nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 75:
Line 75: − + + + + + + + + + + +
→Dating: Grass, ice age, etc.
::::::::I must comment about the supernatural. The search for the supernatural is considered scientific since it is falsifiable, we find evidence of the supernatural or not (why SETI is scientifically based) but to use the supernatural to explain an observation is not scientific due to the lack of falsifiablity of the research unless the supernatural entity has been shown to A. exist and B. contribute to the event.
::::::::I must comment about the supernatural. The search for the supernatural is considered scientific since it is falsifiable, we find evidence of the supernatural or not (why SETI is scientifically based) but to use the supernatural to explain an observation is not scientific due to the lack of falsifiablity of the research unless the supernatural entity has been shown to A. exist and B. contribute to the event.
:::::::: I am glad you enjoy the discussion. I do believe that evidence tends to speak for itself as long as it is looked at objectively, which can be hard for some. I know that some feel that debating is negative, mostly due to insecurities of background knowledge of a topic (ToE for example), and try to prevent the opposing POV from presenting its evidence. I do hope to continue this discussion, for I am very interested in gleaning why a person believes as they do.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I am glad you enjoy the discussion. I do believe that evidence tends to speak for itself as long as it is looked at objectively, which can be hard for some. I know that some feel that debating is negative, mostly due to insecurities of background knowledge of a topic (ToE for example), and try to prevent the opposing POV from presenting its evidence. I do hope to continue this discussion, for I am very interested in gleaning why a person believes as they do.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::# Grass likely survived off the ark on floating mats of vegetation, and there could have been a lot more than ten types surviving the flood. In addition, and even assuming only ten surviving the flood, those 1.6 species per year (actually about 2.2 per year, as the flood was about 4,500 years ago) do not need to happen sequentially. How do you know that there aren't two or three new species all around the world this year?<br/>Additionally, you are putting speciation all down to mutations. It can and does happen through genetic bottlenecks and natural selection, a sorting out and elimination of genes in given population groups produces new species. Mutations are an ''additional'' method.
:::::::::# Flood geologists believe that the salt content prior to the flood was ''smaller'' than now, not larger. We don't know how much water was added to the oceans, but likely a lot of salt was added at the same time, and has been added since (salt entering the oceans exceeds the quantity leaving). Also, the ice age (see below) would have reduced the water content, concentrating the salt a bit in the remaining water.
:::::::::# —
:::::::::# What time that has passed? Are you still talking about uniformitarian-based time calculations?
:::::::::# An ice age could occur in the several hundred years after the flood. Lower temperatures globally would not produce an ice age, because of the lower evaporation hence lower precipitation. Higher temperatures globally would not produce an ice age because the precipitation would be rain, not snow. However, lower land temperatures with still-warm oceans following the flood ''would'' produce an ice age. The flood is the best (only?) mechanism that could produce one. Despite it not being as drastic as you indicate, civilisation did notice; Job makes reference to the vast storehouses of ice in the north.
:::::::::# —
:::::::::# Your argument assumes that the existing ocean basins were the ocean basins of the time. I don't know the detail of the Flood model on this point, but part of it is that "the mountains rose and the valleys sank" (Psalms, somewhere) as part of the flood. So the sediments were deposited in the low areas, which subsequently rose to make the continents, while the hight points without the sediments dropped to become the ocean basins. That may not be accurate, but it may be the explanation.
:::::::::# I wasn't sure if the book talked much about the structural strength of the ark, but that or something like that has been studied by Korean naval architects.
::::::::: Very few people I've discussed this with will say that the search for the supernatural is scientific. But one does not have to observe or test the supernatural to see the results of the actions of the supernatural, so there should be nothing unscientific about concluding that a supernatural being was responsible. But naturalistic science will not even consider that possibility, so it not being objective.
::::::::: Evidence does not really speak for itself. We understand (interpret) the evidence within our worldview or paradigm.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 19 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)