Noah's Ark

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[Obliquinaut]

It wouldn't in it's state of being "upheld".

I believe as an article of faith that the story is true. I'm not trying to prove that the flood happened, I'm speculating about how it might have happened.

So when your speculation (based on actual natural phenomena) runs afoul of what the science says you simply hypothesize an unfalsifiable idea (something along the lines of: "it was a flood that left no evidence which is explicable by natural laws acting in such a way that they never have been seen to do because it was flood like no one has ever seen before.")

Do I have this correct?

So I'm curious: why not just say it was a "miracle flood" and there is no reason to believe it exists using natural phenomena?

No one could really argue against that.

(Is that clear enough? Am I getting the gist correct?)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Really?
So, which tenets would that be?

Why don't you pick a specific example and then point to where and how it causes problems...

Stealing, lying, murder, adultery, for example.

Your opinions aren't facts simply because you happen to hold them.

So why all the fuss over those things?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I already know what you believe. I'm trying to find out why you believe what you believe.

God has led me to believe what I believe, otherwise I wouldn't believe it. I used to think adultery was ok until God convinced me otherwise.

 

[VirOptimus]

God has led me to believe what I believe, otherwise I wouldn't believe it.

That is an unfalsifable belief and has no part in a scientific discussion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So when your speculation (based on actual natural phenomena) runs afoul of what the science says you simply hypothesize an unfalsifiable idea (something along the lines of: "it was a flood that left no evidence which is explicable by natural laws acting in such a way that they never have been seen to do because it was flood like no one has ever seen before.")

Do I have this correct?

So I'm curious: why not just say it was a "miracle flood" and there is no reason to believe it exists using natural phenomena?

No one could really argue against that.

(Is that clear enough? Am I getting the gist correct?)

I have always insisted that it was a supernatural event. But there is some bad science in the scientific arguments in the form of assumptions that aren't supported by the story.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is an unfalsifable belief and has no part in a scientific discussion.

There are better venues for purely scientific discussions.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I have always insisted that it was a supernatural event. But there is some bad science in the scientific arguments in the form of assumptions that aren't supported by the story.

I am quite OK if you claim it is supernatural. I am incapable of arguing against that.

It's the second part where you claim the science is wrong that I have some trouble with. I am still uncertain how you come to the conclusion the science is wrong. I have seen so little actual facility with the science from your posts I'm unclear on why you would take any stand on the science.

Maybe I'm missing something fundamental here.

 

[VirOptimus]

A purely scientific discussion wouldn't take place on these forums.

They have and they will. Not all participants are anti-science. Most accept physical reality just fine.

 

[Obliquinaut]

There are better venues for purely scientific discussions.

This is something usually said by people who don't understand the science they wish to "disprove".

In reality there are NO better venues for scientific discussions. Scientific discussions can and should be had all the time wherever even marginally possible.

It is the fault of the debaters if they lack the technical skill to do so.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am quite OK if you claim it is supernatural. I am incapable of arguing against that.

It's the second part where you claim the science is wrong that I have some trouble with. I am still uncertain how you come to the conclusion the science is wrong. I have seen so little actual facility with the science from your posts I'm unclear on why you would take any stand on the science.

Maybe I'm missing something fundamental here.

You and others are forwarding the scientific arguments, some of which don't comport with the story.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is something usually said by people who don't understand the science they wish to "disprove".

In reality there are NO better venues for scientific discussions. Scientific discussions can and should be had all the time wherever even marginally possible.

It is the fault of the debaters if they lack the technical skill to do so.

I know things doctors don't (seem to) know about health, but it would be futile to argue with them about it.

 

[VirOptimus]

You and others are forwarding the scientific arguments, some of which don't comport with the story.

No, thats not how the discussion went. Its you who have used (or tried to use) science, even going so far and saying that its easy to calculate and so on, but, as soon as you have been called on it you have handwaved and said its irrellevant becuase "magic".

 

[Obliquinaut]

God has led me to believe what I believe, otherwise I wouldn't believe it. I used to think adultery was ok until God convinced me otherwise.

And this is perfectly 100% fine! So why even bother with trying to invoke science? YOU raised laminar flow, YOU raised hydrodynamics, YOU have hypothesized mechanisms related to isostacy etc. And when you are faced with people who know more about them it appears you wish to simply have us give you a pass on that.

No one is saying you cannot have religious belief. (Certainly not me!) What I believe most of us are saying is: if you wish to use science in service to that belief it would be best if you were able to actually use science that way.

You are entitled to your religious beliefs, but science doesn't really allow you to have just any belief in regards to natural processes. These have to comport with a workable reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

God has led me to believe what I believe, otherwise I wouldn't believe it. I used to think adultery was ok until God convinced me otherwise.

Yup.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is an unfalsifable belief and has no part in a scientific discussion.

Science is so myopic, what CAN we discuss?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I know things doctors don't (seem to) know about health, but it would be futile to argue with them about it.

That sounds very prideful. It may be true, but just based on seeing how you conduct your "scientific" debate points here on this thread I'm going to make the assumption that you are probably not necessarily correct. Again, I could be mistaken, but based on the available evidence here it is apparent you are more than willing to debate with people on things they seem to know better than you.

(This is an object lesson in "testing against the null hypothesis". For instance I normally assume that one who is NOT a doctor does not know more than the doctor. And I test against that. That is the "Null Hypothesis". Right now we are working with a p-value ~ 1.0 that I would be incorrect in rejecting the null hypothesis in the present case.)

 

[VirOptimus]

Science is so myopic, what CAN we discuss?

Science is not an entity and cannot be "myopic". Just because you dont understand it doesnt mean that we who do cant discuss it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is not an entity and cannot be "myopic".

Then don't tell me science says this and science says that; unless you think it can talk.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then don't tell me science says this and science says that; unless you think it can talk.

I dont tell you that, I tell you, and have told you many times that science is a method used to describe physical reality.