Another Flood Question

[christianforumsuser]

Because I don't have a PhD huh
Or because I don't say what agrees with you
Be careful where your mind and carnal tradition leads you

 

[AV1611VET]

... it could rather end up proving it soon after you celebrate

As soon as I read this, I thought of the Deepwater Horizon, where they were in the act of celebrating when nature caught up with them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nice one on Netflix right now... "Is Genesis History?"

I don't use Netflix, but I checked IMDb and found only actors and self-declared creationists appeared to be involved, and the comments... speak for themselves.

But creationism isn't science, even if creationist organizations like to put 'research' in their names and claim to be doing science. This isn't just me expressing a biased opinion - the organizations themselves make it clear in their principles (Institute for Creation Research) and statements of belief (Creation Research Society), by explicitly stating what they a-priori believe to be the case, and that therefore determines what the results of their 'research' can and cannot show.

In case you weren't aware, this isn't how science is done, and someone following those principles in a relevant discipline isn't a scientist in that context, whatever their qualifications.

The objective of science is not to try find evidence for, and fit data to, a set of a-priori beliefs; it is to try to describe, model, explain, and understand the world we observe as best we can. The only a-priori requirement of science is (roughly) an objective reality that displays measurable regularities or patterns of behaviour.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Science can't prove a negative.

That's just false.

In as much as science 'proves' anything (i.e. demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt), it relies to a large extent on the principle - it's called falsifiability.

If a claim is testable, i.e. predicts observable consequences (e.g. the claim that there's an elephant in my bedroom predicts that there's an elephant in my bedroom; the claim of a global flood predicts that there will be evidence of a global flood), then the absence of those consequences falsifies the claim, proving the negative (beyond reasonable doubt).

Typically, when scriptural claims are falsified, special pleading follows.

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't use Netflix, but I checked IMDb and found only actors and self-declared creationists appeared to be involved, and the comments... speak for themselves.

But creationism isn't science, even if creationist organizations like to put 'research' in their names and claim to be doing science. This isn't just me expressing a biased opinion - the organizations themselves make it clear in their principles (Institute for Creation Research) and statements of belief (Creation Research Society), by explicitly stating what they a-priori believe to be the case, and that therefore determines what the results of their 'research' can and cannot show.

In case you weren't aware, this isn't how science is done, and someone following those principles in a relevant discipline isn't a scientist in that context, whatever their qualifications.

The objective of science is not to try find evidence for, and fit data to, a set of a-priori beliefs; it is to try to describe, model, explain, and understand the world we observe as best we can. The only a-priori requirement of science is (roughly) an objective reality that displays measurable regularities or patterns of behaviour.

I think they probably understood that masking or trying to hide their personal beliefs would not be appropriate. I'm not representing the movie (not hiding my belief either); I just thought it made good points and defended them well... but you'll have to watch it objectively to be the judge of that.

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't use Netflix, but I checked IMDb and found only actors and self-declared creationists appeared to be involved, and the comments... speak for themselves.

Apparently they were well-educated actors... I saw a lot of Phds listed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently they were well-educated actors... I saw a lot of Phds listed.

A Phd is largely useless outside of the area of one's expertise. The question is what were there Phd's in and have they published any of their work in creationism through the process of peer review. They haven't of course. To put a Halloween perspective on it, peer review is like Holy Water is to Dracula, garlic to the Wolfman. Creationists can't deal with it.

 

[inquiring mind]

A Phd is largely useless outside of the area of one's expertise. The question is what were there Phd's in and have they published any of their work in creationism through the process of peer review. They haven't of course. To put a Halloween perspective on it, peer review is like Holy Water is to Dracula, garlic to the Wolfman. Creationists can't deal with it.

Looked like PhDs in everything from biology to astronomy (discussing how light could have gotten here if we're a young planet)... but, that still won't make a difference if they're Creationists will it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science can't prove a negative.

That's just false.

Prove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looked like PhDs in everything from biology to astronomy (discussing how light could have gotten here if we're a young planet)... but, that still won't make a difference if they're Creationists will it?

If one is a science denier then you are right. And that is all that you seem to have. Failed scientists and science deniers are never very impressive.

