Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_SteelHead]

Sure I can prove something existed 500k years ago. I can chose from one of the stars that are over 500k light years away and watch the light come in.

The oldest ice core samples on the planet are over 800k years old.

Are you really that ignorant?

Oh, and as we are discussing the great flood of Noah as described in the Bible and Mormon scriptures that qualifier has been there since the beginning. See the title and OP of the thread. Again you are the one moving goalposts.

[_subgenius]

Sure I can prove something existed 500k years ago. I can chose from one of the stars that are over 500k light years away and watch the light come in.

ummm....how exactly did you just prove that a star was 500k light years away? Because it seems as if you just relied on the old "i just said it so it must be true" tactic.
But again, you will use the same paradigm that says its 500k years away to prove its 500k years away

The oldest ice core samples on the planet are over 800k years old.

prove it

Are you really that ignorant?

a state of being you are well familiar with?

Oh, and as we are discussing the great flood of Noah as described in the Bible and Mormon scriptures that qualifier has been there since the beginning. See the title and OP of the thread. Again you are the one moving goalposts.

So, I am willing to discuss the chronology of the flood...on one condition...do you now concede that it is a reasonable proposition that at some point in the history of the earth it was possible, and even probable, that the earth was flooded?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/456919-earl ... d-in-water

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
You are still trying to move the goal posts......

[_subgenius]

Sub,
You are still trying to move the goal posts......

glad you have conceded.

[_SteelHead]

All I will concede is that I do not have the energy nor time to teach you math from 1 + 1 = 2, then 2 + 2 = 4 to the point where you will understand the geometry of computing the distance of stars using parallax or the more distant ones using wave mechanics, the Doppler effect and spectral shifts.

Maybe Tarski or DrW have the patience and energy to do it, but I don't.

I am realizing that some live in a world where as 'the prophet said': "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."

&

"The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

Then the moon landing was a hoax, the earth rests on the back of a giant elephant standing on an infinite stack of turtles, and the stars are just the little beams of light poked in the firmament of the heaven with a nail, allowing the glory of god to shine through.

Yet computers work, the internet exists, we provide electricity from nuclear reactors, navigate with gps, watch TV via satellites, and we recently landed a car size nuclear powered robot on another planet....... all using the same physics and math that are used to show that, yes there are stars over 500K light years away, and how to calculate the volume of a sphere.

[_subgenius]

All I will concede is that I do not have the energy nor time to teach you math from 1 + 1 = 2, then 2 + 2 = 4 to the point where you will understand the geometry of computing the distance of stars using parallax or the more distant ones using wave mechanics, the Doppler effect and spectral shifts.

Maybe Tarski or DrW have the patience and energy to do it, but I don't.

I am realizing that some live in a world where as 'the prophet said': "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."

&

"The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

Then the moon landing was a hoax, the earth rests on the back of a giant elephant standing on an infinite stack of turtles, and the stars are just the little beams of light poked in the firmament of the heaven with a nail, allowing the glory of god to shine through.

Yet computers work, the internet exists, we provide electricity from nuclear reactors, navigate with gps, watch TV via satellites, and we recently landed a car size nuclear powered robot on another planet....... all using the same physics and math that are used to show that, yes there are stars over 500K light years away, and how to calculate the volume of a sphere.

man, you are deeply entrenched.....wow

its very simple...1+1=2 only because the paradigm of math says it does...one can not prove 1+1=2 outside of that paradigm, simply because 1,2, or even 3 does not exist outside of that paradigm. So, to use math to prove that "3" exists is circular....which is the point i made before, and now you obviously concede.
So, yes it is no surprise that one can claim that the "math" proves a star is 500k light years away...but the reality is that it is the only "proof". The reality, or truth of the matter, is that there is nothing that has been observed to have existed for 500k years...or 10k years. So, yes while i can make certain assumptions with some certainty, with some probability, with some mathematical precision...ultimately it is still an assumption, and that assumption is wholly reliant on the paradigm which constructed it.
The popular notion that a fish, when measured by how well it climbs a tree, is a failure epitomizes the flaw in your assertions.

For example
Under the laws of physics, planet WASP-18b orbiting a star 1,000 light years from Earth is too big and too close to its sun for comfort...it defies the laws of Physics "as we know them"....which is the point after all.
Obviously it is impossible to actually defy the laws of physics, but it is possible for what we consider to be a "law" to be found inadequate and contrary to actual observation...in other words, we clearly recognize that we make assumptions until evidence reveals otherwise...by intent or happenstance.
So, the idea that a global flood is "impossible" is an erroneous statement and quite unscientific, especially since science is incapable of proving something as "impossible".
So, we have a current paradigm of physics and a current paradigm of theology which seemingly contradict each other....seemingly.
So, how do we evaluate this possible contradiction?
If we rely on the "physics" then we see several unresolved issues, or issues that simply do not provide enough information to conclude decisively...and why? because there is an obvious evidence from the other paradigm. Archaeological evidence in the form of written and oral history is sufficient to make conclusions as well. So the temporal man when confronted with such a conundrum will seek to resolve it within himself, to conquer the unknown, and likely relies on assumptions like "it must be a myth" - a conclusion founded only on the notion that currently the "math does not work out"...this is not far removed from the same rationale and reasoning that had many believe that the earth was flat...or that the sun revolved around the earth...the "math" used to support those notions as well.
It really boils down to a perceived hierarchy wherein one person truly believes that this paradigm must surely have more authority over that paradigm, or that contradiction between the temporal and spiritual must submit to resolution...when in fact that has yet to be "proven".

[_subgenius]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... loopy.html

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
Go into all the philosophical sophistry you want about paradigms, observations, and reality. You are a figment of your own imagination.

It makes no stronger case for a global flood 5k years ago, without the intervention of an omnipotent god, who changes the evidence after the fact.

Abandoning the context of the narrative is moving the goalposts.

[_subgenius]

Sub,
Go into all the philosophical sophistry you want about paradigms, observations, and reality. You are a figment of your own imagination.

It makes no stronger case for a global flood 5k years ago, without the intervention of an omnipotent god, who changes the evidence after the fact.

Abandoning the context of the narrative is moving the goalposts.

no abandonment..simply responding to the consistent counter-claims that a flood, whenever, was impossible...clearly it is not impossible for a flood to have occurred, and there is no reason to assume that it may/may not have been a singular event except as it was administered by God.
I have not provided a date for the flood nor has the flood story itself...you are assuming facts not in evidence.

However, there is no issue with the position that this particular flood happened approx 5k years ago.

[_SteelHead]

Ok, highly improbable with a likelyhood approaching 1 over infinity that the flood occured as per the narrative.

There are better odds that I will enter into a quantum state that allows me to walk through the wall in front of me than that of the flood having happened as per the narrative.

As to a date.... Frank provided one a couple pages back.

The date is entirely relevant as the probability is entirely different 600 million years ago with a homogeneous starting to cool crust, than for a crust with an 8.5 km above sea level mount. The volumes are hugely different. The narrative (Mormon scriptures) contains references to mountains.

The date is also relevant as to the impact on life.

Happy?