Real Science Radio: The Search for Noah's Ark

[Daedalean's_Sun]

You cheating child of the wrong god!! - What’s wrong with the “Punctuation” there that time?? – I deliberately left most of it out, just to see if some Fool would (( STILL )) use that for an ( Excuse ), -- ((( And You did ))), - what a brave coward some of you Fools ARE!!!!

Go crawl back into your “Catacomb” and hide with the rest of your family of cheating fools!!!

Paul – 073013

There's more wrong with your posts than just punctuation. Being relevant to the post that you are quoting is another skill you have yet to master.

 

[Letsargue]

There's more wrong with your posts than just punctuation. Being relevant to the post that you are quoting is another skill you have yet to master.

((((( I A-i-n-'t L-i-k-e Y-o-u )))))!!!!

Paul -- 073013

 

[Lighthouse]

You said and I quote: "Ever heard of entropy? Things slow down. Apparently even light."

This strongly implies that light was slowed down because of entropy. If that wasn't what you were implying then why mention entropy at all?

It would be just as silly as if I stated: "Ever hear of combustion? Things are fired. Even employees."

The last sentence has nothing to do with the first sentence, but a connection is implied.

It was a side note.

So, what does it say about you that you can't let it go and move on? I can only assume you have no other argument. Debate over, then. Thanks for playing.

Rather we have no reason to believe that he did. The President could have ordered the creation of an agency of bikini-clad assassins, but we have no reason to believe he did. Simply because something could have happened, does not mean it is rational to believe that it did.

I have reason to believe the President did exactly that. But If I told you my reason I'd have to kill you. Top Secret, "eyes only" type stuff. Very hush hush.:shut:

I did answer you question. You asked how something would be a suspension of physics and I answered: "Because it would require molecules to behave in a way not consistent with physics."

That's not an answer. An answer would explain how, not simply make a statement with no support.

You apparently, else why suggest it at all?

No I didn't. You assumed it from something else entirely.

And you think flooding did this?

If water were forced between them at such a pressure as would have been necessary for the flood to occur then I would expect them to separate to great distances from one another.

No, you are right. However it is not rational to believe in something merely because it is "possible". The universe is filled with many possibilities and only a few a actualities. It is possible that Abraham Lincoln was a shape-shifting alien, however it is not rational to believe that he was, just as it is not rational to believe that Yahweh suspended aqueous salt diffusion, sped-up speciation, or moved the continents from Pangaea to their current locations via a flood.

I don't believe it simply because it was possible. I believe what I believe because His word says it. And if His word does not say then I do not believe it.

For those too stupid to follow along, this means that I do not believe those things which I have put forth as possibilities to necessarily be actualities; I do not hold to any of them doctrinally and certainly not dogmatically. If you were stupid enough to believe otherwise, well I'm not surprised.

Lots of sane people think illogically. I'm sure we all know people that fit this category.

I'm not talking about sanity. I'm speaking of the fact that I am not neurotypical.

Anything that we believe for any reason other than how probably true it is, is an expression of illogical thinking.

I can agree with that. Doesn't mean thinking of possibilities outside of the box is illogical, though.

You did:

DS: And how does 35 sub-species (breeds) of a single species arising in 200 years with human assistance, in any way prove that 2,000 actual species can arise in 4,000 without any human assistance, at a rate of 1 species every 2 years for 4,000 consecutive years without a single extinction? LH: Divine assistance.

Link? Because I'm pretty sure I didn't leave it at that.

Also, you need to learn to recognize jokes at your expense.

Breeding alone does not cause speciation. You need genetic variation, selection, and time for those genetic variances to accumulate.

Did I not already say there was very likely genetic variation?

Sure, but there is no reason to believe that is how it happened. As I stated earlier simply because something could have happened, does not mean it is rational to believe that it did.

Who says I believe it did?

And yet, in the event the flood story is true then it is necessary that diffusion did not take place, and this had to then be accomplished through a means of some sort.

