Is it time to make the needed corrections about - ERR-atics?

It's a shame no one here can provide any empirical evidence of a global flood or a god of any kind. Maybe they just aren't trying hard enough. Of course, there are verified records in the earth itself that support localized floods that occurred naturally with no hint of divine involvement. Such studies have already been posted here several times, for those interested in educating themselves. I guess creationists will have to look elsewhere for proof of their genocidal deity.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's a shame no one here can provide any empirical evidence of a global flood or a god of any kind.

Chill dude. That is not the topic at hand. We are scrutinizing the current dogma, which should not be defended by saying there is a lack of another explanation. If a theory does not fit, it needs to be thrown out, rather than dragged along like a dead horse. To admit a theory is wrong opens the pursuit for more complete ideas.

with no hint of divine involvement.

What would suffice for you as evidence of God? If only God would send a messenger that demonstrated miraculous signs and even conquered the greatest fear of all humanity - death.... then for sure that would be a demonstration of Divine involvement. Or what would suffice for you?

originally posted by: edmc^2
Well, all I'm asking is an empirical evidence of an erratic - not an ASSUMPTION. Surely, with the technology we have today, and the know-how - it would be easy to demonstrate this thing. It should be as easy as these two vids below

What you are asking for is unreasonable. Glacier movement takes tens of thousands of years while floods can be instant. Why would somebody have video of a glacier moving for 10,000+ years? That's not even possible. That's why geologists analyze the rocks and erosion marks on them to learn how they got that far from the source. They can tell the difference between flood water erosion and other types. The last glacial period ended 12,000 years or so ago, why would you expect videos of ice age ending floods?

And there's no need to make an ice age just to demonstrate the power of glaciation just as there's no need to flood the world to demonstrate and show the power of water.

Make an ice age? Geologists know that the planet has been bouncing back and forth between glacial periods and warm periods. They can study the sedimentary layers, and for that same reason they know there was never a worldwide flood, only numerous local floods while the planet was warming and ice was thawing and glaciers receded as a result. I'm not sure what your issue is here.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's a shame no one here can provide any empirical evidence of a global flood or a god of any kind.

Chill dude. That is not the topic at hand. We are scrutinizing the current dogma, which should not be defended by saying there is a lack of another explanation. If a theory does not fit, it needs to be thrown out, rather than dragged along like a dead horse. To admit a theory is wrong opens the pursuit for more complete ideas.

with no hint of divine involvement.

What would suffice for you as evidence of God? If only God would send a messenger that demonstrated miraculous signs and even conquered the greatest fear of all humanity - death.... then for sure that would be a demonstration of Divine involvement. Or what would suffice for you?

I know what the topic is and why it was raised, but nice try.

As for evidence of the divine, if the question needs to be asked, you wouldn't understand my answer.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

As for evidence of the divine, if the question needs to be asked, you wouldn't understand my answer.

I am genuinely interested. What would suffice for you as evidence of a higher intelligence / force / God?

originally posted by: cooperton
It is ashame that contemporary dogma no longer needs empirical evidence to remain, it is essentially the opposite of the true scientific method. If a current standing dogma can no longer match empirical data, it should be removed rather than held on to for convenience sake. Even worse is that better matching ideas are ignored because the old dogma are presumed to be based in facts, when it is often based in theoretical assumptions.

What are you talking about? Geologists study those rocks and can tell which type of erosion there is and use that to help understand how the rock got from A to B. It's not that confusing. You literally think that empirical data means watching something in real time, but that's NOT how science works. They make observations and tests of the evidence. How can you equate scientific research to DOGMA??? Saying that there is no empirical evidence is completely dishonest. There is, you just deny it because it's not a 5 minute youtube video.

So many of the 100million/billion year old age dictates are assumptions that are based on other assumptions. Tragically, a cursory glance at these facets of science would make the looker assume that it is based in some sort of observable fact, when often it is not.

What assumptions are you talking about??? Are you seriously saying that geologists are not observing and testing evidence to learn about the past? After all this time, the very basics of science still elude you.

Chill dude. That is not the topic at hand. We are scrutinizing the current dogma, which should not be defended by saying there is a lack of another explanation. If a theory does not fit, it needs to be thrown out, rather than dragged along like a dead horse. To admit a theory is wrong opens the pursuit for more complete ideas.

That's a major double standard right there. You are desperately grasping at straws to justify young earth creationism, something is backed by no evidence whatsoever, when there are actually hundreds of thousands of research papers that show otherwise. You can't sit on your high horse and attack science and hold it to unreasonable standards of scrutiny, while blindly believing in ancient texts as absolute truth with no justification whatsoever. It's complete hypocrisy, whether it's the topic or not, and shows inconsistent standards from you. It applies because it's the basis of your science denial and rather than offering evidence to support the positive claim, you guys attack science with pure BS, and even if you proved biology geology and genetics completely wrong, it wouldn't support the existence of a god OR young earth. That needs to be studied and proved by its own merit.

What would suffice for you as evidence of God? If only God would send a messenger that demonstrated miraculous signs and even conquered the greatest fear of all humanity - death.... then for sure that would be a demonstration of Divine involvement. Or what would suffice for you?

Testable evidence to support anything you just claimed would be a good start.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

As for evidence of the divine, if the question needs to be asked, you wouldn't understand my answer.

I am genuinely interested. What would suffice for you as evidence of a higher intelligence / force / God?

A DNA sample would be nice. Or maybe a CNN interview. Hell, why not both. A picture, a book personally written and published, a set of fingerprints, maybe a fund raiser or a magic show or a peaceful protest, or all three in one, a real gesture of being alive and present and active in the community. Same stuff we expect from any leader.

originally posted by: Barcs

Testable evidence to support anything you just claimed would be a good start.

It is the responsibility of the current standing theory to present evidence for its validity. The starting concentration for radioactive compounds used to date rocks is unknowable, and therefore based on assumptions. Show proof otherwise and defend your theory.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

A DNA sample would be nice.

Your perspective of God being a human would not really make sense. God can use humans as conduits, but the human body is by no means the totality of God

Or maybe a CNN interview, a book personally written and published.

This happened back around 0 AD and was recorded by many. We calibrated our calendar around this interview in which God manifested as a human was interviewed by all - from the homeless to the elite. Some of the interview is contained in the orthodox Bible, and more out-takes are present in the dead sea scrolls.

A picture

Lol what do you suppose God would look like? Visual perception is a small 400nm spectra on an endless electromagnetum spectrum.

maybe a fund raiser

Check the vast amounts of money donated by Christian communities over time.

or a magic show

Check the lives of the Saints

or a peaceful protest

Check the lives of the martyrs

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Testable evidence to support anything you just claimed would be a good start.

It is the responsibility of the current standing theory to present evidence for its validity. The starting concentration for radioactive compounds used to date rocks is unknowable, and therefore based on assumptions. Show proof otherwise and defend your theory.

Wrong. It absolutely is knowable because we watch them form today.

And again, you asked how you could verify or prove god. God has nothing to do with geology, which is what I was responding to. Geology is backed up by tons of evidence, god/young earth is not. If you want to argue god, then argue god, stop attacking science as a cover. Even if you proved geology, biology and genetics wrong, it wouldn't support your god concept or the bible. That must be argued based on its own merit.

originally posted by: Barcs

Wrong. It absolutely is knowable because we watch them form today.

Source please. Assumptions are not science

a reply to: cooperton

Sure, as soon as you give your worldwide flood source.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

Testable evidence to support anything you just claimed would be a good start.

It is the responsibility of the current standing theory to present evidence for its validity. The starting concentration for radioactive compounds used to date rocks is unknowable, and therefore based on assumptions. Show proof otherwise and defend your theory.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

A DNA sample would be nice.

Your perspective of God being a human would not really make sense. God can use humans as conduits, but the human body is by no means the totality of God

Or maybe a CNN interview, a book personally written and published.

This happened back around 0 AD and was recorded by many. We calibrated our calendar around this interview in which God manifested as a human was interviewed by all - from the homeless to the elite. Some of the interview is contained in the orthodox Bible, and more out-takes are present in the dead sea scrolls.

A picture

Lol what do you suppose God would look like? Visual perception is a small 400nm spectra on an endless electromagnetum spectrum.

maybe a fund raiser

Check the vast amounts of money donated by Christian communities over time.

or a magic show

Check the lives of the Saints

or a peaceful protest

Check the lives of the martyrs

None of those are evidence, just poor substitutes. I told you that you wouldn't understand my answer. But thanks for deflecting.

a reply to: edmc^2

Your belief that water transported the boulders does not negate the possibility that glaciers did also. It only offers an alternate explanation.

These boulders appearing where glaciers cannot exist is not definitive. At one time or another every square inch of earth was covered in ice. Not to mention the movement of large bodies of land. Think sea salt at the top of mountain ranges. Either the salt water went up the mountain and deposited the salt there or the mountains were once under water.

If sea salt can make it to the top of a mountain a big rock can make it anywhere.

what is the point of this thread ????????????

the OP premise purports to be

ice cannot do " A " only liquid water can

no evidence is presented

and the thread predictibly degenerates to creationist falacies

was there ever a point ?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
what is the point of this thread ????????????

the OP premise purports to be

ice cannot do " A " only liquid water can

no evidence is presented

and the thread predictibly degenerates to creationist falacies

was there ever a point ?

No

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Sure, as soon as you give your worldwide flood source.

Sources:

The Hebrews, The Chinese, The Incas, The Sumerians, The Greeks, The Hindus, etc, etc, etc

Your turn. How are we certain about the starting concentrations of radioactive samples used for dating rock?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Sure, as soon as you give your worldwide flood source.

Sources:

The Hebrews, The Chinese, The Incas, The Sumerians, The Greeks, The Hindus, etc, etc, etc

Your turn. How are we certain about the starting concentrations of radioactive samples used for dating rock?

those are sources for several localized floods due to glacial melt and proximity to large bodies of water

originally posted by: TzarChasm

those are sources for several localized floods due to glacial melt and proximity to large bodies of water

No They all depict a catastrophic flood that almost wiped out the entirety of life on the planet

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

those are sources for several localized floods due to glacial melt and proximity to large bodies of water

No They all depict a catastrophic flood that almost wiped out the entirety of life on the planet

I'm sure that's how it felt from their perspective. Crazy how stories evolve over time. Too bad there aren't water level records or geological evidence supporting their astounding testimony. You would need something pretty compelling to back that stuff up.

a reply to: cooperton

simple question :

what evidence is there - that all the flood events you cite - occured at same time ?????????????????

ETA - your china claim = incompatible with your hebrew claim