The Great Flood

[Synobun]

Which extraordinary claim is that? If you want to defend "well, MY claim is not extraordinary," feel free to convince me that you are better suited to have struck upon "the truth of the matter" than I am. That should be easy enough, since I freely acknowledge that I am not capable of sussing out the origin of existence through experimentation.

I'm not super well-versed in the science behind Earth's origin, and don't claim to be. I do however know that if you're so inclined you can find step-by-step explanations that detail how the figures were reached. With the same equipment you could replicate the results yourself. That's a fairly solidified condition in our scientific process; your conclusion should be able to be verified by an outside party.

The religious side isn't quite as nuanced. "God did it, this I know for the Bible told me so" isn't compelling.

You're right that for the layman the distinction between positions isn't great. They're both taking a statement at face value. The difference is that a layman can change that about the scientific position. You're trapped at the starting line with religion.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're right that for the layman the distinction between positions isn't great. They're both taking a statement at face value. The difference is that a layman can change that about the scientific position. You're trapped at the starting line with religion.

At the root of every duplicated scientific "proof" there are assumptions. The difference between the scientist and the layman is that the scientist keeps that in mind and knows they aren't really proving anything, while the layman waves the proof around as if they have an exclusive toehold on truth.

 

[Synobun]

If you have a theory with better supporting evidence, you are more than welcome to share with the class.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

If you have a theory with better supporting evidence, you are more than welcome to share with the class.

I already said that I don't. My beliefs are experientially based, not scientifically proven. You are welcome to believe whatever your experience leads you to. I laugh at the people claiming 'proof' on all sides, and outright abuse the people who want to use laws, shames, or social mores to inflict their beliefs on others.

 

[timtofly]

Burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

Is the statement, "there is no God" an extraordinary claim? As there is no proof to that statement.

 

[Synobun]

Is the statement, "there is no God" an extraordinary claim? As there is no proof to that statement.

I can't think of many situations where "there is no God" is the original claim being made. It's often in response to the definitive claim that there is one.

I'm largely in agreement that claiming it as definitive fact is silly, though. I'm anti-religion but find myself in a position of agnosticism. I suspect there isn't but I don't know, and claiming that I know would be arrogant and ignorant.

But yes, if someone were to make that claim from a position of fact, it's an extraordinary claim.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I can't think of many situations where "there is no God" is the original claim being made. It's often in response to the definitive claim that there is one.

I could point you to some people who regularly say that anyone who disagrees with that unproven position is ignorant, uneducated, and/or superstitious. Would that count as making "the original claim"? I have frequently found myself mocking their arrogant certainty and subjected to the same dismissive "arguments" even though I have a far better than average education in the physical sciences from which they draw their "proofs," which makes mocking them even more fun.

 

[timtofly]

I can't think of many situations where "there is no God" is the original claim being made. It's often in response to the definitive claim that there is one.

I'm largely in agreement that claiming it as definitive fact is silly, though. I'm anti-religion but find myself in a position of agnosticism. I suspect there isn't but I don't know, and claiming that I know would be arrogant and ignorant.

But yes, if someone were to make that claim from a position of fact, it's an extraordinary claim.

The definitive claim though, seems to have been more accepted in known history, than the one where people are accepting that no God exist. But there has been a non existance acceptance without any notable reason. Why is that? Why is the default on either side to see the other side as foolish?

It seems to me that humans are truly able to make up their mind about everything they have experienced even if they have no proof. The only people, imo, who need proof are those who have not made up their mind.

If you created a closed system would that not be a crowning achievement; that it is not only a well designed system, but within that system are entities that can truly think on their own? It is religion itself that enforces the notion that human's cannot think on their own. Keeping that in mind, why would a God use religion if the purpose of creation was giving humans the ability to think on their own?

 

[Berzerker]

The question is not where did all that water go. It would be how did a molten super heated earth get water in the first place, given it's position in the solar system.

Thats a good question too... Researchers keep trying to import our water because it shouldn't be here according to them.

There is evidence of pangea, and at face value, the writers said as much.

