Evidence of a worldwide flood

[BPPLEE]

You are posting in a science forum on a Christian website, one in which non=Christians are entitled to participate. Because it is a science form, scientific definitions of various terms used are besr.

Okay. Scientific terms in a thread about the Biblical flood. Got it.

 

[BPPLEE]

Nope. There are lots of kinds of baptists, and I don't care what they believe or why. (How many ways can they split?) I know they rebaptize as a adults (hence the name), but other than that they are just lost in the vast ocean of protestant theology that I don't care about. I know baptists tend to be literalists and fundamentalist, but apparently not all (though IFB *are*).

I don't like characterizing individuals based on some sort of group identity. I don't blame the baptists for this behavior at all. It's all on the disruptive person.

"I don't like characterizing individuals based on some sort of group identity."
I agree

 

[ottawak]

Okay. Scientific terms in a thread about the Biblical flood. Got it.

And theological terms with their correct technical meaning where appropriate. What's wrong with that? Why should we not use the accepted definitions for whatever area of specialized knowledge we are discussing?

 

[Hans Blaster]

"I don't like characterizing individuals based on some sort of group identity."
I agree

It's a good plan.

Sometimes the little labels are useful in contextualizing what someone says, but not always. The country IDs can be useful in both realizing a reference was specific to their country (or more importantly, not yours). The political labels can sometimes explain things in context.

But, the religious labels often cause more trouble than they are worth.

 

[sjastro]

Platte is certainly not looking, because it's easy enough to find.

If true to form the video will be ignored and the poster will carry on with the existing narrative regardless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nope. There are lots of kinds of baptists, and I don't care what they believe or why. (How many ways can they split?) I know they rebaptize as a adults (hence the name), but other than that they are just lost in the vast ocean of protestant theology that I don't care about. I know baptists tend to be literalists and fundamentalist, but apparently not all (though IFB *are*).

I don't like characterizing individuals based on some sort of group identity. I don't blame the baptists for this behavior at all. It's all on the disruptive person.

Well, so much for the study of cult psychology then---that is, if we can't resort to applicable labels for group affiliations, however mediated they may be. And that's an academic difference between us, Hans. I do care about the social forces involved in human thought which may, and at times do, influence any individual's (or group's) psychology and beliefs. I think other people, like you, should too.

While I don't tend to characterize individuals according to group identities either, I still realize that some folks ardently adhere to certain groups and ideologies for various personal reasons, reasons that flow out of a confluence of factors catalyzed by the group psychology in which they participate.

Besides, as we've heard it said: No man (or woman) is an island. This is no less the case for any of the beliefs regarding the tensions we find between Evolutionists and Creationists.

If you think AV is that much of a problem, then just use that little report button that's available and be done with it........ General Sherman! I prefer you don't, but there is that option.

 

[ottawak]

Well, so much for the study of cult psychology then. That is, if we can't resort to applicable labels for group affilitations, however mediated they may be. And that's an academic difference between us, Hans. I do care about the social forces involved in human thought which may, and at times do, influence any individual's (or group's) psychology and beliefs.

While I don't tend to characterize individuals according to group identities either, I still realize that some folks ardently adhere to certain groups and ideologies for various personal reasons, reasons that flow out of a confluence of factors catalyzed by the group psychology in which they participate.

Besides, as we've heard it said: No man (or woman) is an island. This is no less the case for any of the beliefs regarding the tensions we find between Evolutionists and Creationists.

If you think AV is that much of a problem, then just use that little report button that's available and be done with it........ General Sherman! I prefer you don't, but there is that option.

Don't do that, AV is the only creationist here with anything like a sense of humor, strange as it is.

 

[Estrid]

Quit peddling your dishonest nonsense.

Hesperopithecus Apparently Not an Ape Nor a Man on JSTOR

You could quit reading it

 

[Estrid]

No, just baffled I think, as to why we would reject the absolute truth of the Bible for the contingent truth of science.

A hint might be found in the ambiguous and
contradictory nature of such alleged absolute.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay. Scientific terms in a thread about the Biblical flood. Got it.

"Deluge."

Just kinda rolls off of the tongue, doesn't it?

