If Noah had 1 of every kind on his boat..

Buho · #61 19th July 2005, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by random_guy

However, if it's unexplainable, then we can't consider it to be scientific. That means the argument dies right there. When you add God to science, any evidence that is brought up, a God card could be played to slap it. down. There nothing we can do to prove that the flood didn't occur. However, that also means that there's nothing you can do to prove it did occur.

What does this all mean? You can have faith that the flood happened, the Earth is 6000 years old, etc, etc etc, however, it's not scientific. It shouldn't be taught in schools, and only the current scientific theories should be taught (old Earth, evolution, etc...).

On a side note, it doesn't just **** the atheists off, it **** any scientists off.

Guy, you highlighted an important point.

Are you saying the global flood that God created (Genesis 6:7: So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; Genesis 6:17: [God said] I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens) did not happen just because it isn't "scientific?"

Are you saying to substitute our young-earth origins with untrue theories in school just because the theories are scientific and give upcoming scientists a stable ground to practice scientific methods on? Shouldn't students be taught truth over science?

What does this all mean? The Flood happened. It can't be proven (not enough biblical details on what exactly God did to isolate natural from supernatural), and it can't be disproven (too much physical evidence was destroyed). What's the matter with teaching the Theory of Noah's Flood in geological science? After all, testing lies in unreachable history, it can't be repeated, and therefore can't be proven. Make it a theory. I heard from a non-Christian scientist somewhere that historical sciences aren't really a science anyway, simply because experiments can't be repeated.

(As a side note, I didn't know a synonym for "annoy" got censored.)

random_guy · #62 19th July 2005, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Buho

Guy, you highlighted an important point.

Are you saying the global flood that God created (Genesis 6:7: So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; Genesis 6:17: [God said] I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens) did not happen just because it isn't "scientific?"

Are you saying to substitute our young-earth origins with untrue theories in school just because the theories are scientific and give upcoming scientists a stable ground to practice scientific methods on? Shouldn't students be taught truth over science?

What does this all mean? The Flood happened. It can't be proven (not enough biblical details on what exactly God did to isolate natural from supernatural), and it can't be disproven (too much physical evidence was destroyed). What's the matter with teaching the Theory of Noah's Flood in geological science? After all, testing lies in unreachable history, it can't be repeated, and therefore can't be proven. Make it a theory. I heard from a non-Christian scientist somewhere that historical sciences aren't really a science anyway, simply because experiments can't be repeated.

(As a side note, I didn't know a synonym for "annoy" got censored.)

No, I'm not saying that it didn't happen. I'm saying that scientifically, there's no evidence of the Flood. Since we base our science classes off of science, then it shouldn't be included in any science class. This is an important distinction. You're free to teach whatever you want to teach to your kids. However, you need to do it in private, not in public schools.

The Flood can't be proven. It takes faith to believe in the Flood (and lots of it, because the evidence is stacked against the Flood). There's no scientific theory of the flood (and there never will be) as long as God or the supernatural is included in any way. This prevents it from ever being taught in schools.

Current geology, however, does have evidence. You don't need to be able to recreate/observe the event in order for it to be considered scientific. What we can do is observe the evidence for the event. Much like a murder scene, we can find evidence in sediment layers, radioactive dating, tree rings, etc.... This is real evidence that has no supernatural intervention. This is the difference between geology and the flood.

As for the final comment, if that person really was a scientist, he'd be a bad one. We can't create a star (yet) nor can we create a supernova. Are theories of these objects bunk? Is it possible to convict people of murder scientifically because we can't repeat the murder?

Mechanical Bliss · #63 19th July 2005, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by Buho

Guy, you highlighted an important point.

Are you saying the global flood that God created (Genesis 6:7: So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth; Genesis 6:17: [God said] I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens) did not happen just because it isn't "scientific?"

Apparently you did not read his post with any meaningful level of comprehension. He said that if it is deliberately unexplanable and deliberately unevidenced yet supposed to be considered true, it is not scientific.

