Biblical Flood II

[The Lady Kate]

I think you misidentify the person. See, it is not that easy after all.

Nope, you were very explicit in your description -- you even identified him by name.

He wasn't there.

Perhaps you're the one who got it wrong?

 

[lucaspa]

Imagine that you observe a street fight in NY. Then lift yourself up to the air and see all activities in a block, in a city, and in the metropolis, etc. The street fight is still a reality. But you see more and the meaning of that particular reality changes with your scope of view.

If you focused on the part of the Flood which is hard to understand, and you discarded the whole thing, then you missed the big part.

Please explain more fully. I asked what benefits believing in Flood Geology as a historical event gave you. This isn't about "hard to understand", but about evidence that can't be there IF Flood Geology is true.

What is the "big part" and what relationship does Flood Geology have with it?

 

[lucaspa]

I think you misidentify the person. See, it is not that easy after all.

Let's say you say the fight happened at 1 AM on Wall St. We have video on the entire length of Canal St. from 6 PM to 6 AM the next morning. No fight.

Or say you describe several people being wounded and bleeding. But we go to the site the next day and there is no blood anywhere. No fight.

Or better yet, you say there was a fight that trashed the alley, throwing debris all over. We go to the site right after the fight and everything in the alley is in place. Ergo, no fight.

 

[juvenissun]

Let's say you say the fight happened at 1 AM on Wall St. We have video on the entire length of Canal St. from 6 PM to 6 AM the next morning. No fight.

Or say you describe several people being wounded and bleeding. But we go to the site the next day and there is no blood anywhere. No fight.

Or better yet, you say there was a fight that trashed the alley, throwing debris all over. We go to the site right after the fight and everything in the alley is in place. Ergo, no fight.

It is getting meaningless. But for the sake of argument:

May be you are looking at a wrong camera. To continue this type of meaningless argument is not that hard.

 

[Orogeny]

To continue this type of meaningless argument is not that hard.

We know. You've been doing it for years. You keep telling us that we're looking for the wrong things, looking in the wrong places, missing the forest for the trees. Tell us something we can use. Tell us what to look for and where. It shouldn't be that hard.

 

[lucaspa]

It is getting meaningless. But for the sake of argument:

May be you are looking at a wrong camera. To continue this type of meaningless argument is not that hard.

You only thought to deny one of the possibilities. What you are doing, Juvenissun, is using ad hoc hypotheses to keep your hypothesis from being falsified.

You propose a hypothesis: the fight at a particular place and time.

I propose a falsification of that hypothesis: a video camera of that place over the time period. That would falsify your story, wouldn't it?

Now we have your ad hoc hypothesis to avoid falsification: I am looking at the wrong camera.

For an ad hoc hypothesis to be valid, we must be able to test it independently of the hypothesis it is trying to save. In this case, it is easy to falsfiy the ad hoc hypothesis: just look at the picture and compare it to a view of the location. If the geographical features match -- buildings, curbs, etc. -- then we know we are looking at the right camera. We can also determine the correct time by looking at the time stamp.

Now, what you can do is keep making ad hoc hypotheses to counter these refutations. For example, you could say that someone alterd the time stamp. Eventually you get to ad hoc hypotheses that cannot be independently tested. All they do is keep the favored hypothesis from being falsified. At that point the ad hoc hypotheses are not valid.

Ad hoc hypotheses are the story of Flood Geology. Flood Geology itself is an ad hoc hypothesis to keep the theory of young earth from being falsified. Without Flood Geology there is no way to account for all those layers of sedimentary rock without invoking long periods of time.

But, as we've seen with Siccar Point and the Palisades, we can independently test whether a Flood could have made all the geological features. And those tests falsify Flood Geology.

Now comes the efforts to save Flood Geology by more ad hoc hypotheses. One of these is that the Flood was very violent. That accounts for all the erosion necessary to get the sediments. However, that is falsified by both Genesis and other sediments such as varves. The list of ad hoc hypotheses to save Flood Geology goes on. We can go into them and the independent falsifications of them.

