[Slumpy]

(Original post by Okashira)
It would be a good place to start, if I want to prove it is correct or not. There's never really been an empirical, experiment done by creationists. Well, I've already have one in mind. So I'm not just saying I believe, but I'm definitely going to test it out.

No; it would be the opposite of a good way to start.
Suppose it is false, come to a contradiction--->this would prove it true.
Suppose true, see things could be as they are-->this proves not a thing.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Okashira)
Then maybe it's not so much about proving God is true or not, but proving if the Bible (or any other religious account) is a true account of history.

So you can't answer my questions? How can you do that without saying why you know what the properties of god are? If genesis is right how does that make the rest of the bible true?

[SsEe]

(Original post by Okashira)
It would be a good place to start, if I want to prove it is correct or not. There's never really been an empirical, experiment done by creationists. Well, I've already have one in mind. So I'm not just saying I believe, but I'm definitely going to test it out.

So you open a thread basically saying that our picture of reality may be completely wrong because it's possible for there to be things that observation can never detect (like the big bang 100 billion years from now), and therefore empirical testing and observation isn't really "proof" of anything... And then you say that you're thinking of proving that Genesis is an accurate account with an empirical test?

Nope. If we can't figure out reality by observing it then neither can you! At least we're in the nice position where our ideas agree with what reality appears to be. Your ideas disagree with that. You can't even claim to have God on your side because we don't know such a thing exists. You need some independent check for that. But that too would come under fire from the same argument.

[Okashira]

(Original post by Slumpy)
No; it would be the opposite of a good way to start.
Suppose it is false, come to a contradiction--->this would prove it true.
Suppose true, see things could be as they are-->this proves not a thing.

When I imply starting from the Bible, I mean taking everything it says into account. People take one thing the Bible says, assume wrong things about it, and ultimately come to the conclusion that it is false. For example, everyone assumes the flood was just a mighty rushing of water onto the planet. They believe it just rained on the earth for forty days and forty nights. No, the flood was much more than that. It was a series of chain events, that ultimately formed the world we see today.

So with that in mind (taking in what the Bible says as historical information), I then test and see how would this event might shape the world.

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
So you can't answer my questions? How can you do that without saying why you know what the properties of god are? If genesis is right how does that make the rest of the bible true?

I believe your questions aren't relevant to studying whether or not Genesis is true. If Genesis is true, if it can be proven to be correct, why then I ask the questions concerning God's character. His character is found in the account that was proven true. So by association, God is true if the account is true. His character is true, if the account is true. Think about if we had an autobiography of a famous king from England. If we found proof that this account about the king is true, why then question what the king's character was like? The biography tells us what he was like.

If Genesis is right, why wouldn't the rest of the Bible be true? Genesis is the foundation for everything else in the Bible.

(Original post by SsEe)
So you open a thread basically saying that our picture of reality may be completely wrong because it's possible for there to be things that observation can never detect (like the big bang 100 billion years from now), and therefore empirical testing and observation isn't really "proof" of anything... And then you say that you're thinking of proving that Genesis is an accurate account with an empirical test?

Nope. If we can't figure out reality by observing it then neither can you! At least we're in the nice position where our ideas agree with what reality appears to be. Your ideas disagree with that. You can't even claim to have God on your side because we don't know such a thing exists. You need some independent check for that. But that too would come under fire from the same argument.

I never once said science is wrong about this present time. I only state it could be wrong about the distant past. However, if there has been someone who has seen everything from the beginning until now, that person's account would be 100% true. So the Bible would be an add on to what we know, because this account shows what happened in the beginning. (Whereas science can't see that far) So I'm not taking away from science or the scientific method, I'm actually adding information. The way we will know it's true, is if it explains what we see today better, than what our current scientific models can. If it can predict more, than what our current models can predict.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Okashira)
I believe your questions aren't relevant to studying whether or not Genesis is true. If Genesis is true, if it can be proven to be correct, why then I ask the questions concerning God's character. His character is found in the account that was proven true. So by association, God is true if the account is true. His character is true, if the account is true. Think about if we had an autobiography of a famous king from England. If we found proof that this account about the king is true, why then question what the king's character was like? The biography tells us what he was like.

