Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 9:32 AM
410 online now:
halibut, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (6 members, 404 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,879 Year: 27,485/21,208 Month: 1,398/1,714 Week: 241/365 Day: 10/73 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
60NextFF
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10068
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 346 of 894 (819515)
09-12-2017 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by Phat
09-12-2017 9:02 AM


Re: Psychology Study: Does Flood=Jesus?
In defense of Faith, I feel that she strongly believes that if secular folks were honest within themselves, they would believe that a global flood (Hint: Bible=Truth=Jesus) is a potential reality.

I am sure she does feel that way. But acknowledging that does not excuse the lying about her posting history, the insults, the expressions of hatred, and then leaving in a huff. Most of us here are equally committed to our positions as is Faith.

Regardless of the truth, there is no way that Faith's posts are anywhere near an argument, let alone proof for her position. Telling people they would believe what she believes is they would "think harder", or if they weren't Marxists is pretty insulting.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 9:02 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3993
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 347 of 894 (819516)
09-12-2017 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by RAZD
09-12-2017 7:34 AM


Re: The evidence says otherwise
Don't know if you're aware of this, but there's a lake in Sweden with 9,000-odd varves that are still forming today. As you know one of the alleged issues with Suigetsu is that the varves aren't forming today.

Validating a Swedish varve chronology using radiocarbon, palaeomagnetic secular variation, lead pollution history and statistical correlation

quote:
We use statistical correlation of palaeomagnetic secular variation (PSV) curves from a varved Holocene lake sediment sequence in west central Sweden (Lake Kälksjön) against those of a Fennoscandian master stack (FENNOSTACK) to correct for an apparent error in the varve chronology. Additional correlation between a lead pollution-derived chronology for the last 2000 years corroborates the PSV results. Use of the FENNOSTACK palaeomagnetic master curve reveals no significant difference in duration between large-scale features from ∼2500 to ∼8000 cal. yrs BP. Statistical correlation, however, implies that 270 years are missing from the younger part (8000 cal. yrs BP). A similar comparison between the PSV-determined ages and calibrated bulk radiocarbon ages suggests that the sediments of mid-Holocene age contain substantial amounts of old carbon, probably of soil origin, which causes bulk sediment-calibrated mean 14C ages to be up to 850 years older than the corrected varve chronology, which extends to 9193 ± 186 cal. yrs BP. This study highlights both the use of statistical correlation as a technique for detecting errors between chronologies, and the importance of validating incremental chronologies with more than one independent method.

PM me and email address and I can send you the paper.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2017 7:34 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2017 5:04 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29622
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 348 of 894 (819517)
09-12-2017 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by Phat
09-12-2017 9:02 AM


Re: Psychology Study: Does Flood=Jesus?
Phat writes:

In defense of Faith, I feel that she strongly believes that if secular folks were honest within themselves, they would believe that a global flood (Hint: Bible=Truth=Jesus) is a potential reality.

Someone might well think that but if so that simply affirms utter dishonesty about the Bible as will as reality.

If someone is honest about the Bible then the truth is that it's not all about Jesus, it contains contradictions and factual errors and even contains two mutually exclusive flood tales.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 9:02 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 9:51 AM jar has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10068
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 349 of 894 (819518)
09-12-2017 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Rrhain
09-10-2017 4:34 AM


Re: Atheistic science?
No, it isn't. God is an object. Any object that interacts with us will necessarily leave traces

Not if the interaction is magical and undetectable. If God is magically inserting a spirit into each human at say, conception, and the spirit is immaterial, then such insertion would not be detectable.

So no, the question of the existence of god is most definitely within the realm of science.

Since I don't accept your first premise, I am not led to your conclusion. The existence of God is not provable or disprovable by philosophy or science.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Rrhain, posted 09-10-2017 4:34 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by Phat, posted 09-13-2017 8:32 AM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 819 by Rrhain, posted 09-17-2017 4:29 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10078
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 350 of 894 (819519)
09-12-2017 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by jar
09-12-2017 9:35 AM


Re: Psychology Study: Does Flood=Jesus?
Ken Ham is responsible for a lot of this controversy. I know that you think he is another Christian con-man, but i dont know him nor his ministry well enough to judge that. What I do know is what he says...it is plainly available right here on the internet.
The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days

Ham seems to believe that Biblical word for word literalism is necessary in order to believe (and not doubt) that Jesus is alive and is God. He quotes: If we allow our children to accept the possibility that we can doubt the days of creation when the language speaks so plainly, then we are teaching them a particular approach to all of Scripture. Why shouldn’t they then start to doubt that Christ’s Virgin Birth really means a virgin birth? Why shouldn’t they start to doubt that the Resurrection really means resurrection?

