Evidence for God from Science

Here, from Reasons.org (Old Earth advocates), is their scientific analysis of why they don't believe the flood of Noah could have been a GLOBAL one: http://www.reasons.org/articles/is-a-gl ... y-possible

Let us not forget that altitudes above 15000 feet above sea level, human beings begin to have difficulty in breathing and surviving. The higher one goes, it gets worse and to live above 16000 above sea level for 40 days and nights with plunging temperatures and little food - the odds for survival decrease rapidly - at 26246 feet or 8000 meters above sea level one enters the dead zone.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/45871 ... n-breathe/

Therefore, water covering the highest peaks would not be technically necessary in a world wide flood.

As an experienced high altitude hiker in the Rocky Mountain regions I can personally attest that Altitude Sickness is real and can hit the most experienced and acclimated person that is used to higher elevation any time and unexpectedly from 8000 feet to 13000+ feet above sea level. To live around 14000 feet above sea level is cold and weather unpredictable as the winds can kick up to 30 up to 100+ miles an hour. I can't imagine living that height without any food or water for 40 days and nights either, too harsh, too cold... and if you get a very bad headache, it may kill you too.

The highest cities in the world are Lhasa Tibet, with an elevation of 12,087 feet above sea level and La Paz,Bolivia, at 11,913 feet above sea level.

There folks have adapted to breathe in higher altitudes, yet, even they, if go higher than 15000 they too will eventuality have difficulty breathing and surviving for long periods.
-
-
-

[quote"]

Let us not forget that altitudes above 15000 feet above sea level, human beings begin to have difficulty in breathing and surviving. The higher one goes, it gets worse and to live above 16000 above sea level for 40 days and nights with plunging temperatures and little food - the odds for survival decrease rapidly - at 26246 feet or 8000 meters above sea level one enters the dead zone.

Of course, the atmosphere would be lifted, so the air pressure would not be the same as if you climbed above present seal level.

You could calculate pressure based on a larger diameter earth with greater gravity, if you so chose.

And calculate how it would affect the speed of rotation, orbit around the sun,
and wobble.

The effects of so much crustal deformation from this immense weight-suddenly applied-would be harder to calculate, but it would be greater than zero. By a lot.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/45871 ... n-breathe/

Therefore, water covering the highest peaks would not be technically necessary in a world wide flood.

Only if you read the account, which says they were.

As an experienced high altitude hiker in the Rocky Mountain regions I can personally attest that Altitude Sickness is real and can hit the most experienced and acclimated person that is used to higher elevation any time and unexpectedly from 8000 feet to 13000+ feet above sea level. To live around 14000 feet above sea level is cold and weather unpredictable as the winds can kick up to 30 up to 100+ miles an hour. I can't imagine living that height without any food or water for 40 days and nights either, too harsh, too cold... and if you get a very bad headache, it may kill you too.

As noted the air pressure at the new sea level would not be that of 29,000 ft.



-[/quote]

Philip wrote:Here, from Reasons.org (Old Earth advocates), is their scientific analysis of why they don't believe the flood of Noah could have been a GLOBAL one: http://www.reasons.org/articles/is-a-gl ... y-possible

That is pretty simple common sense. (If in fact there was any flood that even remotely resembles the story)

People do, though, get wedded to their ideas, and some find it impossible to change. Unfortunately, that is taken by many if not all Christians as a great virtue.

If i remember right from my reading, Einstein had such faith in the idea that the universe is static, he found it preferable to change his theory rather than accept the full implications of it.

People concoct the most incredible explanations for how there really-really was a WWf, rather than risk the implications of it not having happened.*


So it is not that I have elsewhere termed "intellectual dishonesty"
is rare, or a special property of religious people. Im sure we all share this fault in some degree and on occasion.

The split is elsewhere. The big difference in people in this case has to do with who can listen to reason and see error, and who holds fast the faith.
No matter what.

Einstein was a radical thinker, a man of great curiosity and wish to understand.

IF he were alive today, I dont think he would refuse to look at the data
that shows the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. I think he would
be delighted to learn about it.

*my enduring fav. is that the extra water was wafted to Neptune, where it shines even unto this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

It is important to read the genesis account in a manner that would be conducive to WHO it was written FOR.