If Genesis is right, why wouldn't the rest of the Bible be true? Genesis is the foundation for everything else in the Bible.

We'll I'd appreciate it if you said that instead of just avoiding my questions. It's rude. You did keep on mentioning omniscience etc but I don't know how you know that god is all these things. What makes it so? You'd still have to account for those even if you found something that related to the genesis account.

Anyway, I think you're wrong. It looks like the fallacy of composition to me. Where will the proof come that the flood actually happened? Anyway, what are your reasons for believing the genesis account now? Are you believing in it because it could be right in the future? (even though I don't see how)

[Okashira]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
We'll I'd appreciate it if you said that instead of just avoiding my questions. It's rude. You did keep on mentioning omniscience etc but I don't know how you know that god is all these things. What makes it so? You'd still have to account for those even if you found something that related to the genesis account.

Anyway, I think you're wrong. It looks like the fallacy of composition to me. Where will the proof come that the flood actually happened? Anyway, what are your reasons for believing the genesis account now? Are you believing in it because it could be right in the future? (even though I don't see how)

I haven't been avoiding your questions, but maybe the answers aren't to your liking. The point of this thread is showing how the Genesis account could be true. That direct proof could be missing. Yet your questions deal more with proving what God is like, and reasoning of that nature.

The proof of the flood could be found in how it could effect rock, particular when it comes to dating them. My reasons for believing the Genesis account is true, is because I find it answers a lot of what we see today. In what way you may ask, I find it strange how humans can study the world around them, compared to every other creature on this planet. How humans are the only ones who can have an impact beyond this world (as we see with our space exploration), vs every single creature on this planet. Of course there's other reasons as well, but I'll hold that off for another time.

[Slumpy]

(Original post by Okashira)
When I imply starting from the Bible, I mean taking everything it says into account. People take one thing the Bible says, assume wrong things about it, and ultimately come to the conclusion that it is false. For example, everyone assumes the flood was just a mighty rushing of water onto the planet. They believe it just rained on the earth for forty days and forty nights. No, the flood was much more than that. It was a series of chain events, that ultimately formed the world we see today.

So with that in mind (taking in what the Bible says as historical information), I then test and see how would this event might shape the world.

Sorry, where are you getting any of this from?
As far as I can tell, your plan runs like this:

1) Read some bits of the bible
2) Make up some stuff that makes it sound credible
3) Pretend this is a reasonable approach to anything.
4)????
5) Profit

[Okashira]

(Original post by Slumpy)
Sorry, where are you getting any of this from?
As far as I can tell, your plan runs like this:

1) Read some bits of the bible
2) Make up some stuff that makes it sound credible
3) Pretend this is a reasonable approach to anything.
4)????
5) Profit

What I'm going to do, is take science, to the Bible. The Bible may not be a science book, but it could be proven to be a history book. So how will I do that? Again, take the flood for instance. The Bible said that the water from the flood essentially can from an underground source. I put aside how the water was underground for the moment, but take in that it was underground from a scientific perspective. If it was underground, what would be true about this water?

It was most likely superheated, being closer to the earth's core. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating Because the water from this underground source literally flooded the entire world, this implies there was a lot of superheated water beneath the ground. This then would have resulted in a mega hydrothermal explosion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_explosion

So this is the kind of things I'm looking at.

[Slumpy]

(Original post by Okashira)
What I'm going to do, is take science, to the Bible. The Bible may not be a science book, but it could be proven to be a history book. So how will I do that? Again, take the flood for instance. The Bible said that the water from the flood essentially can from an underground source. I put aside how the water was underground for the moment, but take in that it was underground from a scientific perspective. If it was underground, what would be true about this water?

