Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
At least you are more logical then the other guy who keep get confused about events and scientific facts.
Science is the method we try to study this world, we learn through assumptions and try to affirm our assumptions via scientific facts, i.e. the repeatable, verifiable tests on this world (which you keep confused about historic events, even bring in 911 and won't admit).
Which means science study both scientific facts and have assumptions. i.e. how old is earth, which is an assumption, estimated (we don't really know but we try to GUESS based on existing scientific fact we know), and could be wrong as we discover more scientific facts.
And that is why you keep thinking that I somehow "flood claim a scentific fact", your own word, just shows how confused you are.
OK, since you claim that global flood is falsifiable, go ahead and present your evidence.
If God wants the water to recede faster, why He can't not make tectonic plate move faster?
No, what you presented as evidence was an absence of evidence for Scientology. You're saying that you can prove Scientology wrong because it hasn't proven itself right. That doesn't work. Watch.What I am presenting is evidences against Scientology. You are claiming that you can't prove it wrong due to "absence of evidence"?
You are basically telling this fella, 'I'm the smartest, you rank second, and the other guy ranks third.' And yet, it is you whom invokes 'magic', when you cannot formulate a logical response.
Kool
No, what you presented as evidence was an absence of evidence for Scientology. You're saying that you can prove Scientology wrong because it hasn't proven itself right. That doesn't work. Watch.
If God is really active in people's lives like Christians claim, there should be unbiased, documented, peer reviewed research of His effects on the physical world. There is not, therefore I can conclude there is no God.
That doesn't work does it? But since that's the best evidence you've got, you clearly can't prove Scientology wrong. Just own it already. We've been at this for way too long for you to not see it. All Woo is unfalsifiable.
I didn't do that. All I did is stating facts, i.e. you can't logically distinguish between scientific facts and historical events, and deny it to such points that you try to mingle events such as 911 as scientific facts, and refuse to acknowledge (or don't know) that you have made this mistake.
No, you can't test an E-Meter because spiritual trauma's effect on us is too broad and we can't completely understand it. It's Woo. That's why I keep asking, "How do you know spiritual trauma doesn't manifest itself in physical reality as electrical signals in our bodies?". All you've said is that, "Scientology hasn't proved it" which isn't evidence. It's literally nothing.God's affect on us is way too board and most of the time we don't understand those, such as how life starts, why quantum tangling happens etc. We research all the time and we can't understand it.
Which is totally different then scientology, which we know what is a emter and we can repeately veriably testit.
No, you can't test an E-Meter because spiritual trauma's effect on us is too broad and we can't completely understand it. It's Woo. That's why I keep asking, "How do you know spiritual trauma doesn't manifest itself in physical reality as electrical signals in our bodies?". All you've said is that, "Scientology hasn't proved it" which isn't evidence. It's literally nothing.
But you're going to keep making this baseless assertion that you've falsified the unfalsifiable without producing a single shred of evidence to back it up, and I'm bored with this. So unless you actually present some evidence against Scientology instead of merely declaring it false, I'm done here. We've been at this for pages and pages now, and it can all be boiled down to this:
Me: You can't prove Scientology is false.
You: Yes I can.
Me: Okay, then prove it.
You: They didn't prove they're right, I win.
Me: No you didn't.
You: Yes I did...
Ad nauseum.
Yes you can. It is a physical device, and if a regular person can't follow the same steps and produce the same results under the same condition, you know it is wrong
No, I have repeatably responded to your unfounded assertion. I care not to play ping pong with the same trivial point...
If you want to assume I'm not logical, you have two choices:
1. Claim victory and proceed to the next topic in our discussion, which you would now know should be easy to defeat, because I am not logical.
2. Ignore my posts all together, because I'm not logical.
Your choice.
Starting anew, your choice...
Mt. Everest is millions of years old, per geology.
Homo sapiens are up to 300K years old, per other sciences.
Plate tectonics asserts that continental drift happens slowly, due to the mantel, per science.
Let's just start there....
Let me cut in, because many of us may be starting to feel kind of bad for you now....
Your 'gut feeling' that it is wrong, most likely is true. However, what HE is saying, is that there is no way to actually falsify the claim. 'You are just not properly trained to use the device appropriately, and can't be w/o prior belief.' Or other... You get it now?
Bolding added by me for emphasis.Can you use the device to repeatably test and verify it works, regardless of the person (with the same training) operating said machine?
Well, if you can't pass the initial logical issue, all your following arguments are just based on a bad fundation and is invalid, it is comparable to doing DFT before understanding what FFT is.
Your questions are all invalid when you can't distinguish a repeatable verifiable and testable scientific fact and some historical event. That you keep bring on 911 as example of scientific fact and cant realize it (or it is your effort to muddy the waters).
