Fresh Problem with the Ark

Ah! I understand Buz. You recognize that it is necessary to have miricles involved. That this can not be covered by anything that pretends to be testable science.Fine, then you may be a creationist, but you are not a creation-scientist. There is, therefore, no room for this in science classes.That's all a lot of us ask. Just leave the science class alone.

All it has to be done is proven by repeatable, independent tests or review of available evidence.As an example, we have people claiming to see ghosts(demons, angels whatever the heck). Since we "see" them I presume that our eyes are being affected by light from them.Ah, but then we want to do some independent observation -- nope somehow they don't photograph. If that is the kind of "proof" that is going to be offered you're just asking for laughter not serious consideration.Science deals with what can be observed, worked with etc. If you have something that exists be can not be treated in this way then all the processes of science that has been honed for centuries can do is wish you good luck with it. It is not part of what the processes can deal with.Ask an accountant to make courtroom comments about DNA parentage issues. S/he'll tell you that her/his tools don't work on that. Tell a scientists that you have something that can't be measured in any existing way and you'll get the same answer.To science, with it's specific, designed in limits, this thing doesn't exist. It is not something that is designed to deal with everything you can imagine, existing or not. It is designed to deal only with things that have the kind of evidence that it can deal with.Take it to someone else or find a way to repeatably measure it.

Well, I can understand your frustration Buz. It is a tough row to hoe when you want to overturn something that has worked so well.You need really stong evidence. From what I've seen you present there just isn't that much there. The prophecies you claim seem to require a lot of interpretation that some don't see as reasonable.Untill you have real knock out stuff you're classed in with Nostradamus. Tough.

Oh finally you explain yourself. Very few of us have any argument with you believing in miracles. You go right ahead. We didn't need to have this discussion at all then.However, there are those, unlike yourself, who claim to have scientific explanations for the flood and other things. They claim they are scientific and so should be taught in science class. Those folks we do have arguments with.You can have your belief in miracles all you want. That's your right to religous freedom. You do not, however, get to impose those on any science classes. They are not science as the courts in the US have specifically made clear.

Once again, you have to be told that the scientific process understands it's limits (reasonably anyway). It doesn "reject" God. It know it can't see somethings. What one can not "see" (sense, test, deal with, show to others) one can't "reject". You just leave it out.Only the Biblical literalists make science into any threat to your religion. Only those who insist that their religion is rejected if the earth isn't 6,000 years old are a threat.Using what we've learned through the scientific process we can certainly see far beyond the end of our nose. We see the universe unfold around us with majesty and grandur.If you believe that the devil has the power to reshape God's creation to make it look different than it actually is then you may have the wrong one of the two in charge.If your actual faith rests on a young earth, a flood and instant creation of life then your faith is indeed both weak and threatened by what we have learned. That is your choice. Most Christians don't make such a foolish choice.Rant all you want. You can, at best, win small battles temporarily. You do great damage while fighting them to both the education of the young and to what you think of as faith. You will, in the long run, loose because you do not have truth on your side.

So the flood didn't wipe out particular kinds of fish? They all sailed through fine? It was only land creatures that didn't make it unless they were on the ark?

Then why are there so few of all species of fish that have lived still alive. They have been driven to extinction just as much as all the land animals. Why?It seems that you are wrong. God did in fact wipe out as much of the sea life as land life.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-27-2004 10:12 AM

Guess what, wrong! The coelecanth species of 75 or so million years ago were found as fossils and considered extinct. They are still extinct. And so what if they weren't? So there are many species of land life that didn't make it and we only find their fossils but this isn't the case with sea life?Almost all of the different kinds of sea life that were alive 6,000 years ago are still alive now because the flood didn't kill them off as much as it did the land life? Is that what you are saying?

Then supply an detailed alternative explanation. You will have to account for the nature of coral growth.(as an aside, it is necessary for you to understand that most people here don't have any trouble with you believing whatever you want. Most of us strongly support freedom of religion and separation of church and state to allow you that freedom. However, we do object to those who want to force their religious views into the classrooms. For this reason, miracles from God disqualify you. You may believe them but they do not belong in a classroom. If you think you have a scientific explanation for the evidence, good! Supply it. As soon as you are stuck and invoke a miracle you are no longer discussing science. Back to your church.)

Since you have made up your own definition you might want to propose a new topic to defend it. But thank you for watching out for a wander off topic.

What do you mean by "provable"? When that is used loosely in science it means that there is no better explanation for what we see.You seem to think you know something here or you wouldn't be saying "It is not.". Since you think you know something why aren't you in the dates and dating and biological evolution fora other topics in here showing what is wrong with the dating correlations, explaining biogeography and telling us how the fossils got sorted?You seem to think that you will gain something by making statements and avoiding any place where you could back them up. That is sooooo typical.

There is one HUGE difference. The GDI "answer" pretends to actually know and the inquiry stops. The "I don't know" view allows for continued effort to actually find an answer.The GDI answer has failed over and over throughout history. The "I don't know-- let's see if we can figure it out" approach has been spectacularly successful.We don't know what comes next or if we will run into a limit of what we can figure out but based on our past experience I think I know which horse I will bet on in this race.

This is another good topic proposal. In faith and belief I guess.A short answer:
I try to avoid "beliveing" in things at any time. It has been shown to my satisfaction that it leads to errors (even very dangerous errors). I do my best to accept things with varying degrees of skepticism and demands for evidence whatever it is.The flood as described by every supporter of it who has dropped in here does not explain the available formation of the earth and life on it. It is, to my complete satisfaction utterly wrong. Again, I invite anyone who disagrees to take up the evidence and reasoning and show what is wrong with it. The fossil sorting thread here is a good one and the correlations threads in Dates and Dating need to be tackled too.Remember that it was literal Bible believers who first realized that the flood story was wrong and we have had 2 centuries of further work. If you now wish to suport the flood story you have a LOT of catching up to do.