A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting but irrelevant,

We are talking about the fossil record, the fact that you are changing the topic to “ice floats” strongly suggests that you can’t support your claims nor refute mine.

Once you admit that the fossil record doesn’t refute the flood we can move to a different topic.

Not irrelevant. The subject of the thread is the mythical flood of Noah. The fact that ice floats refutes it. Your foolish fossil c!aims were refuted. You did not understand the refutation and refused to ask questions properly. So I "dumbed down" the explanation for you. I do not think that it can get any simpler.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, but I think you are the one who is in need for education, because you don’t understand the process that are involved as to what is science and what isn’t science, because from what I quoted in your post you don’t understand the process.

Of course, you wouldn’t accept a hypothesis being true by default and without testing the hypothesis.

But you need to understand what a hypothesis is, first.

A hypothesis is not merely just any “idea” that pop into people’s head.

The “ideas” as you called them, are usually based on preliminary observations of the phenomena. A scientist would try to understand the observations of physical phenomena, by asking the WHAT & HOW questions, for instances:

• WHAT is it?
• HOW does it work?
• If the scientist to provide adequate proposed answers to these 2 vital questions, other questions may follow, like -
  • WHAT applications does this phenomena may have?
  • HOW can I make it work or HOW do I implement this application?

These questions are followed by the proposed explanations - known as the EXPLANATORY MODEL.

If the scientist worked in physics-related field, you may supplement the “explanatory model” with the LOGICAL MODEL or the MATHEMATICAL MODEL. The logical or mathematical model, is usually come in the form of mathematical statements, often expressed as equations, formulas, numbers, variables, and constants or metrics. Physics equations are what scientists called proofs.

Once scientist have formulated both explanatory model and mathematical model, he would then follow these with a 3rd model in a hypothesis - the PREDICTIVE MODEL.

The predictive model is just as vital to science, and they are based on the 2 models that I have already explained to you. Predictive modeling is required, because you need to test the hypothesis.

The predictions are used as a limiting factors, the boundary of what is required for the hypothesis to be TRUE or FALSE.

So if the evidence or experiments meet the requirements of your predictions, then the hypothesis is probable and likely true.

But if the evidence and experiments don’t meet the requirements of your predictions, then the hypothesis is improbable and likely false.

So the hypothesis is a proposed model that needed to be tested first, before any decision can be made if it true or false.

So no, nPeace. A hypothesis isn’t just a idea. There are lot more to hypothesis than just an idea.

A hypothesis required explanations, required maths (especially for physics related fields) and it required predictions. And on top of these requirements, it required testing.

Testings involved any form of observations, like evidence discovery and evidence gathering, performing experiments, compiling the essential data from these evidence and test results from experiments.

Without testing, ideas don’t even qualify to being called a “hypothesis”.

If the hypothesis is successful then a scientist can take the next steps, by presenting the hypothesis along with the tested data before PEER REVIEW.

If it is successful, then a scientist shouldn’t even bother with Peer Review.

A hypothesis that passed both Scientific Method and Peer Review have the chance of turning a hypothesis into scientific theory. A scientific theory is well tested explanations/predictions and is considered to be science.

A hypothesis only has a POTENTIAL of being science, only if it has pass requirements of both Scientific Method and Peer Review.

I said "potential", because even if you succeed with meeting the requirements, your hypothesis may fall because another scientist may have a better tested alternative hypothesis with more successful modelling than yours.

I'm sorry, but I can't help it. This is hilarious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

THE FACT THAT YOU Are refuting semantics rather than my point, strongly suggests that you are defeated

It does refute your point, since you point is founded on a complete lack of knowledge of the subject you are critiquing.

Just because you object to science does not elevate your position and understanding up to that level.

 

[leroy]

Since how much one is "impressed" is subjective, that "creationist Leroy at Religious Forums" doesn't find that impressive isn't really meaningful (except to you).

An impressive prediction would be one where a specific value or data point:

1 Naturally flows from the theory

2 the theory allows for a narrow rage of possible values

For example the theory of relativity predicts how time will be dilated if you travel at say 90% the speed of light……………if clocks dilate say 1% less than what the theory predicts the whole theory would collapse.

You don’t have nothing remotely analogous with evolution (talking about the fossil record) all you have is vague predictions where evolution would still be true regardless on what we find in the fossil record.

The sad thing is that instead of admitting that this is a weakness of the theory of evolution (and safe it with other strengths to compensate this weakness) you would rather ignore the weaknesses of your theory and idealized,……. Evolution might not be a religion, but internet evolutionists do act like fanatic religious people.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm sorry, but I can't help it. This is hilarious.

Another example of someone that thinks they know science, but really hasn't got the first clue.

The laughing yellow guys always convey your extreme knowledge of these things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

An impressive prediction would be one where a specific value or data point:

1 Naturally flows from the theory

2 the theory allows for a narrow rage of possible values

For example the theory of relativity predicts how time will be dilated if you travel at say 90% the speed of light……………if clocks dilate say 1% less than what the theory predicts the whole theory would collapse.

You don’t have nothing remotely analogous with evolution (talking about the fossil record) all you have is vague predictions where evolution would still be true regardless on what we find in the fossil record.

The sad thing is that instead of admitting that this is a weakness of the theory of evolution (and safe it with other strengths to compensate this weakness) you would rather ignore the weaknesses of your theory and idealized,……. Evolution might not be a religion, but internet evolutionists do act like fanatic religious people.

You don't have to keep providing evidence to support how little you know about all of this. But thank you so much for your continued efforts.

 

[leroy]

It does refute your point, since you point is founded on a complete lack of knowledge of the subject you are critiquing.

Just because you object to science does not elevate your position and understanding up to that level.

Again granted I made a semantic mistake, I accidentally said that insects diverged form vertebrates when I should have said that insects and vertebrates diverged from a common ancestor .


The fact that you are still making a big deal out of this semantic mistake instead of actually refuting my points, strongly suggest that you grant my point but you won’t admit it.

 

[leroy]

You don't have to keep providing evidence to support how little you know about all of this. But thank you so much for your continued efforts.

Personal attacks instead of refuting the claim……………this is another sign that you are defeated and you have no arguments to provide.

 

[Jose Fly]

An impressive prediction would be one where a specific value or data point:

1 Naturally flows from the theory

2 the theory allows for a narrow rage of possible values

You mean like Darwin's prediction that we would find human ancestors in Africa.

You don’t have nothing remotely analogous with evolution (talking about the fossil record) all you have is vague predictions where evolution would still be true regardless on what we find in the fossil record.

Well I got news for ya'.....evolution is true, regardless of what's in the fossil record. You know why? Because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes.

One would think you'd know that by now, given all the time you've spent on the subject. But I guess you never really picked up on that tidbit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again granted I made a semantic mistake, I accidentally said that insects diverged form vertebrates when I should have said that insects and vertebrates diverged from a common ancestor .


The fact that you are still making a big deal out of this semantic mistake instead of actually refuting my points, strongly suggest that you grant my point but you won’t admit it.

It isn't a semantic mistake.

Your points have been consistently refuted. You refuse to accept that.

Your objections rely totally on your lack of understanding, which everyone has tried and tried and tried and tried...to explain to you for years.

I have literally never read any objection to evolution that you have made that has ever held up. Often they make no sense despite having numerous others explain why they make no sense.

You will continue as you are, because you BELIEVE you fully grasp the science and at a level above those educated in the sciences.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Personal attacks instead of refuting the claim……………this is another sign that you are defeated and you have no arguments to provide.

It is a fact. Not a personal attack.

There is no scientist that would predict that vertebrate teeth would be found in insects based on the theory of evolution. There is no evidence for anything like vertebrate teeth in insects. It would be a tremendous thing to find that evidence and would trip up the theory of evolution and not be trivial as you try to dismissively claim.

Your posts are rife with what you are calling semantic errors. Yet, this fact does not dissuade you from the illusion that you are qualified to reject a scientific theory.

 

[Jose Fly]

You will continue as you are, because you BELIEVE you fully grasp the science and at a level above those educated in the sciences.

That's a really good question, and one I like to ask creationists.....if you really think you have a solid argument against evolutionary biology, why are you posting it anonymously at a religious message board? Why aren't you taking this game-changing thesis to a scientific conference, or writing it up into a manuscript for publication in a scientific journal?

What say you @leroy ?

 

[nPeace]

I don't think that's a useful way to think about it. They aren't all made-up, making up stories isn't necessarily the same as lying, and truth can be contained within stories that don't depict actual events.

I'm not talking about Jack and the Bean Stalk. Or Humpty Dumpty.
The Bible was not written that way. If it were, then we would probably all read it that way, unless we are still children.
Even when our parents lied to us... yes lies - not told a story - that Santa Clause came down the chimney, as Children we believed, but as we got older, and saw the truth, as was presented to us, we rejected that, so that many of us, do not teach this to our children.... although some keep up the lie.

As adults who pick up the Bible, and read for ourselve, we come to our own conclusions, and we accept it, as adults.
Some people pick and choose what they want to believe, because they may not believe in the supernatural. Or they may, but because their peers laugh and ridicule such thing, and claim that science answers every blessed thing, they may play a bit of hop scotch, and say, "Well yeah. Maybe there is a God... but the miracles are just a bit too much."
Whatever the case, they are what I call undecided - limping on two different opinions.