Lets bring this, you believe that Mt Everest is millions year old, not thousands or billions, since you quoted a number from a webpage, and believe that "per geology". That is not a scientific fact, the number is not got a repeatable, testable verifiable way. That is maybe a consensus from some (usually a majority) of scientists from such fields, and many times can be wrong. Some examples are, how dinos died out, how much generic deversity we have, or how scablands formed.
That's the problem with arguing about gods. The theist can always invoke magic to explain away any problem with their view, and you can't prove magic isn't real.You repeat the same thing over and over. All-the-while, for starters, if 'Mt. Everest was raised swiftly by God to 'recede' above the waters,' why would God recede a mountain so high, in which virtually nothing of natural means could sustain life upon? What would be the reason? Did God also 'recede' all land, or just the mountains? You do realize many animals require specific habitats, right? Many of which are not on mountain tops.
Furthermore, nowhere does any of this appear in the Bible. Which means you are most likely pulling this response out of your hooha. And it's not falsifiable. So here we are....
My point is also that geology asserts this age. If you can demonstrate otherwise, bring the evidence.
And if I provide evidence for your questions, which demonstrate something you don't like, are you going to change your mind? Highly doubtful....
Bolding added by me for emphasis.
Show us all the peer reviewed study of skilled Scientologist auditors failing to detect spiritual trauma. That's your standard of proof for them, peer review, so let's see it. Put an end to all this, and put us all to shame by presenting the evidence you claim exists.
You repeat the same thing over and over. All-the-while, for starters, if 'Mt. Everest was raised swiftly by God to 'recede' above the waters,' why would God recede a mountain so high, in which virtually nothing of natural means could sustain life upon? What would be the reason? Did God also 'recede' all land, or just the mountains? You do realize many animals require specific habitats, right? Many of which are not on mountain tops.
Furthermore, nowhere does any of this appear in the Bible. Which means you are most likely pulling this response out of your hooha. And it's not falsifiable. So here we are....
My point is also that geology asserts this age. If you can demonstrate otherwise, bring the evidence.
And if I provide evidence for your questions, which demonstrate something you don't like, are you going to change your mind? Highly doubtful....
That's the problem with arguing about gods. The theist can always invoke magic to explain away any problem with their view, and you can't prove magic isn't real.
to your question 1, God could force the movement with such a great force (that is nessessary to receed the water in a short time), and such force caused a momento and the plats keeps moving after wards, so the mountain became higher.
And you are right, none of this is in the Bible and God could did someting totally different, as I am just guessing what God has done, which to the record we humans often guessed wrong.
And to your question 2, please remember we are in this not because I want to prove the Bible is true, we are in this argument over your statement that the Bible is falsifiable because the flood is falsifiable, so my job is simply show you why the flood is not falsifiable (which you sort of pointed out that.... it is not falsifiable).
Which of course is back to the initial part of your logic issues, that you keep mixing the differences between repeatable, verifiable testable scientific facts and world events, and you keep thinking and trying to use such non-falsifiable things to falsify the flood claim, which even you are now realizing is not falsifiable
Except I am simply point out why he is using assumptions as facts.
"I don't know, I have no sources, no science backs up such a claim, neither does the Bible, and yet I ask others for peer review in their 'assumptions'/assertions towards me.' Got it.
Plate tectonics causes plates to move and shift, from the earth's mantel. This is the assertion and tested conclusion from science. Why would the plates move from a flood? Furthermore, what is God's necessity to shift the plates? You stated to 'recede' the waters. But this makes no sense. In order for the land animals to get back to their habitats, the water would need to recede everywhere, not just for the higher mountains. The water would have to recede rapidly, presumably all the way back down to what we now know as sea level.
Furthermore, nothing you stated above addressed my line of questioning...
On no, I stated very clearly. No flood, no bible. I am only going after falsifiable claimed events. A claimed flood is falsifiable. I agree many assertions from the Bible are not falsifiable. But the flood claim is fair game.
Humans can observe the evidence which a flood would leave behind. A flood, of this magnitude, would leave behind evidence, just like every other flood leaves.
As I stated prior, yes, (you) could suppress the evidence that your house got flooded last week, by destroying the evidence. However, a global flood's evidence would not be destroyed, regardless of if it was 5K years ago, or 5 million years ago.
Sprinkling in all the other necessary logical absurdities with it, though those logical absurdities may not falsify the flood on their own merits, are still not necessary, as the flood can be falsified merely by addressing the evidence.
Again, we know what evidence a flood would leave behind. We have none related to a world flood which caused global extinction within a calendar year. The evidence instead suggests no activity in any time frame in which a flood claim could have been made.
On a side note, were you ever going to challenge the scientific community, that homo sapiens are less than 300K years old?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?