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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 1 of 1896 (713227)
12-10-2013 6:27 PM


I'm proposing this thread to continue the discussion that was going in the Hello thread and hopefully get a more detailed explanation of the reasoning behind her arguments out of Faith. I'll start reiterating in broad strokes the conflicting opinions and by linking my last post and reposting the most significant part.
My position is that the Great Flood never happened based on a wide variety of geological evidence. In particular I have been focusing on what I consider to be very straightforward evidence of sedimentary structures, features and fossils (discussed below) that are diagnostic of an aeolian depositional environment.
Faith believes that the Flood is responsible for the entire rock record. Her main point is that the horizontality of the strata proves that the strata were laid down rapidly and continuously by the Flood with no terrestrial environments existing.
Below I reiterate the evidence I have presented thus far and here I invite Faith to provide a more detailed explanation of her reasoning.
From Message 351:
I think you're trying to say that the shape of aeolian grains causes them to settle in the shapes associated with aeolian depositional environments even though they were really deposited by the flood. This is a convenient fantasy, but not something that is actually supported by physics. The shape of sand does not noticeably affect the pattern in which it is deposited. I'm going to post the aeolian characteristics again for you to respond to. This time see if you can produce something a smidge less laughable than a caps locked statement that the rocks are flat that doesn't address any of the points.
1. Frosted grains
2. Faceted grains
3. Angle of repose of 34 degrees (impossible for sand in water).
4. Various uniquely aeolian stratification types (Kocurek and Dott, 1981)
5. Coarsening upward grains (aqueous deposits, particularly those deposited in floods, display a fining upward sequence)
6. In situ terrestrial fossils
Note that reiterating that the strata lay flat does not address these points. Your claim is that all strata were deposited by the Flood. Therefore you need to specifically address evidence that indicates that they weren't deposited in an aqueous environment. Explain why aeolian bedforms formed in an aequous environment. Explain how the laws of physics took a break and allowed wet sand to be deposited at the 34 degree angle of repose characteristic of dry sand as opposed to the 45 degree angle of wet sand. Explain the coarsening upwards pattern. And again, explain the presence of an in situ, terrestrial dinosaur sitting on its nest. Go on. Give it a try.
I would particularly like Faith to respond to the problem presented to her hypothesis by the existence of an in situ nesting terrestrial dinosaur (Norell et al., 1995 A nesting dinosaur) which proves that at least that section of the rock record represents a terrestrial depositional environment and the existence of cross-bedded strata with an angle of repose of 34 degrees that physical law does not allow to occur in wet sand.
Sigh. During the Flood there would have been SHORT periods of exposure at the surface BETWEEN WAVES AND TIDES, during which ripples and minor erosion and footprints could have occurred to the wet sediments
I'm very interested in hearing where Faith got this information. It seems contradictory to me because such assertions are clearly extra-biblical and yet she maintains the the Bible is the only reliable source of information about geology. She's mentioned tides several times, but this raises and obvious question: If the entire planet is covered by water, where are the tides going and how can they be exposing the land? And she also seems to be imagining great waves that have such huge gaps in between them that the underlying sediments are exposed for unspecified amounts of time. I'm no expert in hydrodynamics, but I'm pretty sure that's not how waves work, even giant ones.
But go right ahead and keep posting your Jeers, that's really all you understand about any of this.
Funny, coming from the single most prolific jeer-er on the thread.
I'm also keen to see Faith's response to Message 378 by Dr. A.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : Added intro
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : Removed a excellent but snarky pun from the title, removed some snark that got carried in with a quote from the last thread.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : A stray snark was identified and throttled

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 12-10-2013 6:36 PM Atheos canadensis has replied
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 2:03 AM Atheos canadensis has replied
 Message 692 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2013 6:08 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 3 of 1896 (713229)
12-10-2013 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
12-10-2013 6:36 PM


Re: Flood Insurance
So perhaps you might begin by explaining your position and briefly mention the contrary position held by others.
I think I've done as you requested. Please let me know if further alterations are required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 12-10-2013 6:36 PM AdminPhat has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 4 of 1896 (713230)
12-10-2013 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
12-10-2013 6:36 PM