But thank you, Juvenissun, for providing a classic example of ad hoc hypotheses so that people here can learn more about the philosophy of science.

 

[juvenissun]

Ad hoc hypotheses are the story of Flood Geology. Flood Geology itself is an ad hoc hypothesis to keep the theory of young earth from being falsified. Without Flood Geology there is no way to account for all those layers of sedimentary rock without invoking long periods of time.

But, as we've seen with Siccar Point and the Palisades, we can independently test whether a Flood could have made all the geological features. And those tests falsify Flood Geology.

First, the Global Flood is not an ad hoc hypothesis. It is a conclusion. If you want to look at it from a scientific point of view, then it is a scientific conclusion.

We do not know how could the conclusion be reached. So we make hypothesis to explain it. Then we can have many hypotheses. Some of them are ad hoc, some of them are not. But many don't even try. They either accept it without a question, or simply dismissed the conclusion as it never happened.

So, the street fight was there. You do not see it, because wrong tools were used at wrong time. Many of you questioned the truth of the Flood, because you do not know what tool could be used to search for it. And I am practicing on the use of a promising tool, which is to dig the origin of water on the earth.

 

[juvenissun]

We know. You've been doing it for years. You keep telling us that we're looking for the wrong things, looking in the wrong places, missing the forest for the trees. Tell us something we can use. Tell us what to look for and where. It shouldn't be that hard.

Why do you still read my post?

 

[gluadys]

First, the Global Flood is not an ad hoc hypothesis. It is a conclusion. If you want to look at it from a scientific point of view, then it is a scientific conclusion.

We do not know how could the conclusion be reached.

In that case it cannot be a conclusion. You reach a conclusion by following a path of evidence and/or logic. You don't decide in advance what the conclusion would be and then try to figure out a way to get there.

 

[Orogeny]

First, the Global Flood is not an ad hoc hypothesis. It is a conclusion.

A conclusion with no supporting evidence.

In science, conclusions come after data has been gathered. We may (and probably should) form a hypothesis before we gather data, but we do not formulate a conclusion until that data has been gathered and analyzed. The conclusion is what the answer that the data points to. You cannot have a conclusion without first obtaining supporting evidence.

If you call the Global Flood a conclusion when it there is no evidence for it, you are essentially admitting to unscientific methods.

 

[Orogeny]

Why do you still read my post?

Hope maybe? I guess I hope you'll just once make a bit of sense, just once incorporate a bit of actual geology into your ramblings.

Insanity maybe? Is that what is responsible for my hope? They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Maybe I am insane to hope.

That's a darn good question, Juve. I just don't know anymore.

 

[juvenissun]

Hope maybe? I guess I hope you'll just once make a bit of sense, just once incorporate a bit of actual geology into your ramblings.

Insanity maybe? Is that what is responsible for my hope? They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Maybe I am insane to hope.

That's a darn good question, Juve. I just don't know anymore.

I am almost 60 years old. I am what I am. No hope (need) to change.
May be you do not believe my age either.
Sigh.

 

[juvenissun]

In that case it cannot be a conclusion. You reach a conclusion by following a path of evidence and/or logic. You don't decide in advance what the conclusion would be and then try to figure out a way to get there.

Exactly, sis.

I take the Global Flood as a scientific conclusion simply by faith.

But, how could I have any confidence to mix science with faith?

The Bible does not give the Global Flood as the only message which could be related to science. There are many others. If there were 10 Bible messages that bear the meaning of science, and 9 of them have already been supported by modern science, would you think I have some confidence toward the remaining one, which is yet to be supported?

Just like a Christian who needs some experiences to establish and to strengthen his or her faith, I have established my faith to scientific implications in the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

A conclusion with no supporting evidence.

In science, conclusions come after data has been gathered. We may (and probably should) form a hypothesis before we gather data, but we do not formulate a conclusion until that data has been gathered and analyzed. The conclusion is what the answer that the data points to. You cannot have a conclusion without first obtaining supporting evidence.

If you call the Global Flood a conclusion when it there is no evidence for it, you are essentially admitting to unscientific methods.

This is a scientific argument. I am not a scientist to you. So I will skip this one. Please do not talk to me about science. We can talk about theology. Don't worry, I am not a theologian either.

 

[Orogeny]

Exactly, sis.

I take the Global Flood as a scientific conclusion simply by faith.

If you take it by faith, then it is not, I repeat, NOT a scientific conclusion.

This post brings me, I think, to why I read your posts, Juve: I read them so that I may respond to them with actual science, so that nobody reading these threads can be taken in by your illogic and pseudoscience and double speak. It would be very easy for the layman to mistake your opinions with science; I am here to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

[gluadys]

The Bible does not give the Global Flood as the only message which could be related to science. There are many others. If there were 10 Bible messages that bear the meaning of science, and 9 of them have already been supported by modern science, would you think I have some confidence toward the remaining one, which is yet to be supported?

You can have hope, but not a conclusion. Even if you were right about the first 9, you can conclude nothing about the 10th without supporting data.

 

[juvenissun]

You can have hope, but not a conclusion. Even if you were right about the first 9, you can conclude nothing about the 10th without supporting data.

In science as most people know it, you are right. Even it is a strong hint, but it is still not an conclusion. But in faith (since it is in the Bible), it is a solid conclusion, even without any evidence of support.

Many people like to (were trained to) have data and evidences first in order to draw conclusions. That is fine, but I think it is a secondary level of science because anybody can do that. The top level of science is to have a (inspired) conclusion first, then go back to find supporting data and evidences. Only limited number of people can do that. It is exactly the same situation as when one is facing the choice of a life-time religion (I made that 30 years ago without any idea on what Christianity is). You do not have any data/evidence until you made the choice. Jesus tells us that we are walking on a narrow road with fewer people. Simply because there is no evidence to the majority that this road leads to the salvation.

 

[Orogeny]

But in faith (since it is in the Bible), it is a solid conclusion, even without any evidence of support.

But not in science. Understand.

Many people like to (were trained to) have data and evidences first in order to draw conclusions. That is fine, but I think it is a secondary level of science because anybody can do that.

That's one of the most important aspects of science: ANYBODY CAN DO IT! It's not an exclusive club, or a product, or a society. It is a method which can be applied to any observable phenomenon by any sentient being. That's why the scientific method is the most powerful tool we have to understand the natural world.

The top level of science is to have a (inspired) conclusion first, then go back to find supporting data and evidences.

No, that's the top level of rubbish, also known as 'pseudoscience'.

Only limited number of people can do that.

Then it is not science.

It is exactly the same situation as when one is facing the choice of a life-time religion (I made that 30 years ago without any idea on what Christianity is). You do not have any data/evidence until you made the choice. Jesus tells us that we are walking on a narrow road with fewer people. Simply because there is no evidence to the majority that this road leads to the salvation.

Not science, not science, not science! If you pick your conclusion first, and then from the conclusion derive data to fit the conclusion, you are in no way, shape, or form involved in any kind of scientific endeavor. Continuing to say that you are indicates that you either have an incredible misunderstanding of how science works (unacceptable, since it has been explained to you repeatedly), or that you are a wholesale liar. I hope, for your sake, it is the former.

 

[juvenissun]

But not in science. Understand.


That's one of the most important aspects of science: ANYBODY CAN DO IT! It's not an exclusive club, or a product, or a society. It is a method which can be applied to any observable phenomenon by any sentient being. That's why the scientific method is the most powerful tool we have to understand the natural world.


No, that's the top level of rubbish, also known as 'pseudoscience'.


Then it is not science.

Not science, not science, not science! If you pick your conclusion first, and then from the conclusion derive data to fit the conclusion, you are in no way, shape, or form involved in any kind of scientific endeavor. Continuing to say that you are indicates that you either have an incredible misunderstanding of how science works (unacceptable, since it has been explained to you repeatedly), or that you are a wholesale liar. I hope, for your sake, it is the former.

Sorry that I will not talk to you on anything related to science. Because I am not a scientist to you.

 

[Orogeny]

Once again, Juve, anybody can do science, and therefore be a scientist. You just haven't shown any interest in it.