Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood

[nPeace]

Yep, and like I said, the whole thing is a farce.

Perhaps you can clarify the situation....what's the point of trying to cite evidence for an event, if every time you encounter an obstacle you invoke magic/God did it/miracles?

You know what, although I can answer that, seeing how you again famously dodge answering a question you are uncomfortable answering, I'll take the position of not answering your question until you can answer mine.
That seems fair to me, won't you agree?

Um, yeah. What else is it, if not magic?


Good question. Since you creationists are the ones invoking it so often, you should probably figure that out.

Would you reconsider answering the "good" question. Remember, when one has been bitten by a dog, one never forgets it.

 

[Jose Fly]

You know what, although I can answer that, seeing how you again famously dodge answering a question you are uncomfortable answering, I'll take the position of not answering your question until you can answer mine.
That seems fair to me, won't you agree?

Would you reconsider answering the "good" question. Remember, when one has been bitten by a dog, one never forgets it.

????????? Are you seriously asking me to explain how magic/God did it/miracles work? If so, you do realize that since you're the one invoking it, the responsibility to explain it falls on you, not me....right?

 

[nPeace]

All these references refer to millions of years. Your claim is a few thousand. Does not compute!

I am saying that the mountains can rise rapidly due to varying factors, and therefore your assuming that you know how tall the mountains were in Noah's day would not be factual. Note, they do not even need to take ten million years.

 

[nPeace]

????????? Are you seriously asking me to explain how magic/God did it/miracles work? If so, you do realize that since you're the one invoking it, the responsibility to explain it falls on you, not me....right?

That was not the question. If you think it's a good question, then surely it means you understand it right? If you understand it, then surely you can answer it right?

 

[Jose Fly]

I am saying that the mountains can rise rapidly due to varying factors, and therefore your assuming that you know how tall the mountains were in Noah's day would not be factual. Note, they do not even need to take ten million years.

So your argument is "Here is some science showing that, under certain circumstances, mountains can form in millions of years. Therefore it's possible for all mountains of all types across the globe to have formed in a single year, or tens of years during and after the Biblical flood."

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of non sequitur?

 

[Jose Fly]

That was not the question.

Then help me out....what question are you talking about?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is magic?

A non-explanation.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, of course, and there is no objective verifiable evidence that would support the history of our universe, the world, Genesis flood, history of life, nor the history of humanity.

Ah. We have a winner.
So why do you guys parade as though you alone have evidence, and no one else does?

 

[nPeace]

Then help me out....what question are you talking about?

See here.

 

[Jose Fly]

See here.

You're really not making sense. Assuming you realize that questions are signified by the presence of a question mark, here are the questions you asked in that post....

Well, did you read the title?

I answered "Yep, and like I said, the whole thing is a farce".

So you believe that magic is any supernatural act? Really?

I answered "Um, yeah. What else is it, if not magic?"

How would you know what is magic then? Would that not mean that you would have to be able to identify a supernatural act? How would you go about doing that?

I answered "Good question. Since you creationists are the ones invoking it so often, you should probably figure that out." And then when I figured that that last set of questions were the ones you wanted me to answer, you said they weren't.

So I honestly have no idea what question you're wanting me to answer. In the interest of clarity, how about you just re-ask the question and I'll do my best to answer.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah. We have a winner.
So why do you guys parade as though you alone have evidence, and no one else does?

No, I am making a reasonable request you to provide the objective verifiable evidence to support your claims.

 

[nPeace]

You're really not making sense. Assuming you realize that questions are signified by the presence of a question mark, here are the questions you asked in that post....

Well, did you read the title?

I answered "Yep, and like I said, the whole thing is a farce".

So you believe that magic is any supernatural act? Really?

I answered "Um, yeah. What else is it, if not magic?"

How would you know what is magic then? Would that not mean that you would have to be able to identify a supernatural act? How would you go about doing that?

I answered "Good question. Since you creationists are the ones invoking it so often, you should probably figure that out." And then when I figured that that last set of questions were the ones you wanted me to answer, you said they weren't.

So I honestly have no idea what question you're wanting me to answer. In the interest of clarity, how about you just re-ask the question and I'll do my best to answer.

Here I was thinking, "You know, he's trying."
Was I wrong.
Could you tell me which question(s) I wanted answered, and how you know?

 

[nPeace]

No, I am making a reasonable request you to provide the objective verifiable evidence to support your claims.

Really? How charming.
After you. Please provide the objective verifiable evidence to support your claims. You know, the one you mentioned here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah. We have a winner.
So why do you guys parade as though you alone have evidence, and no one else does?

Because we are the only ones with evidence. Most creationists do not even understand the concept.

This is a scientific debate so the standard should be that of scientific evidence. That is observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. Since creationists appear to be afraid to even put their beliefs in the form of a scientific hypothesis, which means a falsifiable idea, that means by definition that they do not have any evidence. The few times that they have tried to do so their ideas were quickly demonstrated to be wrong and once that occurs one no longer has any evidence either.

Though you could show me to be wrong. What testable idea do flood believers have for their belief? Remember, you do not need to reproduce the flood. That is not what the scientific method tells us. What you need to be able to do is to reproduce the observations that support a flood and have not been refuted by other evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am saying that the mountains can rise rapidly due to varying factors, and therefore your assuming that you know how tall the mountains were in Noah's day would not be factual. Note, they do not even need to take ten million years.

All of your references referred to millions of years for mountains to form, not a few thousand. You have not presented any evidence to support your claims.

 

[Jose Fly]

Here I was thinking, "You know, he's trying."
Was I wrong.

Again...........????????????????????? I just showed where I have indeed answered your questions and then even requested you re-ask whatever question you wanted me to answer. And now you're accusing me of not trying?

Look, it's quite obvious that I have no idea what question you're wanting me to answer. So if your true interest here is having me answer it, then just re-ask the question.

Could you tell me which question(s) I wanted answered, and how you know?

What th........??????? You're actually wanting me to tell you which question you want answered? Don't you know?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? How charming.
After you. Please provide the objective verifiable evidence to support your claims. You know, the one you mentioned here.

Once again, since no flood supporter has ever provided any scientific evidence for their beliefs his conclusion is reasonable. You are merely trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[shunyadragon]

Really? How charming.
After you. Please provide the objective verifiable evidence to support your claims. You know, the one you mentioned here.

The question was to provide objective verifiable evidence to support your claims involving a literal Genesis and a Noah flood. So far you have not presented any.

 

[nPeace]

Because we are the only ones with evidence. Most creationists do not even understand the concept.

This is a scientific debate so the standard should be that of scientific evidence. That is observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis. Since creationists appear to be afraid to even put their beliefs in the form of a scientific hypothesis, which means a falsifiable idea, that means by definition that they do not have any evidence. The few times that they have tried to do so their ideas were quickly demonstrated to be wrong and once that occurs one no longer has any evidence either.

Though you could show me to be wrong. What testable idea do flood believers have for their belief? Remember, you do not need to reproduce the flood. That is not what the scientific method tells us. What you need to be able to do is to reproduce the observations that support a flood and have not been refuted by other evidence.

Scientific method
At the core of modern scientific practice method is the idea that the value of a hypothesis, theory, or concept is best determined by its ability to make falsifiable predictions that one can test against empirical reality. This means that supernatural entities or concepts that are meaningless or logically contradictory cannot be included in a scientific hypothesis (not least because of the difficulty of putting a sample of a deity in a test-tube). Consequently, when carrying out investigations scientists assume a position of methodological naturalism.

 

[Jose Fly]

Scientific method
At the core of modern scientific practice method is the idea that the value of a hypothesis, theory, or concept is best determined by its ability to make falsifiable predictions that one can test against empirical reality. This means that supernatural entities or concepts that are meaningless or logically contradictory cannot be included in a scientific hypothesis (not least because of the difficulty of putting a sample of a deity in a test-tube). Consequently, when carrying out investigations scientists assume a position of methodological naturalism.

Exactly. So again, what's the point of this thread?