Noah's Flood - finally some science?

UnrepentantSinner

A post by Alan Smithee
UnrepentantSinner
Joined
Aug 26, 2001
Messages
26,984
Location
Dallas, Texas
I found this post by a guy who constantly talks about flood models, YECs doing science and peer review and he has no idea how out his ass he's talking when he does this, but he finally posted a series of links to IRC pages concerning "flood modeling" and I was wondering of the physicists, geologists and generally intersted in C/IDism folks could take a look at them.

laptoppop said:
ICR has bought a small computer cluster and is definitely working on flood modeling projects:

COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD

COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD (Figures)

(I believe the computer modeling for this next one is just getting underway)
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY

PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD

PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD (figures)

Numerical Climate Modeling at ICR

Alexander V. Lalomov, Ph.D. Geology
Click to expand...
 
Seems to be an example of massive application of Skinner's Constant.

(Skinner's Constant is the number you add, subtract, multiply, or divide into your observed data to get a result that fits your hypothesis).

Hans
 
YEC plate tectonics! Love it!

He's got the continents moving at about two miles an hour. In yer face, Wegener!
 
Yes, and he has to jump through hoops to keep the temperature to come out below the boiling point. Yet, we are to believe that a group of total landlubbers sailed a large and heavily laden wood vessel unscathed through it all.

Hans
 
Let's see:
The volcanism associated with rapid tectonics would have been of unprecedented magnitude and worldwide extent, but concentrated in particular zones and sites. At spreading centers magma would rise to fill in between plates separating at meters per second, producing a violent volcanic source tens of thousands of kilometers in length [7].
Click to expand...
Yup, yup. And killing every living thing on the planet.
 
When I was a child, I used to write these long, rambling, scientific-sounding papers full of nonsense. I even invented new terms such as flase. I would type these on my typewriter, tapping away, spewing forth papers as long as 10 pages.

Thank God I never came to the conclusion that the content was anything other than gibberish, or that I should present the papers as theological apologetics.

~~ Paul
 
He's got things running on the order of a billion times their current speed. That would imply a billion times current levels of volcanic and earthquake activity. You'd have volcanic eruptions on the level of Tambora or Krakatoa every three or four seconds.

Not an environment through which I'd choose to sail a rickety boat packed with thousands of panicky animals.
 
However, it seems to be easier to model a world evolving at such pace then to model a wooden ark, of the reported dimensions, that would actually float.

No, as debris doesn't count...
 
Does it change your calculations at all if the boat was floating in a boiling ocean covered in several metres of pumice and ash?
 
Since it would, at least, break in half as soon as it'd hit the water... I really don't think so...

It might burn down before it hit, but other than that...
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I found this post by a guy who constantly talks about flood models, YECs doing science and peer review and he has no idea how out his ass he's talking when he does this, but he finally posted a series of links to IRC pages concerning "flood modeling" and I was wondering of the physicists, geologists and generally intersted in C/IDism folks could take a look at them.
Click to expand...
If during the Flood ocean water covered the continents, farming would have been a major problem for some time following (SALT in the soil is what we agricultural types like to call "really bad stuff").
 
fuelair said:
If during the Flood ocean water covered the continents, farming would have been a major problem for some time following (SALT in the soil is what we agricultural types like to call "really bad stuff").
Click to expand...

If god wanted crops to grow under an inch of salt, he could. Why do atheists not see this simple fact? Sure, it may violate every rule of nature and counter every precedent and god may have a success rate of 0.1% but that just means he doesn't want to do it, not that he can't.

The evidence is clear.
 
Fronzel said:
If god wanted crops to grow under an inch of salt, he could. Why do atheists not see this simple fact? Sure, it may violate every rule of nature and counter every precedent and god may have a success rate of 0.1% but that just means he doesn't want to do it, not that he can't.

The evidence is clear.
Click to expand...

Ah..."Gods will"; well that is a well thought out arguement - not.
 
That's what it all comes down to, every time.

[pseudoscientific apologetic babble]

"But that's impossible, for these seventeen reasons."

"Goddidit."
 
Theres so many reasons that Noahs flood was impossible that it staggers the imagination how anyone in this day and time in the western world could believe that nonsense. This is a creationist story and it has no credibility whatsoever.
 
Fronzel said:
If god wanted crops to grow under an inch of salt, he could. Why do atheists not see this simple fact? Sure, it may violate every rule of nature and counter every precedent and god may have a success rate of 0.1% but that just means he doesn't want to do it, not that he can't.

The evidence is clear.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the responses, but if I could request "godditit therefore problem X is resolved" not be included in them it will help filter the scientific evisceration of these decidedly ad hoc "models" which YECs are suggesting are scientific. It's not that I don't appreciate them, but I've got a TE ally who was the OPer of the thread I got the links from and he's serious about using science to demolish YEC claims about "flood models" rather than usual atheist arguments.
 
Theistic escape artists will rationalize it the same way "Oh, you changed the data to not include god's majesty" or some such nonsense.

I think Talk Origins addresses the claims well.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
When I was a child, I used to write these long, rambling, scientific-sounding papers full of nonsense. I even invented new terms such as flase. I would type these on my typewriter, tapping away, spewing forth papers as long as 10 pages.

Thank God I never came to the conclusion that the content was anything other than gibberish, or that I should present the papers as theological apologetics.
Click to expand...

I know someone who might be interested.
 
Wouldn't it be easier simply to decide that a "day" in the Old Testament is longer than a standard Earth-rotation day? All kinds of problems would disappear.

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom