[
Replying to Quantrill in post #114]
Really? So how did science arrive at the date of Noah's flood?
As brunumb said, the dating of the flood was not done by science (as science cannot date something that did not happen), but is derived from biblical chronology. Creationist websites go through the details:
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-time ... the-flood/
I am not saying the flood happened so long ago that we cannot know the conditions on the earth at that time. I am saying the conditions on the earth at that time were not the same as now. All of which disrupts your scientific analysis which is based on everything being the same as it is now.
4300 years ago is nothing in geoligic time. The conditions on earth a measly 4300 years ago (or 4359 using the AIG number) were indeed the same as they are now in terms of the primary geology (configuration of the continents, major mountain ranges and river systems, etc.). So saying that the conditions on earth then are not the same as now is just wrong unless you get down to details so insignificant that they would have zero bearing on an event as catastrophic as Noah's flood would have been (eg. lower atmospheric CO2 levels, some animals not yet extinct, and things like that). 4300 years is just too recent for earth to show major change in its geology or atmosphere to an extent that would allow a global flood to have occurred.
Well, you are correct in that I am not interested in your 'scientific points' as they are filled with bias against God and the Bible.
It isn't "bias against God and the Bible." You seem to interpret anything that contradicts the biblical narrative to be bias rather than simply the interpretation of observations and measurements to follow the evidence where it leads. Science, in general, has no bias for or against religion. But it certainly can show certain ancient tales to be true or false such as the Noah's flood event, or people living to 900+ years old, etc. This is much more of a problem for biblical literalists given the short time ago that "creation" supposedly happened (some 6000 or so years ago ... again a time frame arrived at from analysis of biblical chronology). Some of the stories and events described in the bible are just scientifically impossible, and that isn't bias against the book or the particular god it is associated with (of the many thousands that humans have invented), it is simply the result of examining the stories and events via scientific inquiry.
It doesn't matter how much science is learning. That knowledge is good only for today, as I said. Science can change it's mind in an hour. The point is you trust it. You are willing to trust what science says though they may change it later.
Science never just willy nilly "changes its mind." Any changes to existing theories or interpretations must be based on solid evidence and analysis. And some things will never change because they have been proven to be correct (eg. the heliocentric model of our solar system, much of the fundamental mathematics, physics and chemistry that underlies science, etc.). There are always new discoveries being made and this often requires refinement to current understanding, but that isn't science "changing its mind" ... it is incorporating new knowledge into the knowledge base when it is justified. Most of science can be trusted because it has been demonstrated to be correct. Hypotheses are not simply accepted as correct without lots of confirmation via experiment and observation that supports the hypothesis. This is completely different from religion where there is no such confirmation. Everything is simply believed without evidence because of trust in a holy book, not trust in direct measurement and observation.
That is your faith. I don't mind that that is your faith. Why do you mind?
I assume you are asking why I mind if you have faith in religion? I don't. I don't mind anyone practicing any religion they choose. But I do oppose someone calling trust in science "faith", although this is such a common theist misrepresentation that it is to be expected. I don't think people who try to make that false analogy actually believe it themselves, unless they are so ignorant of how science actually works that they genuinely confuse the two. Trust in science is not at all similar to faith in a religion.