How is that a cop out? I'm explaining why having more animals on the ark is more implausible.

No you're not. You're stating, but you're not explaining it.

Anyone can present possibilities, I'm not concerned about possibilities, I'm concerned about probabilities. You might as well be telling me that you're going to win the lottery seven times in a row. Sure it's possible, but it's illogical to believe that you will, and no one will take you seriously by claiming such a thing.

An omnipotent God who caused the world to flood and allowed for His servant to gather two of every kind of some animals, and seven of every kind of others beforehand, in order to preserve them somehow disallows for the probability that He did other miraculous things to bring about His plan in all of this?

I'm dumbfounded how you could accuse me of avoiding logic.

Debate is about showing which of two positions is probably true. And so far that would be mine.

You've shown nothing.

 

[Lordkalvan]

((((( I A-i-n-'t L-i-k-e Y-o-u )))))!!!!

Paul -- 073013

Nope, you're 'special'.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

It was a side note.

So, what does it say about you that you can't let it go and move on? I can only assume you have no other argument. Debate over, then. Thanks for playing.

I was seeing what it would take before you admitted that you misspoke.

I have reason to believe the President did exactly that. But If I told you my reason I'd have to kill you. Top Secret, "eyes only" type stuff. Very hush hush.:shut:

lain:

That's not an answer. An answer would explain how, not simply make a statement with no support.

I can't tell if you're trolling me or if you truly have no argument.

DS: when salt-water comes into contact with fresh water, the aqueous salt content becomes homogenized because of something called diffusion LH: Absence of a barrier doesn't necessarily lead to homogenization or diffusion. DS: Based on what exactly? A puerile desire for physics to be suspended merely so that a cherished story of yours may be true? LH: How would physics be suspended? DS: Because it would require molecules to behave in a way not consistent with physics. Diffusion is so universally observed, so constant that it can be expressed mathematically as j = -D(dc/dx) with an incredible level of accuracy. LH: That doesn't answer the question. DS: I did answer you question. You asked how something would be a suspension of physics and I answered: "Because it would require molecules to behave in a way not consistent with physics." LH: That's not an answer. An answer would explain how, not simply make a statement with no support.

:doh:

So essentially you want me to explain why salt not diffusing in an aqueous solution is not consistent with diffusion or you want me to explain to you what diffusion is? Apparently, It's my job in this discussion to be your elementary science teacher, and explain basic scientific concepts to you.

Diffusion:

It's pretty self explanatory.

No I didn't. You assumed it from something else entirely.

Lighthouse: "Who says the flood didn't separate them? Waters did spring forth from the deep. It wasn't just rain. Did you not know that? Have you not read the story?"

If water were forced between them at such a pressure as would have been necessary for the flood to occur then I would expect them to separate to great distances from one another.

A transient event is not going to cause perpetual motion of the continents given the frictional forces at work.

The only other supposition is that water geysers moved all the world's continents from Pangaea to their current position in a single leap. This is impossible for more reasons than I have time to list.

I don't believe it simply because it was possible. I believe what I believe because His word says it. And if His word does not say then I do not believe it.

I don't recall the bible saying anything about Pangaea, hyper-evolution, continents moving, the suspension of diffusion or any of these other ad hoc explanations you posit.

For those too stupid to follow along, this means that I do not believe those things which I have put forth as possibilities to necessarily be actualities; I do not hold to any of them doctrinally and certainly not dogmatically. If you were stupid enough to believe otherwise, well I'm not surprised.

So you knowingly suggest explanations that are almost certainly false?

I'm not talking about sanity. I'm speaking of the fact that I am not neurotypical.

Please explain.

I can agree with that. Doesn't mean thinking of possibilities outside of the box is illogical, though.

Suggesting them as serious explanations, is.

Link? Because I'm pretty sure I didn't leave it at that.

No you included smilies.

Did I not already say there was very likely genetic variation?

And genetic variation requires many generations to accumulate.

Who says I believe it did?

It would have to, otherwise the holes in your story remain unaddressed.

And yet, in the event the flood story is true then it is necessary that diffusion did not take place, and this had to then be accomplished through a means of some sort.

In the event the flood story is true, which is very unlikely that it is, given the sheer number of Deus Ex Machinas you must invent to resolve all the logical and evidential problems with the story.

No you're not. You're stating, but you're not explaining it.

Could the ark could contain an infinite number of animals? If no, why?

An omnipotent God who caused the world to flood and allowed for His servant to gather two of every kind of some animals, and seven of every kind of others beforehand, in order to preserve them somehow disallows for the probability that He did other miraculous things to bring about His plan in all of this?

We've already been over this. The more you most posit circumstances that upend known and verifiable observations, the more exponentially implausible and unlikely your story becomes.

You've shown nothing.

I've shown the numerous holes in your story, and your willingness to disregard physics, geology, and biology to invent unreferenced and unsubstantiated "miracles" to fill those holes, instead of just conceding that the story is most likely fictional. Your insistence is dogmatic and irrational.

 

[Letsargue]

I was seeing what it would take before you admitted that you misspoke.

lain:

I can't tell if you're trolling me or if you truly have no argument.

DS: when salt-water comes into contact with fresh water, the aqueous salt content becomes homogenized because of something called diffusion LH: Absence of a barrier doesn't necessarily lead to homogenization or diffusion. DS: Based on what exactly? A puerile desire for physics to be suspended merely so that a cherished story of yours may be true? LH: How would physics be suspended? DS: Because it would require molecules to behave in a way not consistent with physics. Diffusion is so universally observed, so constant that it can be expressed mathematically as j = -D(dc/dx) with an incredible level of accuracy. LH: That doesn't answer the question. DS: I did answer you question. You asked how something would be a suspension of physics and I answered: "Because it would require molecules to behave in a way not consistent with physics." LH: That's not an answer. An answer would explain how, not simply make a statement with no support.

:doh:

So essentially you want me to explain why salt not diffusing in an aqueous solution is not consistent with diffusion or you want me to explain to you what diffusion is? Apparently, It's my job in this discussion to be your elementary science teacher, and explain basic scientific concepts to you.

Diffusion:

It's pretty self explanatory.



Lighthouse: "Who says the flood didn't separate them? Waters did spring forth from the deep. It wasn't just rain. Did you not know that? Have you not read the story?"

A transient event is not going to cause perpetual motion of the continents given the frictional forces at work.

The only other supposition is that water geysers moved all the world's continents from Pangaea to their current position in a single leap. This is impossible for more reasons than I have time to list.

I don't recall the bible saying anything about Pangaea, hyper-evolution, continents moving, the suspension of diffusion or any of these other ad hoc explanations you posit.

So you knowingly suggest explanations that are almost certainly false?

Please explain.

Suggesting them as serious explanations, is.

No you included smilies.

And genetic variation requires many generations to accumulate.

It would have to, otherwise the holes in your story remain unaddressed.

In the event the flood story is true, which is very unlikely that it is, given the sheer number of Deus Ex Machinas you must invent to resolve all the logical and evidential problems with the story.

Could the ark could contain an infinite number of animals? If no, why?

We've already been over this. The more you most posit circumstances that upend known and verifiable observations, the more exponentially implausible and unlikely your story becomes.

I've shown the numerous holes in your story, and your willingness to disregard physics, geology, and biology to invent unreferenced and unsubstantiated "miracles" to fill those holes, instead of just conceding that the story is most likely fictional. Your insistence is dogmatic and irrational.

You’ve ( Shown Nothing !!), but your mouth before Bob, - and he allows you to fight ((( HIS FIGHT!! )))!!! – That’s who we’re up against, this generation is OF ALL The Same mouth; -- guess whose? – Read it in the BOOK!!!!

Paul – 073113

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

You’ve ( Shown Nothing !!), but your mouth before Bob, - and he allows you to fight ((( HIS FIGHT!! )))!!! – That’s who we’re up against, this generation is OF ALL The Same mouth; -- guess whose? – Read it in the BOOK!!!!

Paul – 073113

This just seems to be a roundabout way of saying "You're wrong".

 

[Letsargue]

I was seeing what it would take before you admitted that you misspoke.




lain:




I can't tell if you're trolling me or if you truly have no argument.

DS: when salt-water comes into contact with fresh water, the aqueous salt content becomes homogenized because of something called diffusion LH: Absence of a barrier doesn't necessarily lead to homogenization or diffusion. DS: Based on what exactly? A puerile desire for physics to be suspended merely so that a cherished story of yours may be true? LH: How would physics be suspended? DS: Because it would require molecules to behave in a way not consistent with physics. Diffusion is so universally observed, so constant that it can be expressed mathematically as j = -D(dc/dx) with an incredible level of accuracy. LH: That doesn't answer the question. DS: I did answer you question. You asked how something would be a suspension of physics and I answered: "Because it would require molecules to behave in a way not consistent with physics." LH: That's not an answer. An answer would explain how, not simply make a statement with no support.

:doh:

So essentially you want me to explain why salt not diffusing in an aqueous solution is not consistent with diffusion or you want me to explain to you what diffusion is? Apparently, It's my job in this discussion to be your elementary science teacher, and explain basic scientific concepts to you.

Diffusion:

It's pretty self explanatory.


****

Lighthouse: "Who says the flood didn't separate them? Waters did spring forth from the deep. It wasn't just rain. Did you not know that? Have you not read the story?"

There was ( NO Water ) anywhere to that limit, ( until the Flood ). -- God for-ordained all the Water to BE THERE, Only when He NEED IT!! – After God used the Water; - It went back to where God received it from / The Creation in advance, at the Beginning, That is Written; (( Read it )) IF You Have the Eyes to See!!

The Clouds would have been thousands of miles thick, and total darkness until the Flood!! But the SUN did shine very clearly to have never rained until the Flood!! – But you all are real SMART!!!

Paul – 073113

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

There was ( NO Water ) anywhere to that limit, ( until the Flood ).

That's what the discussion is about. Salt water fish and fresh water fish cannot survive in the same water. With a global flood both must have had to endure the same water. This leaves us with the question of how both are around today. My answer is simple enough. There was no global flood, thus we should not expect that either should have gone extinct. I suggest there there may have been extensive regional flooding proceeding from the great melting at the end of the last glacial period which appeared to ancient people very much like global flooding, but was not.

 

[Letsargue]

That's what the discussion is about. Salt water fish and fresh water fish cannot survive in the same water. With a global flood both must have had to endure the same water. This leaves us with the question of how both are around today. My answer is simple enough. There was no global flood, thus we should not expect that either should have gone extinct. I suggest there there may have been extensive regional flooding proceeding from the great melting at the end of the last glacial period which appeared to ancient people very much like global flooding, but was not.

No It is / Was NOT!!!

Hey!! - I don’t care if you can’t accept what God says for ((( “Faith” )))!!! – According to the Word of God, it’s exactly the “WAY” God says. You just can’t see it, (((( And WHY ))))!! -- And that is (( Your Judgment ))!!! – I’ll See you the moment you steep out of that foolish body of YOURS, - I’m really going to Love it!!!!!

Paul – 073113

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

No It is / Was NOT!!!

So you're telling me that a discussion I am having with another poster isn't about what the topic that we've been discussing for about 5 or 6 pages now?

Hey!! - I don’t care if you can’t accept what God says for ((( “Faith” )))!!! – According to the Word of God, it’s exactly the “WAY” God says. You just can’t see it, (((( And WHY ))))!! -- And that is (( Your Judgment ))!!! – I’ll See you the moment you steep out of that foolish body of YOURS, - I’m really going to Love it!!!!!

