• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Which Experiment disproved the Flood?

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,882
65
Massachusetts
✟402,099.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hypothesis1: sfs does not care the least little bit that such people very commonly exist as he maintains he's never seen. Neither will sfs apologize for accusing me of constructing a straw man.

Hypothesis 2: we will see blatant, stupid lies about the history of the thread and / or the content at the links - from other trolling parties, not necessarily sfs.

Age of Reason , Science is the only way of knowing - everything...

Is Science the ‘Best Way of Knowing’? (again) « Wide as the Waters

The Barefoot Bum: Science is the only way of knowing

Sandwalk: The Nature of Science: Is Science the only Way of Knowing?

Are there ways of learning besides science? - Ask the atheists

As far as I can tell, these are all claims that science is the only or best way to knowledge. The claim you're supposed to be supporting, however, is that experiments are the only way to knowledge. Since a great deal of science can be done quite well without experiments, the two claims are obviously not the same. The difference is important here, since geology as a science features much more observation than experimentation.

More specifically, much more observation than experimentation went into convincing geologists that Noah's flood hadn't occurred. Which is why a request for an experiment that disproved the flood always seemed either disingenuous or confused.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Oh yes, that's how to convince me. I'm lame because you say so - wow!

LOL You're the one that starting using the term "lame," now you cry when it gets used on you! Hypocrite.

Still waiting for all the goodies you promised. Oh, and no, Lies in Genesis doesn't count.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single

Here is a quote from one of the legitimate sources quoted by your creato-lying source:

"Basically, the hypothesis states that over the long term, water and volatiles remain frozen as ground ice in the subsurface because Mars is so extremely cold, due to its distance from the sun and atmospheric conditions.

The perennially frozen permafrost acts like a cap on a soda bottle. Just as gas and water in a capped soda bottle explode when heated, likewise sporadic bursts of internal planetary heat trigger the dramatic release of gas and water locked under the permafrost.

They theorize that so much water is released in such episodes that a temporary ocean forms repeatedly over the northern hemisphere. Massive martian volcanism near the northern hemisphere's Thasis Bulge has -- and may again -- trigger a northern plains ocean or lake, they said.

Carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere promotes the warming greenhouse effect so that liquid water is stable near the martian surface. If Mars lacks Earth-like biorich soils, water from precipitation, outburst flooding or both may filter underground more rapidly than it does on Earth.

Local valleys and other observed martian features form when near- surface water springs from below. But when it snows or rains, water removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, so that Mars chills to the point that permafrost reforms, plunging the planet into another dry, frigid long-lasting epoch."

Sorry. Not what you claimed at all. All because the article uses the word, "flood," doesn't mean its talking about a global flood that covered the planet. You wouldn't get that from reading the "creation ministry" article you cited though... would you?
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
As far as I can tell, these are all claims that science is the only or best way to knowledge. The claim you're supposed to be supporting, however, is that experiments are the only way to knowledge. Since a great deal of science can be done quite well without experiments, the two claims are obviously not the same. The difference is important here, since geology as a science features much more observation than experimentation.

More specifically, much more observation than experimentation went into convincing geologists that Noah's flood hadn't occurred. Which is why a request for an experiment that disproved the flood always seemed either disingenuous or confused.

Mind describing ''the scientific method'', or would you prefer to continue equivocating? At least two of those links are certainly talking about experimental science when they say ''science'', and I guarantee none of them would include history, the field of investigation scofferdom so despises.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Oh yes, that's how to convince me. I'm lame because you say so - wow!
LOL You're the one that starting using the term ''lame,'' now you cry when it gets used on you! Hypocrite.
Why should I cry? Only just this hour I got permission to use this:

''You do understand that the way to influence rational people is to make rational arguments i.e X therefore Y and not just Y?''

And bam! Opportunity. I'm a-smilin'
Still waiting for all the goodies you promised. Oh, and no, Lies in Genesis doesn't count.

Don't look now, but you're still waiting on me to promise you anything. In fact, I said ''Requests to just eat up my time with stuff people don't give a hoot about are a pretty low low low low priority.'' Hmmm - now how's that gonna get twisted into a commitment? I must admit I'm curious to see your effort.
 
Upvote 0

Orogeny

Trilobite me!
Feb 25, 2010
1,599
54
✟24,590.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Noob? What do you call the crew whose primary tactic is to just deny things like scientism and the deluvian Mars belief of the lamestream? Oh yes, and "me cannot nebber see no ebbidense ob no floods - me can shut eyes and flings muds." Totally 1337!
Ah. Bypassing my other posts.

I'm not sure where you're getting the mud flinging accusations from. I've been more than civil and have commented specificaly (for the most part) on the scientific content of the thread. If you think that my 'n00b' quip was mud flinging, you've got rather thin skin indeed. Nothing but an attempt to lighten things up. If you've been offended, I offer my deepest apologies.

Now, would you like to address the content of my other posts? Your courteous response would be most appreciated.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Ah. Bypassing my other posts.

Now, would you like to address the content of my other posts? Your courteous response would be most appreciated.

You need to put in some content that's relevant and makes sense. I'm not going to struggle to make some way for stuff to fit, or solve riddles what you're talking about. It's not like there's a shortage of non-experiment-containing posts, now is it?
 
Upvote 0

Thobewill

Cthulu For President 2012
Apr 27, 2011
344
13
✟30,593.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
You need to put in some content that's relevant and makes sense. I'm not going to struggle to make some way for stuff to fit, or solve riddles what you're talking about. It's not like there's a shortage of non-experiment-containing posts, now is it?

To you, it will only be "relevent" and "make sense" if it agrees with you.

Pertaining to the topic of this thread, however. No, there is no experiment which has been done to disprove the flood. How would you conduct such an experiment anyway? All the scientists conducting said experiment would have to go on is a few verses in the bible, and those aren't testable. Observations of the world's geology show that a catastrophic global flood most likely did not happen. What more did you want?
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
To you, it will only be "relevent" and "make sense" if it agrees with you.

Pertaining to the topic of this thread, however. No, there is no experiment which has been done to disprove the flood. How would you conduct such an experiment anyway? All the scientists conducting said experiment would have to go on is a few verses in the bible, and those aren't testable. Observations of the world's geology show that a catastrophic global flood most likely did not happen. What more did you want?

If you really think so, this should be a great opportunity: Present the experiment and show how it logically compels us to conclude no flood took place as recorded in history.
 
Upvote 0

Thobewill

Cthulu For President 2012
Apr 27, 2011
344
13
✟30,593.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
If you really think so, this should be a great opportunity: Present the experiment and show how it logically compels us to conclude no flood took place as recorded in history.

There IS NO experiment. I cannot present an experimental procedure because it can't be done. I asked "how would you conduct such an experiment" to show you how hard it would be to do. You don't "test" the Mongol conquest of china. You don't "test" the reasons for the fall of Rome. You don't "test" the Black Plague. You can't test hypotheses about historical events, whether they happened or they didn't. You look for evidence of their happening, and compare that to the evidence against it. If the evidence against outweighs the evidence for, or there is no evidence either way (especially for something of this enormous scale) you can say that it is not likely to have happened. As there is no evidence for a global flood, it most likely did not happen. That's how science works.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,882
65
Massachusetts
✟402,099.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Mind describing ''the scientific method'', or would you prefer to continue equivocating?
I haven't been equivocating: I've made it clear that I've been objecting to your insistence on an experiment as evidence against a flood, rather than observation. As for the scientific method, I don't think there is a single such method, but any method of science boils down to testing ideas about the physical world through comparison to empirical data. The Google definition of science seems pretty good to me: "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

At least two of those links are certainly talking about experimental science when they say ''science'', and I guarantee none of them would include history, the field of investigation scofferdom so despises.
They may talk about experimental science, but they do not claim that the only way of knowing is by experimentation. At least, I can't find anything like that there; point out where they do if I'm mistaken.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Psychologists seem to be studying scientism now.

Science replaces religion as the final authority on truth; led to scientism: experimental methods have uniquely privileged access to knowledge (regardless of subject matter).
Of course it's really just evosickness.

http://www.upei.ca/~sgreer/Introducing 302.rtf

Almost don't blame folks for closing their eyes. It is ugly.
 
Upvote 0

Thobewill

Cthulu For President 2012
Apr 27, 2011
344
13
✟30,593.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
Psychologists seem to be studying scientism now.

Of course it's really just evosickness.

*snipped url*

Almost don't blame folks for closing their eyes. It is ugly.

So... a two-page outline done for a college course is your evidence for your statement of (correct me is i'm misinterpreting this) "people who believe in science over the bible are sick in the head."

Wow. Great work.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
So... a two-page outline done for a college course is your evidence for your statement of (correct me is i'm misinterpreting this) ''people who believe in science over the bible are sick in the head.''

Wow. Great work.

You're misinterpreting. I don't abuse the term 'science' by employing it as an euphemism for atheism or evolutionism very often. When I do, you can count on the context to make both it and the accompanying sarcasm abundantly clear.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I haven't been equivocating: I've made it clear that I've been objecting to your insistence on an experiment as evidence against a flood, rather than observation. As for the scientific method, I don't think there is a single such method, but any method of science boils down to testing ideas about the physical world through comparison to empirical data.
You are equivocating. It's not a matter of your personal thoughts. It's a matter of what's preached and claimed to be believed.

Do feel free to debunk their teachings. I might do a little myself if it weren't off topic and if I didn't have an experiment I really should try to watch for - just in case...
 
Upvote 0

Thobewill

Cthulu For President 2012
Apr 27, 2011
344
13
✟30,593.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
You're misinterpreting. I don't abuse the term 'science' by employing it as an euphemism for atheism or evolutionism very often. When I do, you can count on the context to make both it and the accompanying sarcasm abundantly clear.

Okay, but replace "science" with "atheism and evolution." Would my statement hold as an accurate representation of your beliefs as expressed in your post? Because it sure seemed that way.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There IS NO experiment. I cannot present an experimental procedure because it can't be done. I asked "how would you conduct such an experiment" to show you how hard it would be to do. You don't "test" the Mongol conquest of china. You don't "test" the reasons for the fall of Rome. You don't "test" the Black Plague. You can't test hypotheses about historical events, whether they happened or they didn't. You look for evidence of their happening, and compare that to the evidence against it. If the evidence against outweighs the evidence for, or there is no evidence either way (especially for something of this enormous scale) you can say that it is not likely to have happened. As there is no evidence for a global flood, it most likely did not happen. That's how science works.

No experiment = no rigourously-tested hypothesis, right?
 
Upvote 0

Thobewill

Cthulu For President 2012
Apr 27, 2011
344
13
✟30,593.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
No experiment = no rigourously-tested hypothesis, right?

Wrong. There is no experiment because there cannot be an experiment. An experiment done in modern day can only help a scientist understand the ways in which something happened. You CANNOT, and i seem to have to stress this, test whether a historical event happened or not with an experiment. You can show that some of the proposed mechanisms are faulty, but, in most cases, the actual event's validity cannot be proven via experimentation. You have to look at the evidence or lack therof of the event's happening. Again, try to prove the Black Plague's happening through experiment. You simply cannot.
 
Upvote 0