Another Flood Question

[AV1611VET]

It is nothing more than a matter of classification.

And it was classified as reality, was it not?

 

[USincognito]

Nice documentary quoted in post #24. Discussions with all kinds of Phd types.

And as I noted in #45:

Oh my. That's more of a Creationist echo chamber than an actual documentary.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Carnal people are carnal.

Last I checked, religious people like to tend to some of those carnal needs a lot more than atheists do.

They like sin and money, they like idolatry, boasting of flesh in the Law even if they're religious or atheist.

Pfft, I only care about money to the extent that I need it to live comfortably. I certainly don't worship idols, that wouldn't even make sense. Overall, I restrict my life much more than the average Christian does, such as choosing not to drink alcohol because of the trend of addiction in my family. I'm stating that as fact, not boasting (like having a family history of addiction problems would be something to boast about anyways, but I feel like some people would try to say as much).

Who says he isn't good...or smart...or if he doesn't say he's smart he says he's humble...if he doesn't say he's clean he boasts of being filthy

1. I'm a fairly neutral person that rarely goes out of my way to be good or bad. I'll do small things, like hold a door open for a person using crutches, but most people would kinda expect that basic level of decency. I am rather vengeful, though.
2. I don't think that I can personally judge if I am smart or not accurately, since I am an obviously biased party in that assessment.
3. I do the basic hygiene upkeep... could probably shower a bit more often, but I find myself too busy for more than twice a week... I should probably shower more often.

Do you know why sinners don't read the Bible properly and can't?

Oh, I have seen the parts of the bible that say as much plenty of times. Nice mental hole you dug for yourself, believing those parts. After all, if they aren't true, how is anyone supposed to correct you on it?

 

[PsychoSarah]

View attachment 211477

I look at this gif you posted, and I just have to ask: if you think this is an accurate depiction of how the sun and moon move, how do you explain being able to frequently see the moon during the day time, often in positions that make it look near the sun?

 

[PsychoSarah]

And that's why you will hold onto that the whole earth cant be flooded.

I'm not sure why the Earth being flat or round would make a difference if the surface area is the same.

The text books you rely on are apart of the false paradigm.

Pfft, you can test that the Earth is round quite easily, just do what Aristarchus and Eratosthenes did (look them up if you care to give it a try with a friend that lives in a different town or city).

Until you, yourself, get up into the heights of where a rocket can take you, you will always rely on the screen (TV, PC monitor) or a sanctioned text book to accept so called reality, or the mathematical equations within the false paradigm.

And what if I did go to space? Then what? Would you call me a liar instead?

Stale mate.

How about you go to space so you can see for yourself? Otherwise you're just relying on conspiracy theories and the bible to accept so called "reality", or the dogma within the false paradigm. See what I did there?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Science can't prove a negative.

It can prove some negatives by showing that they are legitimately impossible, such as the fact that people cannot fly by flapping their arms. It's a way of disproving the positive claim of "people can fly by flapping their arms". Unfortunately, I find it difficult to put into words how this in particular can be disproven, but the existence of deities or bigfoot can't, other than noting that the positive claim is that "they exist" and it is physically impossible for us to check literally everywhere for them, which would be necessary to disprove their existence.

Except when the Bible is involved, then science will make an exception ... won't it?

The Mark Twain quote I like applies here: "all generalizations are false, including this one."
Most of the time, science can't prove a negative, but there are exceptions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Geology relies on heliocentricm.

Not really, since it is only concerned with rocks and such, which the sun does not have and which would not be inherently different if the sun revolved around our planet.

 

[Speedwell]

No. Classificatio

And it was classified as reality, was it not?

No. Classifications are not objectively real. They are merely congitive tools we create for our own convenience. Nothing real was changed about Pluto just because the classification was changed.

 

[inquiring mind]

And as I noted in #45:

No, it’s not an echo; it’s about ten PhDs in different areas of expertise giving their professional opinions and backing it up with scientific reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it’s not an echo; it’s about ten PhDs in different areas of expertise giving their professional opinions and backing it up with scientific reasoning.

Sorry, they do not have "scientific reasoning" and they know it. Once again, peer review is a minimum requirement these days to claim that an idea is scientific. In peer review experts in the field look over your paper and see if there are any obvious errors in it. It is then published and if at all interesting others will test the ideas and see if they are correct or not.

Creationists can't even get over the relatively low bar of peer review. What you have are delusional people that are at times willing to go so far as to lie for Jesus in their works. And please don't claim that peer review is biased. If creationists had a paper that was rejected because of bias there would be no end to it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

European scientists naively assumed the Genesis account to be true, but when they looked for the evidence that would be left behind, they didn't find any. They, to their surprise, found that no worldwide flood occurred.

People biased in favor of this account discovered that it was false.

If there were no such literary account, the evidence would never lead anyone to suggest it.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

....

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.

 

[USincognito]

No, it’s not an echo; it’s about ten PhDs in different areas of expertise giving their professional opinions and backing it up with scientific reasoning.

I'm sorry, but it most definitely is an echo chamber. The putative host, Del Tackett, has worked for Focus on the Family and now Works for Alliance Defending Freedom. He most certainly is not merely an interested seeker trying to find facts. All of the experts are Creationists and all of their claims are the same PRATTs we've been hearing from them for 20+ years. Steve Austin is particularly infamous for his dishonest claims about Potassium-Argon dating of Mount Saint Helens lava*. Danny Faulkner? If you look at his linked articles on the IGH? web page four are on Answers In Genesis and one is a polemic against Hugh Ross. I could go on about each of them.

This "documentary" is slickly produced propaganda.
A Geological Response to the Movie “Is Genesis History?”
A Review of the Documentary Film “Is Genesis History?”
Reflections on “Is Genesis History?” Part II: Where do the Lines of Evidence Lead?

* Which actually starts the show:
My Review of “Is Genesis History?” – Proslogion

I think the movie’s beginning sequence contained its best moment. In the sequence, Tackett is standing in a canyon, next to a tiny stream that runs through it. He asks the audience how long it would take for the stream to carve out the canyon. He then picks up a rock and says that other rocks in the canyon have been dated to be 350,000 years to 2 million years old. Then, while standing on the rim of the canyon, he tells the audience that the canyon (including the rocks upon which he is standing) is younger than he is; it was formed during the explosive eruption of Mount St. Helens.​

 

[USincognito]

European scientists naively assumed the Genesis account to be true, but when they looked for the evidence that would be left behind, they didn't find any. They, to their surprise, found that no worldwide flood occurred.

People biased in favor of this account discovered that it was false.

If there were no such literary account, the evidence would never lead anyone to suggest it.

You might mention that was 200 years ago and the evidence has gotten worse for Flood proponents in the intervening years.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Classifications are not objectively real. They are merely congitive tools we create for our own convenience. Nothing real was changed about Pluto just because the classification was changed.

I'm not buying that explanation.

I'm almost positive that ... seventeen years ago ... if I would have said I don't believe Pluto was a planet, that I would have been accused of denying reality.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, it’s not an echo; it’s about ten PhDs in different areas of expertise giving their professional opinions and backing it up with scientific reasoning.

Can you present any of this evidence for discussion, maybe we can see if their reasoning is sound. A vague reference to a two hour videos is not particularly helpful.

 

[Ophiolite]

I look at this gif you posted, and I just have to ask: if you think this is an accurate depiction of how the sun and moon move, how do you explain being able to frequently see the moon during the day time, often in positions that make it look near the sun?

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Sadly, possibly due to the internet and the effect of conspiracy theorists that it seems to bring, the belief in a flat Earth has come back among the extremists. I am fairly sure that if some of our creationists were younger they would have been swayed by this nonsense. A flat Earth belief is not that far from Moon Landing denial.

 

[christianforumsuser]

So while religious people boast of needs regardless of reading the Bible, you're saying you think your deeds beat theirs and perhaps that you even read the Bible better in at least some aspect?
But indeed the whole lot of you have idols.
And I'm not talking as much about flesh or carnal filth...but that someone thinks he's good but also calls himself humble because his heart and spirit and deeds are filthy. So what good is a person who considers themselves good...but do bad....but say it doesn't matter...saying it's the heart that matters...but then neglects the heart and continues being carnally minded
Listen that I'm saying worldly people are such two-faced doubleminded hypocrites.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm sorry, but it most definitely is an echo chamber. The putative host, Del Tackett, has worked for Focus on the Family and now Works for Alliance Defending Freedom. He most certainly is not merely an interested seeker trying to find facts. All of the experts are Creationists and all of their claims are the same PRATTs we've been hearing from them for 20+ years. Steve Austin is particularly infamous for his dishonest claims about Potassium-Argon dating of Mount Saint Helens lava*. Danny Faulkner? If you look at his linked articles on the IGH? web page four are on Answers In Genesis and one is a polemic against Hugh Ross. I could go on about each of them.

This "documentary" is slickly produced propaganda.
A Geological Response to the Movie “Is Genesis History?”
A Review of the Documentary Film “Is Genesis History?”
Reflections on “Is Genesis History?” Part II: Where do the Lines of Evidence Lead?

* Which actually starts the show:
My Review of “Is Genesis History?” – Proslogion

I think the movie’s beginning sequence contained its best moment. In the sequence, Tackett is standing in a canyon, next to a tiny stream that runs through it. He asks the audience how long it would take for the stream to carve out the canyon. He then picks up a rock and says that other rocks in the canyon have been dated to be 350,000 years to 2 million years old. Then, while standing on the rim of the canyon, he tells the audience that the canyon (including the rocks upon which he is standing) is younger than he is; it was formed during the explosive eruption of Mount St. Helens.​

The movie is not really the focus of my question; I only mentioned it as a quick answer to a “references” question because I had recently seen it, happen to think it presents good information regarding creation and science, and the people interviewed are scientists. In addition, I have no doubt you can google all the contrary articles to your paradigm you would like to read. Actually, I thought parts of the review you provided were pretty good, and thank you, I had not seen them.

One notable quote from a reviewer hints at what paradigm camp he is in: “While some wise restraint is shown, if I had one criticism, it would be that Is Genesis History? still probably tries to cover a bit too much ground in too little time’” I like this one too, “Probably the most valuable thing about Is Genesis History? is that it makes quite clear to any viewer that there are serious scientists and scholars who are willing to engage with and, in fact, embrace the biblical account of history and the data from nature. In addition, a significant amount of that data they engage with is consistent with and well interpreted within a biblical paradigm. In other words, believers are not fanatics who believe based on blind faith. There are reasonable empirical reasons to believe that Genesis really is a record of history and, in general, the interpretations that come out of this paradigm are quite rational.”