Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains? (2)

Science did it lulz i dunno

rikerjoe said:

Conclusions and inference drawn from facts may change as new facts emerge or methods to analyse the facts improve, but that in no way changes or invalidates any facts.

Click to expand...

Wasn't it a fact at one time that Pluto was our 9th planet?

If Pluto didn't change, the number sure did.

AV1611VET said:

Wasn't it a fact at one time that Pluto was our 9th planet?

If Pluto didn't change, the number sure did.

Click to expand...

The definition changed.

AV1611VET said:

Wasn't it a fact at one time that Pluto was our 9th planet?

If Pluto didn't change, the number sure did.

Click to expand...

So are you saying the Bible was WRONG about bats as birds?

Or did our CLASSIFICATION scheme change?

Nope...the bible said it and now we say they aren't birds.

Guess bible "facts" are open to change too?

Please stop with the Pluto thing unless you also think the Bible contains a factual error. And remember YOU don't get to change any word meanings for the bible either!

AV1611VET said:

Wasn't it a fact at one time that Pluto was our 9th planet?

If Pluto didn't change, the number sure did.

Click to expand...

Pluto didn't change, the definition of planet did. But I am sure you already know that.

CabVet said:

Pluto didn't change, the definition of planet did. But I am sure you already know that.

Click to expand...

Of course he knows, but the arguments for creationism are being reduced every day so please let AV1611VET hang onto his Pluto thing.

rikerjoe said:

Rubbish. Facts are facts and doesn't change

Click to expand...

Did you even look at the book so you could follow the conversation and know what we are talking about? There is a reason why I am using the word: FACTS. There are other words I could use but I am talking about the subject in the book.

EveryTime said:

the arguments for creationism are being reduced every day

Click to expand...

Just the opposite. As we learn more and more then we know more and more about Creationism. The problem is people want to look at the extinction that took place 64 million years ago. What we need to look at is what took place over 200 million years ago, back when Pangaea began to break up and we no longer had a super Continent. We need to look at when it first all came together. Not when it began to break up and drift apart.

Joshua0035 said:

Just the opposite. As we learn more and more then we know more and more about Creationism. The problem is people want to look at the extinction that took place 64 million years ago. What we need to look at is what took place over 200 million years ago, back when Pangaea began to break up and we no longer had a super Continent. We need to look at when it first all came together. Not when it began to break up and drift apart.

Click to expand...

Why that supercontinent in particular?

TLK Valentine said:

The definition changed.

Click to expand...

So did the number.

Lucy Stulz said:

So are you saying the Bible was WRONG about bats as birds?

Click to expand...

No -- QV please:

AV1611VET said:

Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:

1. fowled bat
2. behemoth
3. leviathan
4. four-legged grasshopper
5. satyr
6. unicorn
7. dragon
8. straw-eating lions
9. whalefish
10. cud-chewing hare

I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.

Click to expand...

CabVet said:

Pluto didn't change, the definition of planet did. But I am sure you already know that.

Click to expand...

I also know the number changed.

What is our 9th planet now?

Joshua0035 said:

You can chart "facts" to see how many years it will be when they will no longer be considered: facts.
It's all very consistent. Facts in Science have a short life span.

Click to expand...

facts do change I agree.

rational argumentation can be tricky:

below from basic textbook in logic From the introductory LOGIC textbook
from mars hill series by Douglas J. Wilson and James B. Nance,
mars hill textbook series, canon press, Moscow Idaho, 2002.

If an argument has true premises and a false conclusion,
we know it is invalid. In a valid argument, the premises may be false. But if they were true, the conclusion would have to be true also. Here is an example of a valid argument. One of the premises happens to be false, but the argument remains valid.

Given the fact that all dogs are brown, and that all poodles are dogs, it follows necessarily that all poodles are brown.

If it were in fact true that all dogs were brown, then all poodles would necessarily be brown. The problem with the argument is the falsehood of the first premise, not the structure of the argument. To test for validity, grant provisional “truth” to the premises, and then see if the conclusion would have to
be true.
Here is an example of an invalid argument, with all true premises, and a true conclusion.