Paul – 073113

You're upset that I don't accept your flood myth as true, and that I've elucidated the scientific and logical flaws in the narrative. Your hostility is apparent. However You won't convince me with emotional appeals, bald assertions and vague threats. I reason with intellect, not fear, not hope, not faith but intellect.

 

[Lighthouse]

I was seeing what it would take before you admitted that you misspoke.

I have admitted no such thing., but thanks for playing.

I can't tell if you're trolling me or if you truly have no argument.

What is there to argue? You've made statements without supporting them. There is nothing to rebut, because you have provided no actual argument from your side.

You're shouting "uh huh," like a bratty kid, waiting for me to respond, "nuh uh."

DS: when salt-water comes into contact with fresh water, the aqueous salt content becomes homogenized because of something called diffusion LH: Absence of a barrier doesn't necessarily lead to homogenization or diffusion. DS: Based on what exactly? A puerile desire for physics to be suspended merely so that a cherished story of yours may be true? LH: How would physics be suspended? DS: Because it would require molecules to behave in a way not consistent with physics. Diffusion is so universally observed, so constant that it can be expressed mathematically as j = -D(dc/dx) with an incredible level of accuracy. LH: That doesn't answer the question. DS: I did answer you question. You asked how something would be a suspension of physics and I answered: "Because it would require molecules to behave in a way not consistent with physics." LH: That's not an answer. An answer would explain how, not simply make a statement with no support.

:doh:

Explain how molecules behave and what absence of diffusion without a barrier would cause them to do and how that is different than what they should do.

So essentially you want me to explain why salt not diffusing in an aqueous solution is not consistent with diffusion or you want me to explain to you what diffusion is? Apparently, It's my job in this discussion to be your elementary science teacher, and explain basic scientific concepts to you.

Diffusion:

It's pretty self explanatory.

I know what diffusion is. I want you to explain why they would have to diffuse absent a barrier.

Lighthouse: "Who says the flood didn't separate them? Waters did spring forth from the deep. It wasn't just rain. Did you not know that? Have you not read the story?"

Is there supposed to be a response of some sort?

A transient event is not going to cause perpetual motion of the continents given the frictional forces at work.

Who said anything about perpetual motion?

The only other supposition is that water geysers moved all the world's continents from Pangaea to their current position in a single leap. This is impossible for more reasons than I have time to list.

I never made that argument and I fail to see how that is the only other possibility.

I don't recall the bible saying anything about Pangaea, hyper-evolution, continents moving, the suspension of diffusion or any of these other ad hoc explanations you posit.

There are a lot of things the Bible doesn't say. So what?

So you knowingly suggest explanations that are almost certainly false?

How are they almost certainly false?

Please explain.

I have Asperger's. I understand logic better than I do the abstract.

Suggesting them as serious explanations, is.

I suggested them as possibilities. How is that illogical?

If I didn't believe divine intervention was responsible for the flood int he first place then it would be illogical for me to propose it as having to do with anything else involved.

No you included smilies.

And you clearly need to learn to recognize a joke made at your expense. That's what smilies are for, sometimes, to indicate that a joke was made.

And genetic variation requires many generations to accumulate.

How many generations can we get from animals in 4000 or so years?

It would have to, otherwise the holes in your story remain unaddressed.

How so?

In the event the flood story is true, which is very unlikely that it is, given the sheer number of Deus Ex Machinas you must invent to resolve all the logical and evidential problems with the story.

In the event the story is true then God was involved, was He not? So how is saying He took care of all the necessities inventing a Deus Ex Machina?

Could the ark could contain an infinite number of animals? If no, why?

Maybe it was like the TARDIS and bigger on the inside.*

*Just so it is understood, because you seem pretty stupid and unable to recognize it when it happens, I am mocking you. I am doing so because you asked a stupid question.

We've already been over this. The more you most posit circumstances that upend known and verifiable observations, the more exponentially implausible and unlikely your story becomes.

