The Impossibility Of The Flood

Rrhain knows this. His central point is that they're just hiding the God connection behind a number of intermediate steps. If you ask the question, "Where does the flood hypothesis come from?" you quickly get to the heart of the matter.--Percy

Creationist "scientific" papers are some of the intermediate steps hiding the God connection. That's why "scientific" is in quotes. The papers provide a scientific smokescreen to obscure what are inherently religious ideas.So when you say: There are two ways to respond to this.One is that that's exactly what they're trying to prove through their "research", that God exists. Their "research" is just one of the intermediate steps on the way to proving God.The other less appealing response is that creationist researchers know their research cannot prove God exists, but they do it anyway because it helps hide the God connection. I don't adhere to this view. I think creationists are very sincere about their "research".--Percy

Sure, ideally they'd love that, but it's still Flood=>Bible=>God, with the Bible just an intermediate step. As Rrhain's reply to your Message 29 makes clear, they don't even hide their true intent at all well, although some do it better than others. But are you really going to let the fact that some creationists do an absolutely excellent job of hiding their intent convince you that proving their religion isn't their intent? Few people are so perverse as to carry on for decades in the service of a science that has no scientific evidence whatsoever and that never rewards them with results or progress, all the while causing them to have to engage in significant numbers of dissemblings and and misrepresentations (including to themselves), except in the service of their religion.There is no way to avoid the fact that creationists are completely caught up in their own chimerical goal of proving that where science contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, science is wrong. Such sincerity cannot be faked. I am very fond of quoting what Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winning scientist) is purported to have said: "Good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."But I also imagine that it is not uncommon for sincere creationist researchers to turn their eyes occasionally upward and ask, "If you are not a jester God, why are you making the evidence so damn difficult to deal with?"--Percy

Now I'm beginning to wonder if you're just making a semantic argument. I think most sincere Christians would say you can't prove God, and they would probably quote passages from the Bible in support, like "Thou shall not test the Lord thy God." When we say "prove God" in this thread, we just mean prove that their religion is correct.For the most part, creationists are not actually seeking scientific evidence of God, God under a microscope or in front of a telescope as it were (although some are obviously seeking scientific evidence of God, but we don't need to consider them in this discussion). They're more than happy to just prove the Bible correct, meaning that all the Bible's statements relating to God are also correct. The Bible says, "In the beginning God..." If you prove the Bible, you've done as much as most creationists feel necessary in proving God. Proving the Bible is just an intermediate step.If I were one of a couple hundred scientists working to prove string theory (where by prove I of course mean find a successful test), and the steps to that proof are of the form A=>B=>...=>Y=>Z, and I'm working on the P=>Q portion, how am I not trying to prove string theory? I know you're addressing Rrhain here, but he and I are making very similar arguments, so I can't help noting that Ray Martinez has said this many times.Creationists are believers trying to prove their beliefs. The strength and sincerity of their belief causes them to turn science on its head and make research an exercise in finding excuses instead of following evidence. They're no different from all the various ESP, UFOs, etc., believer-researchers. They're only engaging in decades of fruitless research because they already believe the phenomenon is a reality and are only seeking reality's confirmation. But though reality is an uncooperative partner, its reluctance to provide that confirmation will never be a discouragement.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Grammar.