NOAH'S ARK GREAT FLOOD Update

[Mighty AC]

Scientific knowledge stems from observation of surroundings. Gravity would still exist without man, though the bible would not.

[Sleipnir]

But what is interesting is that the ancient shoreline discovered by Ballard is dated around the time of Noah.

Exactly what year was the time of Noah? 50,000 BC?

[betsy]

So who said you should turn to the Bible?

Edited January 4, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Betsy, the peer review process is not the pillar upon which scientific knowledge rests.

I'm glad to see that you're not one of them - the civilians - that's being pointed out in the article.

Yet civilians frequently believe that any work that has passed peer review has received a sort of scientific imprimatur.

And that's true! During my time in this forum, the peer review was used by evolutionists on numerous occasions to validate their arguments like as if it's the ultimate authority on the matter! They think that because their arguments have been peer-reviewed - therefore, it's all facts! They point out that Creation-bent theories are not peer-reviewed or do not apper in the journals - and we know why! There's been complaints from the Creationist camp about the bias in the process for a long time now. In fact it was so biased against creationism that the Creationists were forced to have their own journals. Now we see that indeed, the process is corrupt!h

Tat's been finally detailed in one of the articles above, as a result of a study! I noticed though that there hasn't been any citing of the peer reviews for quite a while now....until yesterday.

I find it odd that you would attack the scientific method when you claim science is a gift from your god and cherry pick it's knowledge in an attempt to confirm your belief system. It seems that you are trying to have it both ways

Excuse me? All I'm doing is showing you guys how the process is corrupted!

The Squid brought up Peer Review! This is called a, REBUTTAL!

AND speaking of logic (which you brought up with your Harris' quote).....Read your statement again.

Your logic in that statement - like the process - is definitely flawed. Oh, the sweet ironies never seem to end!

If scientific knowledge is so incredulous why quote mine it to shore up your book?

You made a claim. You said Harris' quote fits perfectly (and Black Dog sings the same refrain).

I don't see how. Fits where? How? Like I said, they don't speak of the same thing!

Therefore, since you brought up Harris' quote and made a big claim (which is important since the hope of Blackdog is now pinned on your claim).....

Blackdog

That should be the auto reply to every post betsy makes. Fits like a glove.

.......I ask you to explain how does that quote perfectly fits?

Why, are you saying you cannot explain, in your own words , why you say that quote "fits?" And perfectly, too?

You cannot explain your own argument?

So I repeat my challenge....will you take the time to expand on that since we are in a discussion board after all. I'm saying it's baloney! Defend it....at least do it for Blackdog. C'mon, give it a try....and I hope you don't pull a Dawkins-run.

Edited January 4, 2013 by betsy

[jbg]

Claiming that you edited for accuracy without knowing what the true gender of an omnipresent entity is just shows how off some lines of thinking are.

Our "Machsur" or prayer book treats G-d as gender neutral.

[betsy]

Scientific knowledge stems from observation of surroundings. Gravity would still exist without man, though the bible would not.

How do you know gravity will still exist without man? Have you observed that?

How do you know the Bible would not exist without man? Have you observed that?

Unless the planet is reduced to nothing....I'd say the Bible will still exist, long after man is gone!

Go ahead, challenge that.

Edited January 4, 2013 by betsy

[Guest Manny]

Scientific knowledge stems from observation of surroundings.

Bollocks, it does not "stem from" anything. There is no observation, without the human mind.

Gravity would still exist without man, though the bible would not.

Nothing exists without man.

[Mighty AC]

How do you know gravity will still exist without man? Have you observed that?

Nothing exists without man.

[guyser]

Nothing exists without man.

So is the earth 100,000 years old, maybe as old as 2.5 M yrs old?

[GostHacked]

How do you know gravity will still exist without man? Have you observed that?

How do you know god existed before all of this, have you observed it?

How do you know the Bible would not exist without man? Have you observed that?

The bible was written by man, and then re translated by man many times over centuries. If god was as powerful as some claim, he could have just made the book appear out of thin air. Maybe god is not that smart?

Unless the planet is reduced to nothing....I'd say the Bible will still exist, long after man is gone!

Go ahead, challenge that.

Many books will exist long after man is gone. And we are finding items from civilizations who disappeared long before the bible came along.

[Canuckistani]

Do I have it right Betsy that you're arguing that nothing exists without man, but the bible will continue to exist long after man is gone? It gets a bit confusing because you seem to be piggybacking on Manny - it's not working for you.

We don't know what exists without "man" because we're not around to observe. In fact each of us doesn't know what exists outside our little consciousness. Maybe this forum doesn't exist outside your own imagination. So if you believe in God, you have no idea of God disappears as soon as your consciousness does, ie She is also a figment of your imagination. The only thing you know is you, and not even that very well. Most of your brain activity is not conscious to you. In fact experiments have shown that before you lift a finger, your unconscious mind has triggered the impulse. So even tho it feels like you're doing it purposely, you're doing it arising from an impulse in your unconscious mind. Maybe God is your unconscious mind. And maybe, as Jung would have it, all our unconscious are connected.

[The_Squid]

We are not that important. Without us, we can presume that the rest of the natural world would continue on as before. We do not affect gravity. That's just silliness dressed up as philosophy.

[Canuckistani]

We are not that important. Without us, we can presume that the rest of the natural world would continue on as before. We do not affect gravity. That's just silliness dressed up as philosophy.

