|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism Road Trip | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Better?
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Rottingdean actually :-)
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
It turns out that Ken Ham has a response to this road trip video:
(found via a blog post)Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Quoting Ken Ham:
quote:I can't read Maxwell's mind, but I suspect Ham has that wrong. The more common view is to see creationists as "conspiracy theorists". That is, they imagine huge implausible conspiracies as an explanation for all of the evidence that contradicts them. quote:It was an entertainment program, not a news program. Of course it was not trying to "search out a matter." However, I don't see that it is aimed at making a mockery out of Christians. It seemed to steer clear of mocking. Of course, Ken Ham might see it as mockery. He really does enjoy wearing that Christian Persecution Complex on his lapel.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Ham's discussion was good I thought, dealt with all the points other creationists took note of, including me at my blog. We're all on the same page, we all build on each other.
Obviously this discussion on this thread is futile, however, all of it, the polarization is so wide. There is no agreement from any of you for even a single point made by a creationist that I've ever seen here, no matter how hard we might work to be thorough in our reasoning. I might as well continue to argue on my blog instead. Evidence for the Flood doesn't need to be searched for, it's plain as day in the entire geological column, best demonstrated at the GC. The idea that you've all "looked and haven't found" is just absurd. But what you "see" -- by your data -- is those millions upon millions of years instead, like a veil over the canyon really. But that's the way it is, that's what you "see" and nobody is going to get you to see it any other way. Now I note that the creationists have answered me, and if I have to explain the time factor of the Bible I know that discussion is hopeless too, extra time has somehow been "found" there and all my arguments that it is not there but imposed on it aren't going to make any difference. The argument by ICANT that an inference from the Bible is adding to the Bible is just too absurd to even consider, and anyone who would say that is beyond reaching. "Finding" millions of years in the Bible IS adding to it, unfortunately. Well, so much for attempts to communicate at EvC. Futility and hopelessness. I thought I might try to answer Tangle's post since I have considered the chalk cliffs many times before and think I have at least some idea how the Flood formed the features of England including the chalk. Maybe I still will I don't know.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Obviously this discussion on this thread is futile, however, all of it, the polarization is so wide. There is no agreement from any of you for even a single point made by a creationist that I've ever seen here, no matter how hard we might work to be thorough in our reasoning. I might as well continue to argue on my blog instead. The classic example of the "Avoidance Christianity", when you can't support your position just run away. It is the signature of particularly the American Biblical Christian. Create avoidance carny shows and call them "Creation Museums", create avoidance schools, TV channels, browsers, science and call it "Creation Science", avoidance textbooks, ... It's pitiful.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: Now I note that the creationists have answered me, and if I have to explain the time factor of the Bible I know that discussion is hopeless too, extra time has somehow been "found" there and all my arguments that it is not there but imposed on it aren't going to make any difference. The argument by ICANT that an inference from the Bible is adding to the Bible is just too absurd to even consider, and anyone who would say that is beyond reaching. "Finding" millions of years in the Bible IS adding to it, unfortunately. Well, so much for attempts to communicate at EvC. Futility and hopelessness. Ah, I see, your inability to persuade even other creationists is EvC's fault. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I don't understand why we are searching through deep geological time for evidence of the flood.
The consensus of biblical scholars places it far more recently, in historic times. Here are some of the opinions for the date of the global flood: 2252 BC -- layevangelism.com These are just a sample of the biblical scholars who place the flood in historic times, well after dinosaurs and having nothing to do with geologic time millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. But apparently there is a vast disagreement among creationists over when the flood occurred, spanning virtually the entire age of the earth. Now it occurs to me that if creationists can't read and interpret the bible to any narrower time frame than about four billion years for 1) the date of the flood, and 2) consequently the age of modern humans, it occurs to me that there is nothing in what they say that we need to take seriously. And why is there such a span for these events, the flood and modern humans? I suggest it is because creationists are relying on belief (scripture, dogma, revelation, etc.) rather than evidence. In fact, most creationists avoid evidence like vampires avoid garlic! But when there is a disagreement among various points of view, it is precisely evidence that can help to determine which (if any) of those point sof view might be the most accurate. This has led, over time, to the scientific method where evidence (facts or data) is the primary determinant of theory (explanation). If significant evidence contradicts your theory, the evidence wins out and your theory is out! Given all of this, perhaps creationists could retreat to their lounge and debate this issue among themselves, and when they have reached consensus then get back to us with specific proposals, and we'll see how those ideas fit with the evidence? Fair enough?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, Faith, I can see what you mean about how the walls of the Grand Canyon sure LOOK like there's no difference in age from bottom to top.
Yes, Faith, I've always thought it's forcing things to find millions of years in the Biblical text. Yes, Faith, an inference obviously isn't adding anything, that's quite clear. Etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, we AREN'T "looking through deep time" for the Flood. It DID occur about 4300 years ago -- and the Bible itself is the source of the calculations. I don't know why there are those other dates, either, it's depressing that there's so much discrepancy. I go with Morris. It's all recent time. It's just that the entire geological column was laid down IN THE FLOOD around 4300 BC [ABE: correction 4300 years ago or about 2300 BC], so it isn't "deep time" at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
It's just that the entire geological column was laid down IN THE FLOOD around 4300 BC, so it isn't "deep time" at all. That has to be the most inane and vacuous assertion I've heard in three quarters of a century. Please present the mechanism that the Flood used to lay down the Vishnu schist.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The schist was formed after the strata were all laid down, through the pressure of the weight and the volcanic eruption from below.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Beg your pardon.
How did the flood create the basic materials of the strata that became the schist? Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Flood didn't "create" anything, it laid down loose sediments in layers that it carried from who knows where.
The weight of the stack, some two miles deep or so, put pressure on the lowest layers in conjunction with the volcanic magma and heat from below, to form the granite and schist. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That's just nonsense Faith, word salad.
How did the flood get the materials that became the layer that eventually became the Vishnu Schist.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024