Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-28-2017 4:16 AM
429 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,060 Year: 6,666/21,208 Month: 2,427/2,634 Week: 90/525 Day: 5/60 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
14151617Next
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5562
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 181 of 242 (789429)
08-14-2016 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by ringo
08-13-2016 11:50 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

REASONABLE assumption - i.e. an assumption based on reason.

An assumption is an assumption which is accepted as truth by those whose world view it fits.

ringo writes:

You have no reason to assume that the tectonic plates moves at a fundamentally different rate at some time in the past.

Sure I have reason to make my assumption. The earth was divided in the days of Peleg which was a duration of 239 years. But I believe it took place in a nano second or less. They just have not come to a complete stop yet, which is the reason different plates are moving at different rates.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 08-13-2016 11:50 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 08-14-2016 6:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 183 by Pressie, posted 08-15-2016 7:22 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 08-15-2016 11:48 AM ICANT has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28437
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 182 of 242 (789433)
08-14-2016 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by ICANT
08-14-2016 4:56 PM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
This is a science topic in a science forum and nonsense like the " The earth was divided in the days of Peleg which was a duration of 239 years." and other mythology are totally irrelevant.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2016 4:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1479
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


(2)
Message 183 of 242 (789463)
08-15-2016 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by ICANT
08-14-2016 4:56 PM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
ICANT writes:

An assumption is an assumption which is accepted as truth by those whose world view it fits.

To me that's the opposite of an assumption. That's religious.

Maybe the word 'assumption'; as commonly used by religious people, means the opposite of what it means in the natural sciences? In the natural sciences there's scientific evidence for 'assumptions'.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2016 4:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 1:30 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 184 of 242 (789472)
08-15-2016 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by ICANT
08-14-2016 4:56 PM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
ICANT writes:

An assumption is an assumption which is accepted as truth by those whose world view it fits.


Wrong. An assumption is based on the conclusion of another investigation. For example, we can "assume" that the sun will rise in the east because that's where we have always observed it rising. Stonehenge was built on the basis of the assumption that celestial events will continue as they have been observed.

ICANT writes:

Sure I have reason to make my assumption. The earth was divided in the days of Peleg which was a duration of 239 years. But I believe it took place in a nano second or less.


That's not a "reason". It's an empty speculation.

You are also wrong about what the Bible says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2016 4:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by JonF, posted 08-15-2016 2:42 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 187 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 2:50 AM ringo has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3485
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 185 of 242 (789483)
08-15-2016 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by ringo
08-15-2016 11:48 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Sometimes scientists assume something currently unavailable to complete an analysis that could lead to interesting investigations. Of course you know nobody would present that analysis without acknowledging and discussing the assumption, and nobody would think that the results of the analysis were established fact.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 08-15-2016 11:48 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by edge, posted 08-16-2016 10:37 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5562
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 186 of 242 (789511)
08-16-2016 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Pressie
08-15-2016 7:22 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi Pressie

Pressie writes:

In the natural sciences there's scientific evidence for 'assumptions'.

Evidence creates facts not assumptions.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Pressie, posted 08-15-2016 7:22 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by JonF, posted 08-16-2016 8:11 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2016 9:54 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 192 by edge, posted 08-16-2016 10:30 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5562
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 187 of 242 (789512)
08-16-2016 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by ringo
08-15-2016 11:48 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Hi ringo

ringo writes:

An assumption is based on the conclusion of another investigation.

Can you tell me where I can find that definition.

I can find several for the definition I gave.

ringo writes:

For example, we can "assume" that the sun will rise in the east because that's where we have always observed it rising.

That assumption is false.
The sun does not rise in the east.

The sun appears in the east due to the revolution of the earth on it's axis, in relation to the sun.

ringo writes:

Stonehenge was built on the basis of the assumption that celestial events will continue as they have been observed.

Stonehenge was built on the evidence that was observed not an assumption.

ringo writes:

That's not a "reason". It's an empty speculation.

Science agrees with the Bible that the land mass was in in one area surrounded by water.

Science and the Bible agree that the land mass was separated into the places they are today.

So the only problem is how quickly the land mass was divided.

How do we know when Pangea existed?

IF the plates have always moved at the same speed Pangea existed about 250 million years ago and began to break up about 150 million years ago.

The oldest data for the speed of the movement of the plates dates back to 1974.

Some plates are moving at higher rates than others.

Now just because the plates are moving at certain rates today does not mean they have always moved at those rates.

The steady movement for 150 million years is an assumption.

The plates could have been moved to their present location in a nano second and just have not come to a complete stop yet. This is an assumption.

ringo writes:

You are also wrong about what the Bible says.

Someone who believes the Bible is a myth telling me I am wrong about what the Bible says is hilarious.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 08-15-2016 11:48 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-16-2016 10:18 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 191 by edge, posted 08-16-2016 10:28 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 08-16-2016 11:52 AM ICANT has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3485
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 188 of 242 (789514)
08-16-2016 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT
08-16-2016 1:30 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Evidence creates facts not assumptions.

Then "assumptions" is not the correct term. I prefer "premises".

But the fact is that the "assumptions" under discussion are supported by tremendous amounts of evidence, no matter what you call them. Labeling them does not change reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 1:30 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5541
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 189 of 242 (789517)
08-16-2016 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT
08-16-2016 1:30 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Evidence creates facts not assumptions.

And the fact is that creationists have to change definitions around and have to challenge scientific assumptions because the evidence shows their claims are false.

Creationists don't like the result of a scientific theory? Claim it is based on "assumptions" and by so doing challenge its results.

In reality, as has been pointed out, those assumptions are not just "wild-ass guesses," but are based on evidence--generally a lot of evidence.

