Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Impossibility Of The Flood
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2218 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 8 of 100 (463412)
04-16-2008 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zucadragon
04-16-2008 8:58 AM


In simple terms, basically what you are arguing 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".
Creationists want the miracle to be confirmed by science -- that is, they want the scientific evidence to confirm their beliefs and give them the credibility of science.
But when science shows that the evidence for a global flood about 4,350 years ago is totally lacking, they don't want to believe what science has found.
It is a case of accepting only positive results and ignoring or denying any negative results. Creation "science" at its best!
Edited by Coyote, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zucadragon, posted 04-16-2008 8:58 AM Zucadragon has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2218 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 64 of 100 (561120)
05-18-2010 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Buzsaw
05-18-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Application Of Natural Events
As for the flood, the natural effect of a meteor hit the magnitude of the K T event strike would (naturally) cool the atmosphere. We know there was this meteor event at some time. You can fault me for my reasons of rejecting the dating of the event...
You are off by about 63 million years. Yes, that is something we can fault you for.
You are cherry picking from billions of years, looking for events that you can attribute to this flood.
But your story doesn't form a consistent whole. You have to ignore too much data, and manipulate too many events in your efforts to support the flood story.
The "minor" problem of a 63 million year difference in dating is one example.
Sorry, it just doesn't fly.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 05-18-2010 11:36 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2010 10:08 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2218 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 84 of 100 (561217)
05-19-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
05-19-2010 12:23 PM


Re: Application Of Natural Events
No. Not correct. All that is there is debatable and remains the ongoing debate in the science arena, according to premise and thesis of interpretation of the geological/biological data observed. Both camps apply the same data in determinations.
Wrong; creationists have to ignore a huge amount of data that does not fit their a priori beliefs, and they have to distort and misrepresent still more data.
And that's not enough; they also have to deny much of science (as that is what you folks do when you make your silly claims about dating).
Your claim to "apply the same data" is false. Creation "science" is religious apologetics, the exact opposite of real science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2010 12:23 PM Buzsaw 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