You have presented another approach to reading the Bible and so, of course, disagree with Ken Ham. We here at EvC may trust you more because you have nothing to sell or gain from your words. You always taught me that doubt was healthy. I personally prefer to use the phrase "To Question" rather than "To Doubt"...because in matters of faith and belief, a man who does not stand for something will fall for anything!

But I will agree that the focus of this particular thread is on evidence rather than faith and belief.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by jar, posted 09-12-2017 9:35 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by jar, posted 09-12-2017 9:56 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29622
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 351 of 894 (819520)
09-12-2017 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Phat
09-12-2017 9:51 AM


Re: Psychology Study: Does Flood=Jesus?
The fact that there are many, many Christians who do believe in Jesus shows that Ken Ham is simply trying to put ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag and can't figure out why his shoes stink.

The man is not even a successful con except with those who really really really want to be conned.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 9:51 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 352 of 894 (819521)
09-12-2017 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by Phat
09-12-2017 9:02 AM


Re: Psychology Study: Does Flood=Jesus?
quote:

In defense of Faith, I feel that she strongly believes that if secular folks were honest within themselves, they would believe that a global flood (Hint: Bible=Truth=Jesus) is a potential reality.

That hardly fits her behaviour. It doesn't explain why she maintains that "honest seeing" would confirm that her arguments are correct when anyone who does look honestly at the evidence and her arguments can see that she's ignoring massive amounts of evidence that she can't reasonably explain - and bad as her arguments for the Flood are, her arguments against mainstream geology are often even worse.

Faith is never one to admit her failings unless they can be used as excuses for worse failings. Consider the issue of the maps again. Faith insisted that she had found a real contradiction in mainstream geology based on her interpretation of a map she couldn't read properly. Despite the obvious implausibility - any half-way sensible person would have found ways to check - she insisted she was right and had real evidence, right up until the point where it was absolutely obvious to anyone that she was wrong - that the mountains she thought were the Rockies were off the Western shore of the present continent. Only then did she admit that she couldn't read the map properly - and if she'd been honest she would have admitted it right from the start.

Add to that the fact that the literal Flood is even more important to her than that argument, that she has said that if the Flood occurred it must show in the geology and you can see why she is so committed to her falsehoods.

Admitting that the geological evidence is against the Flood would mean admitting that she doesn't have her boasted "discernment" (and we know for a fact that she doesn't so she's only fooling herself there) and that would be a big blow to her false pride. So she can't do it. I guess that Christian humility is just beyond her.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 9:02 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3037
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 353 of 894 (819522)
09-12-2017 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by Phat
09-12-2017 9:02 AM


No lies, just a difference of context
Phat writes:

Faith writes:

It's a matter of honest seeing, as I said But that isn't going to happen is it?

Tell them specifically what it is that you want them to see, Faith.

Percy and Faith are both correct, they're just using 2 different contexts for the word "honestly."

If anyone saw things the way Percy "honestly" sees things, they will be forced to agree with Percy.
If anyone saw things the way Faith "honestly" sees things, they will be forced to agree with Faith.

Both of these statements are true, using their intended context of the word "honestly."

The issue is that the two contexts are extremely different.

Percy's context of the word "honestly:"
Very similar (if not exactly the same) as the colloquial usage.
Percy is talking about looking at reality, and seeing where the information (evidence) leads us using the lens of as-objective-as-possible-based-on-the-information-available.
Any and all information that can be understood to match reality must be accounted for.
Any and all information that cannot currently be verified against reality may be ignored or labeled as "to be explained later" by future information.

Faith's context of the word "honestly:"
Based on the Bible, as interpreted by Faith and the scholars she respects.
Faith is talking about looking at reality, and seeing where the information (evidence) leads us using the lens of as-subjectively-interpreting-it-to-match-with-the-never-wrong-Bible-as-subjectively-interpreted-by-Faith.
Any and all information that can be understood to match the Bible (as interpreted by Faith and the scholars she respects) must be accounted for.
Any and all information that cannot currently be verified against the Bible (as interpreted by Faith and the scholars she respects) may be ignored or labeled as "to be explained later" by future information.

If you use those two different contexts of the word "honestly" for the respective participants, then both sides of the ping-pong match most certainly are being honest and correct, and anyone who looks at the same information "honestly" (using the same context as the respective participant) will be forced to come to the same conclusion.

It is up to the reader (or, perhaps, another thread) to choose which context of "honesty" they personally feel more aligned with.

Percy's context (in this statement, not as a person in general) revolves around the "honest interpretation of reality."
Faith's context revolves around the "honest interpretation of the Bible."

Remember that, and read their statements again using those two distinct contexts and you'll see that they are both being absolutely truthful and honest in their respective contexts. The idea that they both think everyone should see things their way is the issue. If everyone should see thing one way... and there are 2 (or more) differing ideas... then there will be a "right way" and a "wrong way" perceived by each participant.

Personally, for this context, I completely agree with Percy.
But it's not difficult to understand Faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 9:02 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 10:07 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 359 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2017 10:40 AM Stile has responded
 Message 403 by Percy, posted 09-13-2017 8:06 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10078
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 354 of 894 (819523)
09-12-2017 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Stile
09-12-2017 10:00 AM


Re: No lies, just a difference of context
Looking through our archives, I came upon this PNT (which was never promoted) from our now deceased member Buzsaw. What Constitutes By Definition, Evidence Of Supernatural Phenomena

His basic definition of evidence was

quote:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis

Much of our disagreement concerning evolution vs creationism focuses on what evidence is and is not. As for my own definition of evidence? In a Forum such as this, much of my perception of evidence relies on the character of the one posting, coupled with the argument that they lay out. If the argument makes sense, I will consider that to be subjective evidence.

Thus I agree with your assessment, Stile. You hit the nail on the head.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Stile, posted 09-12-2017 10:00 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13311
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 355 of 894 (819525)
09-12-2017 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Phat
09-12-2017 9:21 AM


Re: Lets Define What Evidence Is
quote:

For the record, let's define precisely what evidence is and is not. Can everyone list their interpretation of the definition?

Strictly speaking - and to an extent that leads to weird edge cases - evidence for a hypothesis is any fact that is more likely if the hypothesis is true than if the hypothesis is false.

However, when there is a generally accepted alternative hypothesis we should really be comparing the likelihood given the two hypotheses.

This is why saying "the strata and the fossils are evidence of the Flood" is silly. There are features of both the geological record and the fossil record that speak very strongly against their being produced by the Flood. Cherry-picked features might conceivably support the Flood, but once you make the broader claim the cherry-picking is out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 9:21 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3037
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 356 of 894 (819526)
09-12-2017 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Phat
09-12-2017 9:21 AM


Re: Lets Define What Evidence Is
Phat writes:

For the record, let's define precisely what evidence is and is not. Can everyone list their interpretation of the definition?

Buzsaw writes:

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis

Much of our disagreement concerning evolution vs creationism focuses on what evidence is and is not. As for my own definition of evidence? In a Forum such as this, much of my perception of evidence relies on the character of the one posting, coupled with the argument that they lay out. If the argument makes sense, I will consider that to be subjective evidence.

Personally, I don't think such a thing as "subjective evidence" exists.

That is, I don't agree with Buzsaw's definition.
Not that I think it's wrong, just that I think it's incomplete. I think it necessarily requires a mention that the "thing or things" that are helpful can also be objectively verified against reality.

Without that... you could say that a dream I had was evidence my friends were going to get married.
To me, that's simply not true. Dreams are not evidence of things since they're wrong about reality a lot more than they're right. Therefore, when they're right, I would call it a "coincidence" more than "evidence."

This isn't to say that I ignore the things you call "subjective evidence."
I still certainly take them into account. I simply call them "things that could be right, or could be wrong."
"Evidence," to me, is never something that could be right or could be wrong... it's factual and reliable.

And I certainly do "form conclusions and judgments" on things that could be right or could be wrong all the time.
We have to on a daily basis to get through the hours efficiently.
I simply do not confuse the two things.

