Non-scientific evidence

Traditionally, as a being having certain attributes. These would include omnipotence and omniscience, plus perfection of all the psychological traits we think of as desirable, such as love, wisdom, mercy, justice, and so forth. Need is rather a strong word --- we do not quite need a god in the same way that we need oxygen. Nonetheless, it seems like the existence of such a being would be a good idea. If anyone is currently running the Universe, they are doing a rather poor job of it, and obviously God would do a perfect job of it. But clearly this does not apply to historical data. It is not a priori and we can only acquire it by examining the world.As for experimentation, you're wrong. Science is founded on observation. An experiment is just when you set up an artificial situation so you can observe what happens under those circumstances. But it is not by experimentation that we know such facts as that elephants exist or that Saturn has rings or that the White Cliffs of Dover are composed of coccoliths. Yet these are scientific facts. That seems to be going a little too far. If I say, for example, that my car is reliable, do I mean that I think that it will never break down? No, I do not. And if I did think so, that would not imply that it was worthy of such a degree of trust --- I might just be wrong. Indeed, according to your definition of "reliable", I don't see how we could ever know anything to be reliable, since it might always let us down at some point in the future. Have you ever seen an optical illusion?

No, because you have other data available to you: photographs, video, eyewitness accounts, etc.Now, you might contemplate the idea that this data is fraudulent, and that there is a massive global conspiracy of cartographers, people pretending to be Parisians, people adept with Photoshop, etc, to convince you of the existence of Paris, but really how likely is that? The parsimonious explanation is that Paris does in fact exist.Nor would (having the sensation of) going to Paris clear up any lingering doubts entirely. After all, if you're prepared to be paranoid, you could suppose that someone might fly you round in circles for a few hours and then deposit you in a fake Paris built in Ohio and full of actors pretending to be Parisian. Or that you're sitting in a mental hospital hallucinating the experience of visiting Paris. Or that Satan is deluding you into thinking that you've visited Paris.The very fact that you give this as an example shows that you know that there are other data for the existence of Paris; and this is in fact how you know that Paris is a real place and Mordor is not.If, on the other hand, you were a pre-Columbian native American, and had no data whatsoever, then you would "forever stay in ignorance".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No.For a theory to be held as correct, the evidence has to logically follow from the theory. And we can ask no more.Perhaps anyone who wants to understand the subject further should go to my The Scientific Method For Beginners thread, and we could carry on there.

So, the usual stuff, then?I was expecting something more interesting.Well, I was hoping for something more interesting.

But he's wrong.He equivocates. He starts off with: ... which is true. (The bold font is mine.) But then he starts talking as though that's the only thing scientists could do. Now, if that was so, then the scientific method would have nothing to tell us about, for example, whether giraffes exist. Or the rings of Saturn. (Indeed, astronomy as a whole would not be a science, much to the surprise of astronomers.)He then specifically goes on to say: This is absurd. A forensic scientist can determine whether John Smith was killed by being shot in the head without repeating the event.

Yes.I'm glad I could clear that up for you. But scientists can show what has happened. They can show that John Smith was shot in the head. And they can do it without "repeating it in a controlled environment". And guess what, time travel is not part of the scientific method.

Yes. That's kinda why they're called "forensic scientists". We observe the evidence. Which is what scientists always do.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide and banner.

Your sources make it clear that the volcano was not underwater and that this happened a quarter of a billion years before the supposed flood. Why? This is obviously a usage of the word "plausible" with which I was previously unfamiliar.It is not plausible to me that forty days of rain would move continents thousands of miles. What of it? Actually it does, as one can see by looking at swamps. That is not actually an example of McDowell's fantasies. Because, as Wilfred Francis says, the species found in Baltic amber are modern. They're coeval. They're Eocene. "Often"? ... uh, no. Or a non-ark-like-object, or by climbing to the top of a mountain, or clinging to driftwood, or sitting on the back of a giant fish. Wow, who'd have thought that a giant deluge would be a common element of flood myths?

And neither of them clearly state that it was underwater; and Bloomberg says that it wasn't. None of which are "an underwater volcano erupting".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Floods have happened, yes. But no global flood such as we we find in creationist fantasy. No. Your efforts to rewrite the history of geology are as plausible as your other attempts to rewrite history. Because creationist wishful thinking is not a substitute for actual evidence. No. No.

Bloomberg says: "The eruption’s lava flows occurred near shallow seas. The volcanic emission reacted violently as it contacted the sea water."The implication seems to be that the volcano itself was on land and its lava flowed into shallow seas. Ah, paranoia.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.