If they are known and verifiable [I'm assuming you mean they've actually been verified] then show them.

I've shown the numerous holes in your story, and your willingness to disregard physics, geology, and biology to invent unreferenced and unsubstantiated "miracles" to fill those holes, instead of just conceding that the story is most likely fictional. Your insistence is dogmatic and irrational.

You still don't get it, do you? the God of all creation, the creator of the physical world, through which physics is expressed, can suspend, or even work with His design, in order to accomplish His will. Not every instance of this is recorded; His word even spells out that fact. It is only logical to assume that He did what was necessary to accomplish His plan and goals for the flood and its aftermath, as He was the one who caused the flood in the first place.

 

[Letsargue]

So you're telling me that a discussion I am having with another poster isn't about what the topic that we've been discussing for about 5 or 6 pages now?

You're upset that I don't accept your flood myth as true, and that I've elucidated the scientific and logical flaws in the narrative. Your hostility is apparent. However You won't convince me with emotional appeals, bald assertions and vague threats. I reason with intellect, not fear, not hope, not faith but intellect.

Read the Title of the Thread, ( You changed ) the Topic, because you can't hold to the Truth of what God said!! - Change the topics all you want, but I'll stick to the Topic of Noah's Flood, if I can get you off the garbage you must change it too!!! ----- ( You guys ) are allowed to do anything you want to, as long as you Flatter the other side!!!

Paul -- 073113

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I have admitted no such thing., but thanks for playing.

I didn't think that you would. Pride has that effect.

What is there to argue? You've made statements without supporting them. There is nothing to rebut, because you have provided no actual argument from your side.

You're shouting "uh huh," like a bratty kid, waiting for me to respond, "nuh uh."


Explain how molecules behave and what absence of diffusion without a barrier would cause them to do and how that is different than what they should do.

I feel like I'm trying to convince you that objects defying gravity is a suspension of physics. Diffusion is a law of physics in the same way that Gravity is.

Diffusion, process resulting from random motion of molecules by which there is a net flow of matter from a region of high concentration to a region of low concentration.

Source.

That randomly moving molecules would remain in high concentration, is a suspension of physics. That I should have to explain this, in such great detail is a testament to the level of self-deception that you express.

I know what diffusion is. I want you to explain why they would have to diffuse absent a barrier.

Evidently you don't since you're asking me why diffusion occurs. Diffusion occurs because moving molecules collide and bounce off of each other, this bouncing and colliding propels the molecules away from each other until they reach the point of lowest concentration where an equilibrium is achieved and the least amount of collision and molecule bouncing occurs.

Is there supposed to be a response of some sort?

You said you didn't say it, I show you where you did.

Who said anything about perpetual motion?

Well, if you're going to move a continent, there are essentially two ways to do it. You can move it gradually, or you can move it suddenly. Which one do you think the deluge caused?

I never made that argument and I fail to see how that is the only other possibility.

See above.

There are a lot of things the Bible doesn't say. So what?

So what? You said and I quote: "If His word does not say then I do not believe it."

How are they almost certainly false?

For the same reasons that I've been explaining this whole discussion.

-They violate known physical laws
-Lack of scientific evidence
-Lack of biblical support

I suggested them as possibilities. How is that illogical?

I don't think my point is coming across. Mere possibilities don't establish veracity. They don't establish anything except an imagination. I can list a million possibilities for the holes in any belief, but that doesn't make them any less likely to be wrong.

If I didn't believe divine intervention was responsible for the flood in the first place then it would be illogical for me to propose it as having to do with anything else involved.

No it wouldn't, but I'm getting the sense that getting you to think rationally is a Sisyphean task. It is irrational to assume more than what is necessary to explain an effect.

So here's what on the table, we can either assume:

A) That a series of major unreferenced and unsubstantiated miracles occurred to make the flood story possible

or

B) The flood narrative is a parable or myth.