Given the fact that all dogs are mammals, and that all dogs are canines,
it follows necessarily that all canines are mammals



if the fact changed that all canines are no longer mammals, then the fact would change. But it was not false before and now it is no longer true because taxonomy changed not the fact status.


oh I guess I will post the rest of the article:

Both of the above premises are true, and the conclusion is also true. But,
if you examine it carefully, you will see that the conclusion is not
implied by the premises (substituting the word animals for canines makes
this clear). It is this lack of implication which makes the argument invalid.
Once an argument has been examined for validity (and it is found to be valid),
the argument may then be examined with a view toward the truth or falsehood
of the conclusion. If the argument is invalid, then there is
no reason to proceed further. But if it is found to be valid,
it is still necessary to examine the truth of the premises. If they are found to be ture,
then the conclusion must be true as well. If an argument is valid and the
premises are true, it is called a sound argument. You should realize,
then that the conclusion of a sound argument must be true.

Do not confuse truth with validity!
Once we learn the basic rules of formal logic, it is easy to see how
prevalent this confusion is. In public debate, the applause is frequently
reserved, not for those who reason well, but for those with whom the
audience agrees. Unfortunately, this is a common problem in the church.
Here is a final example where the premises are true, and the
conclusion is necessarily true.

Given the fact that all Christians are forgiven, and that the apostle Paul was a Christian,
it follows that the apostle Paul was forgiven.

In this argument, the premises are true, the argument is valid, so the
conclusion is therefore true. This is a sound argument. The different types
of arguments related to validity and truth can thus be
arranged as shown in figure 2 below:



Figure 2

Above from basic textbook in logic From the introductory LOGIC textbook
from mars hill series by Douglas J. Wilson and James B. Nance,
mars hill textbook series, canon press, Moscow Idaho, 2002.

StormanNorman said:

The vast majority of people from the 17th Century were strict creationists, scientists and mathematicians included. Of course, most also believed bloodletting was a viable treatment for most illness.

Click to expand...

it wasn't that creationism was responsible for bloodletting,

that was your science!

"poison the well" fallacy!

Lucy Stulz said:

But then Blaise Pascal was not acquainted with modern geology.

Again I shudder to think someone could leverage their ignorance of one topic in such a way as to conflate themselves with a famous mathematician and somehw draw a conclusion that it would make their yec stance any more reasonable from a scientific standpoint.

Click to expand...

I take acception to your changing the bars here, first you said not to "associate creationism with the likes of .... pascal"

then you said (after I proved He was a creationist)

that I was not in fact to associate with mathmaticians at all regarding geology topics.

Yes it is true and valid not to do so,

however this was a red herring to avoid being wrong on your part

an ad hominem toward myself to suppose that I always refer mathemeticians to geology subjects

and a changing the bars as you moved from no response at all to your answered question to an attack on my motives for answering your question.

thats three strikes your out?

AV1611VET said:

I also know the number changed.

What is our 9th planet now?

Click to expand...

You only have a bee in your bonnet about it because it screws up something in the Bible about 9 something or others, or something you think the Bible says about the number 9. I'm sure you can remind us as you're in such a sulk about what has been done your interpretation of the Bible by the evil scientists. Not that anybody else cares very much except you.

Mr Strawberry said:

Not that anybody else cares very much except you.

Click to expand...

Obviously you don't care about your own points as well.

I'll ask you a second time, what is our 9th planet now?

If the answer isn't Pluto, then don't tell me facts don't change and expect me to believe you.

AV1611VET said:

Obviously you don't care about your own points as well.

I'll ask you a second time, what is our 9th planet now?

If the answer isn't Pluto, then don't tell me facts don't change and expect me to believe you.

Click to expand...

Why are you so desperate for there to be 9 planets?

Mr Strawberry said:

Why are you so desperate for there to be 9 planets?

Click to expand...

For the purpose of my question, I don't care if there are 75 billion planets.

I'm asking what the 9th one is.

AV1611VET said:

For the purpose of my question, I don't care if there are 75 billion planets.

I'm asking what the 9th one is.

Click to expand...

Why are you asking that?