The Flood

[AV1611VET]

You're going to have to come up with your own word. "Taxon" is taken, and means something completely different than what you're describing. Further, there is no formal system involved in your usage of the word.

No --- a taxon is a taxon. And I have stated before that you guys need to pencil these entries into your (man's) taxon in the appropriate spot.

So, for the third time, where did these entries come from?

 

[AV1611VET]

In your imagination.

Fifth time, where did these entries come from?

 

[Naraoia]

Sorry --- this isn't an acceptable answer in light of showing God's taxon.

This was preserved, in writing, by a nation that is proud of their heritage, and used some on this list as a dietary taboo.

Come on.

What does a nation's pride have to do with the accuracy of their tradition? Hungarians for a looong time (some imbecile ones even now) were really proud to believe we came from the conquering Huns, which is complete BS according to historians. National pride does not make any claim truer (except, maybe, an 'I'm proud to be [of nation X]' sort of claim).

Also, taboo lists (am I right in guessing the "hares" were on that list?) don't mean all the items on them existed. Medieval people burned witches. Is that proof that witches really existed?

So I have to ask again, if it didn't come from man, where did it come from?

I don't remember saying "it" (what exactly? The Bible? The fantastical creatures in it?) didn't come from man. I was just opining it probably did.

 

[Naraoia]

No --- a taxon is a taxon. And I have stated before that you guys need to pencil these entries into your (man's) taxon in the appropriate spot.

Before I do anything of the sort I'd first need proof that they existed. An ancient set of books isn't proof.

 

[Blayz]

No --- a taxon is a taxon.

Nice. The ultimate distillation of circular reasoning.

So, for the third time, where did these entries come from?

Well clearly, if a taxon is a taxon, then it follows they came from where they came from.

 

[AV1611VET]

Before I do anything of the sort I'd first need proof that they existed. An ancient set of books isn't proof.

Just because no one has the proof (that supposedly is only for alcohol and mathematics) that only they'll accept, doesn't mean that it came form imaginations or drunks.

 

[Naraoia]

Well clearly, if a taxon is a taxon, then it follows they came from where they came from.

Lethal blow!

By the way, did AV really miss out a number between "the third time" and "the fifth time"?

 

[Naraoia]

Just because no one has the proof (that supposedly is only for alcohol and mathematics) that only they'll accept,...

??? Do you mean that I'm the only one who desires some other sign of leviathans' existence than a few quotes from the Bible? By the way, proof of something's existence is nothing more than a specimen or two of the thing in question.

... doesn't mean that it came form imaginations or drunks.

Agreed, it doesn't necessarily mean that. But given what we know about the creatures of the earth* it's more likely that someone saw something and misinterpreted what they saw than that unicorns and leviathans really exist.

Ever heard of sea bishops?

(If you believe creatures like the one above really exist then I'm going to give this up.)

*And that's over a million described species, all classifiable in a way consistent with the predictions of the common descent hypothesis.

 

[TheBear]

No --- a taxon is a taxon. And I have stated before that you guys need to pencil these entries into your (man's) taxon in the appropriate spot.

First of all, you're not replying to "you guys". You're replying to me. Secondly, "man's taxon" is my point. Come up with your own word. "Taxon" is already taken, and it sounds like you don't understand "man's" usage, of "man's" word, "taxon".

For example -

• your question regarding an "appropriate spot"

• your question regarding where creatures/entities "came from"

Back on topic - I'd like to see the layer of fossils deposited by this global flood. Got anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

*And that's over a million described species, all classifiable in a way consistent with the predictions of the common descent hypothesis.

The Bible doesn't try to hide anything. It's all right there for the whole world to read.

If these animals are in the Bible, then I have to assume they were in the earth as well.

But what's a shame, is that people can't even identify where they come from.

It's not like I'm asking what they look like.

As I have always contended --- and always will until I die --- if people can't get past Genesis 1, they'll never fully understand anything else.

 

[AV1611VET]

Back on topic - I'd like to see the layer of fossils deposited by this global flood. Got anything?

No.

 

[Patashu]

No.

As in, you don't know which layers were put down by the Great Flood and which ones were not?

Could you at least suggest a methodology by which we could find out?

 

[Naraoia]

The Bible doesn't try to hide anything. It's all right there for the whole world to read.

Availability is totally irrelevant with regards to the truth of its claims. And I wasn't suggesting it tried to hide anything. I was suggesting that maybe its writers made (probably honest) mistakes.

If these animals are in the Bible, then I have to assume they were in the earth as well.

Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

As in, you don't know which layers were put down by the Great Flood and which ones were not?

I don't even know what layers were there before the Flood --- let alone, after the Flood.

Could you at least suggest a methodology by which we could find out?

No --- I don't know any.

 

[Patashu]

I don't even know what layers were there before the Flood --- let alone, after the Flood.



No --- I don't know any.

Okay, can the flood hypothesis be falsified in any other way then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, can the flood hypothesis be falsified in any other way then?

I've seen that question before, and I don't quite understand it.

If the Flood could be falsified, then it's false --- right?

It's either true, or it's false.

I drive a green car --- can that be falsified?

Absolutely not --- if it can --- I need laser surgery --- or something.

 

[Patashu]

I've seen that question before, and I don't quite understand it.

If the Flood could be falsified, then it's false --- right?

It's either true, or it's false.

I drive a green car --- can that be falsified?

Absolutely not --- if it can --- I need laser surgery --- or something.

You're confusing falsifiable with false.

A falsifiable claim: The earth is round.
Why is it falsifiable? Because it could, potentially, given certain evidence, be proven false. We know it's true in this universe, but if I made this claim in a flat earth universe I would be wrong, and thus the claim is falsifiable.

Here's why falsifiable claims are important: Unfalsifiable claims predict everything and thus nothing. Think about it; If a claim is unfalsifiable then no possible evidence could refute it, ever, which also means that no particular evidence is neccesary to posit the hypothesis, and thus unfalsifiable claims tell us nothing.
You driving a green car is a falsifiable claim; if I, hypothetically, found that your car was red then the claim would be false.

Basically my question is: Presuming the great flood happen, what would we expect to see different from an otherwise identical Earth in which the great flood did not happen?

 

[Skaloop]

I've seen that question before, and I don't quite understand it.

If the Flood could be falsified, then it's false --- right?

It's either true, or it's false.

I drive a green car --- can that be falsified?

Absolutely not --- if it can --- I need laser surgery --- or something.

I don't think you quite understand what falsification is, and what it implies. At least, based on what you've just said.

If something can be falsified, it doesn't mean that it is false, it just means that there is some method whereby, if it were false, it could be demonstrated as such.

Whether you are driving a green car can indeed be falsified. Through observation, if we see that you are driving a blue car, then that would falsify the idea that you are driving a green car. If we observe you driving a green car, then the idea would not be falsified. Falsification is about a method or the ability of something to be shown to be false.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're confusing falsifiable with false.

A falsifiable claim: The earth is round.
Why is it falsifiable? Because it could, potentially, given certain evidence, be proven false. We know it's true in this universe, but if I made this claim in a flat earth universe I would be wrong, and thus the claim is falsifiable.

Here's why falsifiable claims are important: Unfalsifiable claims predict everything and thus nothing. Think about it; If a claim is unfalsifiable then no possible evidence could refute it, ever, which also means that no particular evidence is neccesary to posit the hypothesis, and thus unfalsifiable claims tell us nothing.
You driving a green car is a falsifiable claim; if I, hypothetically, found that your car was red then the claim would be false.

Huh?

That went over my head!

I drive a green car. How on earth is anyone going to "hypothetically find it red?" If they do, they need laser surgery --- or something.

Basically my question is: Presuming the great flood happen, what would we expect to see different from an otherwise identical Earth in which the great flood did not happen?

That's a good question --- I like it.

Where do I start?

If there were two earths, identical to each other in every detail (let's call them Earth One and Earth Two), and Genesis 6-9 occurred on Earth One, but not Earth Two --- this is what, in my opinion, we would find on Earth Two:

1. A water canopy surrounding it.
2. A race of giants.
3. A universal, tropical climate.
4. No nationalities --- that is, no brown-skinned, black-skinned, etc.
5. Possible overcrowding.
6. Extreme debauchery --- everywhere.
7. Possibly no Grand Canyon.
8. No rainfall --- with the surface being watered by a mist.
9. No rainbows.
10. Dinosaurs roaming the planet.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whether you are driving a green car can indeed be falsified. Through observation, if we see that you are driving a blue car, then that would falsify the idea that you are driving a green car. If we observe you driving a green car, then the idea would not be falsified. Falsification is about a method or the ability of something to be shown to be false.

I still don't quite get it.

Why would you see me in a blue car???

Let me put it as clearly as I can: I drive a green car.

(Is this some kind of metaphysical exercise or something?)