Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

[timtofly]

Evidence? Heck, at this point we need an actual articulated theory. Right now, there's no Creationist geological layer that we can point to and say "this, right here, we think this is the layer caused by the Global Flood." Is it earlier than the K–Pg iridium layer? After? Heck. There's no theory, nevermind evidence.

You might not know this, but you need an actual theory before you can judge evidence. It doesn't even need to be a super-established one, just one sufficient to build testable hypotheses off of.

I do not see any way to place the Flood at a different time unless one can re-interpret the genealogy of Noah, or prove that it was not Noah. Or dating methods are wrong, and I do not see humans changing their dating methods within the next 50 years.

I think there have been a couple of theories that have been shot down. It is not that it is not possible, the evidence does not fall into the time frame. Scale the time frame, and you loose the evidence from one view to the other.

 

[Cheetah]

What evidence do you need?

To avoid incurring Valka's wrath upon us, I answered in another thread.

 

[Berzerker]

i have no doubt the flood happened, it just didn't cover the world

but coastlines and inland valleys/plains were inundated by rising seas as the ice sheets melted

and if there was an ocean impact, then that period saw massive waves too

the biblical flood began with the fountains of the deep bursting forth and then it rained... thats a tsunami and an impact would deposit plenty of water on land and in the air accelerating the evaporation/precipitation process.

that might be tied in with the younger dryas reversal, or its end... the world got very warm, very fast, ~10c in just a few decades going by greenland ice cores, less than a lifetime.

i still think the flood was in the age of leo and the sphinx was built in remembrance

 

[Valka D'Ur]

To avoid incurring Valka's wrath upon us, I answered in another thread.

Thank you.

i still think the flood was in the age of leo and the sphinx was built in remembrance

EltonJ's "Ask an Atlanteologist" thread would be more suitable for such comments.

 

[Farm Boy]

Part of it is the exceptional amount of knowledge we have (I personally have no idea how a computer works, and I'll never need to).

But, I don't really know. Insight would go a long way bridging the communication barrier.

I bet you're right. Everyone knows some things, but for everything else you have to take somebody's word on it. Given that science can and is spun for political gain, examples abound everywhere from Republicans to Michael Moore, people have to choose who to believe. When a particularly visible voice goes off the deep end, perhaps being snide at people of faith for being people of faith(which really can trigger some core cultural values) I would guess it does way more collateral damage on issues and credibility than we usually think. Again a two way street. As example, I think I've had to justify myself several times in conversations here regarding scientific knowledge(some of which comes from you!) or on my stance regarding gay rights as a form of vetting when abortion comes up. People have already rolled tangential issues and competence of the speaker together from one statement.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Does anyone seriously believe in the Biblical Flood and Noah anymore? I think if I ever met someone in real life who voiced that opinion... well I'd have to check for flying pigs or something. And back away slowly.

 

[Berzerker]

EltonJ's "Ask an Atlanteologist" thread would be more suitable for such comments.

I understand such comments are not suitable for RD threads

 

[timtofly]

Does anyone seriously believe in the Biblical Flood and Noah anymore? I think if I ever met someone in real life who voiced that opinion... well I'd have to check for flying pigs or something. And back away slowly.

Believe it or not it was the religious groups themselves who decided "not to believe" while science played just a small role. It was the data itself that could not be explained, but even science itself has had to re-think some things. That is the nature of science, which not even science can deny. It is the argument that every new thing that comes to light sends the record found in the Bible deeper into the ground. But since even religion itself scoffed at the Bible, it was sort of hard for "Believers" to grasp what was going on. If the theory of evolution is so firm, why are so many people afraid of scientist who find data and it is peer reviewed and tells a different story? It is true that even creation scientist have gone down dead end trails and have lost ground, but that does not mean they have not gained any ground. Most of science is testing and retesting the hypothesis, and the pitfall is claiming that one has finally arrived.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If the theory of evolution is so firm, why are so many people afraid of scientist who find data and it is peer reviewed and tells a different story?

They're not afraid, because you just made those scientist who find that peer reviewed data up.

Second time I catch you making these kind of claims. Just as you did when you said

My point was the claim: "There is really nothing new that will ever come to light that can change our minds on the subject. So stop looking!"

Now kindly stop making things up, or have the balls to support your claims.

 

[Borachio]

Does anyone seriously believe in the Biblical Flood and Noah anymore? I think if I ever met someone in real life who voiced that opinion... well I'd have to check for flying pigs or something. And back away slowly.

They certainly do!

I regularly meet Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists who believe the Bible is the literal truth.

Apart from this, which I regard as a gentle form of madness, they seem perfectly pleasant people to me.

 

[El_Machinae]

People have already rolled tangential issues and competence of the speaker together from one statement.

You've got that right. I attend many gun rights discussions, and the odds of someone bringing up the gay agenda or racial privilege is astounding. Apparently, not being able to kick black guys out of your bar is a serious part of the slippery slope to complete citizen disarmament.

 

[warpus]

As a tribute I'll do 2 in a row.

I think Mr. Tyson is prone to the same emotion as Mr. Dawkins and those who wrote the scripts to the show. They know how much time and effort went in the research. They know the long road that was taken by many men and women that gives us the insight and immense benefits we are reaping right now.

I bet it's agrevating as hell when people brush it aside that easily and go: scientists predicted cooling in the 70s so they don't know what they're talking about. Especially when it's a result of organised dissinformation. Those people who get duped aren't to blame because they're victims of that dissinformation. But when there are some powerful players promoting it, then they can have an influence on policy making

So you're saying that they need to address it in order to "fight the good fight"?

Yeah, I get that I guess. It just seems so unnecessary and obtuse, not to mention detrimental to the content and spirit of the show, at least from my point of view as a Canadian, where people who believe such silly things exist for sure, but where they don't have enough voting power to enact stupid laws or have much influence. Then again in some cases there might just be enough of them, such as in the case of climate change, but I'm not sure if that particular "controversy" ever made it on the show.

I guess it's sort of depressing that he has to acknowledge those points of view as anything valid or worth discussing on a science show. In my mind it'd be like Gordon Ramsey taking some time out of his Master Chef show (or whichever one) to remind us that some people out there believe that steaks aren't real, but that for the intents and purposes of his show, we'll assume that they are.

What evidence do you need?

A testable hypothesis that supports all the evidence that exists and doesn't contradict anything we already know AND makes predictions that can be tested AND concludes that at some point in the past the Earth was all under water. You don't even need evidence for that! New evidence would help for sure, as all the existing evidence seems to point to the fact that you're wrong. But if you can form a testable hypothesis to make it all work with all the existing evidence and what we know, that'd be the place to start.

If it contradicts something we already know (continental drift, the earth is over 6 billion years old), you'd need to find a piece of evidence that contradicts that, so that we can throw "the earth is 6 billion years old" out the window and replace it with a new theory, which would need to be formulated as a testable hypothesis as well.

That's a lot of work and a lot of upturning of existing theories. You're going to be busy for the next couple years I reckon.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm not saying they need to address it, I'm saying I understand that sometimes some frustration may leak through.

 

[Mouthwash]

Is this available online? I don't really watch TV.

 

[choxorn]

If it contradicts something we already know (continental drift, the earth is over 6 billion years old), you'd need to find a piece of evidence that contradicts that, so that we can throw "the earth is 6 billion years old" out the window and replace it with a new theory, which would need to be formulated as a testable hypothesis as well.

You're a bit off on that time scale. It's 4.5 billion years, not 6.

 

[warpus]

Cute quip, but it's fundamentally incorrect. We like growth. If you didn't also like growth, you wouldn't willingly exchange your labour in order to access the internet. You've implicitly bought into the model by willingly buying the fruits of progress. The internet didn't exist when you were born, it was embraced by those hating growth and created by those pursuing growth. And given what it is, it raised all boats.

It seems to me that you don't need growth everywhere, so in a sense I agree with Cheezy. Everyone's crazy about growth.. Growth this, growth that.. Sure, growth is needed in some places for us to advance as a society, but we're just way too obsessed with the concept. It makes a lot of sense to me to consolidate what we have and make that more efficient. Make sure there's growth, yes, because our population is growing as well, but you don't need to be extremist about it in either direction (growth everywhere vs no growth anywhere).

You're a bit off on that time scale. It's 4.5 billion years, not 6.

Yeah? Dang, let me update my notes.

Don't you wish creationists could do that? "Oh, wait, what, the Earth isn't 6,000 years old but rather 4.5 billion? Let me update my notes, thanks!"

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Believe it or not it was the religious groups themselves who decided "not to believe" while science played just a small role. It was the data itself that could not be explained, but even science itself has had to re-think some things. That is the nature of science, which not even science can deny. It is the argument that every new thing that comes to light sends the record found in the Bible deeper into the ground. But since even religion itself scoffed at the Bible, it was sort of hard for "Believers" to grasp what was going on. If the theory of evolution is so firm, why are so many people afraid of scientist who find data and it is peer reviewed and tells a different story? It is true that even creation scientist have gone down dead end trails and have lost ground, but that does not mean they have not gained any ground. Most of science is testing and retesting the hypothesis, and the pitfall is claiming that one has finally arrived.

That's not really what I asked, but thanks anyway.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

They certainly do!

I regularly meet Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists who believe the Bible is the literal truth.

Apart from this, which I regard as a gentle form of madness, they seem perfectly pleasant people to me.

I suppose what I really meant was that I was surprised there were enough of them to manage to generate a 14 page thread on the subject on a forum generally populated by intelligent and informed people.

Edit: I'm getting my threads mixed up, the actual thread about that is only 2 pages long (so far).

 

[classical_hero]

Evidence? Heck, at this point we need an actual articulated theory. Right now, there's no Creationist geological layer that we can point to and say "this, right here, we think this is the layer caused by the Global Flood." Is it earlier than the K–Pg iridium layer? After? Heck. There's no theory, nevermind evidence.

Sigh. You speak without actually looking at the issue. Here is one site you can look at. http://biblicalgeology.net/

To avoid incurring Valka's wrath upon us, I answered in another thread.

It was mentioned in the series, so it is a rather valid discussion point.

 

[El_Machinae]

I used your website, CH. Did a search for iridium in their search engine. Zero hits. You'll need much more charisma before you should think I'll be arsed to dig harder than that. Face it, you have an uphill battle. Your "zero information gain" and "clams on mountains" aren't helping your case. You should know that already.

It seems to me that you don't need growth everywhere, so in a sense I agree with Cheezy. Everyone's crazy about growth.. Growth this, growth that.. Sure, growth is needed in some places for us to advance as a society, but we're just way too obsessed with the concept. It makes a lot of sense to me to consolidate what we have and make that more efficient. Make sure there's growth, yes, because our population is growing as well, but you don't need to be extremist about it in either direction (growth everywhere vs no growth anywhere).

I'll just disagree. I think our failure has been that there's been minimal growth at the bottom, not that there's been too much growth at the top. BUT, the only way to get universal wikipedia access through smartphones is through some variant of growth. The only way to get universal Alzheimer's vaccines is through growth. The fact that people aren't getting wealthier along with literacy growth is a giant issue, but it's a separate question as to whether we want more growth.