|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1338 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
So what do you look for when making declarations that something in Adam's day did not happen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1338 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
You declare events long ago fiction based on..?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1338 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Science is not science when the basis is only beliefs. Again, origin sciences have only belief as a basis. Call it what you like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9 |
You declare events long ago fiction Nope, just your beliefs and stories. All fiction.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1338 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Whatever you declare fiction is fiction then. No reasons needed. I see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Tanypteryx
Tanypteryx writes: It's fiction. Were you there as an eye witness?Do you know anyone that was and eye witness? Do you have any written evidence of anyone that was there? So all you have is your assumptions. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
And the basis is not beliefs. There is no place for beliefs in science - e.g. belief in God or belief in the Bible.
Science is not science when the basis is only beliefs. dad writes:
Nonsense. What you call "origin sciences" are no different from the sciences that produce your computer and your gasoline. They're all based on hard facts - hard facts that can be verified by anybody regardless of their individual beliefs. That's why people of all faiths - Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. - accept the fact of evolution and an old earth.
Again, origin sciences have only belief as a basis. dad writes:
YOU can call it what YOU like but your opinions on what science is or "should be" have no bearing on reality. Call it what you like."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
You have it backwards again. We don't "make declarations" and then go looking for evidence to back them up. We look at the evidence and then draw conclusions from what we observe. (You should actually have learned about the scientific method in school when you were about ten years old.) So what do you look for when making declarations that something in Adam's day did not happen? And, despite what you may have been told, when scientists form a hypothesis, they look for evidence to falsify it. If they don't try to falsify it, somebody else will."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I linked to the appropriate papers. Read them.
In the extraordinarily unlikely eventuality that you really want to understand dendrochronology, see http://www.pbs.org/...xperience-archaeology/dendrochronology and About Tree Rings | Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1338 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
quote: I agree. So when all ages are based on a belief that nature on earth was the same, that is not real science.When distances and sizes of stars are based on assuming time exists the same in all the universe, we know that the billions of years they cite are beliefs, and not real science. The criteria is whether claims and models are based on testing, observation, repetition, and factual evidence, it is not what you declare is a belief or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1338 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
No. You read them. Then post a relevant part using a link as support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You got what you asked for. I posted a relevant part and provided several links in support.
I suggest you start with the last two links in my message of this morning. I'll gladly discuss the subject in depth when and if you demonstrate sufficient knowledge to engage in a discussion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1338 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
The same nature in the past belief is not falsifiable.
Science does make declarations. In offering origin models as fact, they declare them to be valid. So can we go back and check the first life form? No. They look at this nature and how little lifeforms may act or evolve here. They have no capacity to go back and check if people recorded in history lived. They cannot go back and observe how fast trees grew. They just look at the present. They cannot go back and check what processes went on with isotopes. They look at processes that go on today. Basically their models are are 'what if' scenarios based on nature being the same (and there being no creation, since they use what exists now to model how it all came to exist) There can be no denying it is belief based.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dad Member (Idle past 1338 days) Posts: 337 Joined: |
Read your links. Then post the relevant bit. Make some actual point.
Looking at your link I see this in the first one. "Dendrochronology operates on the principle that in temperate climates, like the southwestern United States, trees grow one ring every year." So this means, in case you missed it, that they operate on a same nature in the past belief for which they can offer no support, nor do they try. Edited by dad, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I gave you the relevant information.
Your different-in-the-past hallucination is not worthy of consideration. As I've pointed out and you've ignored, differences of the sort you need would have repercussions that would echo down the ages and be detectable today. We've looked. Those repercussions aren't there. We don't assume the past was the same. We know the past was the same , based on hundreds of measurements. There no reason to refer to those measurements in every paper. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024