|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism Road Trip | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Actually it looks like a desperate attempt to dismiss the evidence without thinking. THere's no real explanation or even consideration of the problems here.
quote: By which you mean that the science of geology is complete nonsense. Evolution has VERY little input to geology. If geologists had found your ideas viable evolution would have failed. BUt they didn't and don't.
quote: For a start, the eras were determined by geology - or rather the geology that the scientists of the time knew. So the whole question is the wrong way around. Not that there are precise worldwide markers by any means.
quote: Because conditions change over time. There is uplift and subsidence. Basins fill. Volcanic eruptions occur.
quote: I guess you haven't been following the creationist claim that the geological column isn't real. There are a few areas on Earth that have seen deposition in every geological era, but they are unusual. THere are widespread layers, but none worldwide. Even your solution claim is silly, because most rocks aren't that soluble - are you seriously suggesting that the Flood dissolved large quantities of silica? (glass is a form of silica, how soluble is that ?) Calcium carbonate is only weakly soluble (sea shells are made of calcium carbonate which would be pretty silly if it was liable to dissolve easily - and of course fossil shells are very common - how could that be if the Flood dissolved them ?) and of course we ought to see a layering based on solubility, with the less common deposits of highly soluble materials like salt at the very end. And then of course we can find solidified lava that erupted and cooled on the surface, and not underwater. How can the Flood account for that ? So no, conventional geology makes a lot more sense than your ideas which can't cope with something as simple as a fossil shell.
quote: Which is why a lot of deposits are attributed to water action of various sorts. But obviously, even if water did dissolve a sea shell precipitating the calcium carbonate out of water would never reform the shell, water DOESN'T behave in THAT way. But there are also deposits which are not attributed to water action and you need to explain those, too.
quote: Nobody claims that the mere passage of time created the layers - it is the events which happened during that passage of time. In fact the same events as you appealed to as showing what water does, and admitted to happening in the present time are among those causes. And it would be absurd of you to deny that such things could happen in the distant past.
quote: This simply seems bizarre to me. How can you look at proof of long ages and reject it with such certainty ?
quote: Of course, if the discipline were as absurd as you say then this situation would be impossible. The fact is that geologists know a whole lot more than you - you don't even understand basic facts like the solubility of the rocks or the extent of geological layering. And that I think is the problem - the geologists know what they are talking about, while you insist that knowledge is irrelevant - everyone should just jump to the conclusions you like. And you have no compunction in attacking anyone who dares to disagree with you, without caring if your attacks are really true enough (sufficient in court for a finding of malice).
quote: Seems to me that you're demanding a whole lot more than trust. And considering the evidence as you see it, doesn't preclude a consideration of the evidence as it actually is - even evidence that you would rather we ignored.
quote: I suppose that you could claim that your dissolution and precipitation left no actual evidence at all, but what would the point of that be ?How would you distinguish that from the original material being eroded and moved around ? quote: According to what I've read, much longer than that. Too long for you.
quote: I do hope that you realise that your beliefs about the evidence are not evidence in themselves. I can say from personal experience that while ammonites and belemnites are very common in some locales other fossils are also found there in some numbers (e.g. gryphaea) - and other areas nearby, from the same era can produce quite different fossils (crinoids, oyster beds, sea urchins and numerous small shells, for instance) in large quantities. And that is just my personal experience from amateur fossil collecting near my childhood home. Don't forget that different creatures live in different habitats, and that vertebrate fossils are only very rarely found by casual collectors (although certainly they are found in areas where ammonites are common).
quote: I would disagree, in fact your argument makes no sense to me. Surely the numbers are BETTER explained by a long period of time - a catastrophic death can only catch a single generation, while over time many generations can live and die. Surely a catastrophic deposition would catch pretty much everything that lived there. So really I can't see how your evidence comes close to supporting your claim. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
I think there's a little tension in your objections here.
On the one hand you claim that scientists are wrong because they hold on to preconceived ideas and thus interpret the evidence incorrectly. On the other hand you complain very loudly that they don't interpret the evidence on the basis of your preconceived ideas. (And as we,ve seen elsewhere this includes the invention of implausible ad hoc excuses to explain away evidence contrary to your views and even a refusal to accept truths that you dislike) There's an inconsistency here. If it is a methodological error to cling too tightly to preconceived ideas then it is an error even if the ideas are ones you believe or like. Edited by Admin, : "if" => "of"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: I didn't say that you were objecting to preconceived ideas as such. I said that you claimed that scientists were making errors became they were following preconceived ideas. And I have to say that the ideas that you object to are themselves founded in strong evidence.
quote: But you can't explain the facts as well. That's why you had to invent a super-genome. That's why you have to insist that radiometric dating will be disproved, and why you have to refuse to accept it as science even though it is. Hell it's why you had to complain that i was looking at the "wrong" part of a geological diagram because it showed evidence that didn't fit your views. And, quite obviously, expert geologists will know a whole lot of facts that you don't, so they are in a far better position to work out which explanation.best fits the facts, which is why the Flood idea was rejected in the first place. I suppose you are right that you have a lot of work to do, but that is because the evidence is massively against you. And really you have no idea how arguing with creationists seems from the other side of the fence. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Of course I pointed to evidence that what I said was correct. So no, I wasn't reciting any creed, I was pointing to the truth as I saw it - and without any reliance on preconceived ideas.
quote: You have the right to your opinions, and I have the right to find your opinions as being based in nothing more than arrogance and false dogma.
quote: But that obviously doesn't work. Many of the arguments assume maximum heterozygosity in the ark population, and two individuals - as is the case for all "unclean" species have a maximum of four alleles at any locus even under that assumption - it will produce a bottleneck and we don't see it. If we add in your other idea that the pairs in the ark are the ancestors of multiple species under the modern definition it gets even worse for you because you need a single pair to account for the genetic diversity of multiple species. That's WHY you needed the super genome.
quote: But it doesn't. Bottlenecks don't create junk DNA, they drastically reduce the variation in DNA across the board - and it's the amount of variation in non-junk DNA that you have to explain. And you would have to consider the structure of junk DNA as well to make an actual argument. This is a prime example of you jumping to a conclusion without considering the evidence properly.
quote: But I bet that you don't understand WHY I find it offensive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: It was an iPad spelling "correction" - and you had to get in fast to even see it.
quote: Oh, the silliness of the ideas is the least of it. I would say that the arrogance - and the frequent appearance of dishonesty are far worse.
quote: I won't dare to speak for everyone but I certainly try to be fair and I believe I succeed more often than not. If you can find a genuinely good argument that I've "trashed"I'd be willing to take another look at it.But again you're wrong about the source of the offence. It's the pride of the creationists which I find offensive. quote: And this is really the heart of it. You complain about "thought police" - but here you are considering dissenting views an offence. Can't you see that that view is inherently offensive to anyone who wants to think for themselves? And let me repeat one thing that I've said before - if you want us to accept your arguments based on your theological beliefs you have to get us to accept your theological beliefs first. It is odd then that you are so adamant in refusing to discuss the theology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
I have to agree with nwr. Pointing out a gaffe on the part of the host, who is after all, a comedian, not an expert is more a sign of desperation. The most interesting part for me is that he confirmed that Phil was Phil Robinson, an experienced creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
In other words, Faith, your demand to be worshipped isn't arrogant, REAL arrogance is refusing to worship you.
I hope that you see how ridiculous that is. It isn't arrogant to look for the truth - even when it means looking at evidence that you demand we ignore. It IS arrogant of you to attribute disagreement to stupidity - or a failure to communicate rather than consider that your arguments might be inadequate. Your arguments are typically poorly-thought out and often based on a very limited knowledge of the evidence. It isn't arrogant to disagree with the teaching of your cult. It isn't even anti-Christian. There are other ways of looking at the Bible. In fact I would have to say that you belong to an anti-Christian cult. You certainly try to encourage people to reject Christianity. Look in your Bible - there's nothing to say that obedience to your cult's theological masters is a requirement for salvation. It isn't arrogant to disagree with your opinions, especially when your opinions make no sense. Why does a global flood HAVE to either deposit the entire geological column or do nothing visible ? It seems to me that a global flood would be very unlikely to do either in the course of a year. And of course it is arrogant of you to characterise disagreement with your beliefs as "telling God he's wrong" . If your HUMAN masters were here I'd tell them that THEY are wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
You've also said that it is a sin and even arrogance to disagree with your religious beliefs. You told Foreveryoung to abandon Christianity rather than to accept a view of the Bible contrary to your beliefs. You insist that it is stupid to think that a global flood would be on a scale likely for a global flood. You're not even happy if I do consider your arguments unless I agree with them. I could go on and on but I think the point is made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Protestantism has a lot of branches, and I'm pretty sure that most of them don't insist that it's a sin to disagree with literalist or even inerrantist views of the Bible.
quote: Funny how your ignorance doesn't invalidate your views on geology. And I would suggest that "taking seriously" doesn't require believing. And I dare say that you know rather less than you think, given your willingness to believe anti-Catholic propaganda.
quote: Well that's funny. Are you seriously claiming that the "historical Protestant church" holds that a global Flood 4300 years ago MUST either produce deposits equivalent to the entire geological column or leave no evidence that would be discernible to us? Or is this one of your arguments about geology ? And is it not true that when people disagree with your arguments or come to conclusions that you don't like that you call them stupid or blind ? And is it not true that you insist that all proper geology must be done on the basis that your religious beliefs be assumed to be unquestionably correct ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
The same "common sense" that causes you to believe crazy conspiracy theories ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Funny how you haven't produced any evidence then. And pardon me if I suspect that your evaluation of the evidence has more to do with your prejudices than the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Well there's an unbiblical view for you. There are a good number of books of the Bible that are absolutely clear that they were written by humans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: If you get to boldly making assertions that even you don't believe then you ought to take a step back and think about your position. In fact you really need a good dose of self-awareness. You need to recognise that you know very little about geology, and that you are highly prejudiced against it. Is it really plausible that ALL the more knowledgeable and comparatively open-minded people are "blinded" by prejudice and that YOU aren't ? Isn't it the height of arrogance for you to consider it even likely, let alone a fact ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
Faith, you really are proving that you can't tell good arguments from bad. The main constituents of most rocks are calcium carbonate (VERY poorly soluble) or silica (almost completely insoluble). Very little rock has precipitated out of solution. Sedimentary rocks are typically formed from small solid particles which settle out of water, not material that precipitates out of solution.
This is simply not a sensible argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: I wasn't talking about dissolving rocks, I was talking about dissolving the materials the sedimentary rocks are made of (in whatever form). So we're talking about the same thing. Again we're down to the problem that you have great difficulty believing that your arguments could be bad and you try to blame everyone else for something that is, really, your own fault.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024