Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

Thanks for your reply. You say history/science are never about certitude.
But this is not the real way people live. Flying here,healing that and surely in origin claims that we engage in debating is all about what is true and what is not true. And science is used or claimed to that end.
Evolutionists speak absolutely about origins and rejectiong Bible origins.
Science is about the claim to having Proven ones point. For sure
Rob

Since ultmate truth is not accessable to the human experience - that's an undeniable fact - "real people" would be wrong.Science is not the search for truth. It's the search for descriptive models. Those models must never be equivocated with the reality, which is not inherently accessable to us.

Don't confuse engineering and the practice of medicine with basic science. When being careless, we speak of truth but what we are really doing is trying to do the best we can with what we know now. That means we are talking about the current best explanation for something. That may be taken as being very, very likely of being "true" or only pretty darn sure of being "true" or even rather suspect but still the best we have. What is "truth" is more philosophical than scientific. When being careful in how this is expressed what we can say is:
Evolution is about describing the best idea of how things got this way that we have now and having shown that the literal biblical stores can not be true.That is science does NOT "prove" true. It keeps checking to see if something seems to work well. It can, however, prove false. Sometimes there are several ideas about how things work. When all but one is proven false then the one remaining is the tentative, temporary scientific explanation.Biblical literalism, a young earth and single creation have been shown to be false. Whatever comes out of new discoveries it is hard to imagine anything that would revive those ideas.

That is correct. That is incorrect. Science does not deal with truth. But it can often prove something is false.So you cannot know something is true with certainity, but you can certainly prove something is false. Evolution says nothing about Origins. However, science in general can show that the story of Genesis in the Bible is at most an allegory.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In fact I'm Canadian and my mother is from Liverpool.
Again you say the flood story is explained by this and that.
Yet it is you who should be showing why it is not true.
First the Bible account is a witness. Challenge the winess fine. But it is a witness with claims.
Christian, especially Protestant indeed especialy puritan or evangelical, beliefs about origins has been the historic norm for hundreds of years in the countries of the most intelligent, and moral and successful people in history. The English speaking peoples.
The Bible account is asserted by the the best.
We creationists fight for the truth against tiny groups of people in positions of power who have attacked this truth and denied the people the chance for arguement. We shall overcome.
To deny the foundation of Christianity does not mean the denial of same as in your case. But it is sure shaky ground and unnessesary.
You believe in a remarable thing that God came to earth. Well he commented on the flood and confirmed it. Was he wrong or lying?
An intelligent man must know the truth and thus where debated, figure out how to come to the truth. Not accept just what someone says who claims to have authority. The Bible claims authority too and yet you don't believe that.And yes everyone is right my spelling,grammer is terrible. I try.
My only excuse could be while in english class I was thinking about analysis and logical deduction instead.But thats not true come to think of it.
I think my computer has evolutionist convictions and is sabatoging me. Yeah that must be it.
Rob

There is another possibility; that you're interpretation is wrong. That the material is meant for moral lessons and not as a science textbook. You've gotten very far off on the wrong track when you forget that.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-17-2004 03:46 PM

Hi Rob,
I never said I did not believe in the flood, it happened and God made it happen, suddenly. Evidence? The end of the last ice age. I think that is the evidence that you must look to. This was God's judgement at that time. Ever since then geologically speaking, the mountains that were once ice bound are rising by upto 4mm or even more per year by what geologists call isostacy since the weight of upto a mile of ice has been released.
There is no basis for a conflict between mainstream christianity (I am an evengelical christian, our church has links to Airport Christian fellowship in Toronto) and geolocical science.
I think your interpretation needs looking at, the bible is written in at least 6 different styles; letter, prophesy, poetry, song, history and picture language. You must be aware of this when reading the text!

