A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[nygreenguy]

My goal is not to "falsify" modern science. But I do challenge and question modern science. And I think it's also hubris to think that any field of science cannot be challenged.

Just attacking a model is not science, but it also has to bring forth an alternative model. And that I also am attempting to do with the FM. My goal is not to "convince" anyone to my side, but to show that the model is reasonable and supportable by empirical evidence. And that an appeal to faith is not necessary to believe in its plausibility.

By doing the second, you are doing the first. Any and every single legitimate scientist will tell you the flood couldnt/didnt happen. It is analogous to arguing the earth is the center of the universe/flat.

[micatala]

My goal is not to "falsify" modern science. But I do challenge and question modern science. And I think it's also hubris to think that any field of science cannot be challenged.

Just attacking a model is not science, but it also has to bring forth an alternative model. And that I also am attempting to do with the FM. My goal is not to "convince" anyone to my side, but to show that the model is reasonable and supportable by empirical evidence. And that an appeal to faith is not necessary to believe in its plausibility.

By doing the second, you are doing the first. Any and every single legitimate scientist will tell you the flood couldnt/didnt happen. It is analogous to arguing the earth is the center of the universe/flat.

Well, as I recall otseng started or at least participated in a thread devoted to arguing the proposition that the earth is the center of the universe.


At any rate, I have to agree with otseng more than nygreenguy as far as the forum. Although it may be hubris, we should be free to argue with the experts. Those who are defending the experts can respond in a number of ways. My personal response is to try and learn enough of the experts arguments to make sense of them and argue for them (when I agree with them, of course). I try to keep in mind that there will be those who read the thread and do not participate who might learn something.




I'd suggest we get back to ice cores. Now, we may not get to reaching any agreement. However, I do hope we can at least agree on some conditional statements, like "if scientists are correct in their counting of annual layers, then there was no global flood in the last 500,000 years."

[nygreenguy]

At any rate, I have to agree with otseng more than nygreenguy as far as the forum. Although it may be hubris, we should be free to argue with the experts. Those who are defending the experts can respond in a number of ways.

If someone doesnt even understand the basic methodology, let alone the theory, like ice cores, then how can one possibly argue with them? If you want to argue, you HAVE to be informed. The problem is, to many people form their opinion BEFORE they are informed. Otseng is BEGINNING with believing the flood model is the correct one, and therefore MUST challenge the accepted scientific opinion BEFORE even knowing how the science is even done.

You can DISCUSS the issue of ice cores, but to sit here and try to say they are ALL wrong and NOT OLD demonstrates not an honest attempt to find the truth, but rather defend some worldview. Im sorry, but expert opinion is expert for a reason and not all of us have the credibility to make the type of claims we see here.

My personal response is to try and learn enough of the experts arguments to make sense of them and argue for them (when I agree with them, of course). I try to keep in mind that there will be those who read the thread and do not participate who might learn something.

Even those who ARE pro-science dont necessarily KNOW what they are talking about. I think we should be careful in what we say BECAUSE other people are listening. The internet creates an environment where everyone gets a voice, but we have no control over who is listening. Ive met plenty pro-science folks who didnt have a clue what they are talking about and said a great deal which simply wasnt true.

[nygreenguy]

Just attacking a model is not science, but it also has to bring forth an alternative model. And that I also am attempting to do with the FM. My goal is not to "convince" anyone to my side, but to show that the model is reasonable and supportable by empirical evidence. And that an appeal to faith is not necessary to believe in its plausibility.

This is something else I take issue with. What gives you the credibility to propose ANY model? Are you a geologist? Biologist? Ecologist? Hydrologist? etc. How can you propose a model when you dont understand the fundamentals behind it? The current model is highly interdisciplinary, has taken over 100 years and has thousands of papers published supporting it.

The flood model has none of this.

My goal is not to "falsify" modern science. But I do challenge and question modern science. And I think it's also hubris to think that any field of science cannot be challenged.

Once again, this is good and all, but far too often people question things not on their merits, but rather because they conflict with other beliefs. People only question evolution because it conflicts with religion. This is why you never see atheists questioning evolution. Same goes for geology.

You NEVER see the same type of questioning in fields like ecology, chemistry, physics, etc.

[micatala]

Just attacking a model is not science, but it also has to bring forth an alternative model. And that I also am attempting to do with the FM. My goal is not to "convince" anyone to my side, but to show that the model is reasonable and supportable by empirical evidence. And that an appeal to faith is not necessary to believe in its plausibility.

This is something else I take issue with. What gives you the credibility to propose ANY model? Are you a geologist? Biologist? Ecologist? Hydrologist? etc. How can you propose a model when you dont understand the fundamentals behind it? The current model is highly interdisciplinary, has taken over 100 years and has thousands of papers published supporting it.

The flood model has none of this.

My goal is not to "falsify" modern science. But I do challenge and question modern science. And I think it's also hubris to think that any field of science cannot be challenged.

Once again, this is good and all, but far too often people question things not on their merits, but rather because they conflict with other beliefs. People only question evolution because it conflicts with religion. This is why you never see atheists questioning evolution. Same goes for geology.

You NEVER see the same type of questioning in fields like ecology, chemistry, physics, etc.

McCulloch has started a new thread to debate When to disagree with experts .

Under the assumption that at least some of us will continue to disagree with the experts on this thread, I'd suggest discussion of the appropriateness of that activity migrate to McCulloch's new thread.

[otseng]

It is analogous to arguing the earth is the center of the universe/flat.

Then this is all entirely appropriate since I do believe the universe is flat and the earth is at the center of the universe.

McCulloch has started a new thread to debate When to disagree with experts .

Under the assumption that at least some of us will continue to disagree with the experts on this thread, I'd suggest discussion of the appropriateness of that activity migrate to McCulloch's new thread.

OK, we'll continue on with the debate.

Also, I realize that several threads have already spawned off this thread. And though I'd like to comment on those other threads, I am so limited in time that participating in one thread is hard enough.

[Goat]

It is analogous to arguing the earth is the center of the universe/flat.

Then this is all entirely appropriate since I do believe the universe is flat and the earth is at the center of the universe.

And what do you think of the concept of parsimony, as in the 'economy of explaination'?

How do you explain the movement of the earth and stars if the earth is the center of the universe?

[otseng]

It is analogous to arguing the earth is the center of the universe/flat.

Then this is all entirely appropriate since I do believe the universe is flat and the earth is at the center of the universe.

And what do you think of the concept of parsimony, as in the 'economy of explaination'?

How do you explain the movement of the earth and stars if the earth is the center of the universe?

I do not want to derail this thread. But, I'll make one comment regarding this.

The Earth orbits around the Sun. Our Solar System orbits around our Galactic center. This is all the same as conventional cosmology. Where I differ is that the assumption of the Copernican Principle is not true. But the evidence points to the Earth located at (or very near) the center of the Universe.

[micatala]

It is analogous to arguing the earth is the center of the universe/flat.

Then this is all entirely appropriate since I do believe the universe is flat and the earth is at the center of the universe.

And what do you think of the concept of parsimony, as in the 'economy of explaination'?

How do you explain the movement of the earth and stars if the earth is the center of the universe?

Again, this is not really on topic.

I know there was a topic on this. I could not find it in the Science forum. Perhaps otseng could recall the name or locate it.





A couple of related discussions have occurred.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=290
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9&start=40

[Scotracer]

It is analogous to arguing the earth is the center of the universe/flat.

Then this is all entirely appropriate since I do believe the universe is flat and the earth is at the center of the universe.

And what do you think of the concept of parsimony, as in the 'economy of explaination'?

How do you explain the movement of the earth and stars if the earth is the center of the universe?

I do not want to derail this thread. But, I'll make one comment regarding this.

The Earth orbits around the Sun. Our Solar System orbits around our Galactic center. This is all the same as conventional cosmology. Where I differ is that the assumption of the Copernican Principle is not true. But the evidence points to the Earth located at (or very near) the center of the Universe.

How on earth can anyone make that statement when the visible universe is not the entire universe?