Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

page: 17
20
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki


You see, we CAN determine whether the minerals are in their original state or have been altered.

Not true at all. You cannot tell whether the composition of a rock is pristine from it's inception unless you are there with the same method at its inception and no one has lived 4.5 billion years ago. Impossible assumption on your part. Guess again. Noah's flood is a possibility.




posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede



Lets just completely remove your bizarre obsession with dating techniques completely out of the equation. Te atmospheric conditions and pressure from the water canopy in the atmosphe entirely precludes human and most other non extremophile life forms from the earth. There couldn't even have been a Noah let Lone an ark and flood. You're grasping at straws here and running a classic Gish gallop by picking part so many minuscule pieces of data that it is impossible to properly reply and when people do reply and support their positions you still dismiss it out of hand. Please read through my own posts in this tread because I rather adeptly explained the impossibility of this at least once and probably twice. You're just bantering like a mad hatter at this point. Nobody is going to convince you how wrong you are and nobody is really inclined to continue to entertain your increasingly disheveled ramblings. I'm legitimately starting to feel concerned for your metal well being. Best of luck to you and your Santa Claus of Floods because there's as much evidence for Santa as their is Noah at this point.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: aorAki


You see, we CAN determine whether the minerals are in their original state or have been altered.

Not true at all. You cannot tell whether the composition of a rock is pristine from it's inception unless you are there with the same method at its inception and no one has lived 4.5 billion years ago. Impossible assumption on your part. Guess again. Noah's flood is a possibility.


Nope, not impossible. There are so many ways to determine the original composition of a rock, and to determine whether it has undergone alteration. Just because you don't understand geology doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Noah's flood is not a possibility because there is nothing in the geologic record that indicates this...



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Um he never said that he was judging the intellect of the person, just the intellectual merit of the ideas being pushed by creationists. Smart people can hold dumb opinions, and his point was that having an opinion doesn't necessitate it being a good opinion. You should stop twisting the words of the people you are speaking to, it is in very poor form and highly insulting. I think your emotions may be bleeding through into your posts.

Um re read your post. You contradict yourself. When one judges the intellect of another that is the intellectual merit of a mind (Ideas do come from the mind do they not?) Yes smart people can present dumb ideas and yes it is true that having an opinion does not mean it is a good opinion. I do see this on this thread.

Getting back to the OP and his post. Can you show me where I have insisted that there was a global flood? Have I ever said that there is proof of a global flood? A global flood is a possibility regardless of your radiometric flawed methodology. It is flawed isn't it ? I think we wore out all of the name calling. My first question long ago was that radiometric dating was not an exact science and is flawed. No further comments are necessary to shoot the messenger as it is a fact. I don't need well intentional students to insist that it is not a fact. Be angry all you like but it won't make a flawed science into a perfect science. Acceptable to you and your assumptions perhaps but to others perhaps not. It has been amusing to say the least.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Um he never said that he was judging the intellect of the person, just the intellectual merit of the ideas being pushed by creationists. Smart people can hold dumb opinions, and his point was that having an opinion doesn't necessitate it being a good opinion. You should stop twisting the words of the people you are speaking to, it is in very poor form and highly insulting. I think your emotions may be bleeding through into your posts.

Um re read your post. You contradict yourself. When one judges the intellect of another that is the intellectual merit of a mind (Ideas do come from the mind do they not?) Yes smart people can present dumb ideas and yes it is true that having an opinion does not mean it is a good opinion. I do see this on this thread.

Getting back to the OP and his post. Can you show me where I have insisted that there was a global flood? Have I ever said that there is proof of a global flood? A global flood is a possibility regardless of your radiometric flawed methodology. It is flawed isn't it ? I think we wore out all of the name calling. My first question long ago was that radiometric dating was not an exact science and is flawed. No further comments are necessary to shoot the messenger as it is a fact. I don't need well intentional students to insist that it is not a fact. Be angry all you like but it won't make a flawed science into a perfect science. Acceptable to you and your assumptions perhaps but to others perhaps not. It has been amusing to say the least.



Call science flawed all you want, theisn is crippled and dying in comparison. But yeah, global floods are impossible. Proven again and again in this very thread. Keep grasping at straws, Mr seed, but be aware that we know that's all your doing.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede

I love the way you also twist and turn. Your quote -" Is there some probability involved? absolutely, so you get a range due to the +/-" Then you do have a range of error? Is that not what I said?


No, what you are implying is this

Range =/= exact timestamp; therefore, radiometric dating cannot be consider any more accurate than the bible.

This is untrue. There is some probability involved in radiometric dating when dealing with decay rates, though the fluctuation is very small and is accounted for.

Now let's add in another point behind science. The ability to make predictions. You could pluck another crystal from that same pluton, say a zircon crystal, run a uranium isotope test and you will end up with a date that agrees with the K-AR dating from the feldspar. To be able to successfully satisfy that prediction shows the method is accurate. This has been done time and time again. The dating methods agree with each other. This means it is accurate.

Now another example, lets say we have a metamorphosed granite pluton, called a gneiss. Now during the mountain building process, we have a granite intrusion known as a dike or sill form into the pluton. By default the intrusion of granite is younger than the rock it is crossing. Now, we can make the prediction that we should get a younger age radiometric dating the granite from the gneiss. Once again we see from these types of experiments that we consistently meet those predictions. We know how fast the sea floor spreads, subduction zones, mountain building processes. Geology is very well understood and there are several other factors that corroborate radiometric dates. It does not, however, support a global flood.

As for how we are able to predict what the chemical compound of the rock should be, look up Bowen's reaction series for a basic understanding, at least for igneous rocks.

edit on 5-9-2014 by Cypress because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
A global flood is a possibility regardless of your radiometric flawed methodology.


No, a global flood is only hypothetically possible if all tectonic activity ceased and over billions of years the entire Earths surface was eroded back down to sea level.

It is simply not a possibility on this planet. And most certainly has never happened (notwithstanding that billons of years ago 90-95% of the Earths surface may have been covered in water, as opposed to 70% today - volcanic activity at the time, before continents as we know them formed, still created a considerable amount of land area, equivalent at least to the modern day USA)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I agree it is a possibility, but that possibility is ridiculously low to the point of impossibility given all the scientific evidence against it happening. So many assumptions have to be made that are just outright insane (especially for a supposedly perfect being, why would it go in such a roundabout way of doing it when it could just kill all the sinners without hurting the good people and the animals on the planet? Why does EVERYTHING have to die?) that it makes logical sense to just believe it didn't happen.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Thank you so much for this post. I always love it when real science confirms the Bible.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: mikefougnie
Reading isn't your strong suit is it? Science in no way supports a singular, global flood. It does the exact opposite in fact.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikefougnie
Thank you so much for this post. I always love it when real science confirms the Bible.


With that comment, I doubt you have read through this thread, as there is no evidence for a global flood.
Deny ignorance.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikefougnie
Thank you so much for this post. I always love it when real science confirms the Bible.


and thank you for providing an exemplary demonstration of what some people around here refer to as 'cognitive dissonance'.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join