I'm dubious about that verse, Pangaea was recent leaving us up to 3.5-4 billion years of plate tectonics to repeatedly form ~single landmasses. Course it took time for those cratons to build up into continents but plate tectonics has been pushing them around a looong time. Besides, that verse describes what the world was like before life and one of the reasons we know about Pangaea is the continuity of fossils - life.

I think the verse means the dry land appeared and water receded into seas. I haven't looked recently at the geology of ancient cratons but I thought we had evidence a few of them formed the foundations of future continents - what formed them? What I find interesting about that is according to the people who gave us the Enuma Elish, the creator god struck Tiamat (biblical Tehom) with several 'winds' (weapons) and its possible the cratons ~>3 bya were the result.

Time is relative and perhaps at one point it was accelerated. How would we have decay and change if there was no time at all?

I've heard time didn't exist before the big bang, but matter has been decaying ever since. Time does appear in Genesis, creation occurs over 6 days. Now I think 6 refers to planets but thats a different subject, a progression of events is described 'over time' nonetheless.

The Mesopotamians (according to some in the ancient writing field) worked out that there was a collision of 2 planets. The result was the earth and a non rotating satellite, the moon. The earth once had less mass. That they are still looking for impact points is only the beginning. They still need to prove that two planet size bodies collided. There was still a lot of debris that may have "rained" down for hundreds of years after the initial impact.

The Moon supposedly formed 4.4-5 bya long before the Mesopotamian version describes 'creation', the Moon was Tiamat's primary defender in the myth. The Earth was larger before 'creation', and I believe it had a very deep ocean, not a handful of miles but dozens if not >100 miles deep. Thats why our moon is so large, the Earth got carved up to produce "Heaven" - the hammered bracelet. The Mesopotamian myth describes Heaven and Earth as two halves of a flat fish.

The Mesopotamians did no such thing. More nonsense.The Wisdom of the Ancients (tm) is a trope that should stay within the confines of science fiction.

They describe a celestial battle between planetary 'gods' and the result was a world with dry land and oceans with Heaven above and life below. One (the creator) was an intruder and the other was the watery dragon, Tiamat (Tehom). They even told us where in our solar system Tiamat formed - on the other side of Mars where neither Sun or Moon shone brilliantly. That primeval world was covered by water and darkness. After creation Mars was represented by a 6 pointed star, Venus an 8 pointed star, and the Earth by 7 dots. The same 7 dots appear below the Earth in the Incan "Genesis" and as the 7 eyes of Brahma in Indian myth.

The celestial 7 is 50

That passage is describing the Lord of the Earth (7) - Enlil - with his rank of 50 in the Sumerian pantheon, twelve deities ranked by increments of 5 up to 60.

FYI, water is present almost everywhere we look in the solar system, including Mercury. My question is: Where did all the water from a global flood go?

Yes, where did the water covering the tallest mountains go? The only biblical explanation I've heard is it returned to 'the deep', but that phrase refers to the ocean, not some subterranean vault that stored water before and after the flood. The Bible isn't just describing a flood, its describing a tsunami or exceedingly fast rise in sea levels - the fountains of the deep burst forth - followed by a deluge of rain. Both can be caused by ocean impacts.

But another interesting feature of our solar system is the 'snow line' - the distance from the sun gas condensed to form water and ice. The asteroid belt is that location, the inner half is drier and the outer half is 'wetter'. I dont know why researchers are convinced Jupiter formed early enough to disrupt other planets forming closer to the sun, I think the snow line is where we'd expect to find an early if not earliest planet.

 

[Synobun]

Why is the default on either side to see the other side as foolish?

Well, that's pretty easy to answer. The two extremes are fundamentally at odds when it comes to the fabric of reality.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not super well-versed in the science behind Earth's origin, and don't claim to be. I do however know that if you're so inclined you can find step-by-step explanations that detail how the figures were reached. With the same equipment you could replicate the results yourself. That's a fairly solidified condition in our scientific process; your conclusion should be able to be verified by an outside party.

The religious side isn't quite as nuanced. "God did it, this I know for the Bible told me so" isn't compelling.

You're right that for the layman the distinction between positions isn't great. They're both taking a statement at face value. The difference is that a layman can change that about the scientific position. You're trapped at the starting line with religion.