There are some things I form conclusions on based on things that could be right or could be wrong.
These things I hold extremely tentatively and am easily persuaded to change my mind faced with some "more factual" information.

There are other things I form conclusions on based on actual evidence.
These things I hold much less tentatively and will only be persuaded to change my mind if I can understood how "more factual" information explains my previous situations as-well-as current situation that are not-explainable by my previous conclusions/evidence.

Don't let that fool you into thinking there are only 2 types of conclusions I make either.
Those are the ends of a spectrum, really. There are many, many different conclusions I make based on a variety of "evidence" and "things that could be right or could be wrong." The level of tentatively I hold on each of those decisions depends on how much "evidence" they're based on vs. how much "could be right, could be wrong" stuffs.

And, of course, I can be wrong about things I think are "evidence" vs. "things I think could be wrong..." which adds even more confusion

But, just having the integrity to go over previously-held-ideas with all the information now available will get you through all the confusion without the need to worry even the slightest.

If you do, actually, form conclusions in this manner... it really does make for a very stress-free life. At least, it does for me


This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 9:21 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 357 of 894 (819527)
09-12-2017 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Faith
09-11-2017 10:50 PM


Re: Flood deposition
Faith writes:

I've given plenty of evidence and argument even on this very thread, but that doesn't count of course because Evo Decrees it's wrong.

What evidence? All you have presented thus far are bare assertions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Faith, posted 09-11-2017 10:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 358 of 894 (819528)
09-12-2017 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Faith
09-12-2017 2:46 AM


Re: Flood deposition
Faith writes:

It's a matter of honest seeing, as I said But that isn't going to happen is it?

The question is, can you honestly see?

In igneous rocks found above dinosaur fossils we find that the 40K/40Ar ratio is no more than 27.47 and the 238U/207Pb ratio in zircons is no more than 15.22. How does your model explain this? How does your flood sort rocks and fossils so that we always get this relationship between the isotope ratios in rocks and the fossils we find below them?

Until you answer this question, you can't claim that you are looking at things honestly. You have to explain the correlation we see between ratios of isotopes in rocks and the species of fossils we see associated with them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 2:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10068
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 359 of 894 (819530)
09-12-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Stile
09-12-2017 10:00 AM


Re: No lies, just a difference of context
Both of these statements are true, using their intended context of the word "honestly."

I disagree. Honesty does not mean just faithfully presenting one's position. I believe Fatih actually crosses some lines where she is not telling the truth. Whether or not that is knowingly, or with failing to understand the implications of what she says is another question.

Any and all information that cannot currently be verified against the Bible (as interpreted by Faith and the scholars she respects) may be ignored or labeled as "to be explained later" by future information.

I'm sorry, but this kind of dismissal is not honest if done knowingly. Faith goes further and says that such things are illusion.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Stile, posted 09-12-2017 10:00 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Stile, posted 09-12-2017 11:22 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29622
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 360 of 894 (819531)
09-12-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by Phat
09-12-2017 9:21 AM


All Evidence is Equal (But some evidence is more equal than others)
Faith does produce evidence but simply not very good evidence and certainly unreliable evidence.

For example, consider witness testimony.

An identified, verified witness is a more reliable source then an anonymous witness.

Multiple witness accounts that agree is more reliable than a single witness.

Witness accounts that can then be corroborated by physical evidence would be more reliable than uncorroborated witness testimony.

Based on those facts consider the Bible Flood.

First, almost everything in the Bible is anonymous; the author is unknown. Specifically the Flood stories are both attributed to the same author yet there is no evidence that the author ever even existed and the two stories show that if there was one author then the author changed the testimony.

There are at least two contradictory and mutually exclusive accounts of the Biblical Flood and the testimony is all jumbled up together. So even though we have two witnesses or two stories from one witness the testimony is contradictory. Even if one was right the other would be wrong and based on the testimony it is impossible to determine if either is factual.

That requires the two tales to be tested against physical evidence.

Absolutely none of the physical evidence supports either testimony and all of the physical evidence specifically shows that neither testimony is factually correct.

So Faith does present evidence but it is the weakest, most unreliable possible evidence and reality precludes any evidence she has presented from being correct.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Phat, posted 09-12-2017 9:21 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2017 11:06 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
60NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017