A good example of creation "science" at work--a few days ago you challenged scientific dating methods by stating they are based on "assumptions." In other words, without providing any evidence you sought to discredit an entire field of scientific study.

I provided a separate thread for you to back up your claim that the assumptions involved in scientific dating are incorrect, but you have avoided that thread--as I expected.

No problem. You just keep on doing creation "science" and the rest of will stick to real science. We can do that, as we have the evidence on our side.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 1:30 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11183
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 190 of 242 (789519)
08-16-2016 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by ICANT
08-16-2016 2:50 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Science agrees with the Bible that the land mass was in in one area surrounded by water.

The Bible says that the water was gathered into one place, this does not logically necessitate that all of the land was gathered into one place.

You could have a big lake with two islands in it and all the water would be gathered into one place while the land was not.

We've been over this before, I even drew you a picture.

ABE:

Here is the picture that I personally drew for you:

I uploaded it 5 years ago...

Notice how the water is all in one pace and the land is not.

Edited by Cat Sci, : see ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 2:50 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 191 of 242 (789520)
08-16-2016 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by ICANT
08-16-2016 2:50 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
That assumption is false.
The sun does not rise in the east.

The sun appears in the east due to the revolution of the earth on it's axis, in relation to the sun.


Thank you for clarifying that.

However, it would still be an assumption that the sun will appear in the east each morning.

At the same time, it is a pretty well supported assumption. Other assumptions maybe not so.

Science agrees with the Bible that the land mass was in in one area surrounded by water.

Well, I would classify that as an assumption. Frankly, it would be a generalization that is based on (as usual) limited data. So are you saying that the Bible has made an assumption? Can you give us the supporting data used in the Bible?

Science and the Bible agree that the land mass was separated into the places they are today.

So, the Bible actually tells us where North America is?

Does the Bible also tell us that the sky is blue?

So the only problem is how quickly the land mass was divided.

I could think of a lot more questions than that. One such that is receiving attention these days is why oceanic subduction zones start where they are.

How do we know when Pangea existed?

From paleomagnetic reconstructions.

IF the plates have always moved at the same speed Pangea existed about 250 million years ago and began to break up about 150 million years ago.

So, the observation that plates move at a certain speed (i.e., an observation) is trumped by the possibility that they could have moved faster?

Nevertheless, we do have speed measurements based on radiometric dates of the ocean floor, so this is a supported assumption.

The oldest data for the speed of the movement of the plates dates back to 1974.

Actually, no. The ages of the ocean floor and attached islands show show us distance versus time ... that would be speed. Here, for instance, is a diagram of ages for the Hawaiian Islands.

Some plates are moving at higher rates than others.

Yes, and the highest relative velocities are about 20cm/y. There is no evidence for 'catastrophic plate tectonics'.

You only assume it to fit your biblical narrative.

Now just because the plates are moving at certain rates today does not mean they have always moved at those rates.

However, there is no evidence going back to the Triassic (and new evidence suggests longer) that there were huge departures from known rates. For instance, during the Cretaceous, we are pretty certain that rates were somewhat higher, but nothing like the numbers that YECs would like.

The steady movement for 150 million years is an assumption.

Well, that is not one of our assumptions. We know that there are higher rates in the geological record; just nothing like what you desire in you wildest assumptions.

The plates could have been moved to their present location in a nano second and just have not come to a complete stop yet. This is an assumption.

Such a displacement is not even an assumption. It is a fantasy. There are no forces on earth that could do that except magic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 2:50 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 08-17-2016 1:56 AM edge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 192 of 242 (789521)
08-16-2016 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by ICANT
08-16-2016 1:30 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Evidence creates facts not assumptions.

Evidence allows us to create supported theories.

The main issue between us is, 'what is valid evidence'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 1:30 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 193 of 242 (789523)
08-16-2016 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by JonF
08-15-2016 2:42 PM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
Sometimes scientists assume something currently unavailable to complete an analysis that could lead to interesting investigations. Of course you know nobody would present that analysis without acknowledging and discussing the assumption, and nobody would think that the results of the analysis were established fact.

I might add that sometimes we test our assumptions by using them as premises. That does not mean that we dogmatically accept them as 'facts'. It means that we can devise a test to see if an assumption endures.

Does YEC do that? Does YEC test anything?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by JonF, posted 08-15-2016 2:42 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 08-16-2016 10:51 AM edge has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28437
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 194 of 242 (789524)
08-16-2016 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by edge
08-16-2016 10:37 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
edge writes:

Does YEC do that? Does YEC test anything?

Yes, of course they do and almost 100% of the time devise tests that support prior conclusions.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by edge, posted 08-16-2016 10:37 AM edge has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 195 of 242 (789534)
08-16-2016 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by ICANT
08-16-2016 2:50 AM


Re: Science vs. creation "science"
ICANT writes:

Science agrees with the Bible that the land mass was in in one area surrounded by water.


As I've already pointed out to you, the Bible doesn't say that. It says the water was in one place, not the land.

ICANT writes:

Science and the Bible agree that the land mass was separated into the places they are today.


The Bible doesn't say that either. When the earth was divided in the time of Peleg (Genesis 10:25), it clearly refers to the division of nations (Genesis 10:32), which clearly refers to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11).

It has nothing to do with continental drift. The Bible didn't predict continental drift. Nobody thought of interpreting it that way until after continental drift was confirmed by science. You're trying to reverse-engineer agreement of the Bible with science.

And continental drift has nothing to do with what we would see if the Flood had happened.

ICANT writes:

Someone who believes the Bible is a myth telling me I am wrong about what the Bible says is hilarious.


If you believed in Zeus you'd be wrong, whether I thought Zeus was a myth or not.

Edited by ringo, : Spelding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2016 2:50 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by ICANT, posted 08-17-2016 2:57 AM ringo has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
14151617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017