My first time posting on Think Atheist, so I thought some of you might find this to be interesting.
Ran across this today (http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.com/2012/09/proof-of-worldwide-fl...)...a blog by the name of "Worldview Warriors" arguing for a biblical flood using this argument:
"The first obvious sign that a worldwide flood occurred is that there would be thousands upon thousands, millions upon millions of dead creatures buried underneath the surface of the earth. When we look at Geology, guess what? This is exactly what we find: thousands upon thousands and millions upon millions of creatures buried beneath the earth. Unfortunately, before secular humanists got their hands on the fossil record, creationists were poorly interpreting the fossils that were buried underground, which paved the way for secular scientists popularizing more scientific interpretations of the fossils. Today, creationists fight to set the record straight despite the fact that their interpretations are more reasonable and more logical than that of secularists."
I tend to use ' ..' for sarcasm.
Can you have a theory without some attempt to being logical about it? If you have varifiable evidence, some good set of generalizations, and some falsifiability test, maybe and 'idea' could come up to the height of a 'theory'.
Else maybe an hypothesis is your thing, something a little more vage, a feeling, some supposition, like 'I saw a bright light in the sky, moving from north to south, was it god giving me an omen?' Connecting 'god' and 'omen' might create an untestable, frustrating, but politically useful hypothesis, that could offer the most amazing traction in a troop of fools/subgeniuses, but 'theory' it is not. Suggesting that 'I saw a bright light in the sky, moving from north to south, was it a piece of rock falling to earth?' This could be tested, under some basic conditions, like following the rock to the ground, looking for a crater, etc. This might be close to the standing of a 'theory'. I suppose if you burn your hand on the damn thing, you might be tempted to return to your first idea. LOL
Personally, I don't see it as "toilet humor." If an event of this sort - hundreds, if not thousands, of animals packed inside an air-tight boat for a year - had actually happened, methane gas buildup is a problem that would have inevitably occurred, yet it's one no one seems to consider when the feasibility of housing animals in an ark is considered.
WE know the story's bullshit, but when dealing with those with the mentality of a child, one needs to be sure all bases are covered and no wiggle-room allowed.
Sadly, this comes back to the same place on a previous thread, anything that might appear to be a vey logical limitation on any biblical claim/myth, will be meet with 'its a miracle'.
I wonder how many Believers believe there's not enough ice in Antarctica to significantly raise sea levels? You don't have to research far to see that most calculations show over 20 meters. Even a rise of only one meter would be absolutely devastating to many, large coastal cities.
Its absolute rubbish but the logical error is affirming the consequent.
If p, then q
I think you should mind your p's and q's --
Tom - I've just spent most of the day over there. Their software is horrendous! You can't bold or italicize anything unless you surround the word with HTML <b>code</b>, and it won't allow underlining, or even HTML for underlining at all, so you can't underline book titles, and you can't correct your typos. Further, each comment won't allow more than 4096 characters - not words, characters! - and each time you comment, you have to do one of those damned Captcha things with blurry numbers and squiggly letters. Oh, and you can't upload pictures or video, and URL's won't link to anything! But OTHER than that, it's just peachy!
And that's just to get a comment on the board, and has nothing to do with the people. I posted several responses to the main contention, regarding the "flood," and got a couple of weak responses. One said, "Where's Bill?" Later today, a Bill Seng showed up, who must have been the Bill they were waiting for, and began attempting to refute the 4 or 5 comments I had earlier made, and not very well at that. He ended his entire effort (thus far) by making it clear that he believed the Bible, and it made no difference what scientists in the secular world had to say, they would eventually come around to seeing that they were wrong, and referred me to Answers In Genesis, the Confirmation Bias capital of the world.
There's no point in even trying to have any further conversation with this guy, so I did my best Tom, but arguing with a fence post has never been one of my favorite pastimes.
If I ever prayed, I can think of only one prayer that would be: Please god, save me from theists!
Love the "Confirmation Bias capital of the world" comment. That it is. I think you're right. He's definitely a fence post on this discussion. It is clear that his only source of information is a very narrow-band of creationists at AiG. Thanks for forcing him to think as much as you did.
I didn't make him think Tom, not for a second - I made him run to his panel of "experts" with what I've said, and ask, "How can I refute this?"
I wish I could honestly say I HAD made him think, but why think, when you can believe?
Well, at least you tried. :)
I'm sure he found me very trying --
Wow. You guys are awesome. I made this post and a day later or so I ended up having little time to get online. Coming back to this many responses (especially as this is my first time posting here) is great. I see a few of you went back to comment on the blog, which is cool. The last comment on that blog is telling. Even after showing there isn't enough water to cover the earth, the commenter says:
The answer is we don't know what the pre-flood world was like. The amount of water you "think" was needed to cover the surface of the earth isn't a number that can be calculated because the pre-flood world is NOT the post-flood world.
There is no way to win at a debate like this. The creationists demand that they have all the numbers and answers, but if you use science to back things up, they just say, "you don't know what the world was like then." It's like arguing that it is a absurd to say that light was created before the sun and having a creationist say, "God can do anything he wants." Ugh. Where is the reasoning in that?
Thanks everyone for the discussion.