Dinosaurs and the Flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJosephBoucher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. That’s why they have these fact check websites. No one could possibly do all that investigating on there own. They do it for a living, I don’t.
 
My bad, I have stuff coming in from all directions and replied to the wrong post.
 
Even Dawkins pointed this out years ago - that theistic evo was not compatible.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
We will only discuss the actual issues and findings of modern science. If you cannot, then just lurk.
Click to expand...
You really can’t discuss these sorts of things without knowing whether or not the parties are qualified. Understanding evolutionary biology is really hard. Most people never study biology beyond high school (like me!), and therefore can’t be expected to understand the complexities of a subject without serious study.

My qualifications? In biology I have none. I shouldn’t, and therefore don’t, discuss it in any detail nor do I try to attack theories that have been peer reviewed. I’m not a biologist’s peer, so I just can’t do that.

I’m wondering if you are qualified. My guess is that you, like me, haven’t taken biology since high school.
 
buffalo said:
You believe this 100%?
Click to expand...
Do I believe peer review exists? I don’t have to believe, I know it does. I’ve been on an academic journal board. I’ve been a peer reviewer, and I’ve had articles and books peer reviewed. There isn’t anything to believe here. It’s a real thing. It works pretty well. Is it perfect? No, nothing created by humans is perfect, but unless you have a better idea it’s the best we have.
buffalo said:
Do you trust it 100%?
Click to expand...
Nothing made by humans can be trusted 100%, but it’s pretty good. Certainly the best system we’ve come up with so far. Very, very, few articles get retracted, and the overwhelming majority of errors that get through are insignificant.

You’re moving the goalposts again, though. What are your particular qualifications to critique peer reviewed articles on evolutionary biology?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
You will consider peer reviewed design articles?
Click to expand...
As I have repeatedly stated, I am not a biologist, and I have no expertise to discuss biology. I’m not trying to do that. I don’t believe I have commented on any biological theory here.

I AM trying to find out what your particular qualifications in biology are.
 
For the record more than 1,000 peer reviewed papers are retracted annually.
 
billsherman said:
I AM trying to find out what your particular qualifications in biology are.
Click to expand...
The merits of the claim and scientific backup are all anyone need consider. You will note very few here will actually debate the specific claims. Science has become their god and are uncritical of it.

Consider - The Magician’s Twin - CS Lewis

The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism

The Similarity Between Science and Magic
  1. Science as religion
  2. Science as credulity
  3. Science as power
Evolution is an alternative religion

 
There has been no evidence that the (name removed by moderator)ut of solar energy results in a decrease of entropy, rather the energy from the sun contributes to a further increase in disorder. The sun damages living cells and can even cause decay of inanimate matter. Ever heard of skin cancer?
 
That’s uncharitable.

But it’s not claiming that and never did. It’s one of the wise points of the RCC, they don’t make claims like say “there is no life on other planets.”
Individuals may believe that but the church honestly has nothing to gain making claims like, the bible is literal. They have more to lose as our understanding grows.

Thats not true otherwise I wouldn’t be here at all.

And nothing scientific supports a world tree but here we are.

There’s nothing that needs science here anyway. Just logic razors.
The Bible itself makes the claim that from the fall to us is 6000 years give or take. With historical data from Egypt and China, we can prove there was no flood that destroyed them halfway through progress. There was no sudden loss of population and suddenly people arriving again to carry on the legacy.
So already we know the bible is not historically accurate or at the least, the flood was local to a place.

That means the bible least as far as creation is concerned just a story. You Occams razor away that its historical, and you are left with allegory.

There really shouldn’t be much discussion after that point.
 
I’ve already pointed out to you that your timeline is only a problem if you accept no gaps in the genealogies. If we accept no gaps, however, you’ve still not demonstrated that there is a lack of evidence of a global flood in those regions, and both of those cultures have their own flood myths which implies a common societal experience. Furthermore, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, as you ought to know being such a savvy logician.
Edit: I realize that the point you were making does not rest on lack of evidence so my last sentence really makes no sense. Oops.
 
Last edited:
NSmith said:
…both of those cultures have their own flood myths which implies a common societal experience.
Click to expand...
Right. The story of a big, terrible flood is a pretty common universal in our species, given our historical propensity to live near water.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top