Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2015, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2015 08:11 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(21-04-2015 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But you hit the nail on the head where you wrote that competing hypotheses exist. They exist for the Flood, for the Big Bang, for the extinction of the dinosaurs, etc. This is why I am tempted to resent--while remaining steadfastly patient--the constant inference that when I offer alternative hypotheses for events in the distant past that I'm somehow being unscientific or skirting modern science, as if EVERY and ALL academic in EVERY secular university and research lab is in TOTAL, univocal agreement.

Then again, I'm always interested in a level playing field.

The point at which these hypotheses become relevant is when they make testable predictions that significantly conflict with currently-accepted hypotheses, particularly when those predictions hold and falsify accepted hypotheses.

In short, it's all white noise until:
1. You state a clear hypothesis whose predictions are clear
2. Those predictions differ from established hypotheses
3. Those predictions are tested and you successfully falsify established hypotheses.

The "knowledge" we have got there by meeting all of those criteria. That's the playing field. It's as level as any playing field could hope to be, I think. But it's also ruthless. Opinion, belief, shifting the burden of proof. They don't fly here.

So it's understandable when you aren't clearly progressing through those steps for people to hear a bit of white noise when you speak about your hypotheses about the past, particularly when your argument might be in the form "You cannot prove I am wrong, because God could have fixed this bit or that bit".

What you really need to do to break through to people on a scientific method is to make clearly falsifiable predictions that unerringly hold and do so in cases that falsify competing hypotheses. Do you have a hypothesis that could make that march from idea to provisional acceptance? Which hypothesis? What are its predictions? How do those predictions differ from accepted hypotheses?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
22-04-2015, 10:45 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
All,

There is excellent evidence for the Flood as my hypothesis. The evidence includes many of the pieces of data now established/understood by scientists, especially filling in gaps in geology and plate techtonics, etc.

You assume I think, "Buh-buh-buh the Bible says it was a real, not allegorical Flood". Rather, I check into the available facts and data to see what I can learn about current scientific theory and think through the issues.

I'm also not saying "you cannot prove I'm wrong" or anything like that. Of course my ideas are falsifiable to a point, just as dating the ice cores and etc. is only falsifiable to a point.

I have good reasons to consider that there may have been a universal Flood.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 10:51 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-04-2015 10:45 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There is excellent evidence for the Flood as my hypothesis. The evidence includes many of the pieces of data now established/understood by scientists, especially filling in gaps in geology and plate techtonics, etc.
Huh
There is?
That's pretty big (and very recent) news then....

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
22-04-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-04-2015 10:45 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

There is excellent evidence for the Flood as my hypothesis. The evidence includes many of the pieces of data now established/understood by scientists, especially filling in gaps in geology and plate techtonics, etc.

You assume I think, "Buh-buh-buh the Bible says it was a real, not allegorical Flood". Rather, I check into the available facts and data to see what I can learn about current scientific theory and think through the issues.

I'm also not saying "you cannot prove I'm wrong" or anything like that. Of course my ideas are falsifiable to a point, just as dating the ice cores and etc. is only falsifiable to a point.

I have good reasons to consider that there may have been a universal Flood.


At work.

Two points.
1 You have good reason to think about a GLOBAL flood. :wink:

2 Great! Big Grin What might they be? Since Geology, hydrlogy, History, Physics.... No more time to list more.... would seem to completely disagree/invalidate any such event.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 11:32 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-04-2015 10:45 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

There is excellent evidence for the Flood as my hypothesis. The evidence includes many of the pieces of data now established/understood by scientists, especially filling in gaps in geology and plate techtonics, etc.

You assume I think, "Buh-buh-buh the Bible says it was a real, not allegorical Flood". Rather, I check into the available facts and data to see what I can learn about current scientific theory and think through the issues.

I'm also not saying "you cannot prove I'm wrong" or anything like that. Of course my ideas are falsifiable to a point, just as dating the ice cores and etc. is only falsifiable to a point.

I have good reasons to consider that there may have been a universal Flood.

Yes, we know in your little fantasy world all kinds of things are real- to you!

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 11:47 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-04-2015 10:45 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

There is excellent evidence for the Flood as my hypothesis. The evidence includes many of the pieces of data now established/understood by scientists, especially filling in gaps in geology and plate techtonics, etc.

You have not presented a hypothesis or any evidence - only random special pleadings.

Quote:You assume I think, "Buh-buh-buh the Bible says it was a real, not allegorical Flood". Rather, I check into the available facts and data to see what I can learn about current scientific theory and think through the issues.

You cherry-pick little bits and misinterpret them.

Quote:I'm also not saying "you cannot prove I'm wrong" or anything like that. Of course my ideas are falsifiable to a point, just as dating the ice cores and etc. is only falsifiable to a point.

Your ideas are fantasies and have been shown to be inconsistent with reality.

Quote:I have good reasons to consider that there may have been a universal Flood.

You do not have any good reason, just your pre-suppositional ones.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-04-2015, 01:15 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-04-2015 11:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 10:45 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  All,

There is excellent evidence for the Flood as my hypothesis. The evidence includes many of the pieces of data now established/understood by scientists, especially filling in gaps in geology and plate techtonics, etc.

You have not presented a hypothesis or any evidence - only random special pleadings.

Quote:You assume I think, "Buh-buh-buh the Bible says it was a real, not allegorical Flood". Rather, I check into the available facts and data to see what I can learn about current scientific theory and think through the issues.

You cherry-pick little bits and misinterpret them.

Quote:I'm also not saying "you cannot prove I'm wrong" or anything like that. Of course my ideas are falsifiable to a point, just as dating the ice cores and etc. is only falsifiable to a point.

Your ideas are fantasies and have been shown to be inconsistent with reality.

Quote:I have good reasons to consider that there may have been a universal Flood.

You do not have any good reason, just your pre-suppositional ones.

It's post like this that make me suspect Q's sanity, he talks of this magnificent hypothesis of his and none of us have seen anything but a bloviating BS'er that can't produce a shred of evidence and evades falsifiability. I don't know how many pages it took to even pin his evasive ass down to a date for the flood. I don't even think he knows what evidence is, he throws up childish math and thinks he's brilliant.
It's like he's in this little world of his, flying around with his Jeebus wings with unicorns in the clouds.

I await his next brilliant theory/hypothesis, maybe he'll provide a hermeneutic proof that he's a unicorn, praise Jeebus!

[Image: inflatable_unicorn_horn.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
22-04-2015, 02:33 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
No. I've mentioned ideas like rapid plate movement theory, anomalies we can see in the Grand Canyon, the fact that much of our current debate has to do with debating the ice cores in polar regions, when we all know snow is water and that assumptions have to be made below a certain depth of snow, etc.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 02:34 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-04-2015 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  No. I've mentioned ideas like rapid plate movement theory, anomalies we can see in the Grand Canyon, the fact that much of our current debate has to do with debating the ice cores in polar regions, when we all know snow is water and that assumptions have to be made below a certain depth of snow, etc.

You refer to these things without actually citing credible support.

And you have not yet proposed a hypothesis, just nattered on with pseudo-science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
22-04-2015, 03:13 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(22-04-2015 02:33 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  No. I've mentioned ideas like rapid plate movement theory, anomalies we can see in the Grand Canyon, the fact that much of our current debate has to do with debating the ice cores in polar regions, when we all know snow is water and that assumptions have to be made below a certain depth of snow, etc.

Please provide details of these Grand Canyon anomalies so they can be shoved up your ass sideways via the application of a few facts.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Popeye's Pappy's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: