• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

Hockeycowboy

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Shad said:
Thanks
Click to expand...
Your welcome, of course.
But I have to tell you, I can't remember where I found that article! Ive had it awhile in my tablet "notes", and I didn't copy the link.

I'll keep looking...I'm gonna try to Google his picture.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Hockeycowboy said:
Your welcome, of course.
But I have to tell you, I can't remember where I found that article! Ive had it awhile in my tablet "notes", and I didn't copy the link.
Click to expand...

Well it is from 90s and you have to admit is a minority in academy so is less likely to be referenced and shared. Often studies spread merely due to reference not merit. If no talks about a study it might as well be invisible.


I'll keep looking...I'm gonna try to Google his picture.
Click to expand...

Try the journal's name which is at near the top of the link you sent. Maybe someone copied the journal itself instead of transcribing it to a page. The journal could contain references in the study not on the page as well as information about the journal itself.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hockeycowboy said:
Your welcome, of course.
But I have to tell you, I can't remember where I found that article! Ive had it awhile in my tablet "notes", and I didn't copy the link.

I'll keep looking...I'm gonna try to Google his picture.
Click to expand...
.
Thanks? Are you being facetious? You posted a worthless article from a bogus source. You probably do not understand this.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Shad said:
They have another statement swearing to follow scientific methods. I think mine establishes the bias in which anything which contradicts their view of the Bible is rejection outright. The Statement of Faith can be hand-waved away as only a religious view.
Click to expand...

It does no good to say that one will swear to follow scientific methods when one has already disqualified oneself.
 
Misunderstood

Misunderstood

Active Member
Subduction Zone said:
Of course, they are my reference. But first, if a scientific publishing house insisted that no matter what the evidence said, that the theory of evolution was right and to work there you would have to swear to agree to that would they be ordering their employees not to be using the scientific method?

They would be ordering their employees not to follow the scientific method, you can't tell someone that either their interpretation is wrong or the data is wrong no matter what.
Click to expand...
I see your point, ( I have not had a chance to read the whole thing before your response so I can only reply to what I have seen so far) the paper seems to follow the scientific method from what I have seen so far. But if like what you say they were instructed to ignore conflicting evidence it would be biased.

I don't know if they were instructed to ignore conflicting evidence or not, but again I will assume you are right. Does that mean that it still should not be evaluated? What if they ignored evidence in the past, do we know for sure it happened here?

From what I read so far it looks like they have stated their investigation thoroughly and it could be easily replicated if needed. However, if it has ignored evidence it should be able to be refuted just by examination.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
It does no good to say that one will swear to follow scientific methods when one has already disqualified oneself.
Click to expand...

Yah but like many people they can claim they can separate their faith from their methodology. A statement that X is rejected out of hand is far more damaging. Ironically if you read the rest it is due to scientists rejecting anything not to have a naturalist explanation out of hand. This is ideological warfare over methods and conclusions.
 
Hockeycowboy

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Shad said:
Try the journal's name which is at near the top of the link you sent. Maybe someone copied the journal itself instead of transcribing it to a page. The journal could contain references in the study not on the page as well as information about the journal itself.
Click to expand...

You mean "Korea Safety Paper"?

Whatever I find, I'll forward it to you.

Thanks.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Shad said:
Yah but like many people they can claim they can separate their faith from their methodology. A statement that X is rejected out of hand is far more damaging. Ironically if you read the rest it is due to scientists rejecting anything not to have a naturalist explanation out of hand. This is ideological warfare over methods and conclusions.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that Statement of Faith goes far too far. If one swears to that they have like AiG lost all credibility. It is also shows why @Hockeycowboy can't find any actual evidence. To have scientific evidence one must put one's idea in the form of a testable hypothesis. Creationists cannot admit that they are wrong, they cannot afford to admit that they might be wrong, so they do not seem to be able to form proper testable hypotheses.

What you should note is that no article in AiG have ever been worthy of print in real peer reviewed journals. In fact most of their "science" can be refuted by high school students.
 
Misunderstood

Misunderstood

Active Member
Shad said:
Yah but like many people they can claim they can separate their faith from their methodology. A statement that X is rejected out of hand is far more damaging. Ironically if you read the rest it is due to scientists rejecting anything not to have a naturalist explanation out of hand. This is ideological warfare over methods and conclusions.
Click to expand...
Can I come alone? I love Yahbut hunting too!

Sorry, I coundn't resist. Anyway, on subjects like this it helps to get a little levity in once in awhile.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Sorry, but that Statement of Faith goes far too far. If one swears to that they have like AiG lost all credibility. It is also shows why @Hockeycowboy can't find any actual evidence. To have scientific evidence one must put one's idea in the form of a testable hypothesis. Creationists cannot admit that they are wrong, they cannot afford to admit that they might be wrong, so they do not seem to be able to form proper testable hypotheses.
Click to expand...


We just disagree over which is more damaging.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
Anyone in the world of science knows which one is more damaging. Think of it this way, one first has to swear not to use the scientific method. Swearing that you will after the fact only tells people that you either lied to get the job or are lying in the later case. They lose credibility either way.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of statements of faith from universities like BYU.
 
Hockeycowboy

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Shad said:
Scientists consider things outside of methodological naturalism all the time.
Click to expand...

It could be, but I doubt they'd consider anything which is stated outright to be of a metaphysical cause. If you disagree, then give me an example.

(Although, I do know of some highly regarded Universities that held classes, researching aspects of the paranormal.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top