The biblical flood date

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Jac3510 » Sun Sep 04, 2016 7:40 pm

Audie wrote:Um sorry to sorta set you up to say all that, but I do know those things.

I would think so. It's all very basic. But then, you seemed not to understand the difference in me supposedly being illogical and ACB's failed argument, equivocating between the form of my argument and the substance of his. You also confused the logical point with a philosophical one, so, again, I would hope you knew all the above. I'm not sure, then, why what I said wasn't care. But we'll revisit this below.

Audie wrote:Science is real good at disproving things.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say science proves but that it doesn't disprove. To disprove is simply to prove false. If science doesn't prove, then it doesn't prove false. You can't even say that science doesn't prove true but can prove false, because to prove false would be to prove true that something is false.

I am not beggibg no question.

Ya-uh. If we are discussing whether or not the flood happened and someone quotes AiG, and then you reject AiG on the basis of them being a perjured witness on the basis that the flood did not happen, then you are assuming that the flood did not happen and using that as a basis on which to count AiG (or whomever) perjured. But the discussion itself is whether or not the flood happened. That just is begging the question, Audie. No bones about it, and to be blunt, if you can't see that, then you're just pulling an ACB here.

You might as well be saying as the prosecutor "But what about this scrap of cloth from the murder scene!!!" , after, you know, the defendant shows that he was having
tea with Queen E., in the Palace Garden at the very moment Mr Green was killed in Bangkok with a lead pipe.
(In the study, no less)

Tell the judge that your opposite number is beggin' the q!

He will doubtless say "How droll", or some functional equivalent.

I have absolutely no idea what your example is supposed to illustrate--that the scrap of cloth is unrelated to the case? If so, that isn't begging the question. It would be a non-sequitur. But a non-sequitur isn't petitio principii. A non-sequitur is when the conclusion is unrelated to the premise (usually because there is no middle term). A petitio principii (begging the question or circular reasoning) is when the conclusion is found in the premise of the argument. Again, our discussion is whether or not the flood happened. You say AiG is perjured because they argue scientifically that a flood happened. But implicit in that claim (that AiG is so perjured) is that they are making a FALSE claim precisely because the flood did not happen. And thus the conclusion (that the flood did not happen) is embedded in the premise (that AiG is a perjured witness) and so cannot be used as a premise that the flood DID happen.

And that gets back to all this stuff that you say you get. I would expect you to see this very clearly. You want to say that you aren't committing a genetic fallacy or that such shouldn't matter. You want to ask me if I'm committing an argument from authority. You want to deny that you are begging the question. All of these, however, are blatantly obvious. So while I hope that you are familiar with everything I posted in my longer post above, your recent contributions suggest either that you don't or that you weren't being very careful in your approach. Now, you can always argue that AiG is perjured via a modus ponens or tollens in which one of the premises does presume the flood did not happen. That is, you could say,

1. If anyone argues scientifically that there was a global flood, then they do not understand science (and so should not be cited in scientific discussion);
2. AiG argues scientifically that there was a global flood
3. Therefore, AiG does not understand science (and should not be cited in scientific discussion)

Or

1. If anyone understands science or can be cited appropriately in a scientific discussion then they do not argue scientifically for a global flood
2. AiG argues scientifically that there was a global flood
3. Therefore AiG does not understand science and cannot be cited appropriately in a scientific discussion

Again, these are legitimate arguments. But please notice clearly that in both cases the premise that the flood did not happen (at least, not a global flood) is assumed in the premise. So while it's a fine argument in and of itself, you cannot use this argument to discredit AiG when discussing whether or not there was a global flood to begin with. To so use it is to beg the question and to commit a genetic fallacy. And for someone as interested in being rational as you say you are, then you ought to abhor illogical arguments, even if you accept their conclusion, as you say you already understand from my previous post.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby neo-x » Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:05 pm

Jac, I really enjoyed and appreciate your take on the distinction between logic and philosophy and your examples.

I'd just offer my two cents, unasked for as they are:
Personally, when someone doesn't believe or acknowledge evolution and asks me to prove it, I could care less because to me it's like trying to prove that 2+2=4. While I know there is a really strong proof that could be shown for it, and there are plenty of studies, I really don't see the need to prove it. And perhaps that is what you are facing with Audie on your conversation here. The evidence against the global flood is so much that to even entertain the idea seems silly (like my 2+2=4) example. Perhaps other claims by Snelling just gives it all the more reason that he is wrong.

