AlanF
-
Posts
1,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by AlanF
-
-
On Whether Noah's Flood Is Physically Possible
Consider the amount of water needed to flood the entire earth to a depth sufficient to cover the highest mountains. What depth would that be?
The Watchtower Society quoted a source that estimated how deep the water would be if the earth were completely smooth (Is the Bible Really the Word of God?, 1969, p. 37):
<< If all the irregularities on the earth's surface were to be smoothed out, both above and below the water, so that there were no dents or holes anywhere, no land would show at all. The ocean would cover the entire globe to a depth of 8,000 feet [2,400 meters]! >>
If such a smooth earth had just one mountain during the Flood, it would have to be less than 2,400 meters high for the water to cover it. More mountains or depressions of physically reasonable size would change the figures, but not significantly.
Thus, pre-Flood mountains must have been less than about 2,400 meters high for the Flood waters to cover them.
That means that all of today's mountains over 2,400 meters must have formed after Noah's Flood. But is this geologically possible? No.
The science of Plate Tectonics along with standard geological dating show that plenty of mountains and mountain ranges are tens of millions of years old, and have been wearing down a lot longer than that.
For example, the Himalayas are at least 20 million years old and rose as a result of the Indian Plate colliding with the Asian Plate.
The Hawaiian Island chain is another example. The Big Island is as much as one million years old and rises as much as 13,800 feet (4,200 meters) above sea level (https://www.lovebigisland.com/hawaii-blog/hawaii-volcano-history/). That is already much higher than any possible pre-Flood mountain. But that's not the whole story: the Island is actually the tallest volcano in the world measured from its base on the sea floor -- some 33,000 feet (10,000 meters, but about 15,000 meters if sea floor sinking due to the mountain's weight is taken into account). That means that if the earth had been completely smooth during Noah's Flood, the Big Island would have had to rise at least 25,000 feet (7,600 meters) above the sea floor in the some 4,400 years since the Flood. The Big Island is about 150 kilometers across at sea level and more than 200 kilometers at its base. It is also the biggest volcano in volume, something like 65,000 cubic miles (213,000 cubic kilometers https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article/9/5/1348/132675/Modeling-volcano-growth-on-the-Island-of-Hawaii).
For purposes of argument, let's assume that the Big Island grew to its present size in 2,000 years. That allows some 2,400 years for all of its plant, animal, bird and insect life to accumulate. If it took 2,000 years for 213,000 cubic kilometers of lava to accumulate, that works out to about 106 cubic kilometers per year. That's a lot of lava! We can compare that to the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland in 1783/1784. In eight months it spewed some 14 cubic kilometers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki) of lava, killing about 1/4 of the population of Iceland, lowering global temperature significantly (http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/laki-iceland-1783) and producing widespread famine. The 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia, the biggest in recorded history, produced similar effects such as the 1816 "year without a summer" in Europe and America.
Now, what effects on the earth's climate would volcanic eruptions ten times bigger than the Laki eruption lasting 2,000 years have? Very big effects, obviously. Yet world history between 2,400 BCE and 400 BCE records no such big effects.
The obvious conclusion is that the Big Island of Hawaii did not erupt for 2,000 years.
When, then, did the Big Island grow to its present size?
Again the obvious conclusion is that it so grew during the last million years, just as geologists have found.
Far more could be said about the Hawaiian Island chain, such as the 80 million year old hotspot track showing the growth and decline of dozens of volcanic islands, where the chain of Emperor Seamounts tracks west-northwest and north-northwest for some 6,200 kilometers and disappears under the Kamchatka Peninsula.
Thus, Noah's Flood is demonstrated to be physically impossible just by the geological history of Hawaii.
-
-
16 minutes ago, Arauna said:
Plop! Malfunction!
Owwww!
On the cleverness scale, you are to TTH as the Rain Man is to Einstein.
-
3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
Keep it up, @Arauna. I expect him to drop of a rage heart attack any minute now.
I'm not angered in the least by such lies. Just amused and bemused, after 30 years of dealing with such dishonest morons.
-
8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
“Mr. President, Alan’s popping in for a visit.”
”Oh, my God.”
Still far less clever than you think. Much like the worst singers on American Idol.
-
34 minutes ago, Arauna said:
?? You speak like a eugenicist.
I said "criminals and undesirables" you lying hound.
-
32 minutes ago, Arauna said:
I think I have watched more Dawkins debates than you ever did! Lol.
I don't think so. I've met him in person several times.
What you've watched are Creationist distortions of such debates. And you know it. That's why you're afraid to give a link to any of them.
32 minutes ago, Arauna said:It really shocked me when he spoke about alliens seeding earth...... I did not think he would say such a dumb thing.....
You have no wits to understand that it was Ben Stein who tricked him into saying that. And it was Stein and his lying Creationist movie makers who edited the film to make it seem like Dawkins came up with the idea on his own.
32 minutes ago, Arauna said:I thought he was a little more sophisticated than that! After this I could not respect anything he said ....
You were supremely fooled by the Creationist makers of Expelled -- just as you've been fooled by your Watchtower masters.
-
41 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
Given Biden’s laudable goal of “healing the country,” this may not be exactly the way to do it, given that half the population chose him and that most of them think his contention of election shenanigans quite possible.
Half the population of the world consists of idiots. So what? Trump is the ultimate huckster and told them what they wanted to hear. It's easy to fool people by doing that. Look at you.
As George Carlin said in his comedy routine: Do you realize how stupid half of all people are? And the other half is stupider than that!
41 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:I do take note of Rubio’s words regarding some of his cabinet picks, that they will no doubt be “polite and orderly caretakers of America’s decline.” As you well know, however, JWs do not favor the home team government but look to God’s Kingdom to overrule them all. It is the “polite and orderly” we have not seen for awhile that will be a refreshing change of pace. “Ascending or descending is a political judgment that will not be a Witness’s primary concern.
America, along with the rest of the world, is certainly in decline. I'm glad that I'll be dead before I see the worst of it.
As for your non-existent God's Kingdom, it didn't come when Jesus said it would, it didn't come when C. T. Russell said it would, and it's not going to come at all. You and your ilk will die without seeing it. Just as end-times proclaimers have always died.
-
41 minutes ago, Arauna said:
Just pull up any debate with Christian's.... and you will see how he reflects his goddlessness
As I thought, you have nothing to support your false claims.
-
41 minutes ago, Arauna said:
My, for such a smart man you are uninformed. You never listen to Elon musk? You never go to the world economic forum website? Do you ever watch economic news?
Elon Musk is a smart man, but also something of a crackpot. I don't generally follow crackpots.
-
35 minutes ago, Arauna said:
Young "earth" in your mind means young "universe" .... lol.
Wrong. The "young-earth" moniker I use is merely shorthand for the entire nonsensical enterprise, which encompasses young-earth/universe, old-earth/young-life and many other bits of garbage.
I you'd actually read posts, you'd already know this.
35 minutes ago, Arauna said:The person who only reads one language and corrects everyone elses speech does not understand the difference in these two concepts ? - lol- does not understand his own language and very quickly calls other people "morons and idiots" ........for misspelt words.
I do that only with arrogant morons like you who are too proud to be corrected.
35 minutes ago, Arauna said:Most young earth scientists do not believe in a young universe.......
Nonsense. The two biggest YEC organizations do: the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.
35 minutes ago, Arauna said:the earth was formed when the universe began......... but the life on earth came much later......
Yeah: 4.6 billiion versus about 3.6 billion.
Of course, until about 1980 the JWs taught that life began 27,000 years ago. Today most JWs have no idea what they believe.
35 minutes ago, Arauna said:as the bible says..... .
It says no such thing.
35 minutes ago, Arauna said:In fact, young earth scientists often say there is contamination of much older rock in the fossils which dates them further back..... .
Yes, and they say the earth and universe are only 6,000 years old. And so do obsolete dinosaurs like you.
-
True Tom Harley said:
Quote47 minutes ago, AlanF said:
I don't advocate any kind of rulershipQuoteYour hero does.
I have no heros. You're projecting again.
Quote20 hours ago, AlanF said:
Thanks for the compliment! I have the utmost admiration for Mencken and his writing.QuoteWhat is democracy, he said, but “the pathetic notion that individual ignorance adds up to collective wisdom?”
I agree very much with that. Just look at Jay Leno's "man on the street videos".
QuoteHe is a good writer. I have adapted his comparisons to other areas. Such as “When searching religion, look for the people who are individually praised but collectively maligned.”
That bit of wisdom is only partly applicable. Most religious people I know -- Catholics, Protestants, Muslims -- are individually very fine people. But their organizations are trash. The Catholic Church is a prime example. So is the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.
-
6 minutes ago, Arauna said:
All theatre. TECHNOCRATS already ruling - soon to take over.
Yes, the great organization of reptilian aliens is reigning!
-
44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
Come now. Since the purpose of impeachment is to remove a sitting president and he is going to be gone in less than a week anyhow, I think there just may be some grandstanding going on.
The point of impeaching this criminal asshole involves more than just getting rid of him. It involves ensuring that a criminal don cannot ever again hold office, and better establishing the principle that criminal presidents will not be allowed to get away with criminal activity -- such as inciting insurrection.
