“no physical evidence to support it”
The flood? Sorry, but the evidence is global.
“no physical evidence suggesting if, when or how such a change happened”
And you’re the one claiming the aftermath of events from millions of years ago is direct observation?
It doesn’t take much exploration to see that massive amounts of evidence and data have been accumulated to support the historical accuracy of the global flood, including the hypothesis that the atmosphere was insulated from cosmic rays by water.
The resulting change in C-12 to C-14 ratios is an absolute certainty if the atmosphere was shielded in this way. The mechanisms for this are known. They are reproducible. I’ve already explained how. You seem to have overlooked or ignored this.
“Meaning: if counting tree rings gives us an age of, say, 12,000 years, it might really be much older?”
Meaning that rings beyond the time in history when the earth’s axis shifted, we have no reasonable way to determine the weather cycles. There is no reference point. Yes, rings could, in some cases represent longer periods. In others they might represent sudden changes that took place over months, weeks, or days.
“You claim, with no evidence to support it, that Earth was much warmer in the relatively recent past.”
I never said that, but I do see how you might come to that conclusion. I asserted it was different prior to the flood. I made a comparison to tropical rain forests. I do not believe that the entire planet would automagically be much warmer or colder. My assertion is that the cataclysmic changes due to the flood make “predictive” models based on post-flood cycles unreliable.
Do you believe the earth could have literally traversed the sun BILLIONS of times with no such cataclysms?
“Physical evidence would show us huge numbers killed at one place & time by mini-balls or cannon shot, with many more dying daily from diseases.”
Sure, and a small amount of speculative information could be derived from interpolation (not extrapolation as these millions and billions of prehistoric earth years suggest). But science could not guess the contents of the Gettysburg Address apart from a historical record.
“Agreed, but science has come a long way since then and today nobody pretends that Nazis had anything to do with real science.”
That is outlandish. Science today is creating human-animal hybrids. Science today is paying massive amounts for the body parts of babies murdered through abortions. And our government acquired over 1600 German scientists and engineers through Operation Paperclip. The Nazis were doing lots of real science. And modern science is being used to commit many of the same types of atrocities as the Nazis did. Further, science is completely incapable of answering any moral questions. It is beyond the scope of science. Moral inquiry can rely on scientific information, such as the fact that unborn babies are alive and fully human. But science has no way of determining who should live or die apart from an entirely independent moral, ethical, and legal inquiry.
“You’ve posted that now several times and while I’d disagree, I don’t have enough idea of my own views to even debate it.
Suffice it to say: I’ve seen no such evidence.”
You’re disagreeing with no evidence to support your position while ignoring contrary evidence. But for clarification, are you disagreeing with the idea that mind is not an emergent property of matter or whether a scientific theory for such emergence has been formulated?
1. Biocentrism—the theory that consciousness creates reality.
Was discussed on FR:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3549290/posts
2. Conscious realism—the theory that the objective world, i.e., the world whose existence does not depend on the perceptions of a particular observer, consists entirely of conscious agents.
http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf
3. Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
http://www.ctmu.org/
So there are competing theories which support matter being an emergent property of consciousness, but I’ve seen no theories which support mind being an emergent property of matter. In fact, if you read the introductory paragraph of the linked PDF on #2, you will see the assertion that no such theory exists.
I believe all three are scientifically rigorous. I do not know if they have been peer reviewed.
“Correct, which is why I’m always careful to distinguish between Philosophical Naturalism (atheism) and Methodological Naturalism which simply defines natural-science as the study of nature using only natural explanations.
Methodological Naturalism does not deny the existence of the Supernatural, only posits that natural science is not intended to study it”
I don’t think such a dichotomy exists. I’ve used the Lincoln example. Of course science can not explain how supernatural processes work if the laws of nature are suspended. I do not know if natural laws are suspended in order for supernatural events to occur. Many things that are commonplace today would have been viewed as miraculous or witchcraft only a century or two ago.
So a good example might be whether science could be useful in evaluating the flight path of a flying saucer that makes maneuvers that modern aircraft can not make. Should modern science simply assert that this is impossible? Should science wring its hands and say it is only concerned with natural phenomena?