In regards to the wording, and there are so many articles about this that it boggles me that some people still bring it up, it CAN be interpreted to me the WHOLE planet OR the whole LAND as in a localized geographical area.

We do NOT know what the readers thought and saying that they thought this or that is PURE SPECULATION.

In short, saying that the account states that all the mountain tops were covered means nothing.
Saying that all the land was covered means nothing.
That the whole geographical area has stories about a massive flood(s) should be enough to, historically speaking, lend credibility to the story in the bible about a massive flood.

PaulSacramento wrote:It is important to read the genesis account in a manner that would be conducive to WHO it was written FOR.

In regards to the wording, and there are so many articles about this that it boggles me that some people still bring it up, it CAN be interpreted to me the WHOLE planet OR the whole LAND as in a localized geographical area.

We do NOT know what the readers thought and saying that they thought this or that is PURE SPECULATION.

In short, saying that the account states that all the mountain tops were covered means nothing.
Saying that all the land was covered means nothing.
That the whole geographical area has stories about a massive flood(s) should be enough to, historically speaking, lend credibility to the story in the bible about a massive flood.

It is important to read the genesis account in a manner that would be conducive to WHO it was written FOR.

Like a story for children, that is not really true, but its what they can understand?

We do NOT know what the readers thought a

I will assume that you mean "what the AUTHORS thought"?

And doesnt that leave the whole bible open to charges of "pure speculation"?


Regardless, it is plain as the place in Spain where it rains, that the story, as written, is not an accurate account of anything that actually happened.

as in "means nothing".

Audie wrote:[quote"]

Let us not forget that altitudes above 15000 feet above sea level, human beings begin to have difficulty in breathing and surviving. The higher one goes, it gets worse and to live above 16000 above sea level for 40 days and nights with plunging temperatures and little food - the odds for survival decrease rapidly - at 26246 feet or 8000 meters above sea level one enters the dead zone.

Of course, the atmosphere would be lifted, so the air pressure would not be the same as if you climbed above present seal level.

You could calculate pressure based on a larger diameter earth with greater gravity, if you so chose.

And calculate how it would affect the speed of rotation, orbit around the sun,
and wobble.

The effects of so much crustal deformation from this immense weight-suddenly applied-would be harder to calculate, but it would be greater than zero. By a lot.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/45871 ... n-breathe/

Therefore, water covering the highest peaks would not be technically necessary in a world wide flood.

Only if you read the account, which says they were.

As an experienced high altitude hiker in the Rocky Mountain regions I can personally attest that Altitude Sickness is real and can hit the most experienced and acclimated person that is used to higher elevation any time and unexpectedly from 8000 feet to 13000+ feet above sea level. To live around 14000 feet above sea level is cold and weather unpredictable as the winds can kick up to 30 up to 100+ miles an hour. I can't imagine living that height without any food or water for 40 days and nights either, too harsh, too cold... and if you get a very bad headache, it may kill you too.

As noted the air pressure at the new sea level would not be that of 29,000 ft.



-

[/quote]

Has this been suppressed and ignored by those with an agenda?
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf030/sf030p02.htm

Philip wrote:Here, from Reasons.org (Old Earth advocates), is their scientific analysis of why they don't believe the flood of Noah could have been a GLOBAL one: http://www.reasons.org/articles/is-a-gl ... y-possible

There seems to be only two choices about Noah's flood we get to choose from,the way RTB sees it and YEC's. However there are much better explanations for a global flood than what YEC's offer that seem to get overlooked. Now from a scientific perspective RTB is more right but there are other better explanations for a global flood than what YEC's offer that is scientifically based that should be considered,but are not because of the RTB vs YEC arguments for Noah's flood.Nonbelievers may not be persuaded to believe in Noah's flood because they choose to doubt God's word but for Christians there are more views on it than just how RTB and YEC's say it happened. I think RTB might be downplaying how much water was/is in the earth. We need to consider scriptures like Genesis 2:5-6, Exodus 20:4,etc.

YEC's tend to focus more on it raining to flood the earth,while RTB focuses more on a local floods idea,but we should consider the geyser theory and how it was more about geysers flooding the earth causing it to rain too based on Genesis 7:11,Genesis 2:5-6,etc.