44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:You may have noticed a Republican member of Congress means to file impeachment proceedings of Biden over Ukrainian matters.
So what? It will go nowhere. Also keep in mind that some of these idiots are Qanon members, gross racists and other sorts of criminals and undesirables.
44 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:From now on nobody will do anything at all in those two Houses except try to impeach the other. Great system of human rulership that you advocate.
I don't advocate any kind of rulership. Once again you're jumping to assholian conclusions.
-
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:
You’re entire premise is wrong on so many things:
“American scholar of religion Holly Folk ... show[s] that, although there have been cases of sexual abuse by members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the number of perpetrators is not higher, and may actually be significantly lower, when compared to the prevalence of sexual abuse in other religions and in our modern societies in general. It is also not true, Folk said, that Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose reporting of cases of sexual abuse to secular authorities when it is mandated by the laws, nor that they sanction those who report. When governmental documents or media repeat unfounded allegations by anti-cultists, or single out Jehovah’s Witnesses falsely alleging that sexual abuse is more prevailing in their congregations than in other groups or in society in general, they are consciously or unconsciously supporting an agenda that attacks the Witnesses for reasons that have little to do with the protection of the victims of abuse.”
Holly Folk has no idea what she's talking about.
The fact is that JW leadership has always put protection of "Jehovah's name" -- actually the JW organization's own name -- above all other considerations. That's why it was only in 2001 that they issued a specific instruction to elders not to prevent any molestation victim from reporting to the police -- until then it was understood that reporting was to be discouraged. Victims and their family members were actually disfellowshipped for reporting against elders' instructions.
-
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:
...
Your hypocrisy is evident, TTH: Trumpolini has issued several insincere calls for non-violence, talking out of both sides of his mouth -- exactly what you did. You obviously support his incitement to insurrection.
-
8 hours ago, Arauna said:
You are so lame
I'm sure you didn't even understand what I said.
-
Arauna! Arauna!! Lookie lookie lookie how fossils got to be up on Mount Everest -- as a result of the movement of Teutonic, Aryan and Gallic plates!
-
Arauna! Arauna!! Lookie lookie lookie how close God came to clobbering that visitor center with meteor!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater#/media/File:Meteorcrater.jpg
-
True Tom Harley said:
QuoteShermer’s coverage of the four-battle war between creationists and evolutionists was worth the price of admission alone, and since the price was free—his Great Courses lecture series was a library checkout—it was doubly worth it. I don’t want my writing to be lame . . .
Too late.
QuoteLead prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan was not the narrow minded “buffoon” that Alan’s grandfather made him out to be.
Thanks for the compliment! I have the utmost admiration for Mencken and his writing.
QuoteShermer points out that he was in most respects liberal-minded. However, in the aftermath of WWI, he became alarmed at the human cost of teaching evolution. Aghast at Germany’s embrace of the “pseudoscience” of social Darwinism, channeled into eugenics, he decided that the best way to stamp out that aftereffect was to stamp out the original effect.
Bryan's problem was the same as Christian apologists often have today: the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the fake 'science' of Social Darwinism. That was originated by one Herbert Spencer, who applied Darwin's notion of natural selection far beyond anything Darwin wrote about. Today it's considered pseudoscience.
Others jumped on Spencer's bandwagon and became popularizers of his ideas, despite the fact that it was a philosophical, not a scientific position. Creationists of all stripes have long beat their drums about this pseudoscience. A Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) puts it well:
<< Creationists have frequently maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to reward the most competitive—is a logical consequence of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology). Biologists and historians have stated that this is a fallacy of appeal to nature, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society. While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution. >>
As a discredited logical fallacy, Social Darwinism has no more connection with the Theory Evolution than the carpet bombing of German and Japanese cities had with the Theory of Gravity.
QuoteHis distrust of science can be seen in his statement released to reporters after the trial:
“Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals."
Bryan was a wise man in many ways. As an attempt to describe how nature actually is, science is not supposed to be a teacher of morals.
Since a great deal of criticism of Evolution is based on the fallacy that science ought to be a teacher of morals, all such criticism is fallacious and completely misses the point of science.
Quote"It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm-tossed human vessel.”
Again Bryan was correct. Morality is the bailiwick of philosophy, and sometimes religion -- not mere descriptions of nature.
QuoteHe next devotes a few lines to the horrific advances of war that science had enabled, then concludes with: “If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene. His teachings, and His teachings alone, can solve the problems that vex the heart and perplex the world.” That statement will resonate with many today, not just Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Yes, it would. But remember that neither science, nor scientists for the most part, start wars: politicians start wars. And politicians use every available means to achieve their ends -- everything from stone-tipped spears to hydrogen bombs.
