why we do not believe secular scientists

[theIdi0t]

another reason. if you look at the picture, how could anyone imagine that that was a missing link? it was half a skeleton.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060405_tiktaalikfrm.htm

You know when I first met archie he use to get under my skin. But I've learned to love archie, because even though he would hate to admit it, every once in awhile he finds himself on a sinking ship, and rather than admit that it's sunk, he does an old bait and switch.

Perhaps we can say it's progress?

 

[mythbuster]

Archaeologist,
Looking at the article you cited it seems that they, the scientists, are describing evidence for massive flooding. We can disagree on the interpretation of the information but nevertheless something catastrophic happened and they admit it.
I am happy with that.
M

 

[KerrMetric]

nevertheless something catastrophic happened and they admit it.
I am happy with that.
M

And when did science ever disallow the catastrophic? The only people who claim it hasn't are people completely misunderstanding what uniformitarianism is.

 

[mythbuster]

This is what I understand uniformitarianism to mean. Shalom

Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, is the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodological significance is frequently summarized in the statement: "The present is the key to the past."

 

[MrSnow]

they do not give God the glory but look to replace Him with their own solutions.

Given the context in which this post was made, I take this to mean that by not ascribing this carving-out to Noah's flood, we are failing to giving God the glory by not believing that it was from the flood that was recorded in Genesis. Is that correct?

If that is correct, then I have a comment to make.

I go to the beach sometimes. I also enjoy playing in the sand. I think it's a lot of fun. One thing I like to do is to make a very crude sand castle with a moat around it. In addition to that, I like to carve out a little channel from the waves over to the moat. What I like to do is see if I can make that channel bring water to the moat.

Based on what you said about failing to bring God glory, would I be failing to bring God glory by saying that I dug the channel and that it was not caused by the flood in Genesis?

I'm sure the answer to that would be no. So how is someone failing to bring God glory by saying that a local flood in Europe is not the flood of Genesis? Is the flood of Genesis the only flood to have occured in the history of the Earth?

 

[Fed]

This is what I understand uniformitarianism it to mean. Shalom

Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, is the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodological significance is frequently summarized in the statement: "The present is the key to the past."

Too bad scientists don't realize catastrophes occur in the present. Geez, they're so busy doing experiments they don't realize we have catastrophic floods, hurricanes, etc now.

/sarcasm

 

[mythbuster]

"Too bad scientists don't realize catastrophes occur in the present. Geez, they're so busy doing experiments they don't realize we have catastrophic floods, hurricanes, etc now."

The people/scientists mentioned in the OP DO realize that in the past there were catastrophic floods

 

[GooberJIL]

Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, is the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodological significance is frequently summarized in the statement: "The present is the key to the past."

but, I thought that things change over time... wouldn't that also apply to the processes themselves? Such as strength of magnetic fields; rates of erosion, growth, tectonic drift; etc., are these things static or do they indeed change over time? Science prides itself on precision, but there is always a compounding margin of error.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

You know when I first met archie he use to get under my skin. But I've learned to love archie

Koko love Archie too!

Koko always enjoy reading Archie posts and humans responding to too!

 

[shernren]

Archaeologist,
Looking at the article you cited it seems that they, the scientists, are describing evidence for massive flooding. We can disagree on the interpretation of the information but nevertheless something catastrophic happened and they admit it.
I am happy with that.
M

But they clearly describe the best interpretation of the results, i.e. two floods one after the other (with a period of respite in between, presumably), and 450,000 years ago, not 4,000 years ago. So you don't have any right to take part of their interpretation (there was massive flooding) while rejecting part (... from two floods a long long time ago), unless you can clearly show that the interpretation of two floods is wrong based on their data. If you don't accept their detailed analysis, not having taken so much as a look at their raw observations, why should you accept anything of their analysis at all?

 

[notto]

but, I thought that things change over time... wouldn't that also apply to the processes themselves? Such as strength of magnetic fields; rates of erosion, growth, tectonic drift; etc., are these things static or do they indeed change over time? Science prides itself on precision, but there is always a compounding margin of error.

The natural processes that govern these things haven't changed.

The rate of the effects of things can change over time, the cause doesn't.

Was there a time when gravity or electromagnetic forces did not exists or when they acted differently?

Was there a time when water did not cut through stone?

Was there a time when heat did not cause tectonics?

No.

That is Uniformitarianism.

Things behaved in the past the way they do now.

Water caused floods in the past just as it does now.

 

[mythbuster]

Shern,

All I am saying is that, according to what I read in the article in the OP there is evidence of some Big Water Events (BWE) that happened a long time ago.

Whether there was one flood or two, 4K or 400K years ago does not matter to me. IOW
P(-400K BC < (BWE) < -4K BC ) = 1

M

 

[shernren]

Shern,

All I am saying is that, according to what I read in the article in the OP there is evidence of some Big Water Events (BWE) that happened a long time ago.

Whether there was one flood or two, 4K or 400K years ago does not matter to me. IOW
P(-400K BC < (BWE) < -4K BC ) = 1

M

I went to the doctor the other day. "So Doc, how'd my blood test go?"

"I've got good news and bad news. The good news is, you don't have AIDS."

"Whoopee! Hurray! I always knew this modern science business worked!"

"The bad news is, you have leukemia."

"What? No! You must have gotten something wrong! Do the test again!"

The same guys who say this is a "Big Water Event" are also saying that it was two floods 450,000 years ago. Why are you accepting their expertise when it agrees with what you believed beforehand, but rejecting it when it disagrees with that? Isn't that cherry-picking? After all, if you don't trust them to know the difference between two floods and one flood, why should they know the difference between one flood and no flood?

 

[GooberJIL]

The natural processes that govern these things haven't changed.

The rate of the effects of things can change over time, the cause doesn't.

Was there a time when gravity or electromagnetic forces did not exists or when they acted differently?

Was there a time when water did not cut through stone?

Was there a time when heat did not cause tectonics?

No.

So you assume, no one was there to make and record a scientific observation for us to factually know. In fact Creationism demands that this was not always so.

 

[Dannager]

So you assume, no one was there to make and record a scientific observation for us to factually know.

Making and recording a scientific observation at the time of the event isn't necessary. We can measure past events with equivalent certainty by analyzing evidence.

 

[GooberJIL]

Making and recording a scientific observation at the time of the event isn't necessary. We can measure past events with equivalent certainty by analyzing evidence.

This is not true and is why new evidence demands that science constantly revise its conclusions. This type of analisis assumes that if 'X' is true today, then it was true at all points in the past(IOW: universally). When we deal with scientific facts, new evidence only confirms those facts. A scientific conclusion is not always arrived at only based on scientifically confirmed facts.

 

[mythbuster]

P{-400,000K BC < (GBWE) < -4K BC} = 1
P means probability
BWE means big water event, GBWE means Genesis flood.
K = 1000 years
BC means before Christ
if P{x} = 1, then x is a sure event


"The same guys who say this is a "Big Water Event" are also saying that it was two floods 450,000 years ago. Why are you accepting their expertise when it agrees with what you believed beforehand, but rejecting it when it disagrees with that? Isn't that cherry-picking? After all, if you don't trust them to know the difference between two floods and one flood, why should they know the difference between one flood and no flood?"

Shern,
I am cherry picking.
It is just that, for me, there is plenty of room to move on theories about events that took place eons ago. As far as I know maybe there were 5 BWEs or 500 BWEs, plus a few big meteor events, who really knows? That still leaves room for the Genesis flood. (GBWE)
But that is just me and that is why I can agree with the OP insofar as definite claims made by scientists/people about distant events.

So you are right but I prefer to be a skeptical cherry picker.
M

 

[Dannager]

This is not true

Yes, it is. That's how science works.

and is why new evidence demands that science constantly revise its conclusions.

Observations made at the time of the event aren't perfect at first either. They have to be revised to. That's part of all science. You're just taking exception to the parts you don't like.

This type of analisis assumes that if 'X' is true today, then it was true at all points in the past(IOW: universally).

Sure. Why would you believe otherwise? Because your interpretation of the Bible tells you so?

When we deal with scientific facts, new evidence only confirms those facts. A scientific conclusion is not always arrived at only based on scientifically confirmed facts.

Humor us, what else would it be based on?

 

[zeke37]

There are 2 past floods mentioned in the Word.

the first ended the 1st age before the flesh, where all was destroyed.

and the second in Noah's days, where a few survived.

See Jer4, and couple that with (Katabole)"foundations of the world" in the NT. for the first age flood.

in His service
c

 

[USincognito]

This is not true and is why new evidence demands that science constantly revise its conclusions.

You act as though incorporating new data is a bad thing (it isn't), and that science "constantly" changes (it doesn't).

This type of analisis assumes that if 'X' is true today, then it was true at all points in the past(IOW: universally). When we deal with scientific facts, new evidence only confirms those facts. A scientific conclusion is not always arrived at only based on scientifically confirmed facts.

The age of the Earth has been consistent for about 50 years, Darwin's evolutionary theory only had to be modified to develop the modern synthesis, we know, from the 1987 supernova that the speed of light hasn't changed in 170,000+ years and we know from ice core data that the atmosphere has remained pretty much the same for at least 400,000 years.

Even the reassignment of Pluto was the result of newly discoveried Kueiper objects, not a change in the nature of Pluto itself.

I don't know where you got that last sentence from. Can you cite a specific exampe of a scientific conclusion arrived at based on something other than scientific facts?