By the way, you should try to learn why we know that the Earth is old. I can show you one picture that cannot be explained by the flood. The flood is such a ridiculous idea that only the most twisted of "scientists" support it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Prove it.

He did. You showed that he did by dishonestly editing his post. If you make such a demand when the post already satisfied your demand you are not being honest.


Whenever there is any doubt about whether you are editing out a key part of a post that you are responding to the wiser course of action to take is to quote the entire post. That is why I rarely edit posts that I quote. I will quote them warts and all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whenever there is any doubt about whether you are editing out a key part of a post that you are responding to the wiser course of action to take is to quote the entire post. That is why I rarely edit posts that I quote. I will quote them warts and all.

But won't that cause confusion as to what part of the post you are responding to?

 

[inquiring mind]

If one is a science denier then you are right. And that is all that you seem to have. Failed scientists and science deniers are never very impressive.

By the way, you should try to learn why we know that the Earth is old. I can show you one picture that cannot be explained by the flood. The flood is such a ridiculous idea that only the most twisted of "scientists" support it.

They don't appear to be denying science to me; they apparently just see it in a different way than you do. Seemed pretty impressive to me, but yes, all I've got is faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But won't that cause confusion as to what part of the post you are responding to?

It only takes the least amount of effort to make it clear. Instead you tried to obfuscate at best. He explained how, and you ignored it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They don't appear to be denying science to me; they apparently just see it in a different way than you do. Seemed pretty impressive to me, but yes, all I've got is faith.

You could always try to educate yourself. It is never to late to do that. Ask questions politely and properly here and you will get answers. There are active biologists, geologists, and physicists that post at this forum. They and others can help you to learn.

 

[inquiring mind]

You could always try to educate yourself. It is never to late to do that. Ask questions politely and properly here and you will get answers. There are active biologists, geologists, and physicists that post at this forum. They and others can help you to learn.

That's why I'm still talking with you... it's not working yet though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's why I'm still talking with you... it's not working yet though.

Then try to ask some reasonable questions. Or you could look into the history of geology for a starter. The layers of rocks that we see today are still being deposited by the same processes. We know the rates of those processes. We also know what flood deposits look like. They do not look like the vast majority of the geologic column.

Meanwhile this is a favorite picture of mine, no flood believer has been able to explain how this was formed, but it is fairly obvious with a bare minimum amount of knowledge of geology:

Here is the article that I copied it from, you can click on it to enlarge it. Then you can click on it again to make it HUGE:

Goosenecks State Park - Wikipedia

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sister,

All I want you to take away from everything I wrote is this:

God is real, He loves you, He gave His Son as a sacrifice to save you, to pay the price for your sins.

The devil is real and is defeated by the cross Jesus Christ bore for the sins of man, however the devil is going to try and take with him, to his doom, all he can by his malice towards God and man.

Be free from evil and believe in Jesus Christ and be with God in love and life forever, there is no other God besides Him, no other life.

God raised Jesus Christ and Glorified Him at His right hand, He is our Lord of Lords and King of Kings, there is no other by which we can be saved.

-_- did you just quote me as "..." to avoid actually addressing anything said in my post?

 

[inquiring mind]

Then try to ask some reasonable questions. Or you could look into the history of geology for a starter. The layers of rocks that we see today are still being deposited by the same processes. We know the rates of those processes. We also know what flood deposits look like. They do not look like the vast majority of the geologic column.

Meanwhile this is a favorite picture of mine, no flood believer has been able to explain how this was formed, but it is fairly obvious with a bare minimum amount of knowledge of geology:

Here is the article that I copied it from, you can click on it to enlarge it. Then you can click on it again to make it HUGE:

Goosenecks State Park - Wikipedia

Makes a good statement... are you sure no competent person, other than Peter (2 Peter 3: 4-8) would offer an explanation of some kind? Or is a little bit of water and a whole lot of time the only answer?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is sad to recount that I have met, or talked on line to people who were unaware that the moon could be seen during the day. Presumably they invest their attention on not being run over when crossing a street.

-_- I just can't understand people never noticing the moon out during the day. Especially not with the recent solar eclipse hype in the United States.