2 Peter 3 and the Flood

Talking about data does not work well when you are not applying critical thinking to said data.

You have yet to show that I am not applying critical thinking. You have shown a pathological avoidance of evidence.

We just don’t accept your definition of “critical thinking” which is to dodge all scientific evidence your YEC paradigm can’t explain, about 99% of all scientific data

Vertical dino tracks? Angular unconformities?

1 Like

I understand your point, but as you are aware, I am a proponent of the idea that enough physical evidence present in God’s creation should cause us to re-think a literal interpretation of the Bible. If there is a theological/scientific hypothesis that is not presented literally in the Bible AND is completely inconsistent with physical evidence, you will have a tough job trying to convince me of it. There is no physical evidence against God being a Trinity.

4 Likes

It’s evidence of evolution predicts the data better than creationism.

If the data is consistent with the specific predictions of evolution, but also consistent with some ad hoc model of creationism, it’s still evidence in favour of evolution. Did your foray into the philosophy of science neglect Bayes’ theorem?

1 Like

Creationism would simply not make any prediction about that. Any range of different findings would still be consistent with creation.

What finds if made would not be consistent with Creation? How can the idea of supernatural Creation be falsified?

Exactly, that’s the problem. Let’s say there are 2 options, X and Y, and you have 2 models, A and B.
If model A predicts outcome X, and model B doesn’t predict either X or Y over one another, then the observation that X is true supports model A over model B.

No it doesn’t.

Yes it does. Are you not familiar with Bayes’ theorem?

2 Likes

We’ll add logic to the large list of things PDPrice seems to have no familiarity with. :slightly_smiling_face:

I’m not exactly sure what sort of argument you’re trying to make here, but my point is along the lines of:

Creation.com/how-to-think

Within two predictive realms, anything in area II is not helpful in distinguishing between the two ideas.

But your model doesn’t predict anything. In your diagram your YEC “prediction” could be I, II, or III. Finding something in II does show a higher probability of III than of NO prediction.

No, logically it cannot possibly do that. No prediction would mean that any configuration would fall in II.

A Bayesian one. Have you looked it up yet?

Creationism does not predict the data nearly as strongly as evolution does, so the data isn’t in the same “predictive realm”.

(facepalm) No. If any prediction would count it could fall in I, II, or III. You don’t even understand your own argument.

You don’t even understand the chart I posted.

I understand you’re making yourself look right foolish over it. :grinning:

Tell us again what finds if made would falsify your Creationist claims?

I don’t know how to put this any more plainly: you cannot make up an idea, then assume that idea and based upon that assumption do statistics with it, and then claim this proves your original idea. It’s begging the question. If creationism is agnostic as to these statistics, then they simply do not have a bearing on the debate one way or another.

Since that’s not how evolutionary theory was developed you seem to be lunging at a silly strawman again.