How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[Subduction Zone]

My comment regarding the attitudes of people on here is reflective of more than just this thread.

But Audie saying something about "creationists showing their hand" was a bit hysterical to me.

This is a conversation - or it should be. Coming in with the idea we are playing each other in some card game is a badly applied analogy. Especially when no real substance has been contributed by the person implying that. Only cold judgements because they don't like what I'm saying.

The problem is that creationists pretend to want to deal with the science and they eventually reveal that is not the case. If people kept this to a science based discussion it would be done and over with in a matter of minutes.

 

[CLee421]

When an event would leave massive evidence and there is no such evidence it is reasonable to conclude that that event never happened. Here is an example:

Your friend that lives fairly close to you calls and claims that a herd of buffalo just stampeded through his kitchen. You rush over and are there in five minutes and see that the kitchen looks normal. Do you believe his claim or is the lack of evidence evidence against in this case?

My dear I understand. I do.

I've come to see things that changed my view. No one convinced me I just saw. If people won't look or try to understand this stance that's fine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Welcome! Don't let the duet run you. There is always the option to ignore. There are a few nice guys here, so hang around.

I am a nice guy to nice people. Try to be honest, try to deal with the science and people will be nice to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My dear I understand. I do.

I've come to see things that changed my view. No one convinced me I just saw. If people won't look or try to understand this stance that's fine.

Perhaps if we went over some basics first it would help. Most creationists are afraid to learn what the scientific method is, now science is done, and what is and what is not evidence. They then get rather outraged when people point out that they lack those basics. It will not take long and these basics apply to all science discussions, not just the theory of evolution.

 

[nPeace]

When an event would leave massive evidence and there is no such evidence it is reasonable to conclude that that event never happened. Here is an example:

Your friend that lives fairly close to you calls and claims that a herd of buffalo just stampeded through his kitchen. You rush over and are there in five minutes and see that the kitchen looks normal. Do you believe his claim or is the lack of evidence evidence against in this case?

Great! Therefore, since the big event of life forming itself to a single-celled organism, and evolving to other organism, has not left a trace, the evolution theory is a modern day fairytale... Cool... according to your logic.

 

[CLee421]

Sure.... go for it.

Also I found the documentaries. No longer on Netflix but - can rent on Amazon... deals with geological evidences, rocks fossils etc.

"Is Genesis History" and another, "Beyond is Genesis History"

 

[nPeace]

I am a nice guy to nice people. Try to be honest, try to deal with the science and people will be nice to you.

I'm not the one saying you are not nice. CLee421 is a new member. how does she rate you?
From the first day I joined, I got the same impression, from you and your side-kick. i thought I had met Bonnie and Clyde.

 

[nPeace]

My comment regarding the attitudes of people on here is reflective of more than just this thread.

But Audie saying something about "creationists showing their hand" was a bit hysterical to me.

This is a conversation - or it should be. Coming in with the idea we are playing each other in some card game is a badly applied analogy. Especially when no real substance has been contributed by the person implying that. Only cold judgements because they don't like what I'm saying.

You nailed it with that last statement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Great! Therefore, since the big event of life forming itself to a single-celled organism, and evolving to other organism, has not left a trace, the evolution theory is a modern day fairytale... Cool... according to your logic.

You are not reasoning properly. There is no expectation of that event being preserved. That we can't find evidence of it is to be expected.

Try again,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure.... go for it.

Also I found the documentaries. No longer on Netflix but - can rent on Amazon... deals with geological evidences, rocks fossils etc.

"Is Genesis History" and another, "Beyond is Genesis History"

I am very sure that your sources are not proper.

If your sources are not based upon peer reviewed science they are almost certainly wrong. Today scientists go through the process of peer review. That is a process where experts in the filed first look at the article that a scientist is trying to get published over for obvious errors. Then it is published and scientists all around the world are free to either confirm or refute one's work. When a "scientist" purposefully avoids peer review they are almost always wrong in any field. Not just evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You nailed it with that last statement.

You really should not support others that are making false claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is Genesis History? - Wikipedia

"Is Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film that promotes "creation science", a pseudoscientific form of religious creationism.[3][4][5] The film makes assumptions that are generally rejected by the scientific community."

Why would I waste my time on that?