Re: Flood Insurance
Oops. I see in the meantime Faith has started her own thread. Well, I think I've complied with your suggestion for reducing the snark and I think my thread may have the advantage of being somewhat less specific than Faith's. Based on the title it seems like she may wish to limit the discussion to the Grand Canyon. This would effectively obviate her need to respond to the main points I have raised in in refutation of her general position that all strata are Deluvial in origin. Becuase this had become the main topic of the thread of which this is meant to be a continuation I think it would be inappropriate to limit the discussion thusly. I would have no objections though if it were clear that Faith's proposed thread should not be limited to the Grand Canyon but rather to discussion of her general position, i.e. the rock record is the product of the Flood and refutes the notion of an old earth.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : No reason given.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : Added some shtuff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 12-10-2013 6:36 PM AdminPhat has seen this message but not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 7 of 1896 (713247)
12-11-2013 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
12-11-2013 2:03 AM


Re: Structure of Strata, Grains, Erosion, Karsts
the way the fossils are embedded, tossed and tumbled and of all sizes and ages in some cases
The tossing and tumbling to which you refer could be the result of any aqueous depositional environment. Please give a more detailed explanation of why this tumbling indicates it must have been a global flood. I assume the latter half of this sentence is referring to bonebeds and the mixture of various ontogenetic stages including young, sub-adult and adult animals. Again, please give a more detailed explanation of why such a mixture of ontogenetic stages could only be produced by the Flood. In the last thread you simply handwaved away the fact that such mass death assemblages occur today, but this in fact proves that a Global flood is not the only explanation for a large, disorganized death assemblage with mixed ages. In fact I would argue that the monospecific nature of these bonebeds is evidence against the Flood. It makes sense if a herd of Centrosaurus try to cross a river in flood as animals (e.g. caribou and wildebeest) and have a portion of the herd drown. If it were the result of a great Flood then we should expect these death assemblages to contain more or less equal numbers of all the other taxa that were around.
This proves that the strata were all still wet enough to be malleable, which proves that they are not millions of years old.
False. This proves that the strata were folded, not that they were still wet and that the Flood did it. Metamorphic activity deforms and folds strata even when they are lithified. I'm sure you don't dispute the existence of metamorphism so how do you rule that out when looking at folded strata?
Because I believe the structure of the strata and the canyons and other formations of the Southwest defeat OE theory I don't try to answer every objection to the Flood. The objections you are raising are of the trees-blotting-out-the-forest kind anyway, the orientation of the grains in the sandstone for instance. How a dinosaur nest survived the Flood, IF that is what happened, I don't know and I don't care as long as the strata themselves support the Flood and argue against the Old Earth.
You are trying to handwave away some pretty ambiguous evidence that the rock record contains terrestrial deposits and was therefore not the product of the Flood. This is not a minor concern for you and deserves to be addressed rather than relegated to an undefined time in the future that is unlikely to occur. People have been responding to your points and you should have the intellectual integrity to respond to mine. If my points are really so trivial then you should have no trouble explaining them away. The fact that you were trying to answer them and then started doing your best to avoid them indicate that they really do present a problem for you that you'd rather avoid thinking about. Again, these aren't minor incongruities; they're physical impossibilities if you think the Flood is responsible for the entire rock record. An in situ terrestrial dinosaur on its nest cannot have been preserved thusly by the Flood. Period. Wet cross-beds cannot have a 34 degree angle of repose. Period. Defying the laws of physics doesn't fall under the category of "flukes and anomalies". It is a major issue that you have done your best to avoid addressing.
the Bible doesn't describe the Flood in any detail so that leaves it open to imagining how it happened
So if you admit that you aren't getting this information from the Bible and we know you aren't getting it from the scientists, where exactly are you getting it? Why is your "imagining how it happened" so much more valid than the findings of thousands of people worldwide, including those who were working before Darwin proposed his theory?
Oceans have waves, tides, currents and even layers
True. But they don't expose the sea bed between waves. And if the entire planet is covered with water, the low tide would expose only the tops of mountains which would not explain the evidence of erosion in other environments. I have to go to work now so I'll let Dr. A respond to your discussion of his points for now. I'll see what's going on when I get back. Try to display some intellectual integrity in the meantime and address my points instead of pretending that defying physical law is a minor problem for your theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 2:03 AM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 15 of 1896 (713299)
12-11-2013 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
12-11-2013 3:17 PM


