T
The Lady Kate
Guest
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?
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.
I think you misidentify the person. See, it is not that easy after all.
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.
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.
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.To continue this type of meaningless argument is not that hard.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A conclusion with no supporting evidence.First, the Global Flood is not an ad hoc hypothesis. It is a conclusion.
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.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.
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.
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.
If you take it by faith, then it is not, I repeat, NOT a scientific conclusion.Exactly, sis.
I take the Global Flood as a scientific conclusion simply by 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?
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.
But not in science. Understand.But in faith (since it is in the Bible), it is a solid conclusion, even without any evidence of support.
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.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.
No, that's the top level of rubbish, also known as 'pseudoscience'.The top level of science is to have a (inspired) conclusion first, then go back to find supporting data and evidences.
Then it is not science.Only limited number of people can do that.
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?