|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fountains of the deep, new evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Numerology is usually a bad idea. Sometimes the number eight is just a coincidence.
One legend says that their ancestors - a family of eight members survived the great flood inside a fish. Sometimes you can find the missing details in the neighboring tribe. Colbard writes:
And yet you feel free to mangle the KJV Bible to fit some scientific article.
In regards to a test tube for myths and metaphysics, I consider the KJV Bible the only guide. Colbard writes:
Treasure Island has never been proven wrong to me.
It has not been proven wrong to me yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Opinions are for ice cream. Subjectively, nobody can prove that their favorite is better than mine. I have failed, but I still dare to have an opinion. Objectively, opinions don't trump facts. Holding an opinion that defies facts isn't daring; it's just foolish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Your opinions about ice cream do matter - just ask Ben or Jerry. To say that your opinions don't matter is to say that you don't matter, which is one of my primary objections to so called 'scientific method' What I'm saying is that your opinions don't matter to science - and necesarily so. By trying to inject your opinions into science, you're the one who's devaluing everybody else's opinion. Science can only draw useful conclusions by coming to a consensus on what is "true" - i.e. by eliminating individual opinions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
You answered your own question: It's a process; it's ongoing. ringo writes: A process of elimination, yes it has value, but what if the majority of the consensus board are wrong? Science can only draw useful conclusions by coming to a consensus on what is "true" - i.e. by eliminating individual opinions. Yes, the consensus might be wrong one day. Then the next day new evdence comes in and the consensus may still be wrong. But eventually, with enough new evidence, the concensus should move toward "truth". What other method would you propose to improve it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
Since you accepted by faith that somebody had radio-carbon dated a penny, maybe you should be leaving faith out of the equation. Reasoning should have told you how ludicrous that idea was, but your faith seems to let the ludicrous in.
I agree with the method, and accept progression, but I use both reasoning and faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
But you don't accept the dating today. Why not?
Not really, as a kid I believed what I was told to pass exams. Fortunately there never was a Question about dating in the final.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Is all of your "evidence" as idiotic as carbon-dating a penny? Surely you ought to be embarrassed to even mention any other "evidence" you've seen. ringo writes:
Because I have had far too much evidence on the contrary. But you don't accept the dating today. Why not? What you ought to be doing, instead of sticking to your story, is re-evaluating all of that so-called "evidence" before you make any more pronouncements about dating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Well, there are flood layers, a lot of them. The problem is that there are other layers between them - volcanic ash or wind-deposited sand, for example - so we know that the flood layers are not all related. I don't believe the ancient layers in the earth with their corresponding fossils is evidence of millions of years per layer, unless there was a flood for each layer. When you see a pile of leaves, do you assume they were all from one giant tree? You probably accept the sensible conclusion that they came from a lot of trees. So why would you assume that all flood layers come from one flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Maybe you didn't understand the analogy. It's supposed to make the idea of one flood look ridiculous. It's a good analogy for the flood layers. Do you seriously believe that every leaf came from one gigantic tree? If not, your flood evidence is completely worthless. It points to many floods, not one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Of course the Bible doesn't support any of that. You're not only twisting science; you're twisting the Bible too. As a global flood recedes, the waters are divided by land masses, earth upheavals and changes over a 500 year period, during which time the earth is also coming out of an ice age. But in any case, stretching to five hundred years doesn't help you at all. There's no way for all that lithification to take place in such a short time frame. Multiple flood layers indicate multiple floods over a long period of time, with time between floods for drying, hardening, compaction, metamorphosis, etc. And between floods, life goes on, leaving tracks, burrows, etc. between the layers. Flood geology doesn't come close to explaining all of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
No, science has no problem with sudden changes. Volcanic eruptions are an excellent example, one that floodists ignore. There are many "igneous adventures" interspersed with the many floods in the geological record. It is just not possible to explain all of the sudden changes with one event.
You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic. Colbard writes:
Nobody says the change rates are static but they do stay within certain ranges. You want to extrapolate so far outside the known possible ranges that you're not connected to reality any more.
As the apostle Peter says "they say that all things have continued as from the beginning" the change rates are static. Colbard writes:
The biggest storms and the biggest earthquakes you can imagine are miniscule on the world geographic scale and the geologic time scale. Storms and earthquakes are tiny local events. You can't just scale them up.
But a few modern storms and earthquakes will get people to think differently than the sleepy everlasting story of mini progressions. Colbard writes:
I know. They have no foundation in the Bible and no foundation in science.
No, creationists don't always teach the Bible....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024