You can even play around with it:

• antediluvian
• post diluvian

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, so much for the study of cult psychology then---that is, if we can't resort to applicable labels for group affiliations, however mediated they may be. And that's an academic difference between us, Hans. I do care about the social forces involved in human thought which may, and at times do, influence any individual's (or group's) psychology and beliefs. I think other people, like you, should too.

I'm not characterizing anyone (least of all IFBers) as a cult. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything here.

Group psychology is of use in sociology, etc. This thread is (techinically) about a flood. No psychology is needed to evaluate the evidence for or against a flood. Most of it is just geology.

While I don't tend to characterize individuals according to group identities either, I still realize that some folks ardently adhere to certain groups and ideologies for various personal reasons, reasons that flow out of a confluence of factors catalyzed by the group psychology in which they participate.

Besides, as we've heard it said: No man (or woman) is an island. This is no less the case for any of the beliefs regarding the tensions we find between Evolutionists and Creationists.

Oh great platitudes!

If you think AV is that much of a problem, then just use that little report button that's available and be done with it........ General Sherman! I prefer you don't, but there is that option.

I don't do "rat". I'm not sure it is of any actual use and I don't think anyone is severely breaking the rules, just etiquette and decorum. In my several years here, I only made my first "report" last week and that was about a post that seemed to be quoting me (with text that wasn't mine) probably due to a software glitch. I would have made a request for edit, but I wasn't allowed to post.

 

[AV1611VET]

"I don't like characterizing individuals based on some sort of group identity."

No cops, doctors, service veterans, teachers, etc.?

Jokes aside though, I know what you're saying.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Okay. Scientific terms in a thread about the Biblical flood. Got it.

Actually you weren't talking about the flood. You were denigrating the scientific method. So, scientific terms in posts about science. It's not hard.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You could quit reading it

I tried blocking him, but all of my threads were filled with blind responses and it was quite confusing.

 

[Shemjaza]

So Radiometric dating cannot date the age of known rocks?

Not at all, they just have set ranges they work in.

If a method work to measure a range and the sample is younger then that range it will return "Lower end of range or less". If a lying charlatan takes that result and remove the context they could pretend that it misread a young sample as old.

Science isn't magic, it works on testable principles. If a rack has been treated in a certain way or has originally comes from certain environment then that has to be accounted for in the results and investigation.

Science is not 100% reliable... but it is the most reliable tool we have.

 

[Estrid]

Then you weren't paying attention.

Id never seen " theory" turned into a weasel word before.

 

[BPPLEE]

No cops, doctors, service veterans, teachers, etc.?

Jokes aside though, I know what you're saying.

I was a cop for a long time and not all are the same. I wouldn't want to be grouped with some of the ones I know.

 

[Estrid]

I tried blocking him, but all of my threads were filled with blind responses and it was quite confusing.

It works for me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not characterizing anyone (least of all IFBers) as a cult. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything here.

I didn't say that you were characterizing anyone like that, I was simply making a counterpoint to something you said, an applicable one.

Group psychology is of use in sociology, etc. This thread is (techinically) about a flood. No psychology is needed to evaluate the evidence for or against a flood. Most of it is just geology.

You and I obviously work in different occupations and have studied in different fields, so it's no wonder we see things a little differently in what we each think is "going on" here. But that's to be expected.

Oh great platitudes!

And I could say you're a great hand waiver. But I won't. I'll just think it.

I don't do "rat". I'm not sure it is of any actual use and I don't think anyone is severely breaking the rules, just etiquette and decorum. In my several years here, I only made my first "report" last week and that was about a post that seemed to be quoting me (with text that wasn't mine) probably due to a software glitch. I would have made a request for edit, but I wasn't allowed to post.

That's fair. But what would you like to accomplish here on CF among us lesser thinkers, Hans ... ?

 

[BPPLEE]

Actually you weren't talking about the flood. You were denigrating the scientific method. So, scientific terms in posts about science. It's not hard.

I don't think saying that things change when new evidence is found is denigrating the scientific method. I think that is the scientific method. Sorry I had some fun with it. Y'all give AV a hard time because he sticks to his beliefs but you are quick to defend yours especially if you think someone has dared be disrespectful of the scientific method. It's almost like a religious belief