I know if someone cited an AiG study about evolution, I would not take it seriously at all. I take this notion seriously that, information most of the times, is only as good as it's source.

Looking forward to your conversation on the topic further.

Edit:
I noticed that I had used words like proof and prove (unscientific by definition), but they are being used in a non-technical way, the way I see it - as irrefutable. Obviously, by definition, if tomorrow we find something against it, yes it can be disproved but judging by the evidence, I just don't think it will.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:06 am

Xxxx
Last edited by Audie on Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:09 am

crochet1949 wrote:Audie -- Because the passage I quoted Is part of God's Word and God Is real and He has told us / mankind/ Through Moses that That Did happen or it would Not be part Of God's Word.

You are insinuating that someone who Believes Otherwise is insane or Possibly insane. But then people have Also been trying to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and His bodily resurrection for those same reasons. And God's Word Does tell us they Did happen and even Why.



You are assuning that there is a God, assuming ypu picked the right one, that the flood story is from that.god, thst you interpret it right. Thay is a lot of assuming.

I am not into "insinuating". I like to say things straight

I dont think flood believers are insane, morally weak, or have rickets, etc.
"Everyone" believed it up until the 18th century.

People can believe in astrology w/o being insane. I dont think scientologists are insane.

Your assunption concerning me is incorrect.

I am also not into "explaining away" anything. For that, see people
trying to get out of what the ice, (among scores of other things) so plainly says.

Some try to explain that all away with "embedded age". Others wit, well, never mind.

Comparing the disproof of flood with "explaining away" the miracles
associated with Jesus is a deeply false comparison.

The Jesus miracles are, well, miracles. A matter for faith.
I dont do faith in miracles, but, that is me.

Miracles are for faith, or lack of. Flood is about physical evidence.

Two very different considerations.

To say that world wide flood and miracles are "explained away"
for "the same reasons" is simply and obviously false.

As several posters such as Krink could doubtless explain.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:23 am

Jac, I need a computer, not a tiny tablet to respond to your posts.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:25 am

neo-x wrote:Jac, I really enjoyed and appreciate your take on the distinction between logic and philosophy and your examples.

I'd just offer my two cents, unasked for as they are:
Personally, when someone doesn't believe or acknowledge evolution and asks me to prove it, I could care less because to me it's like trying to prove that 2+2=4. While I know there is a really strong proof that could be shown for it, and there are plenty of studies, I really don't see the need to prove it. And perhaps that is what you are facing with Audie on your conversation here. The evidence against the global flood is so much that to even entertain the idea seems silly (like my 2+2=4) example. Perhaps other claims by Snelling just gives it all the more reason that he is wrong.

I know if someone cited an AiG study about evolution, I would not take it seriously at all. I take this notion seriously that, information most of the times, is only as good as it's source.

Looking forward to your conversation on the topic further.

Edit:
I noticed that I had used words like proof and prove (unscientific by definition), but they are being used in a non-technical way, the way I see it - as irrefutable. Obviously, by definition, if tomorrow we find something against it, yes it can be disproved but judging by the evidence, I just don't think it will.


Could you present something on "proof" and "disproof" as science uses the terms?

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby neo-x » Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:45 am

What for?
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8404
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Kurieuo » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:25 pm

neo-x wrote:What for?

The heckler seems to have re-sufaced methinks, though only God knows why.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:30 pm

[list=]9[/list]
Kurieuo wrote:
neo-x wrote:What for?

The heckler seems to have re-sufaced methinks, though only God knows why.


Guess I wont unlike after hitting the wrong key. I might even mean it.

If your post is about me, have the courage to say so.
Last edited by Audie on Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1400
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby crochet1949 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:05 pm

Audie wrote:How is it logical, or even sane to argue for a disproved theoty?


In other words -- you are saying it is Not logical and even Insane to argue for a disproved theory.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:14 pm

crochet1949 wrote:
Audie wrote:How is it logical, or even sane to argue for a disproved theoty?


In other words -- you are saying it is Not logical and even Insane to argue for a disproved theory.


I read your q in answer to a q.

Contingent on Krink's response to my above q., I will or wont have more to say.

crochet1949
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1400
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:04 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby crochet1949 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:25 pm

Audie wrote:
crochet1949 wrote:Audie -- Because the passage I quoted Is part of God's Word and God Is real and He has told us / mankind/ Through Moses that That Did happen or it would Not be part Of God's Word.

You are insinuating that someone who Believes Otherwise is insane or Possibly insane. But then people have Also been trying to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and His bodily resurrection for those same reasons. And God's Word Does tell us they Did happen and even Why.



You are assuning that there is a God, assuming ypu picked the right one, that the flood story is from that.god, thst you interpret it right. Thay is a lot of assuming.

I am not into "insinuating". I like to say things straight

I dont think flood believers are insane, morally weak, or have rickets, etc.
"Everyone" believed it up until the 18th century.

People can believe in astrology w/o being insane. I dont think scientologists are insane.

Your assunption concerning me is incorrect.

I am also not into "explaining away" anything. For that, see people
trying to get out of what the ice, (among scores of other things) so plainly says.

Some try to explain that all away with "embedded age". Others wit, well, never mind.

Comparing the disproof of flood with "explaining away" the miracles
associated with Jesus is a deeply false comparison.

The Jesus miracles are, well, miracles. A matter for faith.
I dont do faith in miracles, but, that is me.

Miracles are for faith, or lack of. Flood is about physical evidence.

Two very different considerations.

To say that world wide flood and miracles are "explained away"
for "the same reasons" is simply and obviously false.

As several posters such as Krink could doubtless explain.



Because God's Word To mankind says "In the beginning God....created'. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was With God and the Word Was God......All things were made through Him and without Him, nothing was made that was made."
Throughout Scripture God is Assumed / taken for granted as Being. His existence is Not questioned. And He Also tells us that there are 'gods' that people groups have chosen to follow / worship, but they are Not real 'gods'. They are statues that look like things that God has created. The Greek people had 'gods' of fertility, etc. that they worshipped. But those were Not the God of the Bible.
I have shared the Scripture that tells us about the flood. So you can see that I'm not assuming anything.

The miracles were done by Jesus to get our attention -- that He was Not the average Jewish man. There was something very unique about Jesus Christ. He was doing things that would be Impossible in real life.

So --what Is the lesson to be learned through Noah's flood. Because you said it's a ........story given for a reason.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8404
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Kurieuo » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:36 pm

Audie wrote:[list=]9[/list]
Kurieuo wrote:
neo-x wrote:What for?

The heckler seems to have re-sufaced methinks, though only God knows why.


Guess I wont unlike after hitting the wrong key. I might even mean it.

If your post is about me, have the courage to say so.

I am kind of scared of you Audie, whether you'll get your own AK47 and fire off some rounds or take a nice stroll in the park with us. Which is perhaps why I, on a subconscious level, perhaps remained a bit more ambiguous (however it was more in relation to your AiG thread opened). If I'm to answer now though, I'm feeling the tables are turned and it appears you felt a little heckled by myself. So, nevermind. It's just Krink perhaps misfiring, me misunderstanding. yp**==
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Jac3510 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:58 pm

neo-x wrote:Jac, I really enjoyed and appreciate your take on the distinction between logic and philosophy and your examples.

I'd just offer my two cents, unasked for as they are:
Personally, when someone doesn't believe or acknowledge evolution and asks me to prove it, I could care less because to me it's like trying to prove that 2+2=4. While I know there is a really strong proof that could be shown for it, and there are plenty of studies, I really don't see the need to prove it. And perhaps that is what you are facing with Audie on your conversation here. The evidence against the global flood is so much that to even entertain the idea seems silly (like my 2+2=4) example. Perhaps other claims by Snelling just gives it all the more reason that he is wrong.

I know if someone cited an AiG study about evolution, I would not take it seriously at all. I take this notion seriously that, information most of the times, is only as good as it's source.

Looking forward to your conversation on the topic further.

Edit:
I noticed that I had used words like proof and prove (unscientific by definition), but they are being used in a non-technical way, the way I see it - as irrefutable. Obviously, by definition, if tomorrow we find something against it, yes it can be disproved but judging by the evidence, I just don't think it will.

In general I don't disagree with you, neo. As I said previously, I didn't cite AiG to prove a global flood or anything of the sort. Phil made a very specific claim: there is no way a global flood could explain the type of sorting we see in the geologic record. Andrew Snelling, who holds a PhD in geology, thinks otherwise. I pointed that out--that a particular person disagrees. The point was not that Snelling was right or that Phil was wrong. I literally hold no beliefs on the scientific feasibility of the flood. Likewise, I'm not the least bit interested in someone claiming the Snelling is correct on all things geology or in someone who writes him off as a blithering fool. What I do know is this: absolutely NO ONE on this site has the educational capacity to speak intelligently of what Snelling does or doesn't know, and yet virtually everyone on this site is making claims on what he does or doesn't know. That, to me, says far more about the people on this site than it does about Snelling. That's pretty much all I do know.

So, like you, I've no interest in proving or disproving evolution. And I appreciate your tag on the use of "proof," but there is such a thing as scientific proof. That gets a bit deeper into the philosophy of science. I was tweaking Audie a bit for her constant riffing on "science doesn't do proof." What she doesn't realize is that sometimes she equivocates in her use of the word "prove." She may do so unintentionally as in not actually seeing the different ways the term is used in different contexts, or she may do so via simple carelessness. Usually carelessness can go without comment because we all know what someone means. But when you are trying to make a specific point, then such carelessness cannot go unchallenged.

Just, then, for the sake of commenting, different disciplines "prove" things in different ways, and that respective to the nature of their disciplines. A mathematical proof is of one type; a historical proof of another; a logical proof of another; a metaphysical of another; a legal proof of another; a scientific still of another. The problem is that people hear the word "proof" and their minds immediately jump to the related idea of "certainty." And to the extent that people recognize different kinds of proof, people are usually just thinking of different ways to achieve some unstated "level" of certainty (which, I hope you see, is a contradiction in terms). It's better to recognize that there are different kinds of certainty, and thus knowledge is different with respect to the certainty it is related to, and thus proofs are variously related to various kinds of certainty with respect to the discipline they are related to.

Examples:

Give me a mathematical proof that George Washington was a president of the United States.
Give me a scientific proof that nothing can both be and not be in the same way at the same time.
Give me a logical proof that the human nature really exists in various entities.
Give me a historical proof that the 2+2=4.
Give me a philosophical proof that water freezes at 32 degrees Celsius.

And so on. You can't. You'd need a historical proof for the first, a logical proof for the second, a philosophical proof for the third, a mathematical proof, forth, and a scientific proof for the last. Moreover, when you rank the certainty of each of these conclusions, you'd find that second is the most certain, the fourth the next most certain, the third the next most certain, the fourth the next, and the fifth the least certain. And yet even granted these grades of certitude, we wouldn't really question whether or not Washington was a POTUS at all, now would we? And yet, the nature of certitude demands exactly the ranking I just provided.

So my point in all this is that scientific proofs are possible. They are done every day. Proof is exactly what science does, but it does it in a scientific way, and the result is a scientific proof and a scientific certainty. The result of a scientific proof is never a mathematical proof with mathematical certainty or a philosophical proof with philosophical certainty and so on.

Now Audie and you want to say that evolution is scientifically proven, that deep time is scientifically proven, that the global flood is scientifically proven to be false. And all of those are perfectly acceptable statements. My problem with Audie, despite my tweaking of her word "proof," was actually the equivocation of the term "proof," not her usage of it in and of itself. It's that equivocation that ultimately lies behind her genetic fallacy and petitio principii, so while she may be correct that 1) a global flood is scientifically disproved and 2) that such an event never actually happened in history, the fact remains that she has made an illogical argument is stating it the way she does. And this isn't just about being a grammar nazi, of sorts. It has real implications for how we can have meaningful conversation, if at all.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3474
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA

Re: The biblical flood date

Postby Audie » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:22 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Audie wrote:[list=]9[/list]
Kurieuo wrote:
neo-x wrote:What for?

The heckler seems to have re-sufaced methinks, though only God knows why.


Guess I wont unlike after hitting the wrong key. I might even mean it.

If your post is about me, have the courage to say so.

I am kind of scared of you Audie, whether you'll get your own AK47 and fire off some rounds or take a nice stroll in the park with us. Which is perhaps why I, on a subconscious level, perhaps remained a bit more ambiguous (however it was more in relation to your AiG thread opened). If I'm to answer now though, I'm feeling the tables are turned and it appears you felt a little heckled by myself. So, nevermind. It's just Krink perhaps misfiring, me misunderstanding. yp**==


I dunno about me either krink. Im never going to calm down.


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests