Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Colt]

You are basically not making sense. Bye

Cop out! Bye

 

[YoursTrue]

The water is not present in liquid form; it is chemically combined with the mineral ringwoodite. If it could be brought to the Earth's surface it would erupt as molten lava, not as a flood.

God can do as He likes.

 

[Colt]

God can do as He likes.

Religious people have the freedom of will to write what they want! It was freedom of will that allowed a high administrator in the celestial world to “fool the whole world”.

 

[YoursTrue]

Debate is what you can catch de fish with.

I wasn't debating when I called a minister to help me. I told him I didn't believe in God. He didn't try to prove anything to me. (smart man) He said it is faith that brings a person to God. I said I don't believe in God so how can I have faith? He said only God can give me this gift of faith. I knew the discussion (not debate) wasn't going anywhere. So I said ok, thank you, and hung up. And that night I prayed for the first time in years. Here I am...

 

[John53]

God can do as He likes.

Show us your proof for this claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God can do as He likes.

Then why even refer to the water that still is in the mantle and always has been? You are not arguing in a consistent manner.

 

[Heyo]

Feel free - go to Youtube and type in "creation vs evolution debate"

I'm not trying to debate the issue... just that the debates go on and on and on as I noted.

Until the debates reach an authority that can end the debate and where lies have consequences.
Case in point: the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia trial.
Not that the creationists don't ***** about it and still try to convince some people of their bull**** but legally it is settled, "Intelligent Design" is not science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Feel free - go to Youtube and type in "creation vs evolution debate"

I'm not trying to debate the issue... just that the debates go on and on and on as I noted.

If you understood the scientific method it would be very easy for you to show that there is such a thing as "creation science". Or that Intelligent Design was scientific. The fact that no creationist has done so should tell you something.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Case in point: the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia trial.
Not that the creationists don't ***** about it and still try to convince some people of their bull**** but legally it is settled, "Intelligent Design" is not science.

What else did Judge Jones say?

Interesting statement made by Jones, the presiding judge:



“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”



So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to Judge Jones, i.e., the court.



Jones was more interested in keeping the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment intact, that is, the separation of church & state.



This is the underlying reason for his ruling. What explanation may be accurate, was of lesser importance.



But as usual, those putting their faith in Natural Methodologies take it & run with it, looking for confirmation bias. Not truth.



And Science doesn’t need that mentality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What else did Judge Jones say?

Interesting statement made by Jones, the presiding judge:



“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

Right it is clearly not science. That is why it cannot be taught in schools.

So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to Judge Jones, i.e., the court.

Actually it was. But since those advocating ID avoided the scientific method there was no proper way to test it. He might as well have "while arguments for Bigfoot may be true a position on which the court takes no position . . ."

Do you know why we do not know if it is true at all? Because those that claim it is real refuse to use the scientific method. Those advocating for ID are the ones that also put it in the same league as Bigfoot sightings.

Jones was more interested in keeping the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment intact, that is, the separation of church & state.

No, he would have given ID a fair chance if the advocates for it were not such dishonest hypocrites. Some of them were very very close to getting perjury charge.

This is the underlying reason for his ruling. What explanation may be accurate, was of lesser importance.

No, your strawman fails because you too do not understand the scientific method or scientific evidence. Judges are very very good at evidence and he could see that there was none for ID.

But as usual, those putting their faith in Natural Methodologies take it & run with it, looking for confirmation bias. Not truth.

Wow, more breakings of the Ninth Commandment. No, faith is your shortcoming. Do not accuse others of that when they do not have that flaw.

And Science doesn’t need that mentality.

Nope, we do not need the mentality of IDer's. Can you explain why they did not follow the scientific method?

 

[Kenny]

If you understood the scientific method it would be very easy for you to show that there is such a thing as "creation science". Or that Intelligent Design was scientific. The fact that no creationist has done so should tell you something.

At the point when scientists go beyond my capacity, then I leave it to them. But here you have proven the point that I was making. One camp says to the other camp "you don't know what you are talking about" - and visa versa.

 

[Audie]

At the point when scientists go beyond my capacity, then I leave it to them. But here you have proven the point that I was making. One camp says to the other camp "you don't know what you are talking about" - and visa versa

One side does not.

And tu Quogue is always a fallacy.

And tiresome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At the point when scientists go beyond my capacity, then I leave it to them. But here you have proven the point that I was making. One camp says to the other camp "you don't know what you are talking about" - and visa versa.

No, we can show, using the basics of science that they are wrong. You could learn the basics of science and the concept of scientific evidence if you tried and more important could be honest. In the Dover trial the ID side lost because they were shown not to be using those basics. There was nothing political or religious about the decision. Judges are well trained in the concepts of evidence themselves. It is a big part of their qualifications. He could see that the ID side had no scientific evidence. And you could learn this too. But most creationists are far too afraid to learn.

 

[Heyo]

What else did Judge Jones say?

Interesting statement made by Jones, the presiding judge:



“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”



So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to Judge Jones, i.e., the court.



Jones was more interested in keeping the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment intact, that is, the separation of church & state.



This is the underlying reason for his ruling. What explanation may be accurate, was of lesser importance.



But as usual, those putting their faith in Natural Methodologies take it & run with it, looking for confirmation bias. Not truth.



And Science doesn’t need that mentality.

But we do agree that the question whether ID is science is settled and no further discussion is necessary?

 

[Audie]

But we do agree that the question whether ID is science is settled and no further discussion is necessary?

And if not science what is it

 

[Eli G]

And if not science what is it

Reading before, that Judge said: "May be truth but it is not science".

Not all truths are in the field of sciences.

But we better find the truth, even if we cann't get it into science, because what is science today, tomorrow could be obsolete ... but truths are forever.

 

[We Never Know]

Here we shall discuss evidence of NOAH's FLOOD. There is ongoing scientific research that has brought to light many interesting finds, that contrary to some or many ---- does in fact point more and more to a monumental worldwide cataclysm that is labelled the FLOOD in GOD's Word: Global Evidences of the Genesis Flood

Well.... There are animals, there are boats, it does rain, it does flood..

Bazinga!! Four pieces of evidence

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reading before, that Judge said: "May be truth but it is not science".

Not all truths are in the field of sciences.

But we better find the truth, even if we cann't get it into science, because what is science today, tomorrow could be obsolete ... but truths are forever.

You missed the point. The reason that creationism is banned from schools is because it is a religious belief. It could be taught if there was actual reliable evidence for those beliefs, but the evidence goes against the Bible story.

He was in no way admitting that evolution was wrong. He was saying that ID could not be taught because it is clearly not science and there is no rational reason to believe it.

By the way, ID actually accepts the fact of evolution. If you are a hardcore creationist you should be against that concept too. It is the Shake n Bake version of evolution where God plays the little girl.

 

[Eli G]

Is it not truth that what science says today, tomorrow could be obsolete?

 

[Colt]

17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”