|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
They do, obviously. Everywhere they look, same same. And you can't provide a single solitary scrap of evidence that suggests that nature changed. Why don't they see evidence of a same nature either?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
To begin with, there's no such thing - i.e. there is no evidence that such a thing exists. What have you got against superior extra sensory perceptions of the past? I don't remember seeing a discussion of that here. Maybe you should start one."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Obviously you haven't read any of it. Hint: It isn't about standing alone. It's about how they hold each other up. None of the little gang members can stand alone. Come back when you have leared something, son."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
That's obviously false. For example, Darwin read Lyell's book on geology while he was on the voyage where he made his observations. He had no idea "what to look for" to back up a theory that he han't even thought of yet. And Lyell had no idea "what to look for" that would back up a theory that hadn't even been thought of yet. They don't really look for anything else but what they believe existed."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
In the case of the correlation gang here, name you best point. I can knock it out. There are threads and threads full of RAZD's correlations. Feel free to go over there and knock any of them out.
dad writes:
It isn't just about rocks though. It's about lake varves and ice cores and tree rings.... Go ahead and explain how the age of a tree ring can just "happen" to correspond with the age of an ice core on the opposite side of the world. Who cares if misreading ratios in two separate rocks yields totally imaginary dates that could never be proven?"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
You talked about fables and I pointed out that the fables (talking animals) are in the Bible, not in science. And fables are fiction, so I wasn't talking about anything that "used to exist". You mentioned the communication that used to exist, not me."I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Again, no such thing. Science is science. I just follows the evidence. It does not decide ahead of time - like you do - what the evidence "should" be. Then they were pre origin science."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." --John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
You keep getting it backwards. We don't look for negative evidence. That would be like saying we can't find France so it doesn't exist. That kind of silly conclusion is for you, not for science. If you claim that communication with angels or Adam in the garden and animals is not true, then you need some proof."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." --John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
I told you, it's all in RAZD's threads. You've had ample opportunity to look at it. Show us an example of how varves agree with tree rings somewhere say around 10,000 years ago. I'll look at it."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." --John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 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 432 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Sure it is. All you'd have to do is show evidence of a changed nature. The same nature in the past belief is not falsifiable. Maybe you're confusing "not falsifiable" with "not false". It's true that you can't falsify something that is not false.
dad writes:
You're backwards again. I'm sensing a trend. In offering origin models as fact, they declare them to be valid. The models are observed to be valid - i.e. they're confirmed by the evidence. THEREFORE, they're considered to be fact. It's all about the evidence. Evidence first, then conclusions.
dad writes:
Sure they can. They can look at trees living and dead. They can look at wood from trees that were cut down before any trees that are still living were alive. They can even look at fossil trees. We have a beautiful specimen in our local museum, polished like a gravestone and you can count the rings as if it was cut down yesterday. They cannot go back and observe how fast trees grew. And don't forget the correlations between completely different methods. Are you ever going to take an honest look at RAZD's correlations?"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
It's not a belief. It's a conclusion based on the available evidence. You're the one who believes nature changed when you don't have a shred of evidence for that. So when all ages are based on a belief that nature on earth was the same... But I'm glad you agree that belief is a bad thing."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dad writes:
Well, you just admitted that you don't know. You're pretty arrogant to assume that nobody else knows either. If I offered support for a different nature in the past it would not be using science since science does not know either way."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
dad writes:
I did. All you have to do is present some evidence that nature changed. If you claim that belief in a same nature in the past is falsifiable, then show us how. And then, of course, you'd have to propose some explaination for HOW it changed - i.e. how God did it. But that goes against your belief system, doesn't it? Your belief system inherently precludes science.
dad writes:
Denial is not an argument. Say something worthwhile.
ringo writes:
No. They are not. They rest only on beliefs. The models are observed to be valid - i.e. they're confirmed by the evidence dad writes:
It may not tell YOU anything. It does tell "us". Looking at a dead tree does not tell us how fast it used to grow."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024