Solipsism - everybody sneers at it, nobody ever refutes it. We can assume gravity exists outside our own mind, but we can't prove it. We can assume pretty well anything, including that there's a guy in the Sky.

[Guest Manny]

Solipsism - everybody sneers at it, nobody ever refutes it. We can assume gravity exists outside our own mind, but we can't prove it. We can assume pretty well anything, including that there's a guy in the Sky.

There's a lot more to it than that. In thinking this way we have removed the human being from the centre of the universe.

Within science it's a serious question, as it has something to do with the fact that "events" in "reality" as defined by scientists are actually mere "potentialities". "Reality" itself only exists when the wave function collapses into a single state after interaction of an observer.

See http://en.wikipedia....nction_collapse

This is a consistent theme in several of my posts lately, including the thread on paradoxes.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Manny

[Canuckistani]

Yes. And of course we don't know if this wave function or it's potentiality is real either. The human is at the center of that reality just as much - ie it's the human observer that collapses the wave function. And that idea is fraught - what degree of consciousness is required to collapse the wave function. Actually as I understand it, no consciousness at all, which would mean it can all exist outside our minds. I've run the observer creates reality idea past theoretical physicists and they just laugh at me. But it is an interesting idea. In your mind.

[betsy]

That's it? That's your defense?

Okay....I'll not wring it out of you....

[GostHacked]

Yes. And of course we don't know if this wave function or it's potentiality is real either. The human is at the center of that reality just as much - ie it's the human observer that collapses the wave function. And that idea is fraught - what degree of consciousness is required to collapse the wave function. Actually as I understand it, no consciousness at all, which would mean it can all exist outside our minds. I've run the observer creates reality idea past theoretical physicists and they just laugh at me. But it is an interesting idea. In your mind.

Silly scientists think they can influence something just by simply observing it.

[betsy]

Do I have it right Betsy that you're arguing that nothing exists without man, but the bible will continue to exist long after man is gone? It gets a bit confusing because you seem to be piggybacking on Manny - it's not working for you.

Read my post to Mighty AC again. Something doesn't seem right with the way you put that. Your whole explanation does not address what I mean. You asked me....and then, you proceeded to make your argument based on your assumption. You're making assumptions about what I was saying.

So, wanna start all over again?

Start with just a simple question: what do you mean, betsy when you said the Bible will exist long after man is gone?

Edited January 4, 2013 by betsy

[Guest Manny]

In our minds, yes.Everything is. The empiricists insist that the universe does not need us in order to exist. They fail to see the absurdity of that argument. Also they fail to see what they have inadvertently done, by moving man out of the centre of the picture. it is in the "belief" of our stature or the signifigance of our role in the universe, that we most greatly differ.

Yes, this does finally come down to philosophiocal questions. This thread is not about pure science alone.

As for laughing about things that are valid and important questions in modern science, I am in no position to laugh. I keep an open mind, and I listen to what real scientists are saying.

[Canuckistani]

Read my post to Mighty AC again. Something doesn't seem right with the way you put that. I just want to make sure we're on the same page....and that you didn't misunderstand what I was saying. And then....engage me.

Simpler would be for you to just answer the question.

Also, if there's no man, what's the point of the bible, and who would read it? Evolved chimps?

[betsy]

Simpler would be for you to just answer the question.

Also, if there's no man, what's the point of the bible, and who would read it? Evolved chimps?

I edited my reply.

[Canuckistani]

In our minds, yes.Everything is. The empiricists insist that the universe does not need us in order to exist. They fail to see the absurdity of that argument. Also they fail to see what they have inadvertently done, by moving man out of the centre of the picture. it is in the "belief" of our stature or the signifigance of our role in the universe, that we most greatly differ.

Yes, this does finally come down to philosophiocal questions. This thread is not about pure science alone.

As for laughing about things that are valid and important questions in modern science, I am in no position to laugh. I keep an open mind, and I listen to what real scientists are saying.

If "we" are so important to the universe, who's more important, you or me? If it's a matter of probabilities, why does the wave function seem to collapse in the same way each time, and for every observer? (These are just questions that occur to me.) But, seems to me, what you are positing doesn't leave any room for humans either - just one all pervading consciousness. Bring in individual humans (and why is it only humans who create the universe) and you're right back at a dualistic universe (observer/observed) and the empiricists start having a point again.

[betsy]

Simpler would be for you to just answer the question.

Also, if there's no man, what's the point of the bible, and who would read it? Evolved chimps?

See? Your line of thoughts don't jive with what I said. Go back and let's start all over again. Ask the right question, Canuckstani!

And let me answer first.....before you proceed to rebutt!

Edited January 4, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

See? Your line of thoughts don't jive with what I said. Go back and let's start all over again. Ask the right question, Canuckstani!

And let me answer first.....before you proceed to rebutt!

Ha-ha-ha....otherwise it looks like you're debating with yourself!

Edited January 4, 2013 by betsy

[Guest Manny]

If "we" are so important to the universe, who's more important, you or me? If it's a matter of probabilities, why does the wave function seem to collapse in the same way each time, and for every observer? (These are just questions that occur to me.) But, seems to me, what you are positing doesn't leave any room for humans either - just one all pervading consciousness. Bring in individual humans (and why is it only humans who create the universe) and you're right back at a dualistic universe (observer/observed) and the empiricists start having a point again.

Not necessarily. Relativity says the experience can be completely different, for each observer. That allows room for uniqueness which the empiricists cannot abide.