|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRVE history of the Flood... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: I don't think that pointing out how science is meant to work misses the point at all.
quote: But to do a scientific investigation you have to set that "knowledge" aside. And why wouldn't you ? If you really believed it you would have every expectation that you would be able to confirm it
quote: In other words you trust a belief held by your "fallen mind" so much that you daren't put it to the test. Do try to think about what you are saying, especially when you are talking about a view of the Bible that is hardly supported by the Bible itself.
quote: If you aren't able to enforce conformity with your views why would you expect other people to automatically follow them ? Especially given the rather obvious problems.
quote: Which only means that your religion forbids you to scientifically investigate anything that might contradict your preferred interpreting of the Bible. Pointing that out is hardly missing the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: Which is why you have - to date - given three different results. And your "easy mathematics" fails to take account of precision and rounding errors. And the rest is equally bad So I guess you've proven that you are an ignorant liar who knows nothing about mathematics beyond basic arithmetic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
David Jay's idea of a mathematical proof is to claim that he added up some numbers and got a particular result (which is wrong). Then he claims that the addition is correct because nobody corrected him - even though someone did - and that the answer is a different number.
in the unlikely event that he has a genuine degree it obviously wasn't in any numerate discipline. Just pathetic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: I am sorry that you object to me telling the truth. Let me remind you:
Message 58
How many years until the Flood ..... 1646 years. Thats your product RIGHT ? RIGHT ? The genesis or Biblical history says that exactly 1646 years after Creation there was a worldwide flood. Now dont throw a fit and start writing the words, myth, lies etc etc... Mathematically you cant deny the addition of these years. Its easy, its a basic, a cornerstone, its EXACT. Its not billions and trillions of years, changed with every new theory of a new theory of an old theory. Its a standard. The number of years is 1646.
So let us note you originally claimed that the total was 1646 - stating that number 3 times. In Message 61 I corrected you since you had not only added up the numbers incorrectly, you had ignored the rounding errors (which make it impossible to come up with an exact result) In Message 65 you stated:
As no one above could or can differ with the exact number of years Genesis gives. The Math is correct, the total addition product is 1656 according to Biblical references exactly. If it was wrong, the above math types would have stated such. But the MATH IS CORRECT.
Just as I said - you declared that the total was a different number - 1656 instead of 1646 and denied the existence of the correction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: So, the "first stage" didn't produce the sediments you would expect from flooding, instead it looks like sea level rises over a very long period of time. Why would it do that ? Or are you suggesting that the first stage took tens or even hundreds of thousands of years ?
quote: Not exactly. In any vertical section the law of superposition is followed for obvious reasons. In fact it is probably better to say that the layer was NOT simultaneously deposited - the base of the stratum in one place may have been deposited later than the base in another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: No, it does not. Walther's law is about how deposition varies with environment. It does not say anything about short times and your Flood is a radically different environment from the slow changes in sea level along the coastline, typically envisaged.
quote: In fact there is quite considerable change over time. And how do you account for that fact ?
quote: Modern coelacanths are different enough from fossil specimens to be classified as a different genus. And they live in the relatively stable environment of the deep seas, so slow change is not a great surprise. So really these two pieces of evidence seem to favour an old Earth and no Flood.
quote: So you misunderstand Walther's Law and ignore the evidence for the reptile-mammal transition. But I guess that you don't like us seeing that truth at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
The fact that you label the changes in trilobites as "microevolution" - despite them clearly qualifying as macroevolution by scientific standards doesn't really say much without a clear way of telling the distinction between micro- and macro-.
quote: Is it ? The trilobites underwent a good deal of change. However according to you mammals underwent significantly greater change - and mammals are still here. And even more changed from their ancestors who lived at the time of the first trilobites. i'd be interested if you can come up with a version that is still a fact and is highly significant. I think that you count the trilobites as persisting because you consider them to have changed only a little which makes the point somewhat tautologous. Those that survive longest with "little" change will naturally show "little" change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
A question. How is declaring the Flood story a myth different from your assertion that it is a reliable historical account ? And how is it worse than your rejection of the evidence confirming the reliability of scientific dating methods ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Scientific dating methods do not rely on assuming the absence of a catastrophe. And even if it did that would hardly make Creationism than the dogma of a cult. Creationist dating methods are based on assuming that the Masoretic text is absolutely correct even though we know it is not. And your method of ignoring the imprecisions in the Biblical text is even worse. Even when you get the addition right. Neither logical, nor rational nor exacting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: That is certainly true of your assertion that the Bible is reliable. And yet you saw fit to do it in the same post where you objected to Coyote calling the Flood story a myth.
quote: I don't think that you can fairly ask us to stop using strong evidence just because you point blank refuse to accept it.
quote: The difference is that we have good arguments. If you ever came up with a good reason why dates derived from radiocarbon, tree rings, varve counts ice cores and all the other methods should agree while you can't find a single valid dating method that supports your view things would be different. Instead all you do is assert that your dogma is correct and science must therefore be wrong. Or many, many other bad arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: We have had long presentations of evidence for dating methods to which you have offered no adequate response. In contrast claims for the accuracy of the dates in Genesis don't seem to have ever risen above assertion. So I don't see any real equality here. We have the evidence, you have opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: That's your opinion. It's not demonstrable - while the scientific dating methods have huge amounts of confirming evidence. And remember that a considerable amount of that evidence has been discussed here.
quote: Then stop. If you can't offer any sensible rebuttals to the dating evidence then don't waste time claiming that the dates are wrong because they contradict your beliefs - which pretty much begs the question anyway, when those beliefs are the point under discussion. This whole side discussion seems to be nothing more than an attempt,put by you to suppress evidence you have no good answer to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Pointless arguing by assertion. We know perfectly well that you have no effective rebuttal because the subject has been discussed.
quote: By any reasonable standard it is proved. Ignoring the evidence won't change that. Go back to RAZD's threads on correlations. Address the actual evidence. Don't waste time with anti-scientific arguments that ignore the evidence or irrationally reject any possibility of evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: This thread is in the Science forums, so yes you do. Even if it wasn't, there are still theological arguments against your position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
You can take it as the basis of your beliefs but you can't use it as evidence that those beliefs are true without showing that it is reliable. Not on this thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024