Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

[JudgeRightly]

If I was trying to derail the thread it should be easy enough to quote me doing it.

Ok, Here you go:

The theories in your link as well as the ones that are discussed in the link I provided are all based on a belief in the Copernican model having outer space.

what's keeping the gases here for us to breathe?

According to the theory of relativity gravity has zero force.

Due to experiments that show Newtons 3rd law of motion that relies on gravity is false, you have no other choice than to believe Einstein or come up with your own solution, which by default cannot be gravity.
Newtonian gravity was debunked over 100 years ago.

I don't need a strawman.
I used to believe in all that pseudoscience myself.

All experiments showed the earth to be stationary.
That killed Newton's theory that required gravity to make things move.
I'm with you.
Einstein had to get things moving again. ( protect the heliocentric model)
He did it by saying objects at rest are accelerating as well as warping space and time.
Purdy stupid right?
Yep but it's the only alternative that's been put forth in the last 100 years.
Except for us dimwits who believe God when he says the earth is fixed. (geocentric)

Since certain things don't move, gravity is debunked.

Your position is a spinning flying ball in the heliocentric model.
Problem is that you don't know it as well as I do.
Hence you call it a strawman.

Earth.

What part of the earth doesn't move makes you think you can still have attraction?

You do it every time you make a statement about gravity that's been proven defunct.

All of these are arguments from your belief that the earth is geocentric, a belief that was disproven centuries ago simply by observing the movements of the planets.

And we all know you're a flat-earther, so it's not surprising that you'd make such arguments.

 

[Derf]

Read Ezekiel 31.



You could always just watch Bryan Nickel's HPT videos on YouTube...

He did an excellent job animating what it might have looked like.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ

Of course, God's would definitely be better, if we even care about it at that point in our existences... Or maybe he'll use Bryan's videos! That'd be a hoot!



Considering that the waters once covered the earth (the top diagram in the image in my second to last post in this thread), and then the waters were gathered together to form seas, exposing the crust where the waters once were, the "again" is covered too.

The "again" suggests that it happened once (or more) previously, and then wouldn't EVER happen again. If the event in question is the mountains being covered by water and it happened multiple times prior to creation being completed, and the verse is saying it wouldn't happen again (ever) after creation, then the verse--written after the flood but speaking of before the flood, according to you--wouldn't be telling the truth, and the author knew it (because he knew about the flood).

 

[JudgeRightly]

12 minutes in the guy asserts/assumes gravity as a force.
Bob Enyeart

It's "Enyart." Get it right.

in this next video asserts gravity as a force and at the same time says he doesn't know what it is.

One doesn't need to know what something is in order to know that it exists and works.

Begging the question.

Hypocrite. Your following is an example. If you get to do it, then so do I.

Gas expanding in all directions to fill space is scientific fact.

Incorrect.

A gas expands until the pressure is equalized. This includes the downward pressure of gravity.

Einstein debunking gravity as a force is documented.

That's a lie. Stop lying.

Einstein agreed with Newton that space had dimension: width, length, and height. Space might be filled with matter, or it might not. But Newton didn’t believe that space was affected by the objects in it. Einstein did. He theorized that a mass can prod space plenty. It can warp it, bend it, push it, or pull it. Gravity was just a natural outcome of a mass’s existence in space (Einstein had, with his 1905 Special Theory of Relativity, added time as a fourth dimension to space, calling the result space-time. Large masses can also warp time by speeding it up or slowing it down).

https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/space/gravity-making-waves/newton-einstein-gravity#:~:text=Einstein%20did.,calling%20the%20result%20space%2Dtime.

Gas pressure requiring a container is a proven fact.

The container is Earth's gravity (and the moon's, see below).

Oh, and by the way, the earth's atmosphere, while most of it is around the earth, extends (albeit extremely thinly) around the moon, due to the flood.

Earth’s atmosphere actually extends far beyond the Moon

New data shows that the layer of gases surrounding Earth stretches to around 630,000 kilometers, which is about twice the distance to the Moon.

www.earth.com

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

All of these are arguments from your belief that the earth is geocentric, a belief that was disproven centuries ago simply by observing the movements of the planets.