The world's myths describe a primordial watery darkness - and the Earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Growing up I thought that was gibberish. I was taught the world was a molten hellhole for ~1/2 billion years and that was why we couldn't find rock from the "Hadean" period. But we've been finding zircon crystals that have survived and they formed in the presence of water. That means we had surface water soon after the moon forming impact, we might have had water before the impact. Anyway, that religious belief - that the world was in water and darkness can be verified by science.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

How do scientist today know it happened? When it happened is guess work.

Can you refrain from chanelling Megan Fox, Creationist Mom here? I suppose next thing, you'll want to see the videotape.

And the devil put the fossils in the rocks, obviously.

There's a woman on YouTube who insists that dinosaurs should be abolished from all school curricula because not only did they never exist, they also lived very immoral lives. The fossils are fakes made by paleontologists who bury them in the ground to be dug up by other paleontologists so they can get millions and millions of taxpayer dollars and get rich when they sell the fossils to each other. She goes on to say that the ones that flew couldn't possibly have flown because if you throw a leather jacket over a kite and drop it off a tall building, the kite won't fly.

The only thing constant on all sides of the debate is God.

Believe it or not, there are cosmologists and astrophysicists who manage to do their jobs and no deities of any kind are involved.

Is the statement, "there is no God" an extraordinary claim? As there is no proof to that statement.

It seems a perfectly reasonable statement, since I've never been presented with any evidence to refute it.

Children aren't born believing in supernatural beings, after all. If they do end up believing in them, it's because they learned it, or because they decided to believe in supernatural beings.

The only people, imo, who need proof are those who have not made up their mind.

Yeah, the "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts" attitude is strong in people who deny basic science.

On the other hand, my mind is open to change if provided with a convincing reason to do so.

stuff we've seen at least a dozen times before that is no more credible now than it was then

I dont know why researchers are convinced Jupiter formed early enough to disrupt other planets forming closer to the sun, I think the snow line is where we'd expect to find an early if not earliest planet.

You'd better hop to it and tell them they're all wrong, then. I can't wait to see the news articles heralding the New Knowledge that Babylonian myths are more accurate than decades of observations and analysis by real astronomers and astrophysicists.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It seems a perfectly reasonable statement, since I've never been presented with any evidence to refute it.

And yet you consider "there is a god" to be unreasonable, despite there being no evidence either way on the issue.

@Synsensa I rest my case on the perfect example of the self righteous disciple of the non-god.

Moderator Action: This is unnecessary. You are not required to follow someone around and harp on about their behaviour. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[timtofly]

Can you refrain from chanelling Megan Fox, Creationist Mom here? I suppose next thing, you'll want to see the videotape.

For one who is open to change, you rely too much on constants. The only way a theory can be proven or even accepted is a few assumptions have to remain constant. Either you accept that the moon formed from an impact with the earth or it did not. If the earth had no tilted axis and no moon, what we take as a constant, ie seasons and the moons effect was not a constant for the whole life of the earth. You want what the Bible says to fit into a neat 6000 year period to point out it is wrong. You have not given any proof of that point.

How do you know where anything a person believes comes from? Too many assumptions to pin it down to one thing. The point of grasping the truth comes at a young age. It is much harder to change one's mind when older, and if it does change, it is society and culture, not a pet belief system that causes a mind to change. There is evidence that children know a lot more than given credit for, and life experiences changes one's belief system, not adults attempting to, as you put it, brainwash them one way or another. And yes children can be brainwashed and their control over their mind can be taken away. I am pretty sure the average set of parents are likely incapable of such feats to claim it happens for everyone. I think we both agree that religion can be a tad controlling and avoided at all cost. But to deny there is a reality in addition to the observable material universe is just as controlling and narrow minded as any set of religious beliefs.

 

[Hrothbern]

Burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

That is why wise persons say so little

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: We do not need the 5000th rendition of Creationism: Yay or Nay. Either get back to the original topic or cease and desist immediately.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Valka D'Ur]

For one who is open to change, you rely too much on constants. The only way a theory can be proven or even accepted is a few assumptions have to remain constant. Either you accept that the moon formed from an impact with the earth or it did not. If the earth had no tilted axis and no moon, what we take as a constant, ie seasons and the moons effect was not a constant for the whole life of the earth. You want what the Bible says to fit into a neat 6000 year period to point out it is wrong. You have not given any proof of that point.

When did I say I don't accept that the Moon is the result of Earth crashing into another (now-destroyed) body in the early solar system?

I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is your snide comment about "guesswork."

6000 years is the time frame used by most YECs, and there have been some of those who were actually appointed to federal cabinet positions in Canada. How can you take a government seriously when the ministers in charge of the environment portfolio, for example, think the world is only 6000 years old and see nothing wrong with ruining the environment because God said man had dominion over everything? That's somebody dealing with the companies that produce fossil fuel products, who doesn't care about damage that will take decades at the very least to fix, if we start now... and there's no intention to start any time soon.

How do you know where anything a person believes comes from? Too many assumptions to pin it down to one thing. The point of grasping the truth comes at a young age. It is much harder to change one's mind when older, and if it does change, it is society and culture, not a pet belief system that causes a mind to change. There is evidence that children know a lot more than given credit for, and life experiences changes one's belief system, not adults attempting to, as you put it, brainwash them one way or another. And yes children can be brainwashed and their control over their mind can be taken away. I am pretty sure the average set of parents are likely incapable of such feats to claim it happens for everyone. I think we both agree that religion can be a tad controlling and avoided at all cost. But to deny there is a reality in addition to the observable material universe is just as controlling and narrow minded as any set of religious beliefs.

You're whooshing right past my point that children are not born following a religion. They're not born knowing or believing anything beyond "I'm hungry/thirsty/tired/lonely/my diaper's wet."

Whatever religious ideas they have later in life were taught, either by other people telling them directly, or by reading or listening to material dealing with it. Sometimes they're receptive to this and come to believe it, or they're not receptive to it and reject it as something that is irrelevant or that makes no sense, based on what they've learned about the world and about science in general.

There is no scientific evidence that definitively concludes that there was ever a flood as described in Genesis (or any other mythology). From what I know of the various animals on the various continents and what habitats they require, I know that it is impossible that they could survive the conditions described on the ark, or that they could have gotten on the ark in the first place.

 

[Berzerker]

I dont recognize that quote, are you sure its from me?

You'd better hop to it and tell them they're all wrong, then. I can't wait to see the news articles heralding the New Knowledge that Babylonian myths are more accurate than decades of observations and analysis by real astronomers and astrophysicists.

These ancient myths say the world was covered by water before continents and life appear. What do your experts say?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I dont recognize that quote, are you sure its from me?

I paraphrased it.

These ancient myths say the world was covered by water before continents and life appear. What do your experts say?

You're using mythology as your source, and are mocking the astronomers and planetary scientists who are using observation and analysis, rather than mythology.

Since you know much more than they do, you should make sure to tell them how wrong they are. I'm sure they would be grateful to have the answers handed to them so they can move on to other projects.

 

[timtofly]

When did I say I don't accept that the Moon is the result of Earth crashing into another (now-destroyed) body in the early solar system?

I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is your snide comment about "guesswork."

6000 years is the time frame used by most YECs, and there have been some of those who were actually appointed to federal cabinet positions in Canada. How can you take a government seriously when the ministers in charge of the environment portfolio, for example, think the world is only 6000 years old and see nothing wrong with ruining the environment because God said man had dominion over everything? That's somebody dealing with the companies that produce fossil fuel products, who doesn't care about damage that will take decades at the very least to fix, if we start now... and there's no intention to start any time soon.


You're whooshing right past my point that children are not born following a religion. They're not born knowing or believing anything beyond "I'm hungry/thirsty/tired/lonely/my diaper's wet."

Whatever religious ideas they have later in life were taught, either by other people telling them directly, or by reading or listening to material dealing with it. Sometimes they're receptive to this and come to believe it, or they're not receptive to it and reject it as something that is irrelevant or that makes no sense, based on what they've learned about the world and about science in general.

There is no scientific evidence that definitively concludes that there was ever a flood as described in Genesis (or any other mythology). From what I know of the various animals on the various continents and what habitats they require, I know that it is impossible that they could survive the conditions described on the ark, or that they could have gotten on the ark in the first place.

Name one time in history where humans in control of other humans ever got it right.