If the flood wasn't worldwide Noah wouldn't have needed to build an ark. He could simply have moved away from the area that was to be flooded.

The article asks this question, "Does Earth have enough water to cover the whole planet?" If the surface of the earth were flatter the answer would be, "Yes." Scientists who try to prove that a worldwide flood generally assume that the preflood world was like the current world and was covered with water by rainfall. But what does the Bible say?

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
(Genesis 7:11 ESV)

The flood was more than just a flood. There was a global cataclysm that cause the present day continents and mountains to raise to their present heights in a short period of time. Flood deniers assume that all geological processes that are going on now have always taken place at the same rate they do now. This is just an assumption that can't be proved and it is contradicted by the historical record contained in the Bible.

theophilus wrote:If the flood wasn't worldwide Noah wouldn't have needed to build an ark. He could simply have moved away from the area that was to be flooded.

The article asks this question, "Does Earth have enough water to cover the whole planet?" If the surface of the earth were flatter the answer would be, "Yes." Scientists who try to prove that a worldwide flood generally assume that the preflood world was like the current world and was covered with water by rainfall. But what does the Bible say?

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
(Genesis 7:11 ESV)

The flood was more than just a flood. There was a global cataclysm that cause the present day continents and mountains to raise to their present heights in a short period of time. Flood deniers assume that all geological processes that are going on now have always taken place at the same rate they do now. This is just an assumption that can't be proved and it is contradicted by the historical record contained in the Bible.

Reality-deniers love to use the word "assumption" as if it actually applied everywhere they
want to put it, and that it then functions as a magic bullet to destroy all that stands in the
way.

We could of course get into the assumptions ( vast leaps of baseless faith) required of
flood-believrrs, but such would be churlish.

Now, it is my contention that such scenario as you describe is 100% fantasy,with no demonstrable
basis other than belief in the originator's notion of personal infallibility when it
comes to bible readin'.

I also say it is impossible to be even moderately well informed about the physical wotld
and make an intellectually honest claim that there was a global flood.

Our hero of the cause abe made up something about how a layer of frozen dust proves there
was a global flood, and that the glaciers were somehow "stuck down" instesd
of floating away, in ye flood. Earlier, he had it that they did flost, but sank back down in place
(Ever so perfectly ) after the water went down.

I notice you made a lot of extra-biblical claims about mountain building etc, which suggests you
feel you know more than the bible tells, and more than any geologist on earth-
is that what you really think?

How do you propose to explain the persistence of polar ice far older than
the purported flood?

Audie: We could of course get into the assumptions ( vast leaps of baseless faith) required of
flood-believrrs, but such would be churlish.

Now, it is my contention that such scenario as you describe is 100% fantasy,with no demonstrable
basis other than belief in the originator's notion of personal infallibility when it
comes to bible readin'.

That's all pretty rich, Audie, seeing as how you think a sophisticated, complex physical universe can exist without an intelligent cause. Talking about a fantasy - you're off the charts in La-La Land! So your "who knows what we might discover, eventually, that we don't know about yet" is YOUR magic bullet excuse for everything. Of course, you MUST believe at least SOMETHING is eternal. If you'd don't believe that, you have abandoned all logic. So, keep making fun a flood that you don't know the scope of, insistent upon it being a proven fact to have not occurred, while ignoring your own unproven and unmerited fantasy as to what can exist without an intelligent eternal cause! Because, your own words aptly applied to your origins views, it takes "vast leaps of baseless faith."

Philip wrote:

Audie: We could of course get into the assumptions ( vast leaps of baseless faith) required of
flood-believrrs, but such would be churlish.

Now, it is my contention that such scenario as you describe is 100% fantasy,with no demonstrable
basis other than belief in the originator's notion of personal infallibility when it
comes to bible readin'.

That's all pretty rich, Audie, seeing as how you think a sophisticated, complex physical universe can exist without an intelligent cause. Talking about a fantasy - you're off the charts in La-La Land! So your "who knows what we might discover, eventually, that we don't know about yet" is YOUR magic bullet excuse for everything. Of course, you MUST believe at least SOMETHING is eternal. If you'd don't believe that, you have abandoned all logic. So, keep making fun a flood that you don't know the scope of, insistent upon it being a proven fact to have not occurred, while ignoring your own unproven and unmerited fantasy as to what can exist without an intelligent eternal cause! Because, your own words aptly applied to your origins views, it takes "vast leaps of baseless faith."

