Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2070774

Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Malte Runz wrote:
> 
>  Moses wrote:
> 
> >Malte Runz wrote:
> >>
> >>  Moses wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> This is exactly what you would expect to see after a massive worldwide flood.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Did it happen?      Oh yes!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account, the flood was NOT a "natural
> >> >> >> >> > disaster" and the only myth which should be debunked is the myth that
> >> >> >> >> > the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism.
> >> >> >> >> > according to the Bereshith account God poured out waters and assuaged
> >> >> >> >> > them, and this is not some natural catastophe upon which "God" merely
> >> >> >> >> > sat and watched a thing that would have happened anyway without "God's"
> >> >> >> >> > implementation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> It [flood] was a physical impossibility.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >this speaks of an interference from some outside agency, and not a physical phenomenon that would have
> >> >> >happened anyway if the outside agency had not taken action. calling it a "physical impossibilty" misses
> >> >> >that point. Clearly, a God who can create physical universes from scratch can easily cover the surface
> >> >> >of the earth with water. ...
> >> >
> >> >> And make it go away again. And erase all the evidence thereof. Make it
> >> >> look like it never happened. That's one helluva God.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >i never said all evidence was erased ...
> >
> >> No, that was me. It's the only thing that could have happened, if one
> >> insists that the Biblical Flood had taken place 4400 years ago,
> >> because there is no evidence left.
> >
> >well, you don't have a snap shot photograph of exactly how the
> >earth looked pre-flood to compare with how it looks post-flood.
> 
> We have very, very good ways of knowing what Earth has looked like
> over the last few billion years. And one thing we can say, with
> absolute certainty, is that there was no worldwide flood covering even
> the tallest mountains in recent history. Those are facts, and you can
> go all mumbo jumbo on my ass, nothing will change that.


all i see here are your assertions to the contrary.

we know it happened, my we is bigger than your we, we vote on it.

you seem to be concerned with the height of teh mountains and the available water

but, you fail to recognize that the interfering God can 
pump the interior waters well up above the surface level

you even provide a citation that speaks of loads of subterranean waters.

the interference pushed it up and rained it down, very slowly and controlled and later 
assuaged it away in a very controlled manner and there was no massive pile of mud strewn 
around, but, the water levels did change as you agree below.

gunna stamp your feet if we don't kow tow to your bald assertions?



> >now, the bereshith ...

> > ... account does not say earthquakes and tsunamis and
> >violent cataclysms caused this flood
> >it says this flood was caused over a 40 day period where water was
> >pushed up from below ground and rained
> >from above, until the surface of the earth was covered in water, by an
> >interfering conscious being God,
> >and then the same water was allowed to return to its place and teh
> >surface of teh earth showed again.

> >almost as if the earth was a fish tank with a pump of water underneath
> >and a source of water from above.
> >and slowly, the earth is inundated, and slowly the earth is dried off.

> If anything like that had happened the Earth's surface would look
> nothing like it actually does. There is only one sane conclusion:
> There was no Noahtic Flood. Unless, of course, God used his powers to
> make it look like it never happened.

and yet your own little blurb speaks of a lot of water under the surface

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/
""A reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans has been discovered 
deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The finding could help explain where Earth’s seas came from.""

plenty of water to cover the surface of the earth. even if some is in hydrated rocks.
yes, the bereshith account speaks of interference. not a process that would have 
happened without the interference. there's no need to substantiate thatmud
 covered the globe because of it.


> >with that sort of process, the earth may have looked very much the same
> >before as after.
> >but, maybe not, it may look different, a little. so, we have an
> >interfering God covering
> >the dry land with water and moving it away, done. bereshith does not say
> >that the ocean
> >floor was vomitted all over the dry land. and i have no need to
> >substantiate what
> >bereshith does not suggest.

> >> > ... and it looks like it never happened. ...
> >
> >> That was me too. It looks as if the Flood didn't happen. What we
> >> observe tells a different story.
> >
> >if the process was controlled and slow, as bereshith suggests, what
> >would you expect to see?

> A very thick, graded layer, with all the heavy materials at the bottom
> and the finer materials at the top. We would see dinosaurs bones mixed
> with elephant bones, trilobites and rabbits all mixed up. We don't see
> anything like that. What we see debunks the flood fable.

the water didn't move a lot of mud around, it just slowly crept up 
and slowly disappeared pushed by the interfering God.
i'm not saying that the fossil mud was caused by this flood.

you haven't shown otherwise.


> >bereshit does not suggest that the earth convulsed with hurricanes and
> >earthquakes and violence.
> >just water up water down, and its over.
> 
> Something that can be falsified by looking out of the window. And yes,
> the Flood myth is over and done. It didn't happen.

you haven't falsified anything.

looking out the window doesn't prove that water rose and water fell and
didn't convulse the planet.


> >> > ... the earth has undergone lots of transformations,.
> >> >some may be remanants of a flood and some may not be. ...
> >
> >> Like what? What geological or geomorphological feature do you think
> >> might be remnant of, not just 'a flood', but 'the Flood'. That's what
> >> we're talking about. 'a flood' is trivial.

> >easter island used to be easter mountain

> Erosion. Get used to it.

no, easter mountain was accessible from south america
the water level was much lower, that's what enabled the manufacture and
moving of the statues
they weren't built by space aliens, they were carved and moved here on
earth by earth people
they just weren't confined to the small island at the time. the water
level was lower and more access was available.


> >you used to be able to walk to australia.

> During an ice age shitloads of water is 'tied up' in glaciers. Water
> levels were hundreds of meters lower.


right, the water levels are different, that's a change that can be noted.
you just have a different explanation for how the water levels increased.


> >the atlantic ocean used to be the atlantic river.
> >just remeber, even the molten earth crowd has to maintain
> >that all of the water that is on the earth now, was once in space.
> >so, it is possible that some extra water was in space.

> Yes. There is a lot of water (ice, actually) in space. So what. There
> is a lot of water trapped in crystaline structures deep beneath the
> Earth's surface.
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/


plenty of water to cover the surface


> >but, i'm not with the molten earth crowd for several reasons, anyway.
> >
> >if the earth was molten, we'd have a more uniform dispersal of ores
> >and things like that and not huge pockets of ore here and there
> >scattered about the globe.

> You obviously know very little about how matter behaves in various
> situations. Some materials crystalize before others (a matter of
> temparature, saturation, pressure and so on), and will either float to
> the top, like granite, or sink like heavy metals. The latter can be
> pushed up towards the surface as a result of techtonics. Is all this
> news to you?

you still wouldn't see these pockets of ores like you see.
it would make more sense to say that this accretion disk formed slowly 
and was never molten and continued to accrete after a globe was formed.
but, i don't hold to accretion disk theories, i have other theories.

but, of course, if the earth was never molten, then the uranium clocks would 
be meaningless and you have to at least try to maintain that the uranium
clocks are meaningful.


> >> > ... disentangling these is not obvious.
> >
> >> >but yes, that is some awesome God, with that i agree.
> >
> >> Yeah! High six, brother.
> >
> >do you think it's "wrong" for human beings to kill animals?
> >like cows and sharks and whatever else human beings may kill//
> 
> OT.


not if the six fingered things weren't human.


> >> >> > ... The Bereshith account, does not describe a "natural disaster" and the only myth
> >> >> >which should be debunked is the straw man that the Bereshith account must be reconciled with a naturalistic mechanism.
> >
> >> >> There are only naturalistic mechanisms.
> >
> >> >if some conscious being makes a thing happen that would not have happened otherwise,
> >
> >> >then, that doer is part of -your- 'naturalistic' mechanism.
> >
> >> Like what? Show me a phenomenon that you believe only has happened
> >> because "some conscious being" (I assume you mean none human) made it
> >> happen. You can't, nobody ever has, and that's why I say there are
> >> only naturalistic mechanisms. Show me the 'black swan', if you know
> >> what I mean.
> >
> >i didn't mean "non-human".
> 
> Then explain what you mean by "some conscious being".


man's planned activities are not naturalistic, we will never agree on this so, 
you can keep your understanding of naturalistic and i'll keep mine.

a crows planned activities are not naturalistic i'm speaking of the activities 
of natural forces that do not, themselves think and actually can be
predicted with precise certainty.

gravity doesn't think, electricity doesn't think, entropy doesn't think
and you can very well predict their purely mechanical behavior.

these living creatures have unpredictable behavior patterns.

they do things that would run contrary to the natural predictable
pattern of gravity electromagnetism and decay


> > ... but i'd cite the emanation of the physical
> >universe itself
> >as a phenomenon that we cannot explain with metastable-state accident.
> >you can say; "accident" but you can't show me such an accident that
> >results in universes.