EDIT: Even Christians find huge flaws with that "documentary":

A Geological Response to the Movie “Is Genesis History?”

 

[CLee421]

I am very sure that your sources are not proper.

If your sources are not based upon peer reviewed science they are almost certainly wrong. Today scientists go through the process of peer review. That is a process where experts in the filed first look at the article that a scientist is trying to get published over for obvious errors. Then it is published and scientists all around the world are free to either confirm or refute one's work. When a "scientist" purposefully avoids peer review they are almost always wrong in any field. Not just evolution.

Yes and the ideas I speak of are scoffed at or people attempt to suppress it.

Scientists and scholars are involved in that and more. For you to ignore it is you doing what you accused me of. Look into their peer reviews if necessary. But it's your prerogative. I just wanted to share.

 

[CLee421]

The scientific community is not just people that agree with each other.

Breakthroughs are almost always made by people who go against the grain.

Wikipedia is generally biased as are you friend. You're not open yet I have been and that's why I looked into any of this in the first place. Scared to watch it? That's okay

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes and the ideas I speak of are scoffed at or people attempt to suppress it.

Scientists and scholars are involved in that and more. For you to ignore it is you doing what you accused me of. Look into their peer reviews if necessary. But it's your prerogative. I just wanted to share.

Your ideas are scoffed at because they were shown to be wrong over 200 years ago. You should be trying to learn why we know that they are wrong. Defending the indefensible only makes one look bad.

And if there were attempts to suppress knowledge then you should be able to show that. You do not seem to realize that when you make claims against others that you cannot support that that is most likely a bearing of false witness. As a Christian you should understand that the Ninth Commandment is not a ban on lying. It is a ban on saying false claims about others. If you cannot support a claim with reliable sources you should not make claim that involves others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The scientific community is not just people that agree with each other.

Breakthroughs are almost always made by people who go against the grain.

Wikipedia is generally biased as are you friend. You're not open yet I have been and that's why I looked into any of this in the first place. Scared to watch it? That's okay

The first two claims are true. That Wikipedia is biased is a claim that you would need to substantiate. And if you can find a free copy I will watch it until they make their first gross error or lie. I will not pay good money that goes to a lying source and I have yet to find the work of creationists where they do not openly lie.

I see that Steve Austin was involved in that. He was caught in a lie years ago and he never acknowledged that. By not owning up to his past wrong doings he has lost all credibility in my book.

EDIT: But thanks for claiming that I am not biased. Again, if you think logically you will be able to see where you made that claim.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It's height has been roughly the same for throughout man's time on the Earth. It is a product of uplift and erosion so it may have even been taller in the past depending upon the rate of those forces.

Interesting that the height roughly being the same during man's time on Earth, however since the Flood waters helped make peaks and valleys then more of the mountain could have been exposed after the Flood. Just a thought.

 

[CLee421]

There are accounts of people in the scientific community being fired for using the term intelligent design and the like. But if I post references you'll just quote someone who says "no don't watch that" "no don't read that"

Scientific exploration should be free. My views align with geological signs in/on earth as well as what the Jews say is history. I'm not the only one and I am not concerned with looking bad to you or anyone else.

Probably done here, hon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting that the height roughly being the same during man's time on Earth, however since the Flood waters helped make peaks and valleys then more of the mountain could have been exposed after the Flood. Just a thought.

But the flood did no such thing. We can't find any evidence of a global flood, yet we can find evidence of smaller local floods. The supposed global flood should have "overwritten" much of that evidence if not all of it.

What you need to find is evidence of simultaneous worldwide erosion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are accounts of people in the scientific community being fired for using the term intelligent design and the like. But if I post references you'll just quote someone who says "no don't watch that" "no don't read that"

Scientific exploration should be free. My views align with geological signs in/on earth as well as what the Jews say is history. I'm not the only one and I am not concerned with looking bad to you or anyone else.

Probably done here, hon.

Really? Where? I have seen this claim but they are almost always false. You need to be able to support claims with valid sources.

And no, if you post sources that are bogus I will tell you why we know that they are bogus. Try to find proper sources.

Or we could go over the concept of the scientific method. I offered to do so with others, but they felt insulted when the fact that they did not understand it was pointed out.