Science never proves or disproves anything because it includes the important principle of tentativity. Tentativity means that no matter how strongly a theory is supported by evidence, contrary evidence is always a possibility. Science never knows anything for certain.This is one of the reasons that evolution is science and Creationism isn't. Scientists will reject the theory of evolution if and when sufficient evidence is available falsifying it, while Creationists believe the story of creation as told in Genesis can never be falsified.--Percy

Who is the witness to Genesis? Even those who believe Moses wrote the Penteteuch realize he could not have witnessed the creation or the flood. The flood story was falsified during the 19th century. It was originally believed that the geology of the modern earth resulted from the great flood, but when trained clergymen (the naturalists and geologists of the day) began investigating geologic processes in the late 18th and early 19th century the evidence they uncovered clearly indicated two things: a) a worldwide flood could not explain most geologic formations; b) the earth is far more ancient then the Bible hints at. Let me guess. You're an English speaking Christian evangelical. What a coincidence! Well, even though you're obviously the most intelligent, moral and successful among us, you'll still have to support your arguments with evidence, just like everyone else.--Percy

Wrong. This is just not have anything to do with how evolution is presented anywhere.
etc is presented to the public and in acedemia as having been proven. As having absolutely replaced previous wrong ideas.
And that is questioning by anyone is not acceptable but a rejection of SCIENCE. A rejection of what has been PROVEN, A rejection of the people who know BEST. SCIENTISTS.For you or anyone to attempt to say evolution is just a theory with legs until proven otherwise is sign and poof that evolution can not stand scruntity. So it must retreat to "well this is just right now what we think" when in fact it insists with a roar that it has proven the Boble wrong and any opposition is intellectual hearsy.

Anyone who tells you the theory of evolution has been proven is not a real scientist.If someone in the "public" tells you it has been proven, they are wrong and should not be taken as spokespeople for the scientific community.The theory is strong because it has been confirmed countless times and has never been falsified. The reason other theories (such as Lamarck) have fallen by the wayside is that they have been falsified. Robert, I posted a short subject hoping to clarify the "just a theory" insult to evolution. Please read:
http://EvC Forum: Evolution is "just a theory." -->EvC Forum: Evolution is "just a theory."The theory of evolution has probably withstood more scrutiny than any other theory in history. Absolutely, exactly, right on target.If evolution is falsified, or a better theory comes along, scientists will be the first to abandon evolution. Until either of these happen, evolution will be the prevailing theory.

But (without rehashing old issues) the bibical account is clearly not true, if you are saying that science is of no benefit in providing those answers where do we go next?Zeus? Odin?

Robert.The Genesis story of Creation was shown to be wrong long, long before Dawin published. The TOE simply added additional evidence. But the Genesis myth was falsified long, long ago.But back on the Flood, that too had been falsified long before Evolution was even considered.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

But back on the Flood, that too had been falsified long before Evolution was even considered

---

But the flood DID happen, at the end of the last ice age, but not to the point like YEC would mean with all geological strata and forms being laid down. It was simply ice melting and raising sea levels to around 80m higher than they were..

I read what you directed me too. It is what I've read hundreds of times.
Truly it is just an attempt of evolutionists to live in a reality in which thier view is accepted as the truth and a contrary view is not true. AND yet when challenged by anyone to prove what they assert they respond "well nothing can be proven"
NOW COME ON.I know you believe your position is correct yet I suggest your analysis has a flaw in it.
I've thought about this many times about how creationists can once and for all demonstrate that evolution is not proven to where it should be the belief or that it has proven the bible wrong and I think I've figured it out.It is in exactly what you say. A new method of decideing how to come to truth was introduced with the scietific method.
While we all live in the old method.
And while we all think the old method is still the standard in fact you guys changed the rules. And yet live with the rewards of the old method. GOT THAT!! (me neither)As in a CIVIL court case MANKIND has always weighed the evidence. (facts, authority behind facts etc)
Yet in America in serious cases a new method was brought in.Innocent until proven guility. A new way of deciding conclusion.Likewise in our debate.
We live in a world of weighing the evidence and trusting the authority (scientists) with having weighed it accurately and drawing right conclusions. Honest motive is presumed.Yet this is where it went wrong. As in the court case a NEW way of coming to conclusions was introduced. No longer weighing facts and authority but instead hypothesis and falsifying etc.Yet the world lives in the old method. And I would say so do the evolutionists. But when evolution is challenged they will say AHA we have a new method of truth now and in fact you are ineligible to engage in it.We live in facts and authority and proof. They enjoy that thier theory is a result of this but really they have replaced the method of deciding what the truth is.Thats where the equation went wrong. (whew)