And we all know you're a flat-earther, so it's not surprising that you'd make such arguments.

My arguments are against the theories made without scientific evidence.

 

[Derf]

My arguments are against the theories made without scientific evidence.

Then you must be against flat earth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The "again" suggests that it happened once (or more) previously, and then wouldn't EVER happen again. If the event in question is the mountains being covered by water and it happened multiple times prior to creation being completed, and the verse is saying it wouldn't happen again (ever) after creation, then the verse--written after the flood but speaking of before the flood, according to you--wouldn't be telling the truth, and the author knew it (because he knew about the flood).

You have a good point. I will concede, seeing as I've also done a bit more research, and even my own sources consider it to be something from the flood, and not the creation week.

I will point out, however, that the NKJV nor the Hebrew text has the word "again" in it. But that's a moot point, at this point.

You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains.At Your rebuke they fled; At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.They went up over the mountains; They went down into the valleys, To the place which You founded for them.You have set a boundary that they may not pass over, That they may not return to cover the earth. - Psalm 104:6-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm104:6-9&version=NKJV

 

[JudgeRightly]

My arguments are against the theories made without scientific evidence.

There is plenty of scientific evidence that has been presented even here in this very thread for the HPT, which is a theory based on the heliocentric model.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

There is plenty of scientific evidence that has been presented even here in this very thread for the HPT, which is a theory based on the heliocentric model.

The heliocentric model no longer includes gravity as a force.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Then you must be against flat earth.

My arguments for my beliefs include scientific facts.

 

[Right Divider]

The idea of a canopy is neither unbiblical nor unscientific.

I disagree. It is both.

Biblically, the canopy could be what the windows of heaven refers to. There is room for different interpretations of that phrase.

How do you support that from the Bible?

And scientifically, there should be answers for some of the anomalies we see from the preflood world.

What anomalies?

A canopy could answer some of those.

How so?

And beyond that, the feasibility of a canopy, with the small amount of data we have, can not be ruled out.

I think that it can be ruled out.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The heliocentric model no longer includes gravity as a force.

And even if that were true, so what?

Things still fall, the earth still pulls the atmosphere to itself at equilibrium with its tendency to expand, and I'm laying in my bed, all because of gravity.

 

[JudgeRightly]

My arguments for my beliefs include scientific facts.

What arguments? All you've made so far are claims.

 

[ok doser]

What arguments? All you've made so far are claims.

His argument is that his claims are arguments

 

[Tambora]

All of these are arguments from your belief that the earth is geocentric, a belief that was disproven centuries ago simply by observing the movements of the planets.

Hold on a second.
I heard that scientist found that the universe is expanding away from us (earth) at the same speed in all directions.
How would that be possible unless earth was central?

And we all know you're a flat-earther, so it's not surprising that you'd make such arguments.

We are getting lots of differing viewpoints in this thread.
Flat earthers should be just as welcome.

You think he's stupid for believing the earth is flat.
So what?
I think you are stupid for believing God created 2 firmaments.
So what?
We should all be able to voice our viewpoint and speculations and questions no matter how stupid some think they are.

I like hearing from the both of you so I don't want either of you to be excluded.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hold on a second.
I heard that scientist found that the universe is expanding away from us (earth) at the same speed in all directions.
How would that be possible unless earth was central?

The earth is central, but it is not the center, nor is it the center of the solar system, galaxy, etc. The sun and planets and moons do not orbit the earth, nor do the stars. That is what is meant by geocentrism, which was disproven by Copernicus and Galileo.

In fact, we're not even in the exact center of the universe, but off slightly, and it's BECAUSE we're not dead center that we can tell that we're close to the center.

The Cosmological Principle & the Center of the Universe | KGOV.com

kgov.com

CMB: Real Science Radio on the Axis of Evil | KGOV.com

kgov.com

See also:

RSR: Stretch Cosmology | KGOV.com

kgov.com

You think he's stupid for believing the earth is flat.
So what?
I think you are stupid for believing God created 2 firmaments.
So what?

