• 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

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
So you think that at some time in the last ten thousand years the entire earth was flooded and the tip of Mt Everest was about 25 feet under water?

Am I right in thinking that no amount of evidence-based and objectively reasoned demonstration to the contrary is capable of altering your view?

And that's because it's written in a particular book to which you attribute magical qualities?

Have you been reading MY posts or someone else's? Nothing I've written suggests that I believe in a biblical flood or that I even have any belief in any god or gods. The ONLY thing that I've argued on this thread is that a creationist simply believes in a creator being and that a lack of belief in evolution has nothing to do with it.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Have you been reading MY posts or someone else's? Nothing I've written suggests that I believe in a biblical flood or that I even have any belief in any god or gods. The ONLY thing that I've argued on this thread is that a creationist simply believes in a creator being and that a lack of belief in evolution has nothing to do with it.
A thousand pardons!
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Well, let's get straight to the point ─ do you accept that the lack of evidence for a Genesis Flood ─ evidence such as I specified that MUST be there if there had been a Genesis flood in reality ─ is a demonstration satisfactory to science that no such flood occurred in reality?

A simple yes or no answer will resolve the question of what you understand.
Oh dear.
Point? Which one? Yours? Mine?
If yours, why yours and not mine?

Oh. I get it. The most stubborn sets the rules.
Okay.
I probably have a streak of stubborn in me, so let's do it.

animated-smileys-cheeky-099.gif

Do you agree science has limits, cannot determine everything, and relies heavily on interpretation of the evidence (reg. historical science), which is often based on assumptions that are not conclusive, or necessarily accurate or complete?

A simple yes or no answer will resolve the question of what you understand.

Please note, a frivolous claim that is unsupported, and or false, does not count as a satisfactory answer... although it would show you are not up to the task. :)
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you agree science has limits, cannot determine everything, and relies heavily on interpretation of the evidence (reg. historical science), which is often based on assumptions that are not conclusive, or necessarily accurate or complete?
Science works by empiricism and induction, hence its conclusions are never proof against unknown unknowns. Science sets out to explore, describe and where possible explain the world external to the self, which is to say, objective reality. Scientific method has no rival in this field.

Thus a question like, has the tip of Mt Everest been anything like 25 feet under water in the last ten thousand years? can be answered by consideration of the evidence with a resounding no, for the reasons I outlined.

Against that background ─

yes, science has limits
yes, it cannot determine everything, see above
yes, it interprets the data but (the part you left out) it also tests its findings by experiment to ensure that its findings are as correct as possible,
but as to working on hypotheses ('assumptions that are not conclusive or necessarily accurate or complete'), they're clearly marked 'hypothesis' ─ there's no advantage in pretending in science, so that's a no.

'Historical science' is a different branch of reasoned enquiry to science ─ history approached by historical method. Science nonetheless comes in useful at many points of historical enquiry, not least archeology, geology, biology and so on.

That's why we can be remarkably confident that there was never a Genesis flood.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I did not say that or even imply that. There are a few. Those have to be openly dishonest. People can read and not learn. Creationists are an excellent example of that.

I thought that you wanted to learn what is and what is not evidence. You can do better than this. You are currently running away.

And no, my claims are in no way similar to the example that you gave. Do you know why?

See, this is an Internet forum and the keyboard is very close by. There is no need to run away anywhere mate, all one has to do is stop typing.

The problem with you is that you think creationists are by default so stupid that they cant type a few words in a search engine and read a wikipedia page you are linking to here. So you are trying to teach others what "evidence" means. Its quite a strange position.

Do you think Newton was as dumb as you think all creationists are?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Alright let's start with the concept of evidence. In the sciences one cannot have evidence without a testable concept. If one cannot think of a reasonable test that could refute one's beliefs then by definition one does not have evidence.

This keeps scientists honest. That is real scientists. Wikipedia has an excellent article on scientific evidence, but I can find many others that have the same definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method. "

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

Nope. I said "Be Specific". Not give some general article defining what scientific evidence means.

