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.
"Lamestreamers"? What's a lamestreamer? The only one I'm being harsh on is you, because you are trying to be as offensive as possible while making Christianity look stupid. So where did you get this silly idea that only experiments produce knowledge? Or rather, where did you get the idea that anyone believes that?
I think your common knowledge is wrong. I don't think these people exist -- that's why I want to know where got this idea. If these people are so common, you should have no trouble pointing me to some of them. Who are these people who claim that only experiment (not observation, just experiment) can yield knowledge?
Thanks, but I get out quite a bit. I've certainly never run into a scientist with this belief, and they're the ones whose findings you're questioning.
Challenging you on your strawman argument is indeed a contribution. So why won't you provide the evidence for your central premise, which is that many people claim only experiments can produce knowledge?
I do wonder what you're talking about here. Where have I said anything about whether there was an experiment?
Hmm. I don't see any evidence in this paragraph. Sarcasm, yes, and insult, but no evidence. (A suggestion: stop trying to be condescending. I can out-condescend you til the cows come home. Why not just engage in conversation, instead? For some reason you think that there should be an experiment ruling out a worldwide flood. Why do you think that? Cut the hostility and just talk to people, as if they were, you know, human beings and, in many cases, fellow Christians.)
You wrote, "If knowledge can only be obtained via experiment, surely someone had to have done one." See that first clause, the one that starts with "if"? That's a premise. The conclusion follows in the second clause. You wrote it, not me, so you should be able to support it. Your initial question also only makes sense in light of that premise: if there are other ways of ruling out a worldwide flood besides an experiment, why assume there should have been one? So please support your premise, or withdraw your question.
The article isn't supposed to de-convert you, it merely explains what the deluge theory is in case you are unfamiliar with it.
Not really. Though, since you're making that claim that the global flood happened, the burden of proof is actually on you to develop and carry out such an experiment. So, get crackin'!
So in order for the AiG debunkings to work we must assume that the world was not as it is today with no Mt Everest or deep oceans, perhaps the world had no bumps or dips at all just like a pool ball? (the flood would not work on the earth as it is today so let's change the earth so it would work, we will make the earth virtually bump free, don't worry the creationists will buy into it)
Oh cool. A re-post of the same article flooders have been using for the last 4 years! Unfortunately you kids still misunderstand the article.
Why try so hard to change the topic? And you're welcome to think you can out-whatever me here. I'll not be easily GOADED into breaking the rules.
I don't think that. I know people are told everything in scofferdom's been ''proven by the scientific method''.
Oh yes, oh yes, the hostility paintbrush. You accuse me of a strawman fallacy, and play whatever silliness you can to divert the discussion, and I'm hostile. That's workin'. I'm sure every scoffer who stumbles along will buy it hook line & sinker. I'm equally sure nobody else will.
See that first word in that clause, the one that's spelled I-F? In English, the word 'if' alters the context and meaning of the entire sentence, rendering what follows conditional.
