|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRVE history of the Flood... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2357 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I reject it for better evidence, that is not the same thing. Just don't count on career in science! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 90 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: I've said I can't answer it and I have better evidence anyway which makes the dating false. Yes, you do make such claims yet the fact is just one dating sample is all that is needed to totally refute Young Earth. Just one society that existed before, during and after the flood (called almost all of the stone and bronze age) refutes the Biblical flood. Just one city that existed before during and after the flood refutes the Biblical flood. Just one sample of a living organism that lived before during and after the flood totally refutes the Bible story. Sorry but regardless of whatever evidence you think you have, the Biblical Flood never happened. Period! That's a fact Jack!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1957 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I've never "hand-waved" away your dating stuff. I've said I can't answer it and I have better evidence anyway which makes the dating false. That is NOT "hand-waving." Which is practically the definition of hand-waving.
Hand waving Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
hand waving noun 1. insubstantial words, arguments, gestures, or actions used in an attempt to explain or persuade.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1695 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Never never never will anyone address the actual evidence I've given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1957 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Never never never will anyone address the actual evidence I've given.
Never, never, never will you give us the courtesy of reading our posts. If you did, you would see the discussion of your points. Instead, you deny and reject out of hand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Inactive Administrator |
Like, what did I say in the subtitle???
Oh, yeah...
Less bickering, more substance please AdminnemooseusOr something like that. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
Faith writes: I reject it for better evidence, that is not the same thing. You can't do that Faith. Well not if you want to appear rational - it's a critical thinking problem. If you see a dead body on the ground beneath a tall building and you recognise him as a chap with mental health problem it might be reasonable to suspect suicide. But if you subsequently find he has a bullet hole in his head you don't just stick to your original theory because you think it's 'better evidence'. You must examine all the alternative scenarios, if you don't you run the risk of forming the wrong conclusion. Dating and sorting evidence are two pieces of fatal evidence to a young earth hypothesis, they can't simply be ignored because you feel you have better evidence of something else, it's necessary for you to show why they're wrong. If you can't, at the very best you can tell yourself that you have an open verdict. You should also ask yourself why only people with a belief system like yours hold the YEC belief. Why can't you find an agnostic YEC scientist? The answer is because belief in a young earth derives from faith not science. It can't stand on its own evidence. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17910 Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
Tell me Faith, which is "better evidence"
All the evidence of time passing between the deposition of (some) strata, or your assertion that that evidence does not exist ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1695 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The point is that there is no way to tell if the past was the same as the present, but a cross section can show that the strata were all laid down before tectonic disturbance occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1656 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The point is that there is no way to tell if the past was the same as the present, but a cross section can show that the strata were all laid down before tectonic disturbance occurred. And at other locations you can show that the strata was laid down after tectonic disturbances occurred. Evidence you have denied rather than disproven. The point is that there is no way to tell if the past was measurably different from the present. The point is that tree rings and lake varves and ice layers all point to the past being very similar to the present, with no disruptions. The consilience between different types of data pointing to the same conclusions shows high confidence that the past was the same as the present. The data from radiometric dating matching the dating from layer counting shows high confidence that the past was the same as the present. There is NO evidence that it was different. Only a fool thinks they have proven a falsehood, especially one invalidated by mountains of evidence. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
Faith writes: The point is that there is no way to tell if the past was the same as the present, but a cross section can show that the strata were all laid down before tectonic disturbance occurred. The working hypothesis is that in the past the basic physical laws were the same as today; trees grew at the same annual rate, corals grew at the same rate, tides came in and out twice per day, winter came once per year and radioactive decay was the same as the present. You have absolutely no evidence indicating any different do you? And science has stacks of evidence saying that the period covered by your flood - which is very recent - is no different than today. Mountains of it, and it all coincides - it's this co-incidence that kills you, you can't escape it. You must address it, if you can't or won't your case is lost.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 90 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: The point is that there is no way to tell if the past was the same as the present, but a cross section can show that the strata were all laid down before tectonic disturbance occurred. But of course that is demonstrably not true Faith as you have been shown repeatedly. Change leaves evidence. Thinking people can not just tell if the past was like the present, they can even tell how the past differed at most any time from the present. It is only those who are willfully ignorant who cannot tell if the past was the same as the present, or the deluded, or the dishonest. Simple things like leaf shape can tell what the average temperatures were. Width of tree rings can tell what average rainfall was in a given year. We have actually sample the very air from millions of years ago. Your assertion, no matter how many times you repeat it, is simply false and has been refuted for hundreds of years. Only those people deluded into a perversion of the Bible are unable to understand that the Biblical flood stories in the Bible are simply fiction, folk tales, fantasy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
Have you ever tried to match ice cores to your consilience data?
There's quite a good article here - by a theologian of all people. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf Faith - just the modern ice core data is enough to sink your boat with all hands and hooves. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1695 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The "working hypothesis" is known as Uniformitarianism and since we know things were very very different before the Flood, immensely more favorable to growing things, we ain't buying it.
I don't have to address any of that, all I have to do is post cross sections that according to the standard model show something like 500 million years of continuous sedimentary deposition without any disturbances whatever, to prove the absolute absurdity of the Time Scale. it ought to make a sane person fall down laughing. And angular unconformities are the ONLY supposed evidence for deposition following tectonic disturbance and they are usually pretty pathetic looking broken horizontal pieces perched on top of some buckled strata. Which indicates that whatever caused the tectonic disturbance knocked off all the strata above the pathetic piece. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
The "working hypothesis" is known as Uniformitarianism No, it isn't.
since we know things were very very different before the Flood, immensely more favorable to growing things, we ain't buying it. We do not know that. Your allegedly infallible interpretation of the Bible is the only evidence for that, and as pointed out above real-world evidence shows that to be untrue. Water was water. Gravity was gravity. Water didn't sort fossils in the observed order.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024