nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Dating: Response to TimS
::::::8. A model could be provided of how the flood occurred that would not have reasonably destroyed the Ark (falling stones and water pressure from the crack idea), Starved the animals (how did the animals live without several times their body weight in food), and explained where the water went in such a short time (if the land masses split and rose the strata would show it on surfaced landmasses as well as oceanic strata cores).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::8. A model could be provided of how the flood occurred that would not have reasonably destroyed the Ark (falling stones and water pressure from the crack idea), Starved the animals (how did the animals live without several times their body weight in food), and explained where the water went in such a short time (if the land masses split and rose the strata would show it on surfaced landmasses as well as oceanic strata cores).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Philip about the date thing, this is forming the research around the idea and not the idea around the research. Dates are arbitrary, that is true however time between events is not arbitrary, it can be used for scientific research. When TerryH said that we should not count the evidence that presumes that there was no flood it leads to a biased research. The evidence that is dated older than the flood should be counted and verified with the evidence supporting a flood. This is the only way to prevent unbiased research. Evidence is not biased, it is the person interpreting the evidence that is. To ignore evidence on the basis that it is in conflict with your idea is like a drug company saying that a product is safe even though it has killed 18 out of 100 clinical trial patients. For research to be trustworthy it must explore all practical and available routes within the scope of its study.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Philip about the date thing, this is forming the research around the idea and not the idea around the research. Dates are arbitrary, that is true however time between events is not arbitrary, it can be used for scientific research. When TerryH said that we should not count the evidence that presumes that there was no flood it leads to a biased research. The evidence that is dated older than the flood should be counted and verified with the evidence supporting a flood. This is the only way to prevent unbiased research. Evidence is not biased, it is the person interpreting the evidence that is. To ignore evidence on the basis that it is in conflict with your idea is like a drug company saying that a product is safe even though it has killed 18 out of 100 clinical trial patients. For research to be trustworthy it must explore all practical and available routes within the scope of its study.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: As far as the burden of proof is concerned, you may be right in your argument, but I'm not sure, because the alternative is not "nothing happened". In theory it may be, but in practice secular geology proposes that ''something'' happened. So we have two competing theories of ''something'' happening. From that point of view, why should the burden of proof be on one of those "somethings" and not the other?
:::::: As for you numbered points:
::::::# Speciation has been observed happening within a few generations, so I would argue that points 1 and 6 have been shown to be possible.
::::::# I don't understand this one.
::::::# I hope they find it one day!
::::::# See my comments below about dating.
::::::# I believe that this does not need to be false; it could be consistent with flood geology.
::::::# See No. 1.
::::::# This is not what flood geology proposes, so is a straw-man. See also my comments below about dating.
::::::# There might be a bit of a straw-man in this one, but the rest has been answered. See the book ''A Feasibility Study of Noah's Ark'' by John Woodmorappe.
:::::: Dates are a time between two events (being the event being dated and the present) adjusted to a common reference. So when we are talking about dates, it is really the time between events that we are discussing.
:::::: I agree that evidence is not biased but the interpreters of the evidence are. But dates are not evidence. They are a calculation done by a biased interpreter of the evidence. And his biases can affect that calculation. So we are not saying that evidence should be ignored; we are saying that dates that are calculated according to opposing biases should be ignored.
:::::: I agree that "''for research to be trustworthy it must explore all practical and available routes within the scope of its study''", which means that naturalistic science that excludes some ideas (such as flood geology) on the basis that it involves a supernatural being are not trustworthy.
:::::: Finally, thanks for the civil discussion; it makes a change from many that I've had.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
You seem to argue here that assuming part of your argument takes analysis outside the realm of science - at least that's what TerryH argues, when he says that "assuming there was no flood" makes it not good science. Conceding this point ''arguendo'', I'd like to cross apply your reasoning, and broaden its scope: assuming part of an argument does invalidate the argument, I will phrase it. Applying this to creation science, which Philip concedes assumes a creator, it is clear that [[creation science]] is also bad science.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 23:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
You seem to argue here that assuming part of your argument takes analysis outside the realm of science - at least that's what TerryH argues, when he says that "assuming there was no flood" makes it not good science. Conceding this point ''arguendo'', I'd like to cross apply your reasoning, and broaden its scope: assuming part of an argument does invalidate the argument, I will phrase it. Applying this to creation science, which Philip concedes assumes a creator, it is clear that [[creation science]] is also bad science.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 23:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)