If Noah's flood was a legend why should anyone trust Jesus?

[User Name]

Which shows (again) that you do not understand science.

The idea is irrelevant. As long as it is testable and falsifiable, it does not matter what the source of an idea is, science can have its say.

And as luck would have it, a global flood is nothing but testable and falsifiable.

Scientists have in fact tested and falsified a global flood. Meterorite Craters Refute Young-earthism.

Many aquatic species are sensitive to specific ecological conditions such as narrow ranges of temperature, salinity, acidity, turbidity. How did they manage to survive a violent global flood?

Where is the evidence of a pan-species population bottleneck?

A turbulent global flood should have sorted sediments generally by size and weight. Larger and heavier sediments should have settled first while smaller and lighter sediments should have been deposited above that. But that isn't what we see.

 

[Caino]

Scientists have in fact tested and falsified a global flood. Meterorite Craters Refute Young-earthism.

Many aquatic species are sensitive to specific ecological conditions such as narrow ranges of temperature, salinity, acidity, turbidity. How did they manage to survive a violent global flood?

Where is the evidence of a pan-species population bottleneck?

A turbulent global flood should have sorted sediments generally by size and weight. Larger and heavier sediments should have settled first while smaller and lighter sediments should have been deposited above that. But that isn't what we see.

True that:

Ancient Sea Water Found Under Chesapeake Bay

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/blog/post/ancient_seawater_found_under_chesapeake_bay

 

[Stripe]

Scientists have in fact tested and falsified a global flood. Meterorite Craters Refute Young-earthism.

Nope. They've rejected an idea from an ignorant standpoint. In your link, the author turns to nonsense, pretending that this is representative of a YEC position.

Its most telling flaw is that it assumes the truth of the evolutionary model and demands other ideas bow to it. Take the most obvious question — where did space junk come from? — evolutionists wave their hands, while the Hydroplate theory gives a testable and falsifiable idea.

And if meteorites and comets originated from Earth, the major objection in your link is rendered impotent. If you had even a passing understanding of that which you are determined to reject, you'd have never held this up as an objection against flood theory.

Many aquatic species are sensitive to specific ecological conditions such as narrow ranges of temperature, salinity, acidity, turbidity. How did they manage to survive a violent global flood?

This has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of what science is. You are not justified in posting links you have not contemplated and understand very little when you refuse to adjust your wrongheaded thinking about what science and faith are.

A turbulent global flood should have sorted sediments generally by size and weight. Larger and heavier sediments should have settled first while smaller and lighter sediments should have been deposited above that. But that isn't what we see.

You have no comprehension of what the theory is and thus are utterly unqualified to demand what we should see.

 

[6days]

So how do you propose we test God?

How would you test if the four president heads on Mt. Rushmore were the result of intelligence or natural forces? Perhaps use some logic? Perhaps do some research?:devil:

 

[Sonnet]

2 Corinthians 5:7 says, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." Science is walking by sight. If one wants to have faith, then just believe.

But you could have put your faith in Darwin or anything else for that matter. Why Christ?

 

[Sonnet]

I'm saying that science cannot be expected to confirm or validate statements of faith. A definition of science is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." In other words, the physical sciences investigate natural processes by observing and testing what we can see or detect with physical instruments. By contrast, faith is explicitly defined as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof;" or as Heb 11:1 puts it, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Young earth creationism is fundamentally a statement of faith because it asserts that God acted through supernatural processes. Science appeals to natural processes alone, whereas YE creationism appeals to the miraculous.

If Jesus had produced a television in his day it would have been deemed a miracle.

 

[Sonnet]

Which shows (again) that you do not understand science.

The idea is irrelevant. As long as it is testable and falsifiable, it does not matter what the source of an idea is, science can have its say.

And as luck would have it, a global flood is nothing but testable and falsifiable.

But all the evidence is circumstantial. It's not proof.

 

[Jose Fly]

How would you test if the four president heads on Mt. Rushmore were the result of intelligence or natural forces?

I'd look around and see if I can find humans carving figures out of rock. Turns out I see it all over.

Now, how often do we see a God creating....well....anything?

And let's not lose sight of the original question that creationists never seem to be able to answer: How do you propose we test God?

 

[ok doser]

Now, how often do we see a God creating....well....anything?

 

[Jose Fly]

Huh....so if we did a paternity-maternity test, the results would come back as...................God?

 

[6days]

2 Corinthians 5:7*says, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." Science is walking by sight. If one wants to have faith, then just believe

If that is what you believe then why aren't you Hindu?

Christianity is a faith based on real historical events and real people. Unlike atheism, hinduism, evolutionism, voodism etc....Christianty is a faith based on evidence. We can have assurance of our faith in God's Word based on the evidence of divine authorship. ... based on evidence from archaeology, history, and science; based on evidence of prophecy....evidence of transformed lives...evidence of.....etc etc.

