• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sources vs Science

gnostic

The Lost One
Probably all the animals in the local area with all the food they needed meant that the ark was just the right size.
Noah could have moved but God did not want that because (as the New Testament says) Noah was a preacher in those days. He was there building an ark and telling everyone why he was doing it and this was to not only prove his faith but to turn people from their evil ways, and who knows, he may have been successful to an extent.
Now, you are making up story; it is pure speculation.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Yes I'm just demonstrating that a local flood could still make sense even 100 years after telling Noah about it.
It is called “speculating”, not “demonstrating”.

If you were “demonstrating”, you would be providing something that you can actually show.

All you are doing, is throwing ideas around...that are not necessarily true...hence, “speculating”.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Noah's flood was modernize by science using the man-made global warming claim, near the year 2000 after Gore lost the election. The new and improved world flood would be caused by the polar ice caps melting by 2010, and the earth becoming flooded. We were all asked to appease God; mother nature, by eliminating fossils fuels. This plagarization of the biblical account of the flood, seemed to resonate with the left, since it appeared to have science backing and also touched a deeper need. You can take people out of religion but not religion out of people.

This science magic trick was made possible, because, Science is not self sufficient when it comes to the resources it needs to do science. Scientists are beholden to Government, Business, Industry and private donations. These money and resource givers have something to say in terms of which science theories will get the money. It is up to the scientists to politic to get resources. Science politics is often about exaggerated claims to move rich people emotionally; hobnob.

In the beginning, global warming and climate change had been supported by two reasonable theories. Manmade was one of the two. The other theory had to do with all the geological evidence of the earth. Data collected over decades, for nearly the last billion years of the earth's history, showed that the earth had naturally gone through many cycles of climate change over time. This theory had the most basis in terms of hard evidence to support itself. The made-man theory had never occurred before, in all of earth's history and had no direct evidence that it was even possible.

Both theories needed resources, but the money givers shifted all the money to only one side and then used political pressure to dismiss the other side, that had the most science proof of its theory. The one-sided science that was done, was still good science, but not all the possible science data was generated, by being so one sided in terms of resource allocation to two theories. The result was the conclusions, by default, based on all the new data generated, favored the theory with more money and less political pressure. A consensus of science formed, via this carrot and stick approach by the money managers. If you wanted resources and wanted to avoid harassment, you needed to toe the line.

The great flood of Gore, did not happen and yet nobody in science blamed the theory since this would have resulted in political backlash and the drying up of your well. Outsiders needs to be careful, not about the scientific method, but about the desires of the benefactors of science, calling the shots, in terms what science theory they need for their own agendas.

There are many conceptual flaws in cornerstone theories of science but these are ignored since scientists are not steering the ship. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place and need resources from those who have set the course, I jumped ship long ago and swam to an island, so I could be true to science and not the benefactors; science swamp. There are others out there, who are easy to dismiss, due to lack of resources to generate proof, but not by sound reasoning.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
It is called “speculating”, not “demonstrating”.

If you were “demonstrating”, you would be providing something that you can actually show.

All you are doing, is throwing ideas around...that are not necessarily true...hence, “speculating”.

That sounds like what we are both doing.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
That sounds like what we are both doing.
No, Brian, I wasn’t trying to change the story...

...all I was saying that your interpretation that Genesis Flood was a large local flood, doesn’t make sense in the light of the description of Genesis 6 to 8.

I am not disputing the story of Noah, the ark and Flood, I am disputing your rationality about your interpretations.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
People with such beliefs are referred to as "theistic evolution".

The word "creationist" / "creationism" is generally understood to be in opposition to evolution theory.

You're talking about Young Earth Creationists... which is just a small subset of all creationists. MOST are Old Earth Creationists, for whom evolution is merely the method a creator god used to create diversified life forms.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You should bring you definition of creationist up to date. As QuestioningMind said, Young Earth Creationists are just a subset of all creationists. I have to bring my definition of atheist up to date and not say any more that it is only people who deny the existence of god or gods. You should bring your definitions up to date also. :)
My definition is up to date. Definitions are due to both common usage and origins of terms. Your definition fails on both counts. A person does not get to make up their own definitions.

