What is needed for creationists to connect evidence to valid conclusions

quote:

---

What I was saying is if there was an authoritative revelation of an historic event, a global flood, and subsequent observation agrees, then one would expect that the previously held belief that the world has been continuously passive biologically, geologically and atmospherically (if thats how its been) would have to be reviewed in light of the new reality.

---

Yes, but you're not producing the evidence to support that - even hypothetically.One minor point first, under the usual understanding of the Flood story the effective human population would be five (Noah's sons don't cpunt because their genes all come from Noah and his wife).And a bottleneck in the human population wouldn't prove a flood or even a major physical disaster. According to the Flood story all air-breathing species should show a major bottleneck at the same time. And that's assuming that Noah preserved all modern species on the Ark. Most creationists assume that the pairs on the ark were not from modern species, but from a far smaller number of "kinds" from which modern species evolved. So the bottleneck would be even worse, since the genetic variety must be shared between multiple species.And even proving that wouldn't prove there was a global flood. Just some sort of global disaster. You would have to go to the geology to find evidence to identify the form the disaster took. And we know that that evidence contradicts the Flood, too.

quote:

---

If the bible proves to be historically correct, through observation, all the way back to Noah, would you then consider looking for evidence of a flood? I'm not saying that because it's in the book it's true, I'm saying that it says so in the book. That's all, no observations or realities yet.

---

As I pointed out in my reply, the hypothetical evidence you chose to "prove" the Flood only related to humans. It certainly didn't come close to demonstrating that the Noah story was true. It was a prime example of the poor reasoning that this thread is about.Ignoring that, your statement would be true - in a world where the Flood hypothesis hadn't already been examined and decisively rejected. We don't live in that world. The Flood is one of the things we can say DIDN'T happen. And looking for evidence of the Flood is a long way from assuming that it happened or even accepting it as a likely possibility.

quote:

---

If evidence of a global flood poked you in the eye, would you then consider the implications this has on our understanding of the geology of the earth. Even to the extent of throwing out old long and hard held beliefs of an old earth, radiodating and the like, if need be. Or would you reject the concept of a flood and it's implications only because its written in the bible?

---

Neither. If the Flood were shown to have happened it wouldn't affect the evidence for an old Earth. This is the real point - showing that the Flood happened would only be weak, circumstantial evidence for a Young Earth - the Flood does NOT imply that the Earth is young.When we have solid direct evidence for an old Earth I would not and SHOULD not throw it out on that basis. To turn the question back on you, if it was shown that the Flood didn't happen (and it has been shown) would you reject everything in the Bible ? I certainly don't. Would you even reject everything in the Book of Genesis ?Let me put it simply. Evidence that the Bible is correct on one point - even a major one - is not, in itself, good evidence that the Bible is right on some other point. Proving that the Flood happened doesn't change the fact that the Earth has been proven to be old. If the Flood were proven I would believe that the Flood happened and that the Earth was old. That's the only rational position.

quote:

---

This forum is just a waste of time. It's not possible to put my argument is two two letter words.

---

What exactly is that supposed to mean ? You do realise that this entire topic is to a large extent ABOUT the idea that proving that the Bible is right on some point means that it is also right on some other point ?

quote:

---

nwr: I was responding to Percy's comment. I did not meant to stereotype all EVO's.

---

So it was only Percy you wished to malign ? Percy didn't say anything about worship.It would be more accurate to represent his point as the fact that the same scientific method that produced the knowledge that underlies our technology has also led us to the knowledge that the Earth is old, there was no global flood in the last few thousand years and that all life is related.But then misrepresentation is rife in creationist writings. If the alleged accuracy of the Bible is evidence of it's truth, then what about the demonstrated inaccuracy that is endemic to creationism ?

quote:

---

The attitude we have for the EVO group is that you are almost always against the ID - you are against us. You oppose that ID should be taught alongside of EVO. Therefore we see you clearly as anti-God. The EVO group frustrates Christians and ID folks becuase you are not just FOR EVO, you are AGAINST even the notion of ID

---

Ao others have said, as a religious belief ID should not be taught alongside evolution in science classes. To do so is both to damage education and to promote a particular group of religious beliefs (against the U.S. Constitution). Are you really saying that God is opposed to both a good science education and the U.S. Constitution ?

quote:

---

EVO is a religion taught in our schools - it preaches that religion has no place in reality. I say this becuase, again, EVO is not just for EVO, EVO groups OPPOSE ID.

---

ID is a dishonest, religiously-motivated PR campaign aimed at subverting the U.S. Constitution and damaging science education. Aren't there enough reasons to oppose it just there ?And what about the Christians who oppose ID ? - like Francis Collins and Ken Miller ? Are you accusing them of saying that religion has no place in reality ? Are their books just lies to cover up a secret rejection of religion ? Or could it be that you are wrong ?