And you clearly need to learn to recognize a joke made at your expense. That's what smilies are for, sometimes, to indicate that a joke was made.

A joke made in lieu of argument and evidence.

How many generations can we get from animals in 4000 or so years?

You tell me, it's your argument.

How so?

Because conjecture is not a substitute for evidence and argument.

In the event the story is true then God was involved, was He not? So how is saying He took care of all the necessities inventing a Deus Ex Machina?

Because you are adding extraneous circumstances to your story (not inherent to the story itself) to save it from being falsified.

Maybe it was like the TARDIS and bigger on the inside.*

*Just so it is understood, because you seem pretty stupid and unable to recognize it when it happens, I am mocking you. I am doing so because you asked a stupid question.

Answer the question, and that answer will help answer your previous

If they are known and verifiable [I'm assuming you mean they've actually been verified] then show them.

What is "they"?

The movement of continents?

Fick's Law of diffusion?

Speciation rates?

You still don't get it, do you? the God of all creation, the creator of the physical world, through which physics is expressed, can suspend, or even work with His design, in order to accomplish His will. Not every instance of this is recorded; His word even spells out that fact. It is only logical to assume that He did what was necessary to accomplish His plan and goals for the flood and its aftermath, as He was the one who caused the flood in the first place.

Let me ask you this: is it possible that the flood narrative is not literally true?

 

[Lighthouse]

I didn't think that you would. Pride has that effect.

I admit no such thing because I did not misspeak. I am not a prideful and stubborn man that I cannot admit error.

I feel like I'm trying to convince you that objects defying gravity is a suspension of physics. Diffusion is a law of physics in the same way that Gravity is.

And?

You would really suck as a teacher.

Diffusion, process resulting from random motion of molecules by which there is a net flow of matter from a region of high concentration to a region of low concentration.

Source.

I didn't ask you for a quote from someone else.

But, seriously, just to end this so you'll stop floundering, it is most likely that God kept the diffusion from occurring. The only other option is that He allowed for all sea creatures to live in the diffused water. The former takes less interference on His part.

That randomly moving molecules would remain in high concentration, is a suspension of physics. That I should have to explain this, in such great detail is a testament to the level of self-deception that you express.

And God can't suspend physics?

Evidently you don't since you're asking me why diffusion occurs. Diffusion occurs because moving molecules collide and bounce off of each other, this bouncing and colliding propels the molecules away from each other until they reach the point of lowest concentration where an equilibrium is achieved and the least amount of collision and molecule bouncing occurs.

No, I'm just trying to see if you can explain it.

P.S.
You suck at explaining it.

You said you didn't say it, I show you where you did.

No, you inferred it erroneously. I said the pressure from the water springing forth from underneath would have done it.

If you need a demo take a flat piece of wood and cut it in half. Then lay the two halves side by side, pushed together. Take a high pressure hose and spray between the two halves and see what happens.

Well, if you're going to move a continent, there are essentially two ways to do it. You can move it gradually, or you can move it suddenly. Which one do you think the deluge caused?

That much water springing forth at that high pressure would separate them relatively suddenly, though it would start out gradual as they connections broke apart, seeing as how they were attached.

See above.

I never made the argument they were moved to their current locations at that time.

So what? You said and I quote: "If His word does not say then I do not believe it."

And? That doesn't mean I dismiss it, either.

For the same reasons that I've been explaining this whole discussion.

-They violate known physical laws
-Lack of scientific evidence
-Lack of biblical support

Why do you think an omnipotent God can't violate physics?

A lot of Christians think God created time, too, but there's no Biblical support for that, either. And no empirical evidence that time is even a physical dimension.

I don't think my point is coming across. Mere possibilities don't establish veracity. They don't establish anything except an imagination. I can list a million possibilities for the holes in any belief, but that doesn't make them any less likely to be wrong.

So?

No it wouldn't, but I'm getting the sense that getting you to think rationally is a Sisyphean task. It is irrational to assume more than what is necessary to explain an effect.

