vball10set;1160015 wrote:This thread is too boring, sleeper--I'm just spicing things up a little

I Wear Pants;1160020 wrote:I thought I did that?

Unless his model includes something that could explain how all those things happened that I listed then it could not have possibly happened. His model would only be possible if it is able to work with the reality of things that we know as fact. Unless I'm missing something his model requires us to ignore/not think about the dispersion of plant and animal life about the earth in a way that works perfectly with Darwinian theory, ignore that we don't see evidence of massive extinction of the various cultures of the time, ignore the fossil records, ignore the geologic records, etc.

How does his model explain those? If it doesn't or can't then it simply isn't a valid model if we're trying to prove that the flood could have actually happened without creating a hypothetical where we don't have the plants and animals that we do where we do, we don't have the fossils we do, we don't have the mineral deposits we do, etc.

I Wear Pants;1159996 wrote:How am I acting high and mighty? You come here and post one guys opinion and we're supposed to go "oh you're right, god clearly flooded the earth, the Bible is true"? Dramatizing it there a bit but the point is still valid.

Besides, instead of simply linking to a presumably lengthy paper why don't you use it's information and explain it to us or at least use it to address our questions. Specifically of the dispersion of plant and animal life. Also the boat size problem still wouldn't be solved. Nor the fresh vs saltwater problem. Or the problem of where all that humidity went.

enigmaax;1160029 wrote:There are 33088 other threads. Why do you keep clicking on the boring one?

sleeper;1160016 wrote:His model is bias. Guy is a hack. I don't have time to dispel junk science wrapped in a nice package.

jmog;1160021 wrote:Read things that have been posted on here dozens of times, you don't need anywhere CLOSE to 60 million animals.

sleeper;1160016 wrote:His model is bias. Guy is a hack. I don't have time to dispel junk science wrapped in a nice package.

jmog;1160025 wrote:None of your facts, geological record, fossil record, mineral deposits, etc prove a flood did not happen.

You can keep saying they do, but they don't.

Please fill me in on how they do, I like reading.

vball10set;1160033 wrote:because it annoys sleeper

I Wear Pants;1160020 wrote:I thought I did that?

Unless his model includes something that could explain how all those things happened that I listed then it could not have possibly happened. His model would only be possible if it is able to work with the reality of things that we know as fact. Unless I'm missing something his model requires us to ignore/not think about the dispersion of plant and animal life about the earth in a way that works perfectly with Darwinian theory, ignore that we don't see evidence of massive extinction of the various cultures of the time, ignore the fossil records, ignore the geologic records, etc.

How does his model explain those? If it doesn't or can't then it simply isn't a valid model if we're trying to prove that the flood could have actually happened without creating a hypothetical where we don't have the plants and animals that we do where we do, we don't have the fossils we do, we don't have the mineral deposits we do, etc.

Like I could create some beautiful physics model showing me capable of leaping 175 feet in the air (well if I was a Dr. of Physics but the point is still valid). But without a method for explaining how this was possible given the reality of my body, gravity, etc it doesn't mean anything. It's only possible if we assume away facts.

fish82;1160031 wrote:All the model shows is that it's possible for the earth's surface to cover with water, which was suggested earlier was not physically possible. That's my only vested interest in this discussion, other than that I don't give a crap.

jmog;1160043 wrote:So IWP is disproving a PhD'd geophysicists model? Interesting...

jmog;1160038 wrote:You do know his model has been used by many MANY secular geophysicists for many plate tectonic models, most of which believe in the billions of years correct? They don't seem to believe his model is bias.

sleeper;1160036 wrote:Anything less than 60 million and then you'd have to account for evolution of 30 million species - x, x being the number of animals you decide based on your own biased model that are allowed aboard the boat. Unless you have evidence that macro evolution took place over 3000 years, your model is invalid. Sorry jmog, this is too EZ.

I guess when you are talking a hypothetical like a global flood you can use any inputs you need to validate your model.

I Wear Pants;1160046 wrote:Nice that you aren't even attempting to counter or answer my questions. Very convincing.

Using his model to attempt to prove the Biblical flood correct requires an obscene amount of assumptions.

jmog;1160049 wrote:All you need is micro-evolution and normal breeding/mutations to account for millions of species in 1000s of years. I have gone over this many times.

I Wear Pants;1160045 wrote:Possible if we assume a whole bunch of stuff.

jmog;1160050 wrote:Using science to prove macro-evolution (bacteria to humans) requires an obscene amount of assumptions.

See, we can both do that and both be correct.

OSH;1160054 wrote:Such as the earth being 5.42 billion years old.

Such as every species on earth was created from an amoeba, primordial ooze, or some other single-cell organism evolving over the course of 5.42 billion years to give us what we have now.

sleeper;1160048 wrote:I already said let's assume it is possible. That doesn't mean it happened.

You still aren't accounting for the acquiring said animals, feeding said animals, or fitting said animals in a boat.

I mean seriously, the fact that ADULTS buy into this is comical. I mean I have to explain to ADULTS that you can't fit 60 million animals on a modern aircraft carrier much less a wooden boat built 3000 years ago.

I Wear Pants;1160053 wrote:Seriously though, like sleeper said. Let's assume it is 100% no questions asked possible for a worldwide flood to have happened in the time period that the Bible describes it happening in. There's still a literal truckload of problems with that scenario that need explaining. Including how you fit 60 million animals on a boat and fed them for a year. Then how you distributed them throughout the world.

jmog;1160058 wrote:I did not account for the collecting, but I most certainly have accounted for the fittign and feeding of said animals on the boat the size of the ark as described in the Bible.

Matter of fact, you even have read it and replied to it but you then still make these type of claims like you have never read anything on the matter.

jmog;1160049 wrote:All you need is micro-evolution and normal breeding/mutations to account for millions of species in 1000s of years. I have gone over this many times.

jmog;1160050 wrote:Using science to prove macro-evolution (bacteria to humans) requires an obscene amount of assumptions.

See, we can both do that and both be correct.

I Wear Pants;1160053 wrote:Seriously though, like sleeper said. Let's assume it is 100% no questions asked possible for a worldwide flood to have happened in the time period that the Bible describes it happening in. There's still a literal truckload of problems with that scenario that need explaining. Including how you fit 60 million animals on a boat and fed them for a year. Then how you distributed them throughout the world.