Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,133 Year: 5,390/9,624 Month: 415/323 Week: 55/204 Day: 31/24 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Impossibility Of The Flood
Zucadragon
Member
Posts: 113
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 7 of 100 (463404)
04-16-2008 8:58 AM


In simple terms, basically what you are argueing is:
Creationists want to see the flood as a miracle that was done by god but because they have scientific standards to hold to they want to explain it scientifically.
Yet they dont realize that if the flood happened and it is scientifically explained... Then there is no god factor involved anymore, because the explenation will be a natural one.
So even if they turn out to be right, it will leave no way for them to point to god and say "he did it".

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 04-16-2008 1:01 PM Zucadragon has not replied

Zucadragon
Member
Posts: 113
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 34 of 100 (464457)
04-25-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
04-25-2008 3:41 PM


I think this is partially a reverse argument from assumed authority.
Basically it is not accepted in science to let someones opinion, (no matter how high or low in popularity ranking that person is) be the evidence used for some kind of theory.
Thats an argument of authority as you well know of course
But it works the other way around as well, and thats saying that creationists attempts (though falsified through science) are already falsified because their personal belief links their results to a god.
This despite the articles not linking to god at all but only to the topic of a flood in correlation with the bible.
So I'm thinking that might be called a reverse argument from assumed authority, where god is assumed to be the authority behind the research and thus the research is wrong because its unscientific

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 04-25-2008 3:41 PM Percy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024