The TRVE history of the Flood...

That's the difference: science goes where the evidence is.

I became a Bible believer on the basis of the evidence that God inspired it. That means any evidence that contradicts it is wrong. When it comes to the historical sciences there is no way to verify your conclusions anyway. It's not really science. REAL science makes REAL use of REAL evidence, and that can't be said for the sciences that interpret the past. But the Bible is God's own word to the human race. On the basis of the evidence for that I know there was a worldwide Flood and it's you who are in the dark. Your local flood is silly, all those revisionist claims are silly.

If it was a local flood there would have been no need for a huge boat. Noah and his family could have simply walked out of the potential flood area and enough animals would have survived in unflooded areas to repopulate.

Yet it seems that God could not even get the story straight in her own words. She tells two mutually exclusive and contradictory accounts.The God you market is simply not a reliable witness.

That, or your belief is wrong.

Any field that follows the scientific method is a real science whether it contradicts the bible or not.Creationists are trying to destroy the reputation of "historical sciences" because of their religious beliefs, not because of some actual faults in those sciences.Given that, its no wonder we accuse creationists of being anti-science.

What Faith means is that there is no way she can verify our conclusions. Of course, for the rest of the world there certainly are ways to test and verify conclusions. Those methods have been pointed out to here and in fact for several hundred years every one of those methods have shown that reality is correct and the Bible is false.That is the reality she avoids dealing with.Fact: The Biblical Flood is a myth.Fact: The Garden of Eden is a myth.Fact: Young Earth is a fantasy.

Fixed it for you. "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution."Enjoy

Fixed it for you.N-Joi

"A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution."Except evolution is not a belief (it is accepted science theory based on fact), nor is it "strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence" -- first, there is no invalidating evidence and second, if you have a better theory that explains all the evidence, I'm all ears.YEC, on the other hand is a false belief held onto with religious fervor in spite of the invalidating evidence ... or do you want to return to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and reply to the second set of evidence there -- you haven't gotten far against the Bristlecone Pine data, and that is just the beginning of the evidence that eviscerates a young earth belief.The natural history of the earth does not show any evidence of a world wide flood some 4500 +/- years ago. The Bristlecone Pines alone prove that, located on top of mountains, with some dead trunks still rooted in the ground that show 7,000 growth rings and a dendrochronology that uses wood samples lying on the ground within the grove, samples that would have floated away in a flood, and trees that show continuous growth for over 8,000 years.You are one of the rare intelligent creationist debaters here, imho, but I"m sorry, the earth is old, very very old, and evolution is real: we can find nested hierarchies all over the fossil and genetic record, but they all keep extending back in time, rather than terminating abruptly all at one time. That is what the evidence shows.Nested clades show the cat kind diversification and the dog kind diversification, but they also show the carnivore kind diversification that includes both cat and dog, but also bears, and then the mammal kind that includes them and all other mammals, including people.This is shown in both the fossil record and the genetic record, two independent means to arrive at the same conclusions -- consilience that did not have to occur in design, but which is necessary for evolution to be valid.Enjoy

Definition of belief1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing her belief in God a belief in democracy I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique. contrary to popular belief2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed an individual's religious or political beliefs; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group the beliefs of the Catholic Church3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence belief in the validity of scientific statementsYes, you DO believe in evolution.Some people might believe in something " in spite of invalidating evidence" but that does not invalidate any of the other definitions.

Ok, I "believe" that objective empirical evidence is representative of reality, and that such evidence can be used to test the validity of theories ... because the alternative is that everything is imaginary ...... but that still does not make it "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence ... " - because it is supported by the evidence, rather than invalidated.Your definition also says at the bottom:

quote:

---

Synonym Discussion of belief
belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer. ⟨• my belief that I had caught all the errors⟩ faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. ⟨• an unshakable faith in God⟩ credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent. ⟨• a theory now given credence by scientists⟩ credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof. ⟨• gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness⟩

---

So belief (faith) in god is different from belief (credence) in theories based on evidence.So I would go with the credence synonym.Curiously my definition website gives a different take:

quote:

---

belief

​

noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction:
   a belief that the earth is flat.
   
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
   a statement unworthy of belief.
   
3. confidence; faith; trust:
   a child's belief in his parents.
   
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
   the Christian belief.

​

Synonym Study
2. Belief, certainty, conviction refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof. Belief is such acceptance in general: belief in astrology. Certainty indicates unquestioning belief and positiveness in one's own mind that something is true: I know this for a certainty. Conviction is settled, profound, or earnest belief that something is right: a conviction that a decision is just.

---

Enjoy

I don't say that I believe in evolution. I know that species evolve because they are not static. It is not something that I simply believe in like my religious beliefs. How they evolve is a different question, tho. I believe that the Theory of Evolution properly explains how species evolve and I know that it is the best explanation that we currently have. I reserve the word "belief" for things that I don't know, and I know that the animals are evolving. I don't just believe it, it is blatantly obvious that they do.Now, whether or not the ToE is correct does take some belief - but it's not much...

What we actually see is MICROEVOLUTION. I bet you haven't even read any of my threads about how evolution defeats evolution, have you? The ToE can't be shown it can only be believed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All evolution is microevolution, ALL evolution occurs within breeding populations.Evolution and the accumulation of traits over successive generations is called anagenesis.When this occurs in different daughter populations isolated from each other, the accumulated changes will necessarily be different because (a) they will have different mutations and (b) the ecology they live would be different. This results results in speciation, or cladogenesis.Anagenesis and cladogenesis are MACROEVOLUTION -- the effect of evolution over generations. No Faith. The ToE explains the evidence: The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us. It doesn't have to be believed, it can be assessed based on it's ability to explain the evidence. It hasn't failed yet.Enjoy