The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

J C

looksee wrote: »

Just on the subject of the flood for a minute JC, the entire earth flooded, right? and then the water receded? Where did all the extra water come from and where did it go?

Answered numerous times ... the water flooded the land when the 'fountains of the great deep', i.e. huge volumes of sub-terranean waters, burst forth ... and it ran back off the land as it rose and the ocean basins fell ... to form the oceans and the dry lands of today's World respectively.
The remnant of this sub-terranean water was reported on in 2014 deep within the Earth at about 700 km from the surface ... it has a volume of water three times the volume of all the oceans ... and you can read about it here:-
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/huge-underground-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/

jackboy

J C wrote: »

I know exactly how 'Evolution' works ... and it is unable to turn ponkind into mankind ... or rats into radiologists ... or frogs into princes ... that only happens in fairytales !!:)

Yeah, fairytales like virgin births and rising from the dead.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It was teleported to Mars. Duh.

Amazingly, conventional science believes that there was a Flood on Mars ... where tiny amounts of water currently exist ... and no Flood on Earth, where there is sufficient water in the Oceans of the World to cover the entire Earth to an average 2.6 Km if the surface was a smooth sphere.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/sphere-depth-of-the-ocean

http://science.time.com/2013/03/11/the-great-and-recent-martian-flood/

J C

jackboy wrote: »

Yeah, fairytales like virgin births and rising from the dead.

You might say so ... but I believe that God did that.

Unlike Spontaneous Evolutionists, I'm not claiming these miracles ... or any other miracles (like living organisms) ... were produced by spontaneous processes.:)

Hotblack Desiato

That's the easy answer to any hard question.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's the easy answer to any hard question.

It's the only plausible answer to the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus ... and the origins of life.

Other questions, like where all the Flood-water went, are answerable from repeatably observable evidence.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Other questions, like where all the Flood-water went, are answerable from repeatably observable evidence.

So aside from how all flood geology is abject lies and nonsense, here's a good video explaining how the actual process of the flood is physically impossible:

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

It's the only plausible answer to the virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus ... and the origins of life.

Other questions, like where all the Flood-water went, are answerable from repeatably observable evidence.

I think "they didn't happen" is also a pretty plausible answer to the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus.

What about the repeatedly observable evidence for evolution, which you're surely familiar with as an evolutionary biologist?

Michael OBrien

J C wrote: »

Amazingly, conventional science believes that there was a Flood on Mars ... where tiny amounts of water currently exist ... and no Flood on Earth, where there is sufficient water in the Oceans of the World to cover the entire Earth to an average 2.6 Km if the surface was a smooth sphere.

It might have something to do with the inconvenient fact that the earth is not a PERFECTLY smooth sphere. The span of the earth is 12,756 km (approximately) across so a few km difference makes little difference but your argument is to say that IF the earth was not the way it is, then your view might be in with a chance. That is clutching at straws.
There are all sorts of reasons that the water could not be as you say, if Noah was to survive, including pressure and temperature involved with the sudden appearance of multiple times the water that is on the surface of the earth.
There is zero possibility for that story to be true. We have earlier stories from other religions that show a chain of custody for it being a human retelling of normal flood experiences to express religious beliefs.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So aside from how all flood geology is abject lies and nonsense, here's a good video explaining how the actual process of the flood is physically impossible:

More self-serving straw men ... than you could shake a stick at.
For example, he talks about rain being an impossible method of flooding the earth ... but the prime flooding mechanism was sub-terranean waters being tectonically released ... and not rain.

J C

Michael OBrien wrote: »

It might have something to do with the inconvenient fact that the earth is not a PERFECTLY smooth sphere. The span of the earth is 12,756 km (approximately) across so a few km difference makes little difference but your argument is to say that IF the earth was not the way it is, then your view might be in with a chance.
.

I'm merely using the smooth earth idea to illustrate the scale of the total water volume on Earth ...
It is also thought that the ante-diluvian Earth had a much smoother surface than it does today ... whose mountains and valleys are the result of the massive tectonic upheavals during the Flood.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

I'm merely using the smooth earth idea to illustrate the scale of the total water volume on Earth ...
However, it is thought that the ante-diluvian Earth had a much smoother surface than it does today ... which is the result the massive tectonic upheavals during the Flood.

And yet Noah's little home made boat managed to survive the massive tsunamis that these upheavals would have caused?

I would say you couldn't make this up yet here you are doing exactly that.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think "they didn't happen" is also a pretty plausible answer to the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus.

They certainly couldn't happen by naturalistic processes ... so they were supernatural events ... just like the creation of life, as well.:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What about the repeatedly observable evidence for evolution, which you're surely familiar with as an evolutionary biologist?

What about them? ... all they prove is that artificial/natural/sexual selection selects ... with no plausible naturalistic mechanism for producing the genetic information ... and its phenotypes that are selected by these mechanisms.:)

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And yet Noah's little home made boat managed to survive the massive tsunamis that these upheavals would have caused?

I would say you couldn't make this up yet here you are doing exactly that.

Tsunamis don't present much of a threat to shipping at sea ... they only become dangerous, when they make landfall ... and even then, they rapidly run out of momentum upon reching the coast!!:)

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

More self-serving straw men ... than you could shake a stick at.
For example, he talks about rain being an impossible method of flooding the earth ... but the prime flooding mechanism was sub-terranean waters being tectonically released ... and not rain.

I don't recall this being mentioned in the bible. Someone's telling porkies...

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

They certainly couldn't happen by naturalistic processes ... so they were supernatural events ... just like the creation of life, as well.:)

Okay, but what if they just didn't happen? I'm not asking you do deny they happened, I'm curious as to whether you think it's plausible that they didn't.

What about them? ... all they prove is that artificial/natural/sexual selection selects ... with no plausible naturalistic mechanism for producing the genetic information ... and its phenotypes that are selected by these mechanisms.:)

I would have thought an evolutionary biologist would be familiar with mutations.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

I don't recall this being mentioned in the bible. Someone's telling porkies...

Gen 7:11 refers

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Timberrrrrrrr

Pherekydes wrote: »

I don't recall this being mentioned in the bible. Someone's telling porkies...

It's his personal take on how it must have happened

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Okay, but what if they just didn't happen? I'm not asking you do deny they happened, I'm curious as to whether you think it's plausible that they didn't.

They could only happen by supernatural intervention.
... so they would seem implausible to somebody who doesn't believe that God exists.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I would have thought an evolutionary biologist would be familiar with mutations.

I am of course familiar with them ... and they are invariably destructive/degrading of genetic information ... so therefore not a plausible mechanism to generated the vast quantities of perfect (or almost perfect) genetic information observed in living organisms.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It's his personal take on how it must have happened

Its not my 'personal take' on it ... its what Gen 7:11 says happened:-
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Its not my 'personal take' on it ... its what Gen 7:11 says happened:-
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

600th year lol how can you take anything serious when they claim the man was 600 years old :pac:

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

They could only happen by supernatural intervention.
... so they would seem implausible to somebody who doesn't believe that God exists.

That's not what I asked though.

I am of course familiar with them ... and they are invariably destructive/degrading of genetic information ... so therefore not a plausible mechanism to generated the vast quantities of perfect (or almost perfect) genetic information observed in living organisms.

Nope, they certainly aren't invariably destructive. Destructive in the majority of cases, but certainly not invariably destructive.

The genetic information observed in living organisms isn't even well enough understood to claim that it's perfect, so that's quite the leap you're making there.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

600th year lol how can you take anything serious when they claim the man was 600 years old :pac:

You're making the mistake of confusing conditions now ... and then.

... and assuming they are identical ... when they aren't.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

You're making the mistake of confusing conditions now ... and then.

... and assuming they are identical ... when they aren't.

Conditions then being that people didn't understand very much about the world, and wrote down nonsense about people living for 600 years and water magically appearing from the ground.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

You're making the mistake of confusing conditions now ... and then.

... and assuming they are identical ... when they aren't.

A year is a year, innit?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's not what I asked though.

You asked if the Virgin Birth and Resurrection were implausible ... and I answered you that they could be implausible for an Atheist ... but not for a Christian, because one believes that God (and by extension the supernatural) exists ... and the other believes that they dont't.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Nope, they certainly aren't invariably destructive. Destructive in the majority of cases, but certainly not invariably destructive.

Destructive of genetic information in all cases. In rare cases, like with antibiotice resistance, the loss of genetic information can benefit the organism ... but at the cost of weakening it in other ways ... so that when the a/b challenge is removed ... the original variety starts to dominate again.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The genetic information observed in living organisms isn't even well enough understood to claim that it's perfect, so that's quite the leap you're making there.

It is well enough understood to determine that it is perfect ... or almost perfect, where mutagenesis has occurred.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

You're making the mistake of confusing conditions now ... and then.

... and assuming they are identical ... when they aren't.

So people 2000 years ago lived longer? :pac:

Doctor Jimbob

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So people 2000 years ago lived longer? :pac:

Must have been the paleo diet.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

A year is a year, innit?

A year is inded a year ... but Humans (and other life) before the Flood carried a much lower 'genetic load' than we do now ... and therefore lived longer than we do now.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

You asked if the Virgin Birth and Resurrection were implausible ... and I answered you that they could be implausible for an Atheist ... but not for a Christian, because one believes that God (and by extension the supernatural) exists ... and the other believes that they dont't.

No, I asked if those events not happening was a plausible explanation. That's not the same as asking if the events themselves are implausible.

Destructive of genetic information in all cases. In rare cases, like with antibiotice resistance, the loss of genetic information can benefit the organism ... but at the cost of weakening it in other ways ... so that when the a/b challenge is removed ... the original variety starts to dominate again.

The loss of genetic information? Where does it go?

You've literally just admitted mutations can benefit an organism. If that can apply in one case, do you not see how it could apply in others?

It is well enough understood to determine that it is perfect ... or almost perfect, where mutagenesis has occurred.

No, it isn't.