Denying Climate Science

[blucher]

Denying Climate Science

Was that your way of calling me hardcore dumb?

You're not in the running for that title Jake. others seem intent on being Avis.

The waters of the flood prevailed 150 days (rain for 40 days plus the fountains of the deep).

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

The waters of the flood prevailed 150 days (rain for 40 days plus the fountains of the deep). Noah was in the ark 371 days before the waters receded enough to leave the ark. Such a flood easily explains the vast fossil graveyards, creation geologists have even used flood theory to predict oil deposits.

Are you saying that no creature died in floodwaters prior to "The Flood"? Yes or no? Are you saying that no creature died in a subsequent flood?

If yes to either question, I don't care to argue with you about it any further, as I don't think I could hope to maintain a polite tone given that level of idiocy.

If no to both, you admit that other floods (possibly) existed prior to and later than your assumed flood, then you open the door for the rest of the fossil record to be examined without assuming "The Flood", and the arguments you presented, that creatures dying in silt is consistent with biblically recorded events, is not demonstrated.

Even if we assume that "The Flood" was real, how can we know whether a creature died in that flood, an earlier flood, or a later flood? You have been talking about the assumptions of the scientific community, what of the assumptions of the theistic community that every fossil that died in *A* flood is evidence of *THE* flood?

Dating schemes use accurate decay rates but apply them with evolutionary assumptions to determine dates. Many dating schemes are correlated with "known" fossil ages and/or the geological column (which doesn't exist anywhere on earth).

Citation Needed. What "evolutionary assumptions" are you referring to?

It all depends upon one's mindset.

No. It doesn't. Truth exists independent of mindset.

I call it the Columbus Syndrome, Columbus expected to find the Indies do he found Indians and we have people groups misnamed until this day (in fact one has the designate real Indians to avoid confusion with the others).

What one believes determines what one thinks, what one thinks dictates what one does, and what one does dominates one's life. Our educational system is set up to promulgate evolution so those scientists who are creationists had to expand their horizons and step out of the box. In our culture one is considered educated if one "knows the right answers." That is, if one knows which answers are the politically correct ones, others tend to be ridiculed rather than debated.

This isn't a matter of "knowing the right answers" - that is a theistic viewpoint, not a scientific one. This is a matter of looking at the available data and drawing a supportable conclusion.

I've read Genesis. The version of the bible I'm looking at uses 83 words to describe the first day. Are you trying to tell me that we now know what that first day was like? IS IT POSSIBLE that God left out a few details about what actually happened that first day?

When you read about creationism, IS IT POSSIBLE that god left out a few of the details? That "evolution" did in fact occur, and was in fact the method in which God created everything in existence?

The fact is that even if we assume creationism, we don't know the method used, the bible doesn't discuss chromosomes, DNA double helixes, base pairs, or much of anything at all below basic physiology. So how can you make a claim that evolution is NOT the process God used to create life? How can you logically conclude that everything about evolution is false? Because the book says that God used Adam's rib to grow Eve?

You. Don't. Know. You are demonstrably guilty of the very charges you are leveling on others.

[blucher]

Creationism & Identity Design are both merely examples of the latest attempts to overthrow the puritan, bible thumping fundies frustrations since the Scope's Monkey Trial.

A young Canadian woman fresh out of the biblical propaganda mill of a Southern Baptist college said it best. We'd been discussing some obvious flaws in the dogma and how any student daring to pose questions was "spoken to".

Her consternation was as she phrased it, "but if some of this literal bible is in error then all of it may be wrong."

YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE WON A PRIZE!

Parables at best and the inclusion of it's books was of man's design rather than God.

[Eddie_T]

Every idea, all religions (belief systems)--even scientific theories--have foundational concepts that are unprovable by physical means and intellectual acumen. Often even in moderated debate the evolutionist drifts from scientific argument to name calling and spewing venom rather than facing evidence suggesting he is merely following his belief system. I find it interesting that it is the evolutionist that loses civility, it may indicate which spirit is driving him.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

Every idea, all religions (belief systems)--even scientific theories--have foundational concepts that are unprovable by physical means and intellectual acumen. Often even in moderated debate the evolutionist drifts from scientific argument to name calling and spewing venom rather than facing evidence suggesting he is merely following his belief system. I find it interesting that it is the evolutionist that loses civility, it may indicate which spirit is driving him.

The only venom spewed was if you idiotically tried to claim that all creatures who died in *a* flood were victims of *the* flood. Is that the case?

Otherwise, your argument - that a creature dying in silt is consistent with noah's flood - is demonstrably false.

Any other conclusions are things that you've brought to the table, not I.

[Jake7]

Calling the opposite party an idiot only makes you look petty. Let's keep it easy. We're all buddies, with opposing views. I'm sure if we all met at a pub, we'd sit down and alternate buying rounds like good ol pals.

I do find the theory of God creating life and then evolution occurring interesting. As with all the theories we're discussing, I keep an open mind to it.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by Jake7

Calling the opposite party an idiot only makes you look petty. Let's keep it easy. We're all buddies, with opposing views. I'm sure if we all met at a pub, we'd sit down and alternate buying rounds like good ol pals.

I do find the theory of God creating life and then evolution occurring interesting. As with all the theories we're discussing, I keep an open mind to it.

I don't think that I called Eddie_T an idiot.

I demonstrated that the argument presented demanded the assumption of a huge absurdity, namely, that all creatures who died in a flood must have died in "The Flood".

I *did* use the word idiot, but not to describe Eddie_T - I used it to describe a hypothetical person who believed there was only one flood - "The Flood" - that could have possibly caused creatures to die in silt and become fossilized. I stand by that position.

The closest I got to calling Eddie_T an idiot was in asking him whether he believed there was only one flood, or whether there were multiple floods. IF Eddie_T stated a belief that "The Flood" was the only flood that could have possibly caused creatures to die in floodwaters, I would believe he was an idiot. To the best of my knowledge, however, Eddie_T has NOT stated such a belief.

Eddie_T's theory that a particular creature dying in silt is consistent with biblical events is not demonstrated, due to the possibility of that creature having died during a different flood. Neither he nor we can logically rely on the conclusions he arrived at from applying his theory. That doesn't make him an idiot, that just makes his theory less than accurate.

[RedJeepXJ]

Originally Posted by Jake7

I do find the theory of God creating life and then evolution occurring interesting. As with all the theories we're discussing, I keep an open mind to it.

just to be clear

in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method.

"god" does not fit into the scientific method, and is not a scientific theory

[Eddie_T]

Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ

just to be clear

in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method.

"god" does not fit into the scientific method, and is not a scientific theory

However, consistent with the scientific method has been gratly eroded to the point that consensus science rules.

Evolutionists are so afraid of somehow letting God into the process that they overlook and reject valuable evidence of creation and flood.

BTW, though I didn't mean to imply that all fossils are necessarily from The Flood most are as it takes a lot of pressure to fossilize.

[blucher]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

Every idea, all religions (belief systems)--even scientific theories--have foundational concepts that are unprovable by physical means and intellectual acumen.

wouldn't be too concerned about the second part but I agree you lean toward a few things that resist intellectual analysis often because the scientists can't stop rolling on the floor in convulsions of laughter.