Re: Subaerial Erosion And Deposition In The Grand Canyon
I really don't think that's an excuse for you to suppose that I could have meant that a sediment filling in irregularities in a lower layer would not have a level surface itself. I don't know what I said that permitted you to accuse me of something like that[/qs]
I would assume it was this:
I mean that if even one of the layers had been exposed for many years, let alone millions, at the surface of the earth, it would have been so distorted by erosion of various sorts that it would not lie neatly level and horizontal, destroying the appearance of the regular level horizontal strata. So that layer getting that distorted would also distort the appearance of neat horizontality of the whole stack. Then all its gullies and canyons and gashes and river beds and whatnot would get filled in by the sediment supposedly depositing on top of it (although how that could possibly happen under normal circumstances remains a complete mystery to me, let alone how it could happen to all those different layers we see in th Canyon) and we would NOT see that nice straight line between the two different kinds of sediment that we do in fact see, we would have a very rough line of contact indeed, and we could see it from all the way across the canyon. Multiply that effect by many other supposedly similarly exposed layers and the whole stack should be a vision of zigzags without a single neat straight horizontal contact anywhere.
So when are you going to address the points I raised about the physical impossibilities that your hypothesis requires with respect to angle of repose and the in situ dinosaur? Or do you imagine that declaring them "anomalies" to be discussed at an undisclosed future time (i.e. never) to be a sufficient rebuttal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 3:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 20 of 1896 (713311)
12-11-2013 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
12-11-2013 9:23 PM


Re: Muddy Water
Would certainly be a problem for the fish and other sea creatures which we assume died in huge numbers in the Flood too.
Strange that you have time to answer questions not pertaining to the GC when you feel you have a good answer for them but you continue to avoid the points I've made for which you were unable to provide a rebuttal in the last thread. I can understand why you don't want to answer; the physical impossibilities required by your version of events that I have pointed out are a lot harder to explain away than the fate of the fish during the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 9:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 10:59 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 25 of 1896 (713319)
12-11-2013 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
12-11-2013 10:59 PM


Re: Muddy Water
I answered your points.
Not even close. Acknowledging and then ignoring is not the same thing as answering. You have stated variously that you think I am wrong, that it isn't important and that your pet theory about the GC strata is more important. You have not once explained the problems I point out with your position.
You think the orientation of the grains defeats the idea that they were deposited in the Flood
Nope. Unless by "orientation of grains" you really mean "orientation of strata". I think that because we find sandstone strata with a 34 degree angle of repose (a physical impossibility for aqueously-deposited sand) then obviously the Flood is not responsible for the entire rock record as you claim. I also maintain that finding a dinosaur sitting intact on its nest is very problematic for you. So do you, obviously, or you'd have responded to it by now with more than mere dismissal.
If the structure of the strata proves either no Old Earth or possibility of Flood, you'll have to rethink your certainty about the interpretation of the orientation of the grains.
It works both ways, Faith; I'm presenting evidence to you that certain strata had to have been deposited in a terrestrial environment and this should cause you to rethink your certainty about your interpretation of the strata's layout. In fact I would argue that the fact that you have to explain away a physical impossibility is a more important and decisive issue. I know you won't see it that way because you've now made it clear that you only want to answer the stuff you already think you know the answer to.
There is nothing more to say about it.
There is for you. You haven't said anything yet. I know you desperately want to avoid it because you know it represents a major problem for your position, but that's exactly the sort of willful blindness you keep accusing us of and is the reason I originally wanted to name this thread with the excellent pun "Blind Faith"
I post small posts because they don't take time. Nothing at all strange about it.
I'm not taking issue with the length of your posts, I'm taking issue with the way you're avoiding points you think are too hard to refute. Feel free to make a small post in response, just make sure it is actually a response instead of an evasion. The real reason you avoid it is obviously because you can't easily think of a plausible explanation for why your theory requires a physical impossibility.
Am I the only one who is curious to hear the answers to the questions I've posed to Faith?
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 10:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 12-11-2013 11:49 PM Atheos canadensis has replied
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 1:46 AM Atheos canadensis has replied
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2013 10:11 AM Atheos canadensis has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 27 of 1896 (713321)
12-12-2013 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coyote
12-11-2013 11:49 PM


Re: Muddy Water
It's even worse than that!
The time scale from dinosaurs to the flood has to be compressed by about 14,943X to make it fit.
I agree, but I thought things might go a bit more productively if I tried a very simple example that didn't require Faith to swallow deep time. It seems pretty obvious that a dinosaur sitting on its nest could not have been preserved thusly by a catastrophic flood, regardless of whether you think the dinosaur died 4300-odd years ago or 70 million. But Faith's rather transparent attempts to avoid this simple question have stalled the debate.
And do you not agree that explaining why a physical impossibility is required by her theory is a fairly pressing issue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 12-11-2013 11:49 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2013 1:10 AM Atheos canadensis has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(3)
Message 54 of 1896 (713398)
12-12-2013 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
12-12-2013 1:46 AM


