Real Science Radio: The Search for Noah's Ark

[Lordkalvan]

Funny. I'm a YEC and I don't use science to try and prove the bible correct. In fact I presuppose the bible is true and use science to try and falsify it.

As the square-cube law, amongst other things, effectively renders Noah's Ark as described wholly unseaworthy, then I assume therefore that you must have concluded that the flood legend, at least as far as it relates to the Ark, is false.

You might want to remember that when you engage in discussion with me.

That's funny, because I only ever recall you doing what you claim you don't.

Bad logic in return. Those real things you mention are things used by the author to house the story not items produced by the story. If we found flying monkeys or heartless lions then you might be convinced that The Wizard of Oz is true.

Similarly, we have found Mt. Ararat, but nobody is using that fact to try convincing you that the bible is accurate. We're looking for a product of the story to convince.

I thought your intent was the opposite? To find evidence that would falsify the story?

A spacecraft isn't mentioned in the story. There would be no burden on us to provide any explanation or change any story.

That rather seems to be a statement to the effect that, contrary to your stated position above, no matter what evidence was found you would not regard the Bible as falsified.

 

[gcthomas]

FFunny. I'm a YEC and I don't use science to try and prove the bible correct. In fact I presuppose the bible is true and use science to try and falsify it.

Funny. You always seem to twist the science to try to fit it to your bible presuppositions.

:think:

You might want to remember that when you engage in discussion with me.

 

[Stripe]

Funny. You always seem to twist the science to try to fit it to your bible presuppositions.

Nope.

Show us one statement of fact I've presented that is not so. :up:

 

[Lordkalvan]

Nope.

Show us one statement of fact I've presented that is not so. :up:

Here you go:

The asteroid...was said to vent gas and water molecules creating a temporary atmosphere.

There is no other reasonable way asteroids could capture moons.

And:

...The typical speed of a collision between asteroids would be utterly destructive and scatter both.

From here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89965&page=9

 

[gcthomas]

BTW, there are fields of pillow lava that our associates have photographed, videotaped, and hiked over, far up the mountain. And this is textbook pillow lava, which of course forms under water.
-Bob E.

Bob - do you have a link to those photos of pillow lava? Geological surveys report Pāhoehoe and ʻAʻā lava, but never pillow lava, so I am wondering if someone has misidentified these types.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope.

Show us one statement of fact I've presented that is not so. :up:

You claimed that convection currents can be of heat without any rising of molten iron in the outer core of Earth. This seems to have been driven by your desire to prevent any mechanism for induction motor effects.

You also claimed conservation of angular momentum prevented the inner core from naturally speeding up.

You also unquestioningly support Walt's crazy pseudoscience. Here's you on their plate tectonics 'critique':

They laugh and I laugh because you haven't understood the challenge. If there is one crust overriding another there should be added mass at that location. However:
"the presence of ocean trenches ... can cause negative gravity anomalies."​

Of course, if the less dense crust is descending and displacing more dense mantle rock, then there will be less mass and gravity. But no. you disagree with the science.

And reality is that lightspeed is never constant.​

Whose reality would that be then? You seem to have dismissed the conclusions of the Michelson-Morley experiment, adopting instead a conclusion inconsistent with the facts.

I'm sure I could find more, but twisting the science to fit still seems like a reasonable description of your behaviour.

 

[Stripe]

You claimed that convection currents can be of heat without any rising of molten iron in the outer core of Earth. This seems to have been driven by your desire to prevent any mechanism for induction motor effects. You also unquestioningly support Walt's crazy pseudoscience. Here's you on their plate tectonics 'critique':

They laugh and I laugh because you haven't understood the challenge. If there is one crust overriding another there should be added mass at that location. However:
"the presence of ocean trenches ... can cause negative gravity anomalies."​

Of course, if the less dense crust is descending and displacing more dense mantle rock, then there will be less mass and gravity. But no. you disagree with the science.

And reality is that lightspeed is never constant.​

Whose reality would that be then? You seem to have dismissed the conclusions of the Michelson-Morley experiment, adopting instead a conclusion inconsistent with the facts. I'm sure I could find more, but twisting the science to fit still seems like a reasonable description of your behaviour.

Great!

So now what you need to do is get into those conversations and really understand what it is I am saying.

You also claimed conservation of angular momentum prevented the inner core from naturally speeding up.

Actually, that's exactly how and why it is rotating faster.

PROGRESS! :up:

Now, what procedure could cause this? :think:

 

[Lordkalvan]

Great!

So now what you need to do is get into those conversations and really understand what it is I am saying....

Well, in other conversations I understand you to be saying that

The asteroid...was said to vent gas and water molecules creating a temporary atmosphere.

There is no other reasonable way asteroids could capture moons.

And:

...The typical speed of a collision between asteroids would be utterly destructive and scatter both.

But when one 'got into' these conversations in an attempt to clarify these supposed 'facts', you rather quickly seemed to lose interest. Why was that?

 

[gcthomas]

Great!

So now what you need to do is get into those conversations and really understand what it is I am saying.

Aren't you going to challenge the other statements! You don't seem to understand the concepts of energy and heat flow, which led to your silly statements above.

 

[Paulos]

Funny. I'm a YEC and I don't use science to try and prove the bible correct.

Yes, that is funny!

In fact I presuppose the bible is true and use science to try and falsify it.

In fact you presuppose the bible is true and use pseudoscience to try and prove it.

 

[Stripe]

Aren't you going to challenge the other statements!

You want me to challenge the things I think are facts? :AMR:

You don't seem to understand the concepts of energy and heat flow, which led to your silly statements above.

Feel free to open the thread in question and point out why what I say is wrong. :up:

 

[gcthomas]

You want me to challenge the things I think are facts? :AMR:

Feel free to open the thread in question and point out why what I say is wrong. :up:

Already did that at the time, but you just dismissed the comments and posted lots of smileys, as usual.

Have another chance:
You claimed that convection currents can be of heat without any rising of molten iron in the outer core of Earth.

 

[Lordkalvan]

You want me to challenge the things I think are facts?

For one, I would like you to support some of the things you have claimed as facts elsewhere, such as:

The asteroid...was said to vent gas and water molecules creating a temporary atmosphere.

There is no other reasonable way asteroids could capture moons.

And:

...The typical speed of a collision between asteroids would be utterly destructive and scatter both.

Feel free to open the thread in question and point out why what I say is wrong.

Given your apparent reluctance to support these alleged 'facts' when originally challenged on them, perhaps you can explain why you are now apparently ready to discuss them further? What's changed?

 

[Stripe]

You claimed that convection currents can be of heat without any rising of molten iron in the outer core of Earth.

Yip.

If you want to continue that discussion, open the thread. :up:

BTW, you should chase up that statement that you attributed to me where I agree with your assessment. It always helps to talk from a basis on which we agree.

 

[Lighthouse]

That's a mighty big "If" you have there, Pastor Enyart. Furthermore, one could just as easily reverse the question to you: "If the Ark isn't found..."

I don't know if this is bad logic or just bad grammar, but evidence not being found does not mean the evidence is non-extant, or did not once exist; nor does it mean the story is not true.

To prove the story false one would have to actually find evidence that proved the opposite true.

 

[gcthomas]

View Post
You claimed that convection currents can be of heat without any rising of molten iron in the outer core of Earth.

Yip.

And there we have it.

You are not fit to discuss science topics with an understanding that would shame a dim high-schooler.

:chuckle:

 

[Lordkalvan]

Yip.

If you want to continue that discussion, open the thread.

And yet you remain reluctant to support these alleged 'facts', that:

The asteroid...was said to vent gas and water molecules creating a temporary atmosphere.

There is no other reasonable way asteroids could capture moons.

And:

...The typical speed of a collision between asteroids would be utterly destructive and scatter both.

This selective blindness seems almost like wilful evasiveness.

BTW, you should chase up that statement that you attributed to me where I agree with your assessment. It always helps to talk from a basis on which we agree.

Well, let's consider those bases on which we don't agree, that you have claimed as indisputable facts, that appear to be no such thing and that you have quite failed to substantiate.

 

[Lordkalvan]

I don't know if this is bad logic or just bad grammar, but evidence not being found does not mean the evidence is non-extant, or did not once exist; nor does it mean the story is not true.

On the other hand, claims based on legendary stories that are contraindicated by the preponderance of evidence are generally regarded as requiring positive evidence to validate them. Thus, while elements of The Iliad are regarded as supported by archaeological evidence, the active intervention of Greek deities is regarded as mythical.

To prove the story false one would have to actually find evidence that proved the opposite true.

The null hypothesis would be that mythical tales are false unless substantiated by positive evidence.

 

[Stripe]

And there we have it.

You are not fit to discuss science topics with an understanding that would shame a dim high-schooler.

:chuckle:

Suit yourself. :idunno:

 

[Lordkalvan]

Suit yourself.

As you seem to have suited yourself in choosing to ignore attempts to engage you in supporting alleged 'facts' you have asserted elsewhere...