So though there may be many NASCAR fans that are racists it is not because they enjoy auto racing. In the same sense there are many Christians that are creationists, but it is not because they believe in an ultimate creator.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
in which case?
The sciences cannot prove an idea right, but they can show that an idea as presented is wrong. Many creationists make the error of assuming that scientists are trying to "disprove God". That is not the case. But they may show that a particular version of God is wrong. If one believes in the God of the creation myth that version has been shown to be wrong. But that does not mean that the Christian God or the Muslim God or any God has been refuted.

There are Flat Earthers that have that belief dues to their religion. Disproving a Flat Earth does not "disprove God". Well neither does disproving the myths of Genesis.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You're talking about Young Earth Creationists... which is just a small subset of all creationists. MOST are Old Earth Creationists, for whom evolution is merely the method a creator god used to create diversified life forms.
Nope, you are still trying to make your own definition of a well defined term.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No. Nevertheless, what is the scientific evidence for the naturalistic answer to how the universe got here?
There is no point in supplying you with evidence if you do not even understand the concept. Creationists as a rule do not understand the concept and tend to run away when assistance in understanding is offered.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
There are many situations in which the absence of evidence for X is strong evidence for not-x.

For example, if the bible's story of Noah's flood were true, then there would have to be
─ a single geological flood layer covering all continents and islands and the ocean floor and not more than ten thousand years old
─ a genetic bottleneck in the genes of all species of land animals, with all the bottlenecks dating to the same date
─ over one billion cubic miles of water more than the water presently on the earth​
and the manifest absence of all of those things is an overwhelming demonstration, completely satisfying in scientific and forensic terms, that there was no such flood in reality.
There are many good reasons in biology and medicine to be confident that humans have never lived to be 150, let alone 3000 years old. This is a clear case of an extraordinary claim being required to meet a very high standard of demonstration that it's correct. Why would any impartial hearer think it was true?

Forgive me if I don't now immerse myself in the Uzziah question.
Just rechecking my OP to see if I made a mistake, based on the direction these comments are taking...

Do they really take into account its limitations?
Not focusing on the fact that absence of evidence, does not mean scientific evidence...


Ah. I didn't make a mistake.
No blü. Can't forgive you. Sorry.
That to me would be making an excuse for someone not being willing to take the time to understand. :)
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Sheesh, not a boat but a world flood, as i made clear in my first post to tour OP
Sheesh. Read the and understand the OP.


Yes,
two can play at that game.

You made a statement, i asked you a civil question regarding your statement and you have now avoided answering twice.
I was civilized in saying I don't understand what you are saying... twice.

You appear to be pretending here but it may just be ignorance of the subject you are pushing
So you are not interested in the earthquake question. No problem.

Again, yes. Good this ploy isnt it?
Again.... Whatever you mean.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
If the many flood experts who just love a good flood debate are interested, consider, if you cannot demonstrate that science is able to determine whether or not two earthquakes occurred within a two year period, then that's enough evidence of the limits of science regarding accurately verifying historical event, no matter how significant they are.
Assumptions can be many, yes. Verification... No.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Just rechecking my OP to see if I made a mistake, based on the direction these comments are taking...

Do they really take into account its limitations?
Not focusing on the fact that absence of evidence, does not mean scientific evidence...


Ah. I didn't make a mistake.
No blü. Can't forgive you. Sorry.
That to me would be making an excuse for someone not being willing to take the time to understand. :)
I have no idea what you just said, but none of it addresses the point I made ─ namely that you don't appear to understand the probative power of the absence of evidence in particular cases eg the absence of evidence for the Flood.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I have no idea what you just said, but none of it addresses the point I made ─ namely that you don't appear to understand the probative power of the absence of evidence in particular cases eg the absence of evidence for the Flood.
Then I understand why you don't understand.
 
Top