Just because a concept is unscientific does not mean it did not happen, but that does not mean it did either. Science is devised precisely to overcome this flawed thinking you are using.

Are you saying to substitute our young-earth origins with untrue theories in school just because the theories are scientific and give upcoming scientists a stable ground to practice scientific methods on? Shouldn't students be taught truth over science?

Obviously not considering what you claim to be "true" is simply not true at all.

If you want YECism taught in schools, then the onus is on you to disprove modern geological claims and substantiate your own position. Until you do, you have no basis to claim to monopolize "truth" or teach this nonsense in schools.

What does this all mean? The Flood happened.

There is evidence that is incompatible with this assertion, therefore it did not happen.

It can't be proven (not enough biblical details on what exactly God did to isolate natural from supernatural),

Then you have no basis to claim that it happened in the first place.

and it can't be disproven (too much physical evidence was destroyed).

It is falsifiable, actually, given some of your claims.

What's the matter with teaching the Theory of Noah's Flood in geological science?

Are you being deliberately obstinate here? You said it yourself!

You claim that the assertions of YECism are not substantiated, not falsifiable, and not scientific. By your own claims there is a significant problem with teaching that as science. If you don't understand that, there is a serious problem.

After all, testing lies in unreachable history, it can't be repeated, and therefore can't be proven. Make it a theory. I heard from a non-Christian scientist somewhere that historical sciences aren't really a science anyway, simply because experiments can't be repeated.

Observations can be repeated as can scenarios that produce given observations. Your understanding of science, even on a basic level, is lacking.

LittleNipper · #64 19th July 2005, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by random_guy

I think what scientists say isn't so much that it's impossible, but that all the evidence suggests that it isn't likely. Of course, if you'd like to put up a theory about the salinity, ph levels, and mineral content of the flood waters and how certain plants require a very specific range of these parameters regrew, feel free.

What "evidence!" What they do is form their own conclusions. I believe the Genesis account. It really is people like yourself that question Genesis with applied speculation and really have no intent to investigate the scientific research and facts that they claim to rely on. Whenever Creationists begin to do a study, they are accused of resting in the Bible. It seems to me that even "Christian" evolutionists rest in agnostic presumption...

The fact is that while it rained for 40 days, the entire world was not covered from day one of the FLOOD. The fact is that vegitation floats. The fact is that vegitation could be buried and re-exposed. The fact is we do not know how salty the sea once was and a slow process may have permitted marine life to become acclimated. Fact is we know that species of plants did die out. I see no reason that the FLOOD could not have been the trigger...

Timius · #65 19th July 2005, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

..

"acclimate" in 40 days? sure...

random_guy · #66 19th July 2005, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

What "evidence!" What they do is form their own conclusions. I believe the Genesis account. It really is people like yourself that question Genesis with applied speculation and really have no intent to investigate the scientific research and facts that they claim to rely on. Whenever Creationists begin to do a study, they are accused of resting in the Bible. It seems to me that even "Christian" evolutionists rest in agnostic presumption...

The fact is that while it rained for 40 days, the entire world was not covered from day one of the FLOOD. The fact is that vegitation floats. The fact is that vegitation could be buried and re-exposed. The fact is we do not know how salty the sea once was and a slow process may have permitted marine life to become acclimated. Fact is we know that species of plants did die out. I see no reason that the FLOOD could not have been the trigger...

Bolded the important part. What evidence do you present that any of this occurred other than ad-hoc?

Buho · #67 19th July 2005, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by MB

Originally Posted by Buho

It can't be proven (not enough biblical details on what exactly God did to isolate natural from supernatural),

Then you have no basis to claim that it happened in the first place.

Yes I do. Sadly you don't.

That's not a one-liner comeback. I mean it.

