New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[EternalDragon]

Those are the only conclusions consistent with the evidence.

And yet conclusions have been made which are in opposition with others yet consistent with the evidence.

Just because a scientists says it, does not make it true.

I believe this ultimately goes back to God. We can't know anything for certain without God. It is historical evidence and conclusions, not scientific ones. That is why there is a conflict with creation and evolution. They are both faith concepts.

 

[Loudmouth]

A young boy was given a box of Lego bricks and asked to form some imaginary animals. He created many animals of different characteristics. The boy was removed from the room and two scientists were brought in to examine the animals and give their conclusions. One said "Some are made from common bricks, so they evolved. There is clear evidence for this". The other said "All the animals were obviously created". Two viewpoints, both without evidence, but only one is the truth.

Sorry, but made up stories do not falsify scientific theories.

 

[Loudmouth]

And yet conclusions have been made which are in opposition with others yet consistent with the evidence.

A young earth and a recent global flood are not consistent with the evidence, and this was discovered in the early 1800's. You have 200 years worth of science to catch up on.

Just because a scientists says it, does not make it true.

The evidence does make it true.

I believe this ultimately goes back to God. We can't know anything for certain without God. It is historical evidence and conclusions, not scientific ones. That is why there is a conflict with creation and evolution. They are both faith concepts.

So there is no evidence we could ever show you that would change your mind, correct?

 

[EternalDragon]

A young earth and a recent global flood are not consistent with the evidence, and this was discovered in the early 1800's. You have 200 years worth of science to catch up on.



The evidence does make it true.



So there is no evidence we could ever show you that would change your mind, correct?

A video of the actual events back in time. That is what is needed. Otherwise any hypothesis or theory of what happened in the past is historical science and a guess based on bits of evidence here and there. Not observable, not testable, not repeatable. Like the flood, the creation, etc.

That is what I have been trying to tell you.

Yet we do have a historical account from someone that was there. You just refuse to believe it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A video of the actual events back in time. That is what is needed. Otherwise any hypothesis or theory of what happened in the past is historical science and a guess based on bits of evidence here and there. Not observable, not testable, not repeatable. Like the flood, the creation, etc.

That is what I have been trying to tell you.

Yet we do have a historical account from someone that was there.

Sorry, that is not how it works.

You continually show that you have no idea what is and what is not scientific evidence.

Ask nicely and I will be more than happy to help you.

 

[lasthero]

A video of the actual events back in time. That is what is needed.

You put far too much stock into seeing things.

Remember that case we were talking about, a week or so ago? Where the man was convicted and spent all that time in jail for a crime he didn't commit? What put him there? Eyewitness testimoney. What got him out? Testing and evidence. He was exonerated in a way that didn't require anyone to see him doing anything. If eyewitness testimony was the end-all you make it out to be, he would still be in jail.

People can be mistaken about what they see. They can be wrong. They can lie. Video footage can be altered. It can miss things. It can only see in one direction. It can't look beneath the surface. That why evidence is so important. We can't just go by looking at things. Science could never progress if seeing everything firsthand was a requirement.

We can't see atoms. But we understand their properties.

We've never been more than a few miles beneath the Earth. But we understand its composition all the way to the core.

We never even seen Pluto make a full orbit around the Sun. But no one would take seriously a person who suggested, just because we've never seen Pluto go around the sun, that it will stop in mid-orbit and completely change direction. Such a person would have no evidence to support that claim, and there would be a mountain of evidence against.

That's the importantance of evidence.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Sorry, but made up stories do not falsify scientific theories.

but you believe the made up story of evolution and feel it counts

 

[LastSeven]

but you believe the made up story of evolution and feel it counts

You're absolutely right piggy, but that argument is not going to resonate with them. What it boils down to is that everybody believes the evidence they like. You and I like eyewitness accounts and the word of God as recorded in scripture. They like "scientific evidence".

Either way you have to believe someone. So as I said before, it really just boils down to faith. Which is what makes this entire discussion pointless. Without faith they will continue to lean on their own understanding, and with faith we will continue to trust in the Lord.

 

[BlunderAngel]

edit/ wrong thread.

 

[Ssup]

A video of the actual events back in time. That is what is needed. Otherwise any hypothesis or theory of what happened in the past is historical science and a guess based on bits of evidence here and there. Not observable, not testable, not repeatable. Like the flood, the creation, etc.

That is what I have been trying to tell you.

Yet we do have a historical account from someone that was there. You just refuse to believe it.

Have you got a video of that alleged "historical account from someone that was there?"

 

[Loudmouth]

A video of the actual events back in time. That is what is needed.

So there is no geologic evidence that will change your mind. You have made it very clear now. No matter what a geologic formation looks like you will say that it was formed in a flood. In fact, you have already reached that conclusion before seeing the formation.

This is why creationism is such a joke.

Otherwise any hypothesis or theory of what happened in the past is historical science and a guess based on bits of evidence here and there.

Again with this need to separate science into historical and operational. No such division exists. You are making it up so that you can ignore evidence. Can you please tell us why we can not use the evidence found in geology to reconstruct what happened in the past?

Not observable, not testable, not repeatable.

All of the evidence used in geology is observable, testable, and repeatable.