I asked you to be specific. In what field of study do creationists fear evidence? Is it evolution? Or is it rocket science? Or is it biology? Those were examples.

Making general statements is not being specific. I hope you understand.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
See, this is an Internet forum and the keyboard is very close by. There is no need to run away anywhere mate, all one has to do is stop typing.

The problem with you is that you think creationists are by default so stupid that they cant type a few words in a search engine and read a wikipedia page you are linking to here. So you are trying to teach others what "evidence" means. Its quite a strange position.

Do you think Newton was as dumb as you think all creationists are?

Why would you say such a silly thing. Of course I do not think that creationists are by default stupid. There can be some intelligent creationists. The problem is that there is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. You were given a challenge to find one and you could not do so.

By the way your complaint about a Wikipedia page is invalid. I explained when I first posted that link that there are many others that give the same definition. Try to pay attention to what people say and not what you want them to say.

Like it or not these days there is not that much difference between creationists and Flat Earthers. It is only a matter of degree of willful ignorance. That does not mean "stupid".
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nope. I said "Be Specific". Not give some general article defining what scientific evidence means.

I asked you to be specific. In what field of study do creationists fear evidence? Is it evolution? Or is it rocket science? Or is it biology? Those were examples.

Making general statements is not being specific. I hope you understand.

All of the sciences refuted creationism. There are various different versions of creationism. You are the one that has not been specific.

Give me a specific belief and we can discuss if it has been shown to be wrong and how. I cannot be specific when you will not give a proper specific argument. Do you remember how @ChristineM refuted you and you gave the same "be specific" challenge. When you give vague claims we can only give vague refutations. Yet they still are refutations.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The problem is that there is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. You were given a challenge to find one and you could not do so.

Err. So in your opinion creationists are by default "dishonest and uninformed". You keep repeating this. Thats the definition of bigotry mate.

Anyway, I cannot remember you giving a so called "challenge". Could you please specifically define what your "challenge" is?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Err. So in your opinion creationists are by default "dishonest and uninformed". You keep repeating this. Thats the definition of bigotry mate.

Anyway, I cannot remember you giving a so called "challenge". Could you please specifically define what your "challenge" is?

No, it is not an "opinion". It is an observation. You could not even find a single example to counter my claim. You in effect supported my claim. All you can do is to make false claims about me.

Find me an honest and informed creationist and I will take back what I said. That is a simple, reasonable, and honest challenge.

And I was specific. Please do not say "be specific" when you cannot be "specific" yourself.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Oh I understood. I can also see that you are running away from a reasonable request.

Again I can tell you that I dont need to run away you see? Its just a keyboard so I can stop typing or close the laptop. Thats it.

What is your reasonable request? Define it clearly and specifically. Making general statements are not reasonable requests.

Please go ahead.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
No, it is not an "opinion". It is an observation.

Right. So in your "observation", creationists all by default "dishonest and uninformed". Lol. Thats bigotry mate. You are defining bigotry. There is no point telling someone with that level of bigotry towards billions of people in this world, most of the human species, this cannot be explained.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Okay, so they tested for a worldwide flood (barring the boat), and observed none occurred,.. was your answer? ..and they also know that there were no two earthquakes between 785 to 735 B.C.

No. Your answer is, 'There is no evidence of...'
My point exactly. Absence of evidence is not scientific evidence.
Absence of evidence in a situation that would be expected to leave evidence is, indeed, evidence.
I have heard the assumptions presented before, so I don't know why you referred me to hear that man again.
Probably you forget you were the first person to introduce me to him. You seem to like him a lot. :)
His is the most thorough and easily understood treatment of the subject I'm aware of.
I don't know of any other such collation of consilient facts on the subject. There are more in-depth articles on the various points, in scientific journals, for example, but these are not easily understood by the layman, nor collected into a single treatise.
There are no ETs because there is no evidence of ETs. Scientific evidence? Not at all. Ask SETI if you doubt it.
True, you could assume that the universe you "dug up" hint hint, reveal no evidence of ETs, but that is not scientific evidence against ETs./quote]In this case there would not be expected to be clear evidence, nor can we be sure we're looking in the right place.
Finding no unicorns in a search of central park is poor evidence they do not exist. Finding no ash or debris at the alleged site of a house fire is evidence.
The fact that the question in the OP has been basically ignored, in order to run with a back and forth argument, which I don't understand why you like that (How many threads on the flood are they on RF? If I wanted to start a thread on the flood, I could easily have done that. See the OP), is evidence enough to show that science is limited in its ability to examine and verify, or deny the reliability of many historical sources.
The point is that science is aware of its limitations, and of what would constitute good evidence. Science makes no claims based on bad or ambiguous evidence.
From the OP:
saying that there is no evidence for a big boat with eight people being carried through the waters of a worldwide flood, is not scientific evidence. Nor is saying that, there is no evidence Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago, scientific evidence.
True. In these particular cases we would not expect to find evidence, and scientists would make no such claims based on lack of evidence.
Discovering that a Jack Jack lived 3000 years ago as was, claimed by a document, would be scientific evidence.
I'm not sure of the context of this, but a 'claim by a document' would not generally be considered scientific evidence. Anyone can write a document claiming anything.
True, you could assume that the fault line, and damage belong to one earthquake, but that is not scientific evidence against another.

I thought you knew... science is ongoing. So I don't consider the opinions of you, and your friend Aron.
You get what I am saying? :)
I get that you do not understand what scientific evidence is, or how science works.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
All of the sciences refuted creationism. There are various different versions of creationism. You are the one that has not been specific.

Give me a specific belief and we can discuss if it has been shown to be wrong and how. I cannot be specific when you will not give a proper specific argument. Do you remember how @ChristineM refuted you and you gave the same "be specific" challenge. When you give vague claims we can only give vague refutations. Yet they still are refutations.


I don't know who you are talking to here, they must be on my ignore list (for a very good reason).

But i can guess
 

gnostic

The Lost One
You are saying that the world wide flood did not happen and that a large local flood does not fit the Bible story.

No, Brian, large regional floods have occurred in past history and in recent history.

But for Noah to being warned about the 100 years before it occur, if the flood was regional, it is utterly senseless to build an Ark, when he could have more easily and safely move his family to area not affected by this local flood.

But a large local flood does fit the Bible story, esp if there were many of them around the world (which geology suggests did happen) and if the world's populations were concentrated in the warmer regions because of the ice age and in the lower regions closer to the ocean, since the oceans were lower.

The Ice Ages ended 7000 YEARS BEFORE THE EARLY BRONZE AGE (3100 - 2000 BCE), so the notion that the ice ages were responsible for the Genesis Flood and for other myths, is rather tenuous, and the evidence don’t support any of them all, regardless if they were worldwide or local/regional.

There are no connection between myths and the ice ages.

Second, the ice sheets mostly covered Northern Europe and Asia, and North America, and some high mountainous regions, eg the Swiss Alps, Caucasian mountains, Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas, the Rocky Mountains, the Andres, etc.

On the Swiss Alps for instance, the ice sheets was isolated, surrounded by areas not covered by the sheets.

Northern_icesheet_hg.png


And there were no ice sheets in Egypt, the Levant and Mesopotamia.

And don’t confuse what the myths say with geology, because geological evidence don’t show one massive flood, especially covering mountains as Genesis claim.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Saying "all" is not being specific. Give a specific one, and how that refutes creationism. Im sure you understand that request.
[/quoite]

It is just as specific as the term "creationism". It is specific enough to refute the claim. You were invited to go into detail.

Tell me. What is your definition of "an honest informed creationist".

A creationist that both understands the sciences that he opposes and does not lie. It should be obvious.
 
Top