Ancient Spear Points Found In Texas Could Rewrite Early American History

[Subduction Zone]

Not really wanting to discuss this, are you?

You have already been shown to be wrong so many times there really is not any point in doing so.

 

[Tolworth John]

The Ark was above the law.

No the ark was built under the laws of physics etc.

The arks design has been tested by nautical engineers who gave it the thumbs up.

 

[AV1611VET]

The arks design has been tested by nautical engineers who gave it the thumbs up.

If nautical engineers tested the Ark's design and gave it the thumbs up, then those engineers need glasses, in my opinion.

JackRT made an excellent point:

A ship that size held together with pitch would collapse under its own weight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No the ark was built under the laws of physics etc.

The arks design has been tested by nautical engineers who gave it the thumbs up.

That is not true. At the very best you can only find valid articles that say that an under filled Ark could float. That an object could float in calm waters does not mean that it is seaworthy.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is not true. At the very best you can only find valid articles that say that an under filled Ark could float. That an object could float in calm waters does not mean that it is seaworthy.

I'd like to see someone build anything using just wood and pitch.

I suppose a popsicle house would do it ... but Noah's Ark?

It would take a miracle!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd like to see someone build anything using just wood and pitch.

I suppose a popsicle house would do it ... but Noah's Ark?

It would take a miracle!

And even miracles fail. Thanks for making my point for me again.

 

[Tolworth John]

That is not true. At the very best you can only find valid articles that say that an under filled Ark could float. That an object could float in calm waters does not mean that it is seaworthy.

Engineers have done the maths on various possible designs of the ark and have also performed test on models of these designs in test tanks.

In simple words the ark has been tested and proved to be seaworthy.
you can reaD ABOUT IT IN A cHRISTIAN ARTICLE PRODUCED BY cHRISTIAN ENGINEERS AT Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway - creation.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Engineers have done the maths on various possible designs of the ark and have also performed test on models of these designs in test tanks.

In simple words the ark has been tested and proved to be seaworthy.
you can reaD ABOUT IT IN A cHRISTIAN ARTICLE PRODUCED BY cHRISTIAN ENGINEERS AT Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway - creation.com

Please try to find a legitimate site. A site that requires their workers to swear not to use the scientific method can never be valid in a scientific debate.

 

[Tolworth John]

Please try to find a legitimate site. A site that requires their workers to swear not to use the scientific method can never be valid in a scientific debate.

Evidence for that statement please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence for that statement please.

No problem. First you must demonstrate that you have some understanding of the scientific method. Are you willing?

 

[Tolworth John]

No problem. First you must demonstrate that you have some understanding of the scientific method. Are you willing?

You said' A site that requires their workers to swear not to use the scientific method.'

So it is a simple matter for you to copy and past the relevent statement from the creation.com site.

That you are going off at a tangent and asking wheather I understand the scientic method is irrelevent, except as evidence that you cannot back up your statement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said' A site that requires their workers to swear not to use the scientific method.'

So it is a simple matter for you to copy and past the relevent statement from the creation.com site.

That you are going off at a tangent and asking wheather I understand the scientic method is irrelevent, except as evidence that you cannot back up your statement.

Too many creationists do not understand what the scientific method is in the first place so it is paramount that you understand the concept.

By the way, that you resist such a simple and reasonable request does not nice well for you. It indicates that you will excuse lying not it is done for what you deem to be a worthy cause. Do you wish to learn why we know that they are a dishonest and dishonorable source or not?

 

[Tolworth John]

By the way, that you resist such a simple and reasonable request does not nice well for you. It indicates that you will excuse lying not it is done for what you deem to be a worthy cause. Do you wish to learn why we know that they are a dishonest and dishonorable source or not?

My ability to understand the scientific method or to evaluate evidence is irrelevent.

You are the one who made an accusation and are reluctant to provide evidence that supports your accusation.
The reasonable conclusion from this is that you cannot supstansiate your claim and are trying to distracte me with silly claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My ability to understand the scientific method or to evaluate evidence is irrelevent.

You are the one who made an accusation and are reluctant to provide evidence that supports your accusation.
The reasonable conclusion from this is that you cannot supstansiate your claim and are trying to distracte me with silly claims.

Sorry, but this excuse won't fly. By running away from showing that you understand the basics you also remove yourself from this debate.

And please, no false claims about me. I am not reluctant to support my claims. You are unwilling to be reasonable. If you had been you would have had your explanation by now. But let me help you. Here is an image of a flow chart for the scientific method:

Do you have any problems with this?

 

[Tolworth John]

Do you have any problems with this?

One problem in that it makes no question about ones presuppersitions apart from that no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One problem in that it makes no question about ones presuppersitions apart from that no.

What "presuppersitions<sic>"?

At any rate do you see anywhere in that chart that one can assume that one is right no matter what? For example if a scientist claimed that evolution was right no matter what the evidence said would it fit into the scientific method?

 

[Tolworth John]

What "presuppersitions<sic>"?

At any rate do you see anywhere in that chart that one can assume that one is right no matter what? For example if a scientist claimed that evolution was right no matter what the evidence said would it fit into the scientific method?

And a scientist with a bias towards believing evolution is correct should be aware of that bias and make allowance for it when assessing evidence that does not support evolution.

Just as I am aware of my bias towards belief in God and am aware of it when reading articles that are antigod.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And a scientist with a bias towards believing evolution is correct should be aware of that bias and make allowance for it when assessing evidence that does not support evolution.

Just as I am aware of my bias towards belief in God and am aware of it when reading articles that are antigod.

Please, do not try to claim that the sins of creationists are practiced by real scientists. Can you honestly answer the questions give to you here? You are demonstrating that you are the one with a bias.

Also you do understand the concept of evidence. Read my sig, that is not my definition that is the common definition used in the sciences. If an observation supports a testable theory or hypothesis it si by definition evidence for that theory or hypothesis. If the observation opposes it then it is evidence against that theory or hypothesis. It is that simple. No bias exists when one uses that definition. You are again trying to claim that scientists are guilty of the wrong doings of creationists.

Getting back to the question that you dodged, if a scientist claimed that evolution was true no matter what the evidence said would he be following the scientific method or not? This is a yes or no question.

 

[Tolworth John]

if a scientist claimed that evolution was true no matter what the evidence said would he be following the scientific method or not?

If a scientist claimed evoultion was true, when he had evidence that it was not true. He would not be following the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a scientist claimed evoultion was true, when he had evidence that it was not true. He would not be following the evidence.

Very good. Would he be following the scientific method?