Like the flood, the creation, etc.

You have already demonstrated that the flood and creation are not testable, observable, or repeatable. You continually invent mechanisms that have never been observed, such as increased radioactive decay. You have clearly stated that you have already concluded that any formation is the produce of the flood before even looking at it, demonstrating that it is not testable or falsifiable.

That is what I have been trying to tell you.

Yet we do have a historical account from someone that was there. You just refuse to believe it.

Why should I believe it when all of the evidence contradicts the claims? The evidence demonstrates that it is not a historical account because what the account claims did not happen.

 

[Loudmouth]

but you believe the made up story of evolution and feel it counts

I have the evidence that it is not made up:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Loudmouth]

You're absolutely right piggy, but that argument is not going to resonate with them. What it boils down to is that everybody believes the evidence they like. You and I like eyewitness accounts and the word of God as recorded in scripture. They like "scientific evidence".

Claims written in books are not evidence. Never have been. When you have evidence, come talk to us.

Either way you have to believe someone.

No, you don't. You can go and look at the rocks yourself. You can rerun the experiments that others have done to check their results. That is the beauty of science, you don't have to believe anyone. Science is based on empirical evidence that is independent of any human being.

So as I said before, it really just boils down to faith.

No, it doesn't. It boils down to evidence. We have it. You don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're absolutely right piggy, but that argument is not going to resonate with them. What it boils down to is that everybody believes the evidence they like. You and I like eyewitness accounts and the word of God as recorded in scripture. They like "scientific evidence".

Either way you have to believe someone. So as I said before, it really just boils down to faith. Which is what makes this entire discussion pointless. Without faith they will continue to lean on their own understanding, and with faith we will continue to trust in the Lord.

We like observable repeatable evidence.

To be a valid source of evidence the source must be tested. The problem with using the Bible as a source is that it has too many errors in it. Now you might want to believe a source that is not trustworthy since it makes you feel better. This is not a wise or sane thing to do. But then most people are neither wise nor sane. There is some good in the Bible. The whole thing does not need to be chucked out as some believe. But there is much evil in their too. I know of no Christian that believes or follows the whole Bible. If one did he would probably be thought to be a monster by his neighbors.

 

[Split Rock]

A young boy was given a box of Lego bricks and asked to form some imaginary animals. He created many animals of different characteristics. The boy was removed from the room and two scientists were brought in to examine the animals and give their conclusions. One said "Some are made from common bricks, so they evolved. There is clear evidence for this". The other said "All the animals were obviously created". Two viewpoints, both without evidence, but only one is the truth.

1. Lego blocks are not alive, do not reproduce, and therefore do not evolve.
2. The Lego blocks are the evidence.
3. No scientist would claim that Lego blocks evolve, therefore this is a strawman analogy.
4. The young boy probably made chimeras like a whale with wings. We don't find these in the real world.... why is that?
5. One viewpoint is based on reality and the other is a fantasy. According to you, the fantasy is "the truth."

 

[freezerman2000]

God created..Genesis says so...
Problem is,Genesis was written for a bronze age civilization.
That civilization would have had no clue what was written if it had all of the PROCESSES included.
I can not rely solely on the Genesis account without the knowledge that Geology and Archaeology presents.
To limit my understanding of what happened to the Genesis and the pseudo"scientists" at AIG and their ilk,would be like turning the God given ability to think for myself into a sham.
The Bible tells me WHAT happened..Science tells me HOW..
Thank God for both sides of the coin!
I don't have blinders on..

 

[Strathos]

I suppose ED has a video of a global flood then? I'd like to see that.

 

[nuttypiglet]

We like observable repeatable evidence.

To be a valid source of evidence the source must be tested. The problem with using the Bible as a source is that it has too many errors in it. Now you might want to believe a source that is not trustworthy since it makes you feel better. This is not a wise or sane thing to do. But then most people are neither wise nor sane. There is some good in the Bible. The whole thing does not need to be chucked out as some believe. But there is much evil in their too. I know of no Christian that believes or follows the whole Bible. If one did he would probably be thought to be a monster by his neighbors.

So are you saying that the bible can't be proved by historical evidence? are you saying Jesus didn't exist?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

are you saying Jesus didn't exist?

Depends what you mean by the historical jesus. The miracle working version of god in human form as described in the gospels? - no, not a chance. But an ordinary human being who was a very minor teacher/preacher of some kind and got himself into hot water with the roman authorities and came to a sticky end? Quite possibly.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Depends what you mean by the historical jesus. The miracle working version of god in human form as described in the gospels? - no, not a chance. But an ordinary human being who was a very minor teacher/preacher of some kind and got himself into hot water with the roman authorities and came to a sticky end? Quite possibly.

well, you have just shown how you interpret things. Jesus DID exist and there was no 'possibly' about it. Historically he has been PROVED he existed and not one single person should doubt that. Even your head of state, Richard Dawkins agrees there is no doubt the Man existed.
He was obviously someone far smarter than a person who simply got caught up in Roman politics. It wasn't Roman politics that killed Jesus, he allowed his own death. Instead of waiting for Judas to give away his location, he could have fled the land and hid. What we see instead is the forming of the biggest church on the planet. Amazing for just an ordinary guy wouldn't you say?