I think you need to reread what I wrote.

And, as I've already explained, I have difficulty not thinking rationally.

So here's what on the table, we can either assume:

A) That a series of major unreferenced and unsubstantiated miracles occurred to make the flood story possible

or

B) The flood narrative is a parable or myth.

A

A joke made in lieu of argument and evidence.

Because I have neither. I simply have suppositions for what might have happened. I do not know anything for certain and I am not stating any of these as certainties. I have no evidence to support any of them.

I'm surprised you're too stupid to have figured that out on your own; I thought it was rather obvious.

You tell me, it's your argument.

No it isn't.

Because conjecture is not a substitute for evidence and argument.

No duh, Dick Tracy.

Because you are adding extraneous circumstances to your story (not inherent to the story itself) to save it from being falsified.

No I'm not. I offering possible explanations for the events that must have necessarily taken place in order for the event to be true. I am not arguing that any of them are actually what happened.

What I am saying is that neither of us know.

Answer the question, and that answer will help answer your previous

No. It was a stupid question to which you already know the answer. If you don't know my answer then you're dumber than I thought [which is a distinct possibility].

What is "they"?

The movement of continents?

Fick's Law of diffusion?

Speciation rates?

I don't know. You're the one that brought up "known and verifiable observations."

And stop link dropping. If you can't explain it yourself keep your mouth shut.

Let me ask you this: is it possible that the flood narrative is not literally true?

No.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

DS: Let me ask you this: is it possible that the flood narrative is not literally true? LH: No.

Then no amount of argument or evidence can persuade you. This is irrationality defined. I see no reason to continue.

:e4e:

 

[Lordkalvan]

DS: Let me ask you this: is it possible that the flood narrative is not literally true? LH: No.

Then no amount of argument or evidence can persuade you. This is irrationality defined. I see no reason to continue.

:e4e:

Yep, any objection to the likelihood of a given ad hoc scenario is met with a literal Deus ex machina. It would have been a lot simpler for LH simply to post a blanket statement to the effect that God did it.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Yep, any objection to the likelihood of a given ad hoc scenario is met with a lite al Deus ex machina. It would have been a lot simpler for LH simply to post a blanket statement to the effect that God did it.

Right, you cannot reason with someone that doesn't accept even the possibility that they may be wrong.

 

[Letsargue]

DS: Let me ask you this: is it possible that the flood narrative is not literally true? LH: No.

Then no amount of argument or evidence can persuade you. This is irrationality defined. I see no reason to continue.

:e4e:

It Doesn’t ( Matter ) If the Flood did, or did not happen! -- It doesn’t matter AT ALL!! – ((( God ))) tells us what (( “He” )) Wants us to KNOW, and how we are to look at things. - Not with Our own eyes!!! – In that “WAY” ( We Know who God is ) in the Spirit, not in Your foolish Carnal Minded Self!!! – According to everything Carnal, there must have been Evolution of some type, and the Flood may not have really happened, and there may not have BEEN a Temple of Solomon; - who Cares about the carnal side of Hell?? – If God said it!: - That’s (( “Truth” )), May not be ( “True” ), ((( But GOD IS )))!! – And there is NO Carnal Evidence of Him!! - ((( I Have Faith In What God Said ))), I don’t Care if you don’t; -- so go where you think you’ll ~like!!

None of us can Prove that there was any Creating going on, at any time. The Universe Has to be (( Without End, every way one looks at it )). It couldn’t have ever began, or can it ever End!! – I’m not in the least bit concerned about any of that!! – I ( KNOW ) Who God IS, and I only See Him, and there is ( Purpose ) in that!!!

Paul – 080113

 

[Letsargue]

Right, you cannot reason with someone that doesn't accept even the possibility that they may be wrong.

(( None of you )) can even come close in ( Reasoning ) with me!!!

So go hide like ALL Cowards do!!

Paul -- 080113