By the way, I read through your Hawaiian Islands thread. Isn't there some doubt over K-Ar dating? Google brought this up as a first hit when searching for "radiometric dating" "k-ar". I just searched for that because I remember reading about it a while ago. I'm sure there's a thread here dedicated to just that, but supposing K-Ar could be shown to be unreliable, then wouldn't that mean the Hawaiian Islands could not further be used as evidence against the Flood? (Not proving evidence for the Flood, of course.)

Jimmy The Hand · #68 19th July 2005, 05:43 PM

I'll let someone else handle the dating thing.

I'm just waiting for someone to explain to me how a wooden boat of that size with NO METAL REINFORCEMENTS didn't leak like a sieve. Even when it was empty. Gosh knows it would have just went straight under once lord knows how many animals were loaded on it.

Everything we know about construction and engineering says this type of construction is impossible. Is there any explanation for this impossibility other than divine intervention?

random_guy · #69 19th July 2005, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Buho

Yes I do. Sadly you don't.

That's not a one-liner comeback. I mean it.

By the way, I read through your Hawaiian Islands thread. Isn't there some doubt over K-Ar dating? Google brought this up as a first hit when searching for "radiometric dating" "k-ar". I just searched for that because I remember reading about it a while ago. I'm sure there's a thread here dedicated to just that, but supposing K-Ar could be shown to be unreliable, then wouldn't that mean the Hawaiian Islands could not further be used as evidence against the Flood? (Not proving evidence for the Flood, of course.)

Well, the problem with the link is it doesn't give all the details involved.

from TalkOrigins:

In the case of the claim about recent lava yielding dates that are millions to billions of years old, H. M. Morris (1974) misstated the facts concerning these "anomalous" dates as published in Funkhouser and Naughton (1968). The main misstatements of fact by Morris are as follows:

It was not the lava that was dated, but inclusions of olivine, called "xenoliths", present within the lava. These gave anomalously old age because they contained excess argon that the enclosing lava did not.

Morris failed to mention that the lava matrix without the xenoliths was dated and found to be too young to date using potassium-argon. (Funkhouser and Naughton [1968, 4603], stated that the matrix rock "can be said to contain no measurable radiogenic argon within experimental error.") This is consistent with the recent age of lavas and the state of the art of K-Ar dating at that time. The presence of excess argon was only a problem for the xenoliths but not for the lava containing them.

Morris cited other examples of anomalous dates produced by excess argon and falsely claimed that it is a universal problem for K-Ar dating. The problem is not universal, as the majority of minerals and rocks dated by K-Ar do not contain the excess argon. Where excess argon is a problem, accurate, reliable dates typically can be obtained using 40Ar/39Ar dating, as demonstrated by Dalrymple (1969) and Renne et al. (1997) and discussed by Dalyrmple (2000).

While I don't pretend to know everything about radioactive dating (it's a lot more complicated than P=Ae^(rt)), I have trust in the scientists that they know what they're doing. While you might say that my trust is based on faith, it's no more based on faith then when I go to my doctor for a check up.

Scientists will expose the errors of other scientists. In fact, they take delight in doing so. However, when AIG or ICR is shown to have false information, very seldom will they remove it.

z3ro · #70 19th July 2005, 05:49 PM

The real problem, I think, with the ark story is the necassary lack of divine intervention. After all, I god could protect the ark from the storms, then why make storms at all? Why tell Noah to build the boat, why tell Noah to gather the animals? Why not just make it magically happen?

This leads, of course, to the problem that without divine intervention, how did all this happen? My wife is a zookeeper; she works at a smaller zoo, and they have just under two hundered animals. They have thirteen staff members to care for the animals, and usually have anywhere from five to eight on a shift at one time. They are a little overstaffed for the work they have to do, and could problably work four on a shift, but certainly not less.

Let's take that to the flood story; we have eight works, with signifigantly more than two hundred animals(by the lowest estimates) who had to be taken care of in less than ideal conditions. How did they manage? Is there any explanation that doesn't involve a miracle? I mean, my wife studied for six years to get where she is, these primitive people had no training. Is there any explanation that doesn't become ridiculous by the second word?