- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Is Flood Geology Falsifiable?
- Thread starter Loudmouth
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
No, I do not --- but look at it this way: Who is the only one who could have?
Upvote
0
Paulos23
Never tell me the odds!
- Mar 23, 2005
- 8,427
- 4,781
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Wrong question. You should be asking what evidence do I have that a global flood happen. When you can prove that it happened, regardless of where the water came from or how many animals where put on the ark, then we can talk about if God had his hand in it.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Except it doesn't settle it, since you haven't established that God either exists or authored the Bible!
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Indeed. And this makes me think you probably haven't established it at all since, if you had, you should be able to at the very least have a good crack at it.
I mean, you're welcome to try, but in the past you don't seem to have been very amenable to that.
Upvote
0
thaumaturgy
Well-Known Member
Would you use the same "higher standard" to establish it that you hold science to?
I know this will shock you, but most of us atheists did our homework long before we met you, AV.
Frankly if you were to tell me the sky was blue...after reading your version of this "higher standard" you hold evidentiary issues like science to...I'd still run out and check for myself.
Upvote
0
Would it be fair to say that there is no potential observation that would be inconsistent with a global flood according to your views?
Upvote
0
ralphSpoilsport
Member
One rarely sees flood proponents stopped in their tracks like this!
AV's posts are so lame their not even wrong!
Well done!
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
As far as I know, there should be nothing outside of the Bible that points to a global flood[sup]*[/sup]. If there are things outside of the Bible that point against a global flood - they need reinterpreting.
* This is only because I believe what scientists are telling me. Should evidence be found later that confirms a global flood, then I'll change my stance as well, and say God didn't clean it up.
Upvote
0
It's a simple yes/no. Is there any potential evidence that could falsify the existence of a recent global flood?
You seem to be indicating that you would not accept any evidence that contradicts your conclusion, so I am assuming your answer would be "no" to the question above.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
You assume correctly --- no, there is not. I've never discussed "potential evidence" with anyone. I've discussed "evidence" --- like supposedly Chinese and Egyptian records predating the Flood, but I have never discussed "potential evidence" --- whatever that is.
Upvote
0
"Potential evidence" means "what one would expect to find". It's a simple concept.
Say, for instance, that you claim someone was shot and murdered. If this were true you would expect a gun shot wound, correct? You would also NOT expect knife wounds and a complete lack of gun shot wounds, correct? This is no different. If there was a recent global flood what types of sediments would you expect to find and what types of sediments would you not expect?
However, you have already stated that your views are dogmatic, not based on evidence. This is a bit different than the scenario I put forth in the OP. I was talking more to the people who claim that their experience with the evidence has led them to the conclusion that there was a global flood. If someone claims that a global flood is evidenced then they must have some idea of what should not be there. Otherewise they are claiming that every single possible observation is consistent with a global flood. If this were the case then why even look at the evidence? Why even claim that evidence supports a global flood when no possible evidence could contradict it?
Upvote
0
thaumaturgy
Well-Known Member
Potential evidence is how we know we are talking about science.
You remember science, right? That thing you "hold to a higher standard"?
Part of a higher standard is that if you come up with an hypothesis (or you read it somewhere, like in a book or the bible), then if it really is worth anything to anyone then you can generate a possible means by which it could be disproven if it were false.
If I hypothesize that there is an elephant living in my fridge it is reasonable for me to say "If I open the fridge and I see no elephant then I know I am mistaken."
It is not kosher to open the fridge, see the various foods and no elephant for me to then say "Oh, I meant it might be an invisible 'nano-elephant' that is completely invisible!"
It is part of "rules" that make science useful. If you just pitch the rules then anything goes.
If I sell you a medicine to cure some disease and in fact it then makes the disease worse are you going to be sanguine if I say "Oh, by 'cure' I mean at first make the disease worse for you, then eliminate the disease but replace it with a completely unrelated, but virtually identical set of symptoms which are as bad or worse than the original disease!" How many more doses can I sell you today?
I know these are subtleties you may not follow, but if you think about them, perhaps you'll see what a "higher standard in science" ACTUALLY is.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,216
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I have never addressed your OP. If you'd like me to bow out of the thread, I'll be happy to do so.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
