Originally Posted by
Morrisonhotel
1) No, no, no. In case you had not realised, science has displaced the importance of philosophy over the last couple of centuries. As this discussion is, in fact, on the role of science in relation to the accuracy of the bible then let's keep the discussion focused on scientifically speaking rather than philosophically speaking, ok with you?
What is important, in relation to science, is that one of the end products of scientific study is a conclusion. For example, I can pose the question: if I mix two chemicals together, what will happen? I offer my hypothesis; do all the necessary leg-work (undertake the experiment and repeat ad nauseum); and then see whether it holds up to my hypothesis; I then provide a conclusion which can be tested by other scientists. That is, in a nutshell, how science works. Therefore, regardless of a scientist's Naturalism, they would be able to determine whether something was true or not. How does this all relate to Noah? Simple: any scientist can test for signs of flood. If that shows an effect concurrent with several places in the world then there is a good chance that there was, indeed, a flood. Scientists have widely studied this - taking samples from all over the world. What do their results show? Nothing, whatsoever, that suggests that there has ever been a worldwide flood. Nothing. I.D. 'scientists' might proclaim otherwise but, quite simply, their methods are incredibly unsound, and have been tested by other scientists and found to be completely wrong. We are, of course, talking about the same scientists who proclaim that , in relation to the Noah story, the Grand Canyon was created by the same flood waters (you don't have to be a scientist to realise that this is obviously stupid. A few days of flooding would not do that kind of damage to something made up of such heavy rocks: shale, etc.). The fact of the matter is, my friend, that I.D. science does not stand up in this case (and I'm dubious whether it does elsewhere) - scientists have shown that it has never occurred due to samples taken all over the place. The onus, therefore, is on I.D. scientists to disprove a 'proof' (put as such as proving something unequivocally can have some limitations) provided by other scientists - something they have not managed to do. End of story. Look in to it - there are literally hundreds of websites on this matter all by reputable scientists.
I challenge you to provide evidence which holds up to scientific rigour and at least allows questioning on whether there is a possibility that there was a flood. Don't dismiss this challenge, take it on: whilst I'm skeptical of the outcome, I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong. I come from a scientific background, I have studied science myself, and thus am in an excellect position to judge the merits of scientific work. From what I've seen on the matter by I.D. scientists, I have been astounded by the shocking lack of basic implementation of, you know, actual science.
2) If the God I'm asking for porovided the things I asked for then the ability to question his existence via free will would not be necessary - we would, after all, not doubt someone if our lives were perfect. The free will argument does not prove God's existence. It just seems a perfectly legit way of determining the complete, as I see it, uselessness of God (should He exist).
3) You're assuming that there has to be exact opposites (nothing is exactly opposite: there are all kinds of limitations in this). It reminds of two things: Orwell's 1984 for the placing of 'un' before words to create polar opposites and also the system of Saussure's Course in General Linguistics - and the complete limitations of that in regards to opposites.
4) That doesn't really address my experiment. I see no reason why it would not work.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote