|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism Road Trip | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Since you seem to mean "all sedimentary rock" why not just say "all sedimentary rock" as I suggested earlier?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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 ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024