justaname said:
Science does not need to conform to methodological naturalism
Then how do we test the supernatural?
which is practical or applied metaphysical naturalism, to be scientific
Can you provide a credible scientific source that agrees with you on this?
Your philosophy begins with the presupposition that evolution is true.
I had to think about how to respond to this. Honestly, my first instinct was to yell "WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH YOU", because I couldn't not think of all the time and effort I have put into posting and explaining the scientific basis for evolutionary theory, and be baffled at how you missed the basic, fundamental fact that evolution is a repeatedly observed and documented fact. How many times can I say this....
we see evolution happen all....the....time. We see populations evolve new traits and into new species. It's why I posted this thread:
Let's get some facts on the table.
So do you understand? Evolution is not a presupposition....it's a fact.
Once again starting points.
Let me ask you....what would you have biologists do? Ignore the fact that populations evolve? Pretend it doesn't happen even though they see it with their own eyes?
I wonder if you even recognize you have illustrated my original position I stated by not even looking at the evidence presented by these other scientists simply dismissing them because they do not hold to your current philosophy.
All right then, let's take a look at the first link you posted from AiG regarding 6 evidences for the global flood.
The first is "
Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents".
The title links to another AiG page, where they claim that the marine fossils in the Grand Canyon sediments and other areas around the world are evidence of a global flood. They claim that this is a result of the flood waters overtopping the mountains and the ocean floor rising. Now, the question that always arises when it comes to flooding the earth is, "where did the water come from". AiG answers this by saying "
The Bible suggests a source of the extra water. In Genesis 7:11 we read that at the initiation of the Flood all the fountains of the great deep were broken up. In other words, the earth’s crust was split open all around the globe and water apparently burst forth as fountains from inside the earth."
Now remember we're evaluating this from a
scientific standpoint. We know that water, unless otherwise constrained, always finds the lowest point. That's why if you're sitting in the tub, take a cup of water, and dump it over your head it doesn't stay and cover your head. It runs right back down to its lowest point (the tub). So that leads to an obvious question for AiG....if the water was underground, it was already at its lowest point....how then did it manage to go above that point and stay above it? Why didn't the water just run right back down to the spaces it evacuated?
Then there's the moving continental plates. AiG states...
The catastrophic breakup of the earth’s crust, referred to in Genesis 7:11, would not only have released huge volumes of water from inside the earth, but much molten rock.5 The ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas. Being less dense than the original ocean floors, these hot lavas would have had an expanded thickness, so the new ocean floors would have effectively risen, raising the sea level by more than 3,500 feet (1,067 m). Because today’s mountains had not yet formed, and it is likely the pre-Flood hills and mountains were nowhere near as high as today’s mountains, a sea level rise of over 3,500 feet would have been sufficient to inundate the pre-Flood continental land surfaces.
The issue here should be obvious. All this had to have happened over the course of about a year or so (or maybe even less). Moving that much mass (entire continents) and bringing up that much molten lava all across the globe in such a short period of time would generate a
ridiculous amount of heat. If you'd like, we could do some calculations to estimate just how much heat we're talking about. Previously, young-earth creationist John Baumgartner estimated that
such an event would release somewhere around 1028 joules, which is waaaaaaay more than enough to boil off all the oceans and render the entire earth uninhabitable.
The AiG pages make no mention of either of these obvious fundamental issues. Why not?