|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Nonsense. As I pointed out, murders are one-time events and we have no trouble investigating them scientifically.
If the event isn't repeatable then you have no science and that is the problem with the one-time events of Prehistory. Faith writes:
And witnesses are the worst source of evidence in a murder investigation. Witnesses lie, or they're just mistaken.
Hisotrical events on the other hand often have witnesses which may be written records or even monuments in some cases. Faith writes:
And you were wrong. Your version of 'repeatability' is not a criterion for scientific knowledge.
I was merely tryihng to list the criteria I think allow for scientific knowledge. Faith writes:
Again, it is repeatability of the experiments that is important to science, not repeatability of the events. No scientist, no sensible person, would suggest that you have to be able to repeat a murder or an earthquake to investigate it scientifically. Or a flood. We have floods every year and we investigate them scientifically. Repeatability is one, the famous one of laboratory sciences where you can do experiments over and over to test them in various ways."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
You're shooting a lot of creationists in the foot. They like to claim that, "There should be a lot more fossils," but now you're agreeing with reality. In the case of Adam, we are told he went back to dust. No fossil possible."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Then you'll have to give up the Flood fairy tale. I try to agree with reality."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Is that your best argument? "I know you are but what am I?" However, science claims must be supported in ways other than beliefs.The main story of Noah and the flood has not changed. At least try to link your fairy tale to reality."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Again, you do not get to define science. Nobody cares what you think science is. There is no science in so called sciences that deal in origins. The name is falsely applied."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Scientists get to define science. No one gets to define science...."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Actually, they can. It isn't a definitive test but lack of evidence is a test. You accept that lack of evidence indicates non-existence of fairies, Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns, etc. don't you? Science will never prove nor disprove God nor the Risen Christ because neither of them can be tested. And a hiding God is pretty lame theology too."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I wasn't including people who grasp at any straw to prop up their failed beliefs. Well actually some of us *do* care."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's much worse, rejecting beliefs that are as valid or more valid than your own just because they interfere with the belief that you fell into by accident.
Yes but not on the grounds of lack of evidence. I reject them based on my belief. Phat writes:
Yes I do.
You dont get to define what does and does not *make* God lame. Phat writes:
I'm not. I'm using the accepted definition of evidence.
You also dont get to define evidence over the entire Forum. Phat writes:
Faith and belief is not necessarily a blind rejection of evidence. We have every right to talk about evidence over here. You best stick to the science side should you choose to throw that word around."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Clearly not. You haven't presented a single fact to support your position. All you've done is scoff at science.
I am more interested in truth and actual meanings. dad writes:
You contradict yourself, Mr. Humility-who-knows-more-than-anybody-else. Belief based conclusion are not knowledge or real science, regardless of what some cultish, deluded, self aggrandizing, clueless eggheads may think, in my humble opinion."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
If science doesn't know, who does? If science doesn't know, how did it produce the computer you're looking at? My position is that science does not know."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Did you notice the word "if"? I said IF science doesn't know.... If science doesn't know, it doesn't know and should shut up about it. It does.
dad writes:
I did:
If you claim it does then you should post about it.quote: Did scientists invent computers by using the same methods that you claim don't work? Or did creationists invent computers by reading the Bible? "I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Those examples can not be verified empirically - like the examples of talking bears. Therefore they can not be considered evidence. Except I gave two examples in post 1642."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Science is science whether it has to do with the origin of the earth or the origin of computers. If you claim you did post evidence then give the link. Computers have nothing to do with origins sciences. The question remains: If science is as clueless as you say, how did it come up with computers?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
So you're giving up all claims to what you're saying being science. Good. No one said science could or should be able to verify it either way. Science is far far too small and weak and handicapped to do so."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024