Hebrews 11:1*Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.*

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse

 

[6days]

I'd look around and see if I can find humans carving figures out of rock. Turns out I see it all over.

Very good.... you look for evidence and realize that things which have the appearance of design likely are designed.*

In the case of Mount Rushmore, we see the appearance of design with intelligent information. Just a little bit of logic and research ( you looked for an intelligence) and we know that there has been a designer.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Very good.... you look for evidence and realize that things which have the appearance of design likely are designed.

Um, no....that's not at all what I said. Stop trying to impose your rhetorical games onto my posts.

In the case of Mount Rushmore, we see the appearance of design with intelligent information. Just a little bit of logic and research ( you looked for an intelligence) and we know that there has been a designer.*

Nope, it's waaaaaaaay more simple than that.

You walk up to the mountain, see the faces, say "Huh. Those carvings look like the faces of humans. That probably means humans carved them." Then you go look around and see if you can find humans actually carving human faces out of rock, in real time. You do...in fact you see it all over in all sorts of settings and cultures. So logically you conclude "If I see people carving faces out of rock all the time, then when I look at Mt. Rushmore the logical conclusion is that it too was carved by people." And then of course if you really wanted, you could go look up the Congressional and other federal records and contracts to see that it was Gutzon and Lincoln Borglum who carved it. And then there's lots of things like this...

Now, how about you answer the question no creationist can ever seem to answer? How do you propose we test and investigate God?

Remember, earlier I said "Let the dodging begin", and all you're doing is illustrating my point for me. So far the main question is about why none of you will answer. I'm figuring it's because you can't, but you also can't admit it either. Am I right?

 

[Sonnet]

Um, no....that's not at all what I said. Stop trying to impose your rhetorical games onto my posts.



Nope, it's waaaaaaaay more simple than that.

You walk up to the mountain, see the faces, say "Huh. Those carvings look like the faces of humans. That probably means humans carved them." Then you go look around and see if you can find humans actually carving human faces out of rock, in real time. You do...in fact you see it all over in all sorts of settings and cultures. So logically you conclude "If I see people carving faces out of rock all the time, then when I look at Mt. Rushmore the logical conclusion is that it too was carved by people." And then of course if you really wanted, you could go look up the Congressional and other federal records and contracts to see that it was Gutzon and Lincoln Borglum who carved it. And then there's lots of things like this...

Now, how about you answer the question no creationist can ever seem to answer? How do you propose we test and investigate God?

Remember, earlier I said "Let the dodging begin", and all you're doing is illustrating my point for me. So far the main question is about why none of you will answer. I'm figuring it's because you can't, but you also can't admit it either. Am I right?

Hi Jose Fly - are there things you believe in that are unproven?

 

[Jose Fly]

Hi Jose Fly - are there things you believe in that are unproven?

Depends on what you mean. When you say "believe in", that can refer to all sorts of things. Like for example, I believe that my favorite NBA team, although they are terrible now, are on the right track and will be a contender again fairly soon. That's certainly not proven, but it's also not something I believe in all that strongly either.

Or were you thinking of something else?

 

[Sonnet]

Depends on what you mean. When you say "believe in", that can refer to all sorts of things. Like for example, I believe that my favorite NBA team, although they are terrible now, are on the right track and will be a contender again fairly soon. That's certainly not proven, but it's also not something I believe in all that strongly either.

Or were you thinking of something else?

Are there things you believe in implicitly, though you don't actually have proof?

 

[Jose Fly]

Are there things you believe in implicitly, though you don't actually have proof?

Not that I can think of off the top of my head. Why?

 

[Sonnet]

Not that I can think of off the top of my head. Why?

Because you are asking for evidence for God. It would be difficult to prove (God), but if you already accept things that are unproven, then furnishing you with proof of God would be unnecessary.

Do you accept that there is evidence for Christ's resurrection? Evidence, not proof, but strong evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because you are asking for evidence for God.

Not really. See, Stripe and 6days have been grousing about science operating according to methodological naturalism, which means "God did that" isn't an acceptable answer in science. They both also acknowledge that scientific answers must be testable. IOW, Stripe and 6days are arguing that God should be an acceptable scientific answer.

That leads to the obvious question I've been asking, and they refuse to answer: How do you test God?

They're basically trying to have it both ways....arguing that God should be an acceptable scientific answer, but refusing to say how we would test God.

Do you accept that there is evidence for Christ's resurrection? Evidence, not proof, but strong evidence.

IMO, no more than any other religion's stories of the miraculous (e.g., Joseph Smith and the angels, Mohammed ascending into heaven, The Buddha meditating without food or water for days on end).

 

[ok doser]

Huh....so if we did a paternity-maternity test, the results would come back as...................God?

pearls before swine, jo, pearls before swine


there's evidence of God's creative power all around you, but you're blind to it :idunno: