements per day) tide measurements from a home made tide gauge in the bay 61 meters out my front door, I spent much of 2007 and early 2008 establishing a datum point in my front yard^†.This is the brass benchmark I set in my front yard. 5.4251 meters above my mean high tideThink about what I just said, Buz. The datum is arbitray: you get to make it up. And no one can yell at you. But there is a rule about defining it and sticking to it once made up. Why is this assumed, Buz? Why would you guess this, Buz? Science does not suggest that Earth's mean land elevation was lower 4,300 years ago, does it? Want to source that for me? If the Earth's surface were smoother it would make sense that that smoothness continued out under the seas. And if the mountains lower it would take less water to cover them. And then when the mountains rose to their current elevations and the seas deepened and broadened that would help explain where the flood water drained away to. I hope all this doesn't have anything to do with why it's assumed the seas were smaller and the Earth were smoother. That would be backward science: matching the data to the hypothesis. For the sake of argument let's just say that everything I think is pristine crap. Why sully your spot-on info with my crap?The problem I have at this point is that the kind of questions I'm asking are ones you would need to know to understand the implications of a Great Flood. But you seem to be saying you know the implications but not the answers to these questions. Have I got you right? I wouldn't for the life of me to misrepresent your position.Just a heads-up: I'm going to go back to an earlier post and make a few edits. Nothing that would alter the intent of the argument, but I didn't explain myself well. † To see if I could.Edited by lyx2no, : clarity.Edited by lyx2no, : Why are typos invisible until you see them?

---

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

Obviously, Percy, no matter what evidence I cite, not a whit will be regarded by anyone here as evidence because it goes against their/your premise of the problematic singularity which you and them simply wave off as being sufficiently evidence based. The fact is that there is no model for the alleged singularity event, yet you refuse to acknowledge any of the evidence I've cited as viable.What evidence I have cited is all you're getting from me. If you and your friends refuse to acknowledge any of it, so be it. As I stated in my OP, I'm not getting bogged down hassling about what is and what is not evidence in this thread. We've been up and down that road enough.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

BB science theory works bass akwards, working from the present back to it's premise, the alleged singularity at which point it becomes unfalsifiable.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.