There is absolutely no reason modern science, when exploring evidence from our past, should ignore the Biblical account of Noah’s flood. Nor should it ignore the historical record of creation. You’re suggesting that though you personally accept the validity of the Bible, it should not be considered in such inquiries. Or, at least that how it sounds.
“Amen!”
I appreciate the discussion and hope I have not been too argumentative. Your positions are different than most others I’ve had similar discussions with. Do you believe in the literal, Biblical, global flood? If so, don’t you think there should be massive amounts of observable data supporting this?
There is certainly global evidence for floods, asteroid strikes, global ice ages and mass extinctions -- many of them.
But there is no evidence for the singular event described in Genesis 7.
unlearner: "And you’re the one claiming the aftermath of events from millions of years ago is direct observation?"
Growth rings on trees going back 12,000 years, ice core layers going back 800,000 years, those are observed directly and confirmed by numerous indirect methods.
unlearner: "It doesn’t take much exploration to see that massive amounts of evidence and data have been accumulated to support the historical accuracy of the global flood, including the hypothesis that the atmosphere was insulated from cosmic rays by water."
Confirmed scientific evidence on that is exactly: zero.
unlearner: "The resulting change in C-12 to C-14 ratios is an absolute certainty if the atmosphere was shielded in this way.
The mechanisms for this are known.
They are reproducible.
I’ve already explained how.
You seem to have overlooked or ignored this."
All of that is pure fantasy, including your claim to have "explained" it.
unlearner: "My assertion is that the cataclysmic changes due to the flood make 'predictive' models based on post-flood cycles unreliable."
There is plenty of evidence of global catastrophes, the K-T boundary (aka K-Pg boundary) separating the age of dinosaurs from the current age being one example.
The boundary is distinct and can be found around the world, but it did not change anything in science, for example, the half-lives of radiometric materials.
unlearner: "Do you believe the earth could have literally traversed the sun BILLIONS of times with no such cataclysms?"
The geological evidence shows many cataclysms over the past 4+ billion years.
unlearner: "Further, science is completely incapable of answering any moral questions.
It is beyond the scope of science."
Correct, but Nazi work on eugenics was junk science, that's my point here.
unlearner: "You’re disagreeing with no evidence to support your position while ignoring contrary evidence.
But for clarification, are you disagreeing with the idea that mind is not an emergent property of matter or whether a scientific theory for such emergence has been formulated?"
Frankly, I'm not interested enough in the subject to even have an opinion, much less defend it.
But none of your claims confirm anything I might know, so will let it go with that.
unlearner: "In fact, if you read the introductory paragraph of the linked PDF on #2, you will see the assertion that no such theory exists."
None exists to my knowledge.
unlearner: "So a good example might be whether science could be useful in evaluating the flight path of a flying saucer that makes maneuvers that modern aircraft can not make.
Should modern science simply assert that this is impossible?
Should science wring its hands and say it is only concerned with natural phenomena?"
I doubt if any scientist would pass judgment on a "flying saucer" without knowing a whole lot more about it.
In the mean time, they would say what any reasonable person would: "we don't know, we can't explain it."
unlearner: "There is absolutely no reason modern science, when exploring evidence from our past, should ignore the Biblical account of Noah’s flood."
The geological record shows many floods & other cataclysms.
It also suggests a great flood in historical times, east of Eden and the Tigris-Euphrates confluence, when ocean levels rose high enough to flood the Persian Gulf.
unlearner: "You’re suggesting that though you personally accept the validity of the Bible, it should not be considered in such inquiries.
Or, at least that how it sounds."
What's astonishing to me is how closely the scientific account, which officially ignores the Bible, in fact confirms everything important in it.
unlearner: "Do you believe in the literal, Biblical, global flood?
If so, don’t you think there should be massive amounts of observable data supporting this?"
The scientific evidence of floods & other catastrophes is clear, and I'll say again I think God told ancient Israelites as much as they could understand and needed to know at the time.
Today He reveals more to each new generation, but the basic picture remains as ever: "In the Beginning, God created..."