The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2017, 02:04 PM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 06:54 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  water did not originally flow downhill.

Unfortunately for you, water did always flow downhill.
By the time there was water in liquid form on the Earth, the solar system had long been in place, and the reason the sun had formed, and it's gravity had captured other celestial objects was because gravity was a fact in this universe. The notion that water at one point in the history of this planet violated regularly the the Law of Gravity is SO utterly preposterous, it defies comprehension, (no matter what your ancient book of cobbled-together myths says).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-12-2017, 02:24 PM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 08:39 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 07:56 PM)skyking Wrote:  ...Watching my girlish figure.


So am I. Big Grin

[Oh shit... can I now sense litigation in the air?]

Oh my < Terry Jones Girlish voice>
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes skyking's post
20-12-2017, 02:39 PM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 09:22 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 09:10 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Yes I am, in general terms. Without reason there is no science. All applications of reason are science. The special sciences apply reason to specific areas of study such as physics. Metaphysics is the science that studies the the fundamental nature of the universe including questions such as the relationship between subject and object of consciousness which identifies the distinction between the real and the imaginary. We use the science of epistemology to study the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. Ethics is the science that studies the values required by man's nature for his proper flourishing. These are sciences in the general sense of reason applied to the task of knowing. They don't involve test tubes and rats in a cage but that's because they deal with the readily observable facts. Once we get beyond the readily observable facts to higher and higher level inference, that's when we need the test tubes.

We can not apply reason to understanding "the supernatural" because it violates those readily observable facts that reason rests on, namely the axioms and the primacy of existence. Religion is outside the realm of reason which places it in the realm of the imagination.

You had me at 'Yes I am'. Then you went on to talking about science. But when you shifted to religion in your last paragraph, you also shifted your terminology to 'reason', and declared that we can't use reason to understand it. That is not true. Religious people accept certain axioms as being true. They apply these axioms to their understanding of religion, and they don't apply them to science. In science, we accept certain axioms as true, and we don't apply them to religion. In my opinion, that doesn't present me with a paradox that I must resolve.

My apologies Yonadev,

The fault is mine. I've been thinking in terms of essentials for so long that it has become automatic for me to reduce statements to their most basic premises. I forget that I do this and many don't. So when you say that you don't use science to understand Religion, my mind reduces this to it's starting premise automatically and I also see all of the implications of this starting point. I guess I just assume that others do the same with my responses. When I hear statements like yours my instant reaction is to become indignant. When you say that you don't use science to understand religion I hear "I don't use an objective method to arrive at my beliefs" which means "I don't use reason to arrive at my beliefs" which means "I reject the primacy of existence" which means "I reject the law of identity" which means "my belief has nothing to do with reality but I still believe it's true". All of this happens in a split second my reaction is to pounce on a statement like yours. I need to really work on that fault.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2017, 02:49 PM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 07:41 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  I haven't asked anyone to believe in anything. Essentially, I was agreeing with the Original Post, who felt that it was silly that Creationists were attempting to use science to prove the flood.

You probably should have stopped there.

But since you didn't, well magical thinking is magical. Jumping through and doing mental gymnastics to convince everyone that before the "flood" circles didn't exist and they were all really squares is kinda silly.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
20-12-2017, 02:53 PM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(20-12-2017 02:39 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 09:22 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  You had me at 'Yes I am'. Then you went on to talking about science. But when you shifted to religion in your last paragraph, you also shifted your terminology to 'reason', and declared that we can't use reason to understand it. That is not true. Religious people accept certain axioms as being true. They apply these axioms to their understanding of religion, and they don't apply them to science. In science, we accept certain axioms as true, and we don't apply them to religion. In my opinion, that doesn't present me with a paradox that I must resolve.

My apologies Yonadev,

The fault is mine. I've been thinking in terms of essentials for so long that it has become automatic for me to reduce statements to their most basic premises. I forget that I do this and many don't. So when you say that you don't use science to understand Religion, my mind reduces this to it's starting premise automatically and I also see all of the implications of this starting point. I guess I just assume that others do the same with my responses. When I hear statements like yours my instant reaction is to become indignant. When you say that you don't use science to understand religion I hear "I don't use an objective method to arrive at my beliefs" which means "I don't use reason to arrive at my beliefs" which means "I reject the primacy of existence" which means "I reject the law of identity" which means "my belief has nothing to do with reality but I still believe it's true". All of this happens in a split second my reaction is to pounce on a statement like yours. I need to really work on that fault.

No worries. I enjoyed talking with you.

My belief that people are basically good is sometimes crushed by the reality that people are basically bad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2017, 04:02 PM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(20-12-2017 02:53 PM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  
(20-12-2017 02:39 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  My apologies Yonadev,

The fault is mine. I've been thinking in terms of essentials for so long that it has become automatic for me to reduce statements to their most basic premises. I forget that I do this and many don't. So when you say that you don't use science to understand Religion, my mind reduces this to it's starting premise automatically and I also see all of the implications of this starting point. I guess I just assume that others do the same with my responses. When I hear statements like yours my instant reaction is to become indignant. When you say that you don't use science to understand religion I hear "I don't use an objective method to arrive at my beliefs" which means "I don't use reason to arrive at my beliefs" which means "I reject the primacy of existence" which means "I reject the law of identity" which means "my belief has nothing to do with reality but I still believe it's true". All of this happens in a split second my reaction is to pounce on a statement like yours. I need to really work on that fault.

No worries. I enjoyed talking with you.

Oh and sorry about misspelling your screen name. I've been working 14 hour days for about a week without much sleep and I'm a little punchy.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2017, 05:54 PM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(20-12-2017 04:02 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(20-12-2017 02:53 PM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  No worries. I enjoyed talking with you.

Oh and sorry about misspelling your screen name. I've been working 14 hour days for about a week without much sleep and I'm a little punchy.

People misspell and mispronounce my name all the time. Don't worry about it. In fact, my name is mispronounced so much that I now simply go along with it.

My belief that people are basically good is sometimes crushed by the reality that people are basically bad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2017, 06:12 PM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 09:22 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  In science, we accept certain axioms as true, and we don't apply them to religion.
Ever notice that theistic trolls just don't fucking understand what they're doing wrong? Drinking Beverage
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
20-12-2017, 06:55 PM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 05:23 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 03:33 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  An interesting paper on how the work by creationist "geologists" to prove the Flood happened, actually proves quite the opposite.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Flood%20geology.pdf

As my academic background is in earth sciences I've always found it profoundly idiotic for anyone to claim the Genesis Flood occurred, let alone those who purport to have studied geology and call themselves geologists.

As a theist, I have never felt the need to use science to understand religion, or religion to understand science. I personally would not expect to find any evidence of the flood in this world. The flood was sort of an other-worldly event. Aside from the survivors of the flood, the world as it was prior to the flood is an erased world. It is like it never existed, because a cosmological reset button was pressed. Our reality now, is not the same reality of the pre-flood world. Some of the rules of nature are even different.

Facepalm

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
20-12-2017, 06:58 PM
RE: The Rebuttal of the Noachian Flood - by Creationists
(19-12-2017 07:04 AM)Yonadav Kenyon Wrote:  
(19-12-2017 06:57 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Spare me the bullshit and show some actual evidence. Tribal tales aren't what I find convincing.
I didn't expect you to be convinced. You want to use science to understand religion. I don't do that. When my car won't start (actually I don't have a car), I don't pull out the bible to troubleshoot my car. When I don't understand religion, I don't pull out the troubleshooting manual for my car.

When religions make claims about the real world, they've opened themselves up to a reality check from the actual world.

Theology is all made up; there are no facts involved.

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: