• 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!

is it cherry-picking or careful reading? how can a faith be based on an old book?

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It's called critical reasoning, it's useful!

Critical Reasoning Test Have a go.
:D

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.... :D

PS... and "NO" -- I'm not doing it again. Please go through it with your own critical reasoning.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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

lakemissoula.jpg

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.

hillshorelines.jpg


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.

Old outdated references. My sources represent recent comprehensive research as cited in 2000.
 

Corvus

Feathered eyeball connoisseur
''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?
 

Corvus

Feathered eyeball connoisseur
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.

How does one fit 6.5 million pairs of animals, on a 450ft wooden boat? Plus their food, fresh water and medicines and bedding and living space? The numbers don't add up with the Ark. It would have to be much larger than the largest aircraft carrier ever built.. You would need a floating island the size of London. Have you any idea of the mass of all those animals and their material needs would represent?
 

Corvus

Feathered eyeball connoisseur
Yes... science does change... again... and again... and again... as more information is acquired.
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.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
:D

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.... :D

PS... and "NO" -- I'm not doing it again. Please go through it with your own critical reasoning.

Your view reflects a YEC or OEC Creationist agenda, and no critical reasoning, nor a good objective background in science.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
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.
Yes... you can't question the thought... if you do your are not of repute!!

That is real science in action. Contradict and YOU ARE BLACKBALLED!

It does work for sure, if all you are interested is in your money.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Your view reflects a YEC or OEC Creationist agenda, and no critical reason, nor a good background in science.
hmm.... I don't remember quoting them.

So, if I don't agree with you.............

I prefer freedom of thought.
 

Corvus

Feathered eyeball connoisseur
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.
I am sorry but that is simply funny. You clearly have no respect for the scientific method or verifiability.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yes... science does change... again... and again... and again... as more information is acquired.

True, but the changes are positive toward sounder science, and definitely do not reflect your biased YEC nor OEC Creationist agenda.
 

Corvus

Feathered eyeball connoisseur
It does work for sure, if all you are interested is in your money.
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.
 

Corvus

Feathered eyeball connoisseur
I was a field Geologist, and I never made more than $60,000 dollars a year.
Chemical analyst, around £26,000 p/a, as senior analyst.

I've run a batch of samples for analysis on one run that costs more than I do for a month of employment. Frequently.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
E
''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?
EXACTLY!! With a sprinkle of spirituality to make it taste good.
 
Top