Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 298 of 409 (680651)
11-20-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Faith
11-20-2012 11:42 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
quote:
I have NO idea what you're talking about, bad arguments and so on, sorry, just your own rumination that's undecipherable to me.
It's really simple. Your idea that dissolution played a major role in the formation of the rocks we see today is not a good idea. Those rocks are mostly made of substances that dissolve poorly at best. So why is that so hard for you to accept?
More importantly why did you not consider it?
The reasons why you get so frustrated here, why you find debate futile are mainly your fault. You don't put in the effort to construct solid arguments - not taking the time to gather the knowledge or to put the reasoning together. Yet you are going up against a sold and successful field of science. How can you hope to win the debate? Even if your Flood geology happened to be correct you should EXPECT to lose! How can you not SEE that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 11:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 323 of 409 (680737)
11-21-2012 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Faith
11-21-2012 1:52 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
quote:
The miscommunication here is absolutely beyond my ability to figure out, so I have to abandon this discussion completely. You are making no sense whatever.
Really, Faith, the question is quite simple. What do you mean when talking about the geological column ? ALL of the rocks ? Or do you exclude some ? If you exclude some, which do you exclude ?
If you can't even explain what you mean then the problem is with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 1:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 3:52 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 324 of 409 (680738)
11-21-2012 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
11-20-2012 12:02 PM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
quote:
I believe you'll find the literary modes of the Bible discussed in the following articles on how to read the Bible from the Reformed point of view, particularly the first one:
Search | Monergism
I have a question about this one, Faith, How can you possible trust any description of the "grammatical-historical" method which makes NO mention of how to use either grammar or history ? One that in fact describes it as interpreting the text in the light of a particular theological viewpoint (a principle which is neither grammatical nor historical)
(It even fails to even mention the importance of reading the texts in the original language in order to apply grammatical principles!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 12:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 3:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 327 of 409 (680749)
11-21-2012 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Faith
11-21-2012 3:52 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
In Message 208 you suggested that some layers couldn't be considered part of the geological column. Now you say that they absolutely definitely are. I wish you wouldn't get angry when people are just trying to understand what you say.
Look Faith, if you have problems understanding that rocks are rocks or that rocks are made of the substances that rocks are made of I don't really think you can blame pour lack of understanding on other people,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 3:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:18 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 328 of 409 (680750)
11-21-2012 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Faith
11-21-2012 3:58 AM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
In that case I suggest that they are seriously misrepresenting Luther's hermeneutic. Elsewhere I've seen it described as an attempt to get at what the original author meant, and I have to say that makes more sense to me - and is definitely contrary to the description in the article that you recommended,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 3:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:19 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 331 of 409 (680754)
11-21-2012 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
11-21-2012 4:18 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
quote:
I suggested no such thing but apparently was misread to say that because of some different idea about the extent of the geological column. As I've understood it there are no STRATA that deep in the earth. The strata start somewhere on the surface of the continents in my understanding. Perhaps you can change my view of this.
Perhaps it would be clearer and more accurate if you just said all sedimentary rock ? The Flood isn't going to lay down igneous rock, whether surface deposits (many of which are not laid down under water anyway) or intrusions (which have to come after the layers they cut into, by definition).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:37 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 332 of 409 (680755)
11-21-2012 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Faith
11-21-2012 4:19 AM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
quote:
I looked at the link and it seems that it does start with the conclusion rather than the argument. Not a good place to start.
I would say that it's worse than that in that it presents the method as assuming your "conclusion" as the main guide to understanding scripture - and as the historical-grammatical method when it seems to be clearly neither grammatical or historical.
And I must point out that you recommended it as the best of the links you provided.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:38 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 336 of 409 (680760)
11-21-2012 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Faith
11-21-2012 4:37 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
quote:
OK, perhaps sedimentary rock says it but isn't that just another way of describing the geological column?
No, because it includes igneous rock. Why should a stratum created as a magma flow be excluded from the column? The column is usually based on the rocks as they exist today, isn't it? (Actually the term seems to be unclear and mainly used by creationists, if my google search has any bearing!)
E.g geological column in Northern Ireland - the best I could find quickly, excluding sites dealing eith creationism from either perspective, includes basalts, for instance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 4:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Boof, posted 11-21-2012 5:06 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:12 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 342 of 409 (680766)
11-21-2012 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Faith
11-21-2012 5:12 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Since you seem to mean "all sedimentary rock" why not just say "all sedimentary rock" as I suggested earlier?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:12 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:38 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 347 of 409 (680772)
11-21-2012 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Faith
11-21-2012 5:38 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
quote:
I'm always focused on the STRATA, the LAYERS as a physical phenomenon. They're made of sedimentary rock (except for the igneous sills) but that's not the defining idea. It's the layering itself that I consider to be major evidence for the Flood, and the old earth explanation of the layers is inconsistent with the mechanics of how layering could occur and imposes fantastic scenario-building nonsense on what is nothing but a mechanically produced slab of rock.
I'll just say that I find your opinions to be lacking much basis in reality. Especially as you clearly regard any mention of evidence against your views to be unacceptable bullying.
If you want an honest discussion and a real debate you have to deal with evidence, not throw false accusations against anybody raising evidence you can't account for.
quote:
Also, the schist at the bottom of the GC WAS a sedimentary layer but now is a different kind of rock. I don't want to exclude that layer from the definition.
I don't think that that's much of a problem. If you say "all sedimentary rock was deposited by the Flood" it would naturally include metamorphosed sedimentary rock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 5:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 395 of 409 (681011)
11-22-2012 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:51 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith, if your explanation best fit the evidence that you were aware of and prepared to admit to you would not have much of a case - you could support almost any position on that basis. But you don't even have that much. You have to handwave like crazy to even explain the stuff you know and accept.
You don't realise that your position is thoroughly anti-scientific. scorning all the detailed work that has been done through the centuries. Why examine the rocks of the Grand Canyon in detail when you can just look at photographs taken at a distance. Why bother to study how sediments are deposited or how landforms come into existence when you can just wave your hands and say that the Flood did it ? Indeed why even think about what a Flood would do - according to you it's stupid to do anything but assume that the Flood would produce results consistent with why we see today - whatever that might be.
But no, to you introducing evidence contrary to your views is bullying while your tendency to rant and call people idiotic for just disagreeing with you is somehow not. Suggesting that you show the intellectual honesty to admit that your knowledge is not really up to evaluating your beliefs is met with an angry, accusatory retort.
You can't even accept that through honest open enquiry mainstream geology has had huge success in explaining what we see in the rocks, while Flood geology is an abject failure in comparison, not even having come up with geological criteria to identify Flood rocks or a decent explanation of the order in the fossil record. Your own beliefs are even more poorly informed and - as a consequence - even less adequate than those of the Flood geologists. As I said earlier you set yourself up for failure and then try to blame everyone else for the inevitable consequence of your own actions.
In your words, how sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 409 of 409 (681109)
11-22-2012 3:43 PM


My Summary
Faith, by her own admission is highly prejudiced in favour of the Flood - to the point where her mind is closed to the possibility that it could be wrong. The possibility that her theological masters could be wrong is unacceptable to her. She insists that geologists must be as bad as her but she never offers any real evidence (and somehow seems upset that we don't automatically agree - even though her accusation is implausible and obviously self-serving).
But if geologist's views are suspect because of assumed prejudice, why doesn't Faith admit that her own assessment of her own arguments is suspect for her own admitted prejudice ? Faith might say that her prejudices are right,- but so would anyone who was equally prejudiced. Her prejudice blinds her to the possibility that she is blinded by prejudice.
It's all very easy for Faith to think she's refuted mainstream geology when she doesn't understand what it says or why. But her lack of knowledge means that her prejudice must play a major part in her assessment, so why should anyone else believe it ? And why should she even expect anyone else to believe it ? Or think that debate is "futile" if they don't ?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024