The difference is that flat-earthism is mental illness and indefensible by the Bible or science, while having two firmaments is defensible with both scripture and science.

My argument isn't "your position is stupid, therefore you're wrong." That is called an appeal to the stone, and it's a fallacy for a reason.

My argument is instead, "your position has no support from either scripture or science, and in fact, both they and the evidence contradict it, therefore you're stupid for continuing to believe it." My proof? The two threads started by DFT_Dave currently in the Hall of Shame on the topic of the flat earth.

Big difference!

 

[Tambora]

The earth is central, but it is not the center, nor is it the center of the solar system, galaxy, etc. The sun and planets and moons do not orbit the earth, nor do the stars. That is what is meant by geocentrism, which was disproven by Copernicus and Galileo.

In fact, we're not even in the exact center of the universe, but off slightly, and it's BECAUSE we're not dead center that we can tell that we're close to the center.

The Cosmological Principle & the Center of the Universe | KGOV.com

kgov.com

CMB: Real Science Radio on the Axis of Evil | KGOV.com

kgov.com

See also:

RSR: Stretch Cosmology | KGOV.com

kgov.com

The difference is that flat-earthism is mental illness and indefensible by the Bible or science, while having two firmaments is defensible with both scripture and science.

My argument isn't "your position is stupid, therefore you're wrong." That is called an appeal to the stone, and it's a fallacy for a reason.

My argument is instead, "your position has no support from either scripture or science, and in fact, both they and the evidence contradict it, therefore you're stupid for continuing to believe it." My proof? The two threads started by DFT_Dave in the Hall of Shame on the topic of the flat earth.

Big difference!

Don't want to get too far off topic of this thread, but when it comes to scripture the majority on this site have differing viewpoints as to what is to be taken literally or figuratively; and everybody thinks the others are stupid for their viewpoint.
So you can't really say that flat earth is not based on scripture since every Hebrew language scholars worth their weight admits that if taken literally the bible describes the earth as flat and stationary.

Life is like a box of chocolates.
I like chocolate!!!!!

 

[Stripe]

I heard that scientist found that the universe is expanding away from us (earth) at the same speed in all directions. How would that be possible unless earth was central?

The proponents of the expansion of space idea hold that no position in the universe is unique. Thus, no matter where you are, you are at the center.

 

[Tambora]

The proponents of the expansion of space idea hold that no position in the universe is unique. Thus, no matter where you are, you are at the center.

Well I know I am!

Wonder what it's expanding into?
When scripture talks about God spreading out things like unrolling a scroll, perhaps it is still ongoing.

 

[Stripe]

Well I know I am!

Near enough to it.

You're totally unique, just like the rest of us...

Wonder what it's expanding into?

"Ex nihilo"

When scripture talks about God spreading out things like unrolling a scroll, perhaps it is still ongoing.

That would seem counterproductive. Also, if it is ongoing, it is at a rate so tiny in comparison with the initial action to be negligible.

The "stretching out" of the Bible is in all likelihood a vastly different — ie, coherent — concept compared with the "expansion" ideas of the big bang theory. For a start, it doesn't require nonsense ideas such as "timespace."

 

[JudgeRightly]

So you can't really say that flat earth is not based on scripture since every Hebrew language scholars worth their weight admits that if taken literally the bible describes the earth as flat and stationary.

I'm not saying that it's not based on scripture. I'm saying it's not defensible with scripture. Yes, scripture could be interpreted (key word) to argue that the earth is flat, but A) such an interpretation falls into conflict with other scripture, and B) such an interpretation doesn't fit reality.

In reality, while verses can be interpreted to say the earth is flat, when taken in context and based on their actual meaning, the Bible does NOT actually say the earth is flat, and part of the reason FEers think it is is due to the interpretation that the sky is the firmament described on Day 2.

Anyways, if we want to talk about this in more detail, let's move it to a different thread not in the Creation Science section.