First and foremost, I think we must avoid the reasoning that "no evidence of a thing" is "evidence for not the thing". Secrets are, by definition, that for which no evidence exist, but secrets are certainly real and existent. And that is just an example.
But I have a reason to think it is different. You may think otherwise. That is OK, ie until we truly know. And as an example the whole world thought the world was flat, except for one person, and that one person was right. And also as I have said elsewhere, the improbable is not the impossible. In fact probability is entirely irrelevant.
Of course I know this too, but this is not enough. There is still guess work. The best attempts I know are computer simulations.
And on the flood, I have googled the material for its falsification, and I do not think they are unequivocal, in that there are other ways to explain the falsification, and as stated above, until we know better, we cannot be dismissive just because it is not your theory.
As to "genetic bottleneck", has not the recent genetic study of the all the world's people precisely conclude such a bottleneck?
Oh you can be sure I think much much more than that, and the universe is a far more stranger place than you can ever imagined.
That is not my argument. Specifically I said, knowledge of the past, and also by implication, by the so-called scientific method, for the study of the past can never be a science. As an example, in experimental archeology, archeologists tried to "prove" how an ancient thing was done by doing it, but that does not necessarily mean that was how the ancients did it.
As to my quotation from Popper why don't you read/goggle a bit on Popper.
First and foremost, I think we must avoid the reasoning that "no evidence of a thing" is "evidence for not the thing". Secrets are, by definition, that for which no evidence exist, but secrets are certainly real and existent. And that is just an example.
i do know better than that. However, there is abundant evidence of other lesser floods, longer ago. its a legit question, why is there zero for the 'flood"? You could tell the police that someone ran a buffalo herd thru your yard, but when they find no evidence, you will be cited for false report, and your "no evidence isnt evidence against' will jsut get you in more trouble.
do you have a coherent explanation for why evidence of floods is common, but no evidence for the big one?
But I have a reason to think it is different
You think so? What?
And as an example the whole world thought the world was flat, except for one person,
except that isnt true.
Of course I know this too, but this is not enough
Enough for what? And computer simulations?
The musculature of a dinosaur can be reconstructed with great accuracy.
What are you trying to avoid acknowledging here?
And on the flood, I have googled the material for its falsification, and I do not think they are unequivocal, in that there are other ways to explain the falsification, and as stated above, until we know better, we cannot be dismissive just because it is not your theory.
You would have looked in creo sites, i guess.
a few minutes of google is not much of a study. There are, you know, people who have spent their lives on this.
What I find weird is that you think on the thinnest of bases that gravity was different, but as you dont like what earth dating gives you, you think there are "other ways to explain". no matter how outlandish?
we cannot be dismissive just because it is not your theory.
Your 'just because" is not descriptive of me or anyone in science, as far as i know. Dismissive of ideas with zero backing is another thing altogether.
As to "genetic bottleneck", has not the recent genetic study of the all the world's people precisely conclude such a bottleneck?
yes, but if you want to go with that, it alone falsifies your flood. it is many thousands of years earlier than the "flood" and, it should be the same marker for all animals. But it isnt there in other animals. They, some of them, have their own bottlenecks but at very different times.
no flood there.
Oh you can be sure I think much much more than that, and the universe is a far more stranger place than you can ever imagined.
Stranger no doubt than anyone can imagine. Zero to do with this stuff about gravity tho.
by the so-called scientific method, for the study of the past can never be a science. As an example, in experimental archeology, archeologists tried to "prove" how an ancient thing was done by doing it, but that does not necessarily mean that was how the ancients did it.
Why do you call it 'so called scientific"? Please elaborate on this odd thing you have said here.
archeologists tried to "prove"
We can usually tell a person who doesnt know squat about science when he says something like this.
Seriously.
Once again... proof is for alcohol and math. We dont prove things in science. it is good fun to try to replicate how stone tools, say, were made, and much can be learned that way. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt can be achieved sometimes, not others. if you want to doubt something, go ahead, but a more reasonable alternative is needed if you want to be ta
ken seriously.
As to my quotation from Popper why don't you read/goggle a bit on Popper
Sending me to google doesnt answer my q about what you think.
Why do you think there was a flood?
Do you think all theories are false?