It was most likely superheated, being closer to the earth's core. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating Because the water from this underground source literally flooded the entire world, this implies there was a lot of superheated water beneath the ground. This then would have resulted in a mega hydrothermal explosion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_explosion

So this is the kind of things I'm looking at.

So, in other words, that thing I said a couple of posts ago, which is logically invalid?

(Original post by Slumpy)
No; it would be the opposite of a good way to start.
Suppose it is false, come to a contradiction--->this would prove it true.
Suppose true, see things could be as they are-->this proves not a thing.

[gateshipone]

(Original post by Okashira)
What I'm going to do, is take science, to the Bible. The Bible may not be a science book, but it could be proven to be a history book. So how will I do that? Again, take the flood for instance. The Bible said that the water from the flood essentially can from an underground source. I put aside how the water was underground for the moment, but take in that it was underground from a scientific perspective. If it was underground, what would be true about this water?

It was most likely superheated, being closer to the earth's core. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating Because the water from this underground source literally flooded the entire world, this implies there was a lot of superheated water beneath the ground. This then would have resulted in a mega hydrothermal explosion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_explosion

So this is the kind of things I'm looking at.

You know there's not enough water on or in Earth to flood the planet up to the tops of every mountain right?

[Okashira]

(Original post by Slumpy)
So, in other words, that thing I said a couple of posts ago, which is logically invalid?

You act as though I would produce no testable experiments. That all I would be doing, is saying things over an over again without any proof. If I do that, I would agree with you. Yet if I produced experiments that can be repeated, then what's the problem?

(Original post by gateshipone)
You know there's not enough water on or in Earth to flood the planet up to the tops of every mountain right?

The flood would have shaped the mountain ranges. That is why the waters decreased on the earth after a while. The oceans we see today, it is the remnant of the flood waters back in Noah's day.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by gateshipone)
You know there's not enough water on or in Earth to flood the planet up to the tops of every mountain right?

I don't think anything silly like logic or basic facts is going to get in the way.

[Slumpy]

(Original post by Okashira)
You act as though I would produce no testable experiments. That all I would be doing, is saying things over an over again without any proof. If I do that, I would agree with you. Yet if I produced experiments that can be repeated, then what's the problem?

.

Ok, before I make my points; what on earth type of experiments have you got planned?
But this still ignores the point about logical validity I made. You're simply arguing in the wrong direction.

(Original post by Okashira)
The flood would have shaped the mountain ranges. That is why the waters decreased on the earth after a while. The oceans we see today, it is the remnant of the flood waters back in Noah's day.

Edit: Wait, what? Where do you claim the water went?

[gateshipone]

(Original post by Okashira)
The flood would have shaped the mountain ranges. That is why the waters decreased on the earth after a while. The oceans we see today, it is the remnant of the flood waters back in Noah's day.

Umm...you need to do some research on how some mountain ranges have formed. For example, the Himalayas, where the tallest mountain is, is formed from 2 plates hitting each other. Since the flood is described as reaching the tops of all the mountains, it would have had to have been as high as Everest, which is impossible.

[Okashira]

(Original post by Slumpy)
Ok, before I make my points; what on earth type of experiments have you got planned?
But this still ignores the point about logical validity I made. You're simply arguing in the wrong direction.

I have one particular experiment planned concerning the rate of decay within rock. Scientists believe these rates are set, and they from today's perspective. Yet what if I can speed up the decay rates within the rock? Make it as though it was older than it actually is? That is what my first experiment will test. If I'm successful, it would definitely poke a major hole in the believed age of the earth.

So it doesn't matter if I start by taking in what the Bible says. If I can accomplish what scientists don't think can be done with that experiment, that in itself would be enough to begin re-considering things.

(Original post by Slumpy)

Edit: Wait, what? Where do you claim the water went?

