Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2018 5:56 AM
205 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 202 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,051 Year: 11,874/29,783 Month: 896/1,642 Week: 4/306 Day: 4/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inconsistencies in ye-creationism
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3541 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 1 of 3 (6705)
03-12-2002 8:03 PM


I am having a discussion with Barry Setterfield over on another board and it struck me (again and again and again) how creationists develop 'just so' stories to fit a particular argument. The problem is, of course, that all the 'just so' stories don't hang together as a cohesive thesis. For example, Barry claims that the Siberian trap volcanism triggered the Permo-Carboniferous glaciations and that the deccan triggered the Cenozoic glaciations. These all fit into the ye-framework because radioactive decay was faster, it is also his assertion that the Precambrian glacial deposits are the result of the Noachian flood. There are several problems with these ideas (not the least of which is the mechanism for generating glacials through volcanism on a 10-100 year time scale). The first is that the eruption of the Siberian traps post-dates the glaciations it is supposed to trigger (in Setterfield's magical mystical world radiometric dating works but it has to all be scaled into 6000 years). The second is that other creationists authors claim that the fossils in sedimentary strata are the result of the flood. In Barry's World they only things killed were some worms, blue-green algae and a few other organisms. For whatever reason, God was very ticked off at algae. Watch carefully, you will never find a cohesive geologic history provided by ye-creationists.

Cheers

Joe Meert


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 03-13-2002 11:43 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 08-09-2002 2:50 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4392
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2 of 3 (6745)
03-13-2002 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Joe Meert
03-12-2002 8:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
I am having a discussion with Barry Setterfield over on another board and it struck me (again and again and again) how creationists develop 'just so' stories to fit a particular argument. The problem is, of course, that all the 'just so' stories don't hang together as a cohesive thesis. For example, Barry claims that the Siberian trap volcanism triggered the Permo-Carboniferous glaciations and that the deccan triggered the Cenozoic glaciations. These all fit into the ye-framework because radioactive decay was faster, it is also his assertion that the Precambrian glacial deposits are the result of the Noachian flood. There are several problems with these ideas (not the least of which is the mechanism for generating glacials through volcanism on a 10-100 year time scale). The first is that the eruption of the Siberian traps post-dates the glaciations it is supposed to trigger (in Setterfield's magical mystical world radiometric dating works but it has to all be scaled into 6000 years). ...

Cheers

Joe Meert


True. It seems that creationists have a tenuous grasp of time and historical background. Not sure how to get around it when they are in abject denial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Joe Meert, posted 03-12-2002 8:03 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2894 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 3 (15107)
08-09-2002 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Joe Meert
03-12-2002 8:03 PM


Joe, had the/any "thesis" gotten beyond an either/or position?? Let us admit any and all arguments. I have broadcast the idea that indeed there are only two-just-so stories with respect to human bio-change for if I open up a pale of Panbiogeography and Catholicism I am immediately defending Derrida agaisnt relativist slants which is not the end I need to be on when Derrida finally comes to His own text. And now I have a visualizable ablity to support my inscription even if I use Derrida's work to extend the description.

Do you then imply that a "deconstruction" never hangs together?? IF so then I would be able to conclude that you reason NOT from what HM Morris said to me that will continue to divide EVEN the DIFFERANCE (ie no matter the Freud applied) as creation science is about science even if it also belives in creationsm. B- Russel would agree on belief but again this is not what I am trying to no longer ask Derrida. It was not justified philosophically to remove a belief in Kant simply becasue physiological knowledge enabled some abstract inclination in this direction hence just so, but transimssion genetics has brought out that physiological genetics needs excatly what on this thinking Russel denied to math and geometry that Derrida has in Husserl time or elsewhere acutally been able to distance himself from and likely may provided the model time to carry out bio-change calculations even socially supportable from and just so again I ask, how do you mean that these two world view in the West to not hang together. I may have a carnal mind but I also have the ability to repent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Joe Meert, posted 03-12-2002 8:03 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018