QuoteMichael Shermer strives mightily to separate the science of Darwin from the “pseudoscience” of social Darwinism. I am willing to let that separation stand in the scientific sense, but it certainly does not stand in the sense that matters—that of common sense and human motivation.
"Common sense"? In other words, you have no logical arguments. And you deliberately forget politics.
QuoteNewly minted atheists such as H. G. Wells acknowledged the corrosive effect of evolution.
A self-contradictory statement. See below.
QuoteIn his Outline of History, he states: “A real de-moralization ensued...a real loss of faith after 1859 [publication of Darwin’s Origin of the Species]. Prevalent peoples at the close of the nineteenth century believed that they prevailed by virtue of the Struggle for Existence, in which the strong and cunning get the better of the weak and confiding....Man, they decided, is a social animal like the Indian hunting dog....It seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.”
First, Wells was a science fiction writer, not a historian. While he wrote a popularized two-volume history series, it was not particularly well received by historians. Second, the statement you quote is a mere description of what happened to become popular belief -- which is in no sense valid science. No more so than today's Trump-inspired popular belief that the recent American election was stolen from him is valid history.
Since Wells became an atheist and came to accept Evolution, his statements about "de-moralization" and "loss of faith" can hardly be called "corrosive" from his point of view. On the contrary, as an atheist he would have considered such things as a net positive.
QuoteIt is just psychology Wells references. There is no scientific linkage, certainly no “proof.” But anyone who has seen 2001–a Space Odyssey instantly makes the connection. The starving hominid does not advance by loving his neighbor. He does not advance by displaying morality and decency. He responds by picking up a Darwin and beating his rival to death with it, and then all his buddies close in to make sure the kill is complete.
Even you admit that you have no valid, logical arguments. Only vague allusions to "common sense". Very much akin to the basis of almost all religious belief.
QuoteThe only ones blind to this obvious connection are atheistic evolutionists, who wish to spotlight human advancement, not human regression.
More ridiculously illogical claims. And fallacious, since you assume your conclusion.
QuoteBut my wife came across a young man in her ministry just today who opined that many of his generation were “returning to God and the Bible,” since “nothing else has worked out too well, has it?”
He was basically wrong: far more young people today want nothing to do with religion of any kind than ever before.
QuoteOnly atheist evolutionists are blind to the societally corrosive effects of their beloved theory.
An excellent statement of your fallacious 'reasoning'.
QuoteHence, my hilarious joke that 93% of such evolutionists play drums, but the only song they will perform is Also Sprach Zarathustra.
Yes, cheer yourself on!
The rest of your 'exposition' is the usual combination of "meh" and "not even wrong", so there's no point in my commenting.
-
18 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
One of the most gracious men on Twitter is Richard Dawkins. His kindness to even those with whom he disagrees knows no bounds. I am told that angels sign up for his podcast on etiquette lessons..
There! Happy?
ANOTHER GLORIOUS VICTORY FOR ALAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're imitating your idol Donald J. Trumpolini.
Yeah, I'm satisfied.
-
6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
What! Is this something new?
I think I’ll let the provocation slide, thank you very much.
Translation: "I admit I am a liar."
-
1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:
Oh, for crying out loud! Is there nothing you will not argue?
It was a general impression that my opponent and I instantly upon—our only common ground. I didn’t log his tweets in anticipation of you coming along later.
Your "general impressions" are usually wrong, because they're colored by your prejudices.
I'm calling you out here: you're a liar.
Now you have an opportunity to prove you were right. But you won't, because as soon as you actually investigate, you'll find you were wrong and you just don't ever admit that.
-
21 hours ago, Arauna said:
You throw everyone under one banner. There are many different beliefs under young earth category.
Young-Earth Creationism has one major banner: a universe far younger than science proves.
And again: you've been so taken in by that garbage that you don't even accept that Mommy Watchtower, nearly 40 years ago, declared it "unscriptural and unscientific". Such a gross hypocrite!
Creation-Evolution-Creative Days-Age of the Earth-Humanoid Fossils-Great Flood
in Topics
Posted
Faith is by definition belief without evidence. Without evidence, one can 'believe' anything at all -- astrology, scientology, space alien abductions, etc.
The question I examined is not whether one can believe in fairy tales, but whether there is physical evidence for a recent global Flood, and whether specific physical disproofs are valid. Hence, Ann O'Maly's challenge.
The idea of a recent global Flood has logical difficulties. Why would a God who could kill 185,000 Assyrians in one night commit massive overkill by a global Flood that wiped out nearly all life -- life that had nothing to do with "wicked men"? It's like using a hydrogen bomb to swat a fly. One who believes such things must believe that his God is a murderous nutjob.