Everytime you go to the beach and look out to sea, you are looking at the remnants of the flood. So how can I test this position? Right now I'm focusing on my first experiment. Even though I have an idea about why the ocean we see today is the remnant of the flood back in Noah's day, I'm only taking this thing one step at a time.

(Original post by gateshipone)
Umm...you need to do some research on how some mountain ranges have formed. For example, the Himalayas, where the tallest mountain is, is formed from 2 plates hitting each other. Since the flood is described as reaching the tops of all the mountains, it would have had to have been as high as Everest, which is impossible.

Everest didn't exist pre-flood. The whole shifting of tectonic plates didn't exist pre-flood, but was a consequence of the flood. As I stated, the water came from under the ground. (and if it caused the movement of tectonic plates, the water would have been pretty deep under the ground)

So due to the mega hydrothermal explosion, it broke up the crust of the earth, forming the tectonic plates. With the water increasing on the earth, this allowed for much more movement of these plates, allowing them to slide and bulge upon one another. As time went on, mountain ranges began forming underneath the water. This eventually allowed the water to run off the land, as the height of the land and the mountain ranges increased. So the water we see in today's oceans, are the remnants of the waters of the flood.

[Slumpy]

(Original post by Okashira)
I have one particular experiment planned concerning the rate of decay within rock. Scientists believe these rates are set, and they from today's perspective. Yet what if I can speed up the decay rates within the rock? Make it as though it was older than it actually is? That is what my first experiment will test. If I'm successful, it would definitely poke a major hole in the believed age of the earth.

So it doesn't matter if I start by taking in what the Bible says. If I can accomplish what scientists don't think can be done with that experiment, that in itself would be enough to begin re-considering things.

Everytime you go to the beach and look out to sea, you are looking at the remnants of the flood. So how can I test this position? Right now I'm focusing on my first experiment. Even though I have an idea about why the ocean we see today is the remnant of the flood back in Noah's day, I'm only taking this thing one step at a time.

How on earth do you plan to test something which you claim is time dependent? (FWIW, a fair number of tests have been done on this, over quite a lot of time, and the same rules have been followed)
Right, so remnants. So where did the rest go is what I'm asking. The rest of what you've said there didn't really make sense.

[Okashira]

(Original post by Slumpy)
How on earth do you plan to test something which you claim is time dependent? (FWIW, a fair number of tests have been done on this, over quite a lot of time, and the same rules have been followed)
Right, so remnants. So where did the rest go is what I'm asking. The rest of what you've said there didn't really make sense.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "time dependant". As for your question concerning where did the rest of the water go, it's all there, in the oceans. This whole landscape was shaped by the flood. The waters simply ran off the new elevations, into what is now the ocean.

[gateshipone]

(Original post by Slumpy)
How on earth do you plan to test something which you claim is time dependent? (FWIW, a fair number of tests have been done on this, over quite a lot of time, and the same rules have been followed)
Right, so remnants. So where did the rest go is what I'm asking. The rest of what you've said there didn't really make sense.

I honestly would give up on this thread, it's actually written by someone who's clinically insane.

[The Socktor]

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics. You are all stardust. You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.

So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today." - Guess who.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by Okashira)
What I'm going to do, is take science, to the Bible. The Bible may not be a science book, but it could be proven to be a history book. So how will I do that? Again, take the flood for instance. The Bible said that the water from the flood essentially can from an underground source. I put aside how the water was underground for the moment, but take in that it was underground from a scientific perspective. If it was underground, what would be true about this water?

It was most likely superheated, being closer to the earth's core. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating Because the water from this underground source literally flooded the entire world, this implies there was a lot of superheated water beneath the ground. This then would have resulted in a mega hydrothermal explosion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_explosion

So this is the kind of things I'm looking at.

You know that this scenario would stand a very good chance of sterilising the surface of the Earth. As in completely - it would basically turn the entire planet into a giant autoclave.