Water found where?

Evolution always amazes me. As an overall statement, I would say that Evolution tries to make the biblical story into fiction while elevating ‘Science’ above biblical revelation.

OK, the biblical story says water for the biblical flood came from under ground.

And what did the Weather Channel just report? Under Japan alone, the Earth (rocks) have sucked in 2.5 as much water as there is in all the oceans.

Weather Channel video.

That is a lot of water.

But, we are told there is no way that there could have been a world wide biblical flood.

Well, now we know there is (was) enough water.

Does that fact affect your belief in the biblical flood?

Wayne

Advertisements

About Wayne

First, I blogged on blogger, then Myspace - soon I was consistently ranked. Next, I quit. Then the blogging addiction came back .... Comments are appreciated. Not nice comments are edited. You can follow me at the top right.
This entry was posted in Blogging, God, News, Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Water found where?

  1. tildeb says:

    So predictable. Confirmation bias at its best.

    If you’re going to accept this finding (because it offers you a scientific possibility that there really was enough water for a global flood) then you have to accept how the finding was made. This means you have to accept our current understanding of geological modeling, which is based on evidence we have accrued from reality. This means you have to accept the earth is thousands of millions of years in age, for starters. You have to accept percolation rates through different rock layers, indicating that it would have taken millions and millions and millions of years for the water (from some global flood) predicted in this paper to have reached the subduction zone. This means you would have to accept the fact there is no geological evidence that should be present if the modelling is correct (the same modelling used by resource extraction companies that spend billions and billions of dollars in geological exploration based on it) for this global flood.

    Why do I think you will firmly reject this modelling? Because it doesn’t align with your contrary beliefs. And you empower your beliefs – and not reality – to justify your beliefs… along with whatever bits of scientific inquiry that seems to support them while ignoring whatever doesn’t.

    • Wayne says:

      Actually, those companies hire people like me for their modeling ….

      Why do I think you have missed again?

      Wayne

      • tildeb says:

        How does your assertion make my point a miss? That you can hold two incompatible thoughts and believe in both? Happens all the time, Wayne. It’s called compartmentalizing. Dead cells don’t reanimate we know because the damage from cellular death renders the material incapable of retrograde use… unless I grant an exception and claim that it might be possible with a POOF!ism event done miraculously! Either the geology model works or it doesn’t; you can’t cherry pick which bits to support and simply ignore the others without discarding intellectual integrity (which people also do all the time in the name of maintaining some favoured faith-based belief). The ‘miss’ is entirely of your own making.

      • Wayne says:

        Now you seem to admit that you already knew of the data I mentioned ….

        And again you ignore intellectual integrity, and you ignore the obvious.

        That is very common behavior in certain fields of study. But not a behavior that changes my well thought out and studied ideas about Creation, Cosmology, Evolution, Genesis, or Cosmogony.

      • tildeb says:

        My criticism is that your ideas are not well thought out because you demonstrate a very poor understanding of what these fields are and how they are justified; instead, you insert your beliefs and then consistently cherry pick only that which you find suitable hints that perhaps, maybe, might it be possible, that your contrary beliefs are, in fact, true. Your understanding is an intellectual gong show that invites the striking of the gong.

      • Wayne says:

        Thank you for your comment, you have been much more reasonable lately.

        You do not realize your criticism is that of a religious zealot. Your religion is atheism. Yet, you worship Science. Any discussion of Science that does not agree with your religious interpretation freaks you out.

        I regret your inability to think outside of the box.

        I am not talking little green men, although many of your scientists are looking for life on Mars. I am writing about simple scientific discoveries.

        Discoveries which show Science has been right or wrong. Discoveries which show we know the universe is bigger than the little box some people try to put it in.

        Discovery is supposed to be scientific, that is why we have spent Trillions trying to find life on Mars.

        Right?

        Wayne

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s