First line..hmm.
You think an omnipotent etc can exist without any cause at all?

Lets see..next line is schoolyard insult, unworthy of this forum.

Same with the next, even without the "rubber / glue", or the concocted hypocrisy.

Then the next line, where you make up things for me to think, and the false dichotomy.

Did you even realize-
Nobody knows what time is, a little detail omotted from all of these "philosophical"
constructs that give people the infallible ability to know there is a god.

I didnt make fun of a flood, which you btw seem to think you "know" happened.

I think there could be some little seed of fact in the flood story. Or maybe not.

As told, it is a fantasy. I suppose this generates cognitive dissonance and angst in those who
figure the bible is a perfect truth. So the mature and sensible thing is to lash out at me
with everything you can think up?



I pointed out that WWF could not be an actual event, and an interpretation that there was
is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest. Pretty tough to make a sensible argument
against that. Speaking of "lala land", Noah's Ark? * . Someone in lala land? Almost like some of that psychological projectin' .that we hear about, no?

It certainly has been proved a thousand times over that there was no WWF.
Do you care to deny that, and declare your turf in lala land, own the ignorance / dishonesty? Surely not.

So why the childish outburst of irrelevant and false claims against me?

Id like to think you can do a lot better than that.

Care to start over?


* or wait, it is all real! You can go see it! Noah's Ark Park Turkey.
Tell 'em Ron Wyatt sent ya! ( that is making fun, not of the story, but of those
who think it is all about actual events)

Philip wrote:Here, from Reasons.org (Old Earth advocates), is their scientific analysis of why they don't believe the flood of Noah could have been a GLOBAL one: http://www.reasons.org/articles/is-a-gl ... y-possible

Which one is the real Phil, the one who is applying science to superstition, or the one who cant stand it to have an atheist agree with him?

I'm not sure how much of the above is at all scientific. I note that the RTB link in the OP deplores the idea of a global flood, but attempts to support the idea of a flood which succeeded in killing all mankind. It does not discuss whether that extends to all the terrestrial animals then alive. I don't think that either the global or the 'universal' have any evidence to support them.

So let's try some science. Hypothesis A is that at some time in the past, after the appearance of humans but before the writing of the scriptures, every point on the earth's surface was covered by water, and all humans were killed by it (except Noah's family, of course). Hypothesis B is that at some time in the past, after the appearance of humans but before the writing of the scriptures, every human on the earth's surface (except Noah's family) was killed by a flood, not necessarily a global one. Now all we need is some evidence to support these hypotheses. Adherents of both think that the book of Genesis is evidence in favour of their hypothesis, depending on their interpretation of it, so it cannot be said to the impartial that the book of Genesis is clear evidence either way. Now we need geological evidence. Would anybody like to present any?

Nobody has, yet. Various attempts have been made to explain what might have happened, or what could have happened, but none of those are evidence for what did happen. Would anybody like to start?

hughfarey wrote:I'm not sure how much of the above is at all scientific. I note that the RTB link in the OP deplores the idea of a global flood, but attempts to support the idea of a flood which succeeded in killing all mankind. It does not discuss whether that extends to all the terrestrial animals then alive. I don't think that either the global or the 'universal' have any evidence to support them.

So let's try some science. Hypothesis A is that at some time in the past, after the appearance of humans but before the writing of the scriptures, every point on the earth's surface was covered by water, and all humans were killed by it (except Noah's family, of course). Hypothesis B is that at some time in the past, after the appearance of humans but before the writing of the scriptures, every human on the earth's surface (except Noah's family) was killed by a flood, not necessarily a global one. Now all we need is some evidence to support these hypotheses. Adherents of both think that the book of Genesis is evidence in favour of their hypothesis, depending on their interpretation of it, so it cannot be said to the impartial that the book of Genesis is clear evidence either way. Now we need geological evidence. Would anybody like to present any?

Nobody has, yet. Various attempts have been made to explain what might have happened, or what could have happened, but none of those are evidence for what did happen. Would anybody like to start?

Genetic evidence would be good.