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.
it has nothing to do with being "afraid", they don't put god into because there is absolutely ZERO basis to do so. It is through willfull ignorance that creationists try to make their point, we have science based on the scientific method that we use to determine what is real and what is not. saying you believe the earth was flooded does not equal science saying fossils were moved as ground was pushed up from plate movement over millions of years
how old do you think the earth is? seriously? how old do you think humans/plants are on this planet?
they don't put god into because there is absolutely ZERO basis to do so. It is through willfull ignorance that creationists try to make their point, we have science based on the scientific method that we use to determine what is real and what is not. saying you believe the earth was flooded does not equal science saying fossils were moved as ground was pushed up from plate movement over millions of years
I spent several hours on a "First People's" site yesterday reading about the various tribal myths that arose in various tribes. The site is huge and even include sections on Australian aborigines because Oz folks often visit.
These include well over a hundred various tribes and groups all expessing no trouble at all with having their "creation myths" correctly labeled MYTHS.
Once they all had a chance to compare cultures and religious beliefs it was OBVIOUS everyone had a different story. The only possible conclusion is that people for whatever reason will invent a god and gild him with stories of creation or whatever else lends credibility to the invention.
It would seem our native peoples are much more resilient in the face of facts than our new brand of primitive religionists. They saw all the disparity and quickly concluded the stories were MYTHS.
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
However, consistent with the scientific method has been gratly eroded to the point that consensus science rules.
"consensus science" is an oxymoron.
Quote:
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.
What evidence do you have for that? How much pressure is actually required?
You said:
Quote:
For example when a scientist views a fossil what he sees depends upon the mindset whereas the only fact is that a creature met a sudden death when rapidly inundated by silt.
Which is a fairly valid concern. But, you completely negate your argument with the next few words:
Quote:
(as in Noah's flood)
What evidence do you have that implies anything beyond "flood"? Given that fossil, what evidence do you have that specifically demonstrates "Noah's flood"?
You just argued that scientists are generally guilty of trusting bias over evidence, but then you insert your own bias despite lack of evidence.
Now, yes, you can argue that there is other evidence that you didn't present in that argument, but then you have to grant the same benefit to scientists - that they have access to far much more evidence than you've mentioned.
The fact is that creationism starts with a conclusion, then works backward to try to find evidence to support that conclusion. That's not science.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
After the Wyoming Valley levee was raised an additional three to five feet in 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said the modified levee would protect from an Agnes-level flood, estimated to be a once every 345-year event. On Friday morning, the Susquehanna River in Wilkes-Barre crested at 42.66 feet, about 1.5 feet higher than Agnes.
How could a 345-year flood happen twice in a half century?
Part of the answer may be sprawl and development in outlying areas that drain into the Susquehanna River. Wetlands and forests act as a sponge, soaking up and consuming water. Every rooftop, roadway, driveway, parking lot and piece of concrete robs the land beneath it from its absorbency. Rather than being retained in the ground, the runoff water is swiftly carried to gorged rivers and streams.
But Konrad said he's not sure if development made a difference in Northeastern Pennsylvania's recent flooding. While homes, roads and patios make the ground underneath impervious to water, saturated ground can be just as impervious. For that reason, development is more likely to promote flash flooding.
"We know development exacerbates flooding, but it tends to be greater on small events that normally wouldn't cause flooding," he said. "When the ground is already saturated and has no storage capacity, its acts as though it is impervious, so development doesn't make a difference."
Dave Bollinger, outreach coordinator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said weather is getting more extreme, more often.
"What's happening is a 345-year flood you aren't supposed to have is happening every 50 years," he said. "We are seeing the effects of changing weather patterns."
An interesting study might be to determine what factor in the human mind makes atheists so angry and rude, yet so fascinated with believers that they continually seek to provoke them.
Steve Martin performed this song locally with the Steep Canyon Rangers Friday night:
Reds the Atheist Eddie, I'm the God loving, religion hating type myself. I hadn't noticed any rudeness at all given the atmosphere of debating a broken record.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
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
We've had this discussion before, and I even quoted the definition of a theory, bur apparently we're here again.
I did not say scientific theory. I said theory. Something which is a proposed answer. It's as simple as that. Creationism is a theory. The big bang theory is a theory. We dont know how whatever happened, happened. So they're all theories.
I could say that God is a spaghetti monster and created our being because he was bored, and that's a theory.
__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!
Sunspot activity is being debated now, it appears that cycle 24 started out late and slow and possibly may not create a rush to the pole. This means cycle 23's magnetic field may not disappear from the polar regions. No one knows what may happen if this proves to be the case. Solar predictions are unreliable as just a few years ago it was predicted that we would be in a period of increased solar activity by 2011 or 2012. Once again, one just cannot close the door on science.
I could say that God is a spaghetti monster and created our being because he was bored, and that's a theory.
The FSM has all the credentials of a God if we look at the diversity of those offered by tribes, cultures and religions. The natives in America noticed the same thing once technology united them. If that's the way aboriginal people reach valid conclusions why can't the more "modern" ones keep up?
Gods are useful devices for keeping the rabble from wretched excesses that might hurt them. Even within my own lifetime they appeared to have some success curbing some of man's behavior. Lately, ...not so much.
If we didn't have parents to tell us which God was the real one we could end up in some cult in Utah. The system appears rooted on shaky ground IMO.
Meanwhile the known Universe appears to be expanding just as expected if it was the result of a Big Bang. curious that.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
We've had this discussion before, and I even quoted the definition of a theory, bur apparently we're here again.
I did not say scientific theory. I said theory. Something which is a proposed answer. It's as simple as that. Creationism is a theory. The big bang theory is a theory. We dont know how whatever happened, happened. So they're all theories.
I could say that God is a spaghetti monster and created our being because he was bored, and that's a theory.
Any random theory may be useful in some cases. Someone can write a book about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance, and would have to rely on FSM theories.
Many people have written numerous books on creationism, with theories that are almost as useful as those about FSM.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
The system appears rooted on shaky ground IMO.
Linear Mode