> I never say accident.


then you can say on purpose


> >i'd still argue that skyscrapers would not appear aside from human
> >intervention.
> >i wouldn't say skyscrapers are built by a "naturalistic" mechanism.
> >
> >
> >> >i am not using 'naturalistic' in that manner,
> >>
> >> Then I think you should make a new word for it is you talk about.
> >> Naturalistic is taken.
> >
> >
> >"naturalistic" was used correctly by me.
> 
> No it wasn't. Human activity is naturalistic. Therefore skyscrapers
> are the results of naturalistic mechanisms.


no it isn't, human activity oftentimes strives against nature


> >> >for example, there is no 'naturalistic mechanism' [according to me] that generates ferraris from scratch.
> >
> >> [I see where we're headed.]
> >
> >i wasn't headed there but i'll bite.
> >
> >
> >> >no, there are very definite designers who raise the ferrari to being from not being there.
> >> >in this respect, ferraris do not appear according to some naturalistic mechanism.
> >
> >> >if you'd like to say that the designers of the ferrari are natural people and so, part of
> >> >a 'naturalistic' mechanism, you may feel free to do so, ...
> >
> >> Consider it done.
> >
> >ok, so, a thing that is planned out by sentient beings is now
> >"naturalistic" according to you,

> What else would you call it.


i'd call it conscious interference



> > and so, we may as well agree that an interfering God is "naturalistic"...

> As soon as you can show me that an interfering God exists, yes.


finger prints are there.


> >now, you can cite it and not feel uncomfortable.
> >
> >you show me a random scattering of any set of chemicals you like with
> >gravity
> >and electromagmnetism carrying out the mechanism of a living cell to
> >produce
> >a living cell that does not as yet exist.
> 
> Only the ignorant an uneducated would say that a living cell is the
> result of "a random scattering" of chemicals. Count me out.


i said, show me a living cell emerging from a random scattering of chemicals by the forces of gravity
and electromagnetism alone, because those are the only natural forces you have to play with.
you'd have natural forces behaving as a device to produce the device that reproduces itself.
the cell now uses its dna as a template to copy itself, but, you'd be claiming that gravity and 
electromagnetism do this same assembling without the coded set of instructions that are required to replicate it now.

you say natural forces write an algorithm, but you can only say, 

"the algorithm exists, it must have written itself"


> >as of now, you have an imaginary "first organism" as such a first
> >organism is not in evidence.
> >
> >if you could show me this "first organism" i might believe in it.
> 
> I'm afraid it died 3.8 billion years ago.


so you have no evidence of it?


> >> >and a God who consciously interferes and causes a thing that would not, and perhaps could not, have happened without
> >> >such interference, is not "naturalistic" according to my verbiage. ...
> >
> >> I see. 'Naturalistic mechanisms' means 'random and unguided
> >> mechanisms'. Mechanisms that can't built a Ferrari. Can't build life.
> >
> >
> >well, if all you have is gravity, electromagnetism, 98 some odd chemical
> >elements, the elusive "heat" and light,
> >kindly explain how these natural forces, cause the components of a
> >living cell, gathered up from whatever source,
> >to behave as if they were part of a working device before that device is
> >working as if these forces were a little
> >machine to produce a device, the living call, that then requires itself
> >to reproduce itself.
> >just remember, you don't have this imaginary first cell in evidence, if
> >if you may just cite it as a given.

> The first life was not a fully functional living cell like those we
> see today. 

and just don't happen to be available in the fossil record, so, you have
no evidence of them



> I'm not going to explain to you the various hypothesis
> about abiogenesis. You can find it online yourself. 

you and your wild guesses aren't evidences

Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.55> - 2016-03-05 20:14 -0500
  Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:18 -0600
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-05 20:36 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:49 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:52 -0700
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.6y> - 2016-03-05 22:48 -0500
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 22:44 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:48 -0500
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 23:38 -0600
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 02:51 -0500
              Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 02:03 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 03:25 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:45 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.54> - 2016-03-06 11:58 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:31 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 21:34 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:14 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 03:13 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 04:35 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:10 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:48 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 07:42 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:41 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:30 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:29 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-09 01:12 +0100
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 19:18 -0600
              Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 18:00 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:44 -0500
  Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <forget@it.nw> - 2016-03-06 12:01 +0100
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 07:29 -0500
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-06 19:20 +0000
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 13:56 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:27 -0600
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:35 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:33 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:47 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-07 20:23 +0000
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 20:53 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:07 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 22:17 -0500
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:20 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-07 23:37 -0800
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-08 23:15 +0100
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 16:56 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 17:22 -0800
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:25 -0700
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-06 05:07 -0800
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 17:08 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 11:00 -0600
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:50 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 23:01 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-07 18:30 -0500

csiph-web