Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Creationist: But you see if there was a global flood then x, y, or z would have to have happened! Everyone else: You don't realize, there never was a global flood.
*everyone else refutes x, y, and z repeatedly* Creationist: Give me the proof there never was a global flood! Everyone else: OK. Here's exhibit A. Creationist: Why... that has to be skewed because I know there was a global flood! Everyone else: Skewed? Do you think it's a conspiracy by millions of scientists over 200 years that they haven't found a single shred of evidence for the global flood? Creationist: Of course it is! They want to take god out of the world! Everyone else: No that's not the case... Here's exhibit B if you want. Creationist: But wait. *repeats original claims x, y, and/or z* So there! Everyone else: Didn't you see we refuted that ages ago! Creationist: So there, there really was a global flood! Everyone else: You're not listening are you? Creationist: Because the grand canyon had to be cut in a year! Everyone else: What?... wait... just answer me this... do you have any extrabiblical evidence that hasn't been refuted?
*thus continues a cycle of PRATTs*
First we explore the limits of the box, then we get a better idea of how they got it wrong.
First we explore the limits of the box, then we get a better idea of how they got it wrong.
Definition of Irony:
Assertion:
Dad claims that others cannot think outside of the box, and thus can't see how they got anything wrong.
The Reality:
Dad has not done any research on anything, and bases all of his conclusions on blind assumption. Thus, he is himself in a box and refuses to see how to think outside of it so that he may realize that he is wrong.
Dad has not done any research on anything, and bases all of his conclusions on blind assumption
You only say blind, because you can't see it, and assume it is assumption. Research need not be limited only to the physical. Box research can be interpreted properly when you have more pieces to the puzzle also.
Since salt is water soluble, I imagine the waters under the earth were salty. Maybe underground rivers carried it like sediment and dropped it here and there leaving thick deposits in places. But that assumes salt existed in some form before it entered into the water. It could be salt was carried to the surface by underground water and then it got into the sea.
The limestone layers would suggest carbonates were also carried to the surface and dropped. The crinoid layers would suggest these creatures lived and died underground. Also gastropods and coral polyps lived there.
Dad, if it's not falsifiable it's not science. That's why the supernatural will never be considered a scientific answer, and that's why God is never a scientific answer.
__________________ Come check out my podcast!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Current Reading:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dad, if it's not falsifiable it's not science. That's why the supernatural will never be considered a scientific answer, and that's why God is never a scientific answer.
Well then the Bible is better than science because the Bible is truth and truth isn't falsifiable.
You only say blind, because you can't see it, and assume it is assumption. Research need not be limited only to the physical. Box research can be interpreted properly when you have more pieces to the puzzle also.
You fail to see how the supernatural cannot, and will never be Science.
Science deals with what we can know, what we can see, observe, test, or measure. You cannot measure spirits, you cannot see them, test them, observe them, or even make predictions about them. You can make predictions with science - like predicting where the stars and the planets will be in the future, or predicting the force of gravity with a given mass or even predict how life will work with evolution.
You cannot do this with the supernatural. You cannot say that x circumstances at y time will always yield a spirit. You cannot determine the mass of a spirit, you cannot measure a ghost, and you cannot state anything specific about a god, gods, or even demi-gods because their very definition transcends what is measurable and testable.
A god is in the realm of omnipotence. It can do very well whatever it wants to do hypothetically speaking. You need not apply any science to it or anything like that because it's all faith. For example, in the real world you can predict that objects will behave a certain way or have certain forces exerted on them in a closed system. (Newtonian physics). When you invoke the supernatural, you cannot invoke any rules whatsoever. A god, or creator with omnipotence can do whatever they desire, so how can you place any rules on it all?
This is why there is a sharp difference between science and 'pseudoscience' (read: what is not science).
And I wish, for the love of sanity, that you'd finally get this into your thick skull.
After all, if we are to invoke the supernatural, then I'm going to have to invent (since I don't believe in one) a god which invalidates yours, and which can actually be supported by physical evidence.
Oh wait, theistic evolutionists already do that and they believe in the same god you do. They're just willing to step outside of the box of arrogance and ignorance to complement their faith with god with the knowledge and wisdom of science.
Well then the Bible is better than science because the Bible is truth and truth isn't falsifiable.
With Atheists, you know they're kidding. With Christians, you just go . Now, you have no faith icon, so I'm not sure. However, based on your posting history, .
Why fight about what is better, the Bible or Science? Why make that false dichotomy? If you do that, I'm positive this will drive a lot of people away from Christianity. If I were forced to choose between science and the Bible, I would not be a Christian*.
*What I mean is, if you asked me, I had to believe in a world-wide flood to be a Christian, even though every single scientific evidence points against it, I would be rational and choose science over fundy Christianity.
Last edited by random_guy; 13th May 2005 at 03:48 AM.
. Now, you have no faith icon, so I'm not sure. However, based on your posting history, 
Linear Mode