I think you are basically saying what you think - this is your opinion.
It's the opinion of others that your opinion is incorrect. The question is, are you willing to consider why your opinion is incorrect? That is the question, and I don't think you answered my questions with that confirmation.

Just whatever the evidence is.

Whatever the evidence is? Well that's as vague as one can get.

Ok, the truth is that I can't understand how someone could come to believe that the events depicted in the Bible are all literally true (without being raised that way). That doesn't make them bad, stupid or crazy people. Just bewildering to me.

I'm offering to show you all the evidence. Are you willing to look at it? Is the question.
Do you know that Atheist have become Christian, and accept the accounts as literal? Hindus, Muslims, you name it, people from all walks of life, have read the Bible, and see the accounts as literal. Why? Because they are children?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know. Such stupid statements - Sorry to be so frank - tire me.
Many Creationists are scientists, and do more honorable work than you can even begin to understand.
Bias discrimination is bad, Very bad.



More accurate in assumptions, yes.



This is obviously all about you. Have a good one. Good night.

Another non-expert, expert that is throwing in the towel with the usual fanfare when their belief of what they know meets the reality of what they actually know.

When the very few scientists have tried to mate their personal religious beliefs with science, it has never been successful. Those that continue, despite that are not showing honor.

Based on the posts from you that I have read, I accept his conclusion that you do not understand science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Based on the posts from you that I have read, I accept his conclusion that you do not understand science.

I've never met a Jehovah's Witness who understood science, which makes sense given how anti-science the denomination is (and how they discourage their members from pursuing higher education).

It's kinda like how an Orthodox Jew probably won't know much about pig-roasting techniques.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's a really good question, and one I like to ask creationists.....if you really think you have a solid argument against evolutionary biology, why are you posting it anonymously at a religious message board? Why aren't you taking this game-changing thesis to a scientific conference, or writing it up into a manuscript for publication in a scientific journal?

What say you @leroy ?

It is an important question and one that never seems to be answered.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've never met a Jehovah's Witness who understood science, which makes sense given how anti-science the denomination is (and how they discourage their members from pursuing higher education).

It's kinda like how an Orthodox Jew probably won't know much about pig-roasting techniques.

Clearly a person will never understand what they really do not want to understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've never met a Jehovah's Witness who understood science, which makes sense given how anti-science the denomination is (and how they discourage their members from pursuing higher education).

It's kinda like how an Orthodox Jew probably won't know much about pig-roasting techniques.

I think the Orthodox Jew would probably turn to pig roasting experts if he or she did want to know about those techniques though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not talking about Jack and the Bean Stalk. Or Humpty Dumpty.
The Bible was not written that way. If it were, then we would probably all read it that way, unless we are still children.
Even when our parents lied to us... yes lies - not told a story - that Santa Clause came down the chimney, as Children we believed, but as we got older, and saw the truth, as was presented to us, we rejected that, so that many of us, do not teach this to our children.... although some keep up the lie.

As adults who pick up the Bible, and read for ourselve, we come to our own conclusions, and we accept it, as adults.
Some people pick and choose what they want to believe, because they may not believe in the supernatural. Or they may, but because their peers laugh and ridicule such thing, and claim that science answers every blessed thing, they may play a bit of hop scotch, and say, "Well yeah. Maybe there is a God... but the miracles are just a bit too much."
Whatever the case, they are what I call undecided - limping on two different opinions.

I think you are basically saying what you think - this is your opinion.
It's the opinion of others that your opinion is incorrect. The question is, are you willing to consider why your opinion is incorrect? That is the question, and I don't think you answered my questions with that confirmation.


Whatever the evidence is? Well that's as vague as one can get.


I'm offering to show you all the evidence. Are you willing to look at it? Is the question.
Do you know that Atheist have become Christian, and accept the accounts as literal? Hindus, Muslims, you name it, people from all walks of life, have read the Bible, and see the accounts as literal. Why? Because they are children?

Oh. You mean that people accepting something as literal actually demonstrates what they are accepting is reality? Why didn't you say so. I had no idea that life worked that way. Santa is real then. And Bigfoot too.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is an important question and one that never seems to be answered.

Usually the reply is something like "They'll never let me in the door" or "They'll just reject my paper without looking at it". That's when I offer to use my connections to get them in the door and/or get their manuscript read, which typically triggers the creationist to just leave the discussion.

Clearly a person will never understand what they really do not want to understand.

Or what they're prohibited from understanding.

I think the Orthodox Jew would probably turn to pig roasting experts if he or she did want to know about those techniques though.

Oh sure, and likewise I think a JW could turn into a scientific expert if they were so inclined. But in both cases, each person would also have to give up their religious identity.