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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It's called critical reasoning, it's useful!Because you approach it looking for why it is wrong and read into it to make it wrong and take the information that is anti-creation.
Which is in stark difference to:
The Lake Missoula Flood occurred at the peak of the Ice Age when a proglacial lake1 in the valleys of western Montana, USA, broke through its ice dam and drained in about 48 hours (Figure 1).2–5 It rushed through eastern Washington and down the current path of the Columbia River at up to 35 m/sec with a discharge about 15 times the combined flow of all the rivers of the world.6
Figure 1. The Lake Missoula Flood occurred when Glacial Lake Missoula in northwest Montana broke through its ice dam in northern Idaho and drained down the Columbia River. The Lake Missoula Flood and other melting pulses from the Cordilleran Ice Sheet to the north swept a large area of Washington (after Waitt).22
Glacial Lake Missoula had a volume of about 2,200 km3 based on the many shorelines observed in the western mountain valleys of Montana (Figure 2). It was ponded behind an ice dam at least 700 m thick against a lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet that occupied northern Idaho. The Lake Missoula Flood is believed by some geologists to have carved out the Grand Coulee and Dry Falls in north central Washington.8 The Grand Coulee is a gorge about 80 km long and up to 300 m deep. Dry Falls sits at the head of a gorge about 100 m deep and 5 km long about midway in the Grand Coulee.
Figure 2. Multiple shorelines of ancient Glacial Lake Missoula are emphasized by horizontal shadows high up the side of Mt Jumbo.
Controversial history
The concept of the Lake Missoula Flood has had a controversial history. Based on geological observations back in 1923, J. Harlen Bretz postulated a gigantic flood in eastern Washington from an unknown source.9,10 This started a storm of controversy that lasted about 40 years. The idea of the Lake Missoula Flood was rejected because it seemed too close to the biblical Flood. Victor Baker states:
‘Bretz’ flood theory was so despicable that even circular reasoning could be employed to erect an alternative hypothesis. … One cannot but be amazed at the spectacle of otherwise objective scientists twisting hypotheses to give a uniformitarian explanation to the Channeled Scabland. Undoubtedly these men thought they were upholding the very framework of geology as it had been established in the writings of Hutton, Lyell, and Agassiz.’ 11
The highlight is mine and explains why it is so controversial.
Yes... science does change... again... and again... and again... as more information is acquired.Old outdated references. My sources represent recent comprehensive research as cited in 2000.
About three years ago I went through talk origins.org site links one by one and began noticing and referenced on a blog about how they made unsupported suppositions and then continued talking as if their unsupported suppositions were true without empirical and verifiable evidence.
No scientist of repute is going to say, I have it! evidence for a global flood and a laws of physics defying Ark that is more like a freaking Tardis. Not in a quintillion epochs.Yes... science does change... again... and again... and again... as more information is acquired.
I do use critical reasoning.
About three years ago I went through talk origins.org site links one by one and began noticing and referenced on a blog about how they made unsupported suppositions and then continued talking as if their unsupported suppositions were true without empirical and verifiable evidence.
At that point I realized their whole site was based on faulty foundational and unsupported suppositions that weren't empirical or verifiable. They violated the very scientific methods that they said they used.
sooooo....
PS... and "NO" -- I'm not doing it again. Please go through it with your own critical reasoning.
Yes... you can't question the thought... if you do your are not of repute!!No scientist of repute is going to say, I have it! evidence for a global flood and a laws of physics defying Ark that is more like a freaking Tardis.
hmm.... I don't remember quoting them.Your view reflects a YEC or OEC Creationist agenda, and no critical reason, nor a good background in science.
I am sorry but that is simply funny. You clearly have no respect for the scientific method or verifiability.At that point I realized their whole site was based on faulty foundational and unsupported suppositions that weren't empirical or verifiable. They violated the very scientific methods that they said they used.
Why, thank you! And we just met too!I am sorry but that is simply funny. You clearly have no respect for the scientific method or verifiability.
Yes... science does change... again... and again... and again... as more information is acquired.
How many millionaire scientists do you know lol? One of the most underpaid of the professional classes. Scientists are not in it for the money, more mud flinging.It does work for sure, if all you are interested is in your money.
Oh I have met many like yourself. You are blinded by the light along with your kindred.Why, thank you! And we just met too!
How many millionaire scientists do you know lol? One of the most underpaid of the professional classes.
Chemical analyst, around £26,000 p/a, as senior analyst.I was a field Geologist, and I never made more than $60,000 dollars a year.
And I thought you were biased in macro evolution.True, but the changes are positive toward sounder science, and definitely do not reflect your biased YEC nor OEC Creationist agenda.
EXACTLY!! With a sprinkle of spirituality to make it taste good.''Because you approach it looking for why it is wrong and read into it to make it wrong and take the information that is anti-creation.''
PS In what other way is it possible to approach it, other than with application of reason and fact?