Re: Muddy Water
So first it was "I do short posts because they're easy". Now you've done a long post that boils down to nothing more than you've already said, i.e. I don't have to answer you because it's irrelevant". Oh, my apologies. You've also added"And I don't even care what you think!" to the list. Solid stuff.
Nothing has changed my mind about that
Not surprising, considering that you refuse to discuss any evidence that proves your Flood never happened.
I do think simply thinking about the physical structure could lead to an awareness of the obviousness of the Flood explanation and the ridiculousness of the OE explanation
So you believe thinking about the physical structure of the strata is a good way to make inferences about what deposited them. It is therefore blatant hypocrisy to refuse so stubbornly to discuss the physical structure of the strata I have highlighted and why they present a problem for your theory.
Grains of sand would become quite irrelevant.
This is a weak rhetorical trick, Faith. Individual grains of sand are indeed of less importance (though as I point out they do record evidence of aeolian weathering), but I am arguing about the structures they form. You know, strata, the same thing you're talking about. You can't simultaneously promote the importance and completely dismiss the physical structure of the strata.
This is a reasonable way to approach the problems in my opinion. You are focused on minutiae, I'm trying to focus on the big picture. Even if the minutiae seem to be ironclad they will have to give if the big picture can be established.
I see others have pointed out the folly of this approach, so I'll highlight the fact that you have labelled my points "minutiae" without justification and for the purpose of giving yourself permission to ignore them. I say with confidence, and I feel every single physicist on the planet will back me up on this, that defying the laws of physics constitutes a very major point of interest and an insurmountable and distinctly not minute problem for any theory that requires that it occur.
The minutiae are small things that you have observed in the present, you have no idea how a Flood would have affected them
Again, what you fool only yourself by calling minutiae are the laws of physics. The Flood, even if it had happened, would not have altered them and thus the fact that they contradict your belief is a major problem for your belief whether you have the ability to admit it or not.
you're new and somehow expect me to regard your arguments as something special too. Why should I?
I'm not expecting you to regard my arguments as something special. I'm asking you to address them because, just like the posts from others here, they present a clear problem for your beliefs about the reality of the Flood. It's really quite simple, at least as simple as your exhortations to just look at the strata from far away. The laws of physics dictate that dry sand has an angle of repose of 34 degrees therefore the existence of strata with such an angle proves that these strata were deposited in an aeolian setting. I could have joined the site yesterday or ten years ago; this makes absolutely no difference to the validity of my points. The only difference it makes is that you have decided it is (yet another) excuse to avoid thinking about a glaring issue with your position.
By the way since you ARE new you may not know that the dinosaur nest is an old argument
If this in situ dinosaur nest is such an old argument, surely you have an explanation by now. If you are so familiar with this argument then it should take no time at all to rebut it (note that calling it insignificant is an evasion, not a rebuttal).
After reviewing the last column of posts I'm in a mood to hang it all up
Here you express your lack of desire to discuss the points you have been discussing and yet you still avoid the points I have raised. You seem to think that defying the laws of physics is a small matter, but to the rest of us it is a pretty big deal, so maybe you could turn your attention to that. A change is as good as a rest, they say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 1:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 2:11 AM Atheos canadensis has replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 68 of 1896 (713447)
12-13-2013 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
12-13-2013 2:11 AM


Re: Muddy Water
Really, I'd just like to exit this thread but I feel I have to stay and deal with some things as they come up.
Really. If your continued presence here is to "deal with things", then perhaps you should deal with the things I have brought up. Instead you have consistently and shamelessly tried to avoid addressing a point you clearly know is very damning for your theory. You have again made your evasion painfully obvious by addressing new points presented in the last few comments but stubbornly refusing respond to me. This makes it incredibly obvious that you are refusing to engage with my points because you know they are a problem for you and you have no counter points.
Your desire to run away from the evidence displays a profound lack of intellectual integrity. This is evinced by the fact that you initially tried to address my points and then, when it became obvious even to you that you couldn't handwave them away, you suddenly lacked the time/interest, then it was because physical impossibilities are easily-ignored "minutiae" and then it was that I was too new to be worthy of a response. If you want to tuck your tail and run away then do so, but I think even you realize that it is indeed running away. You sit on your high horse telling us all how we're blind while you refuse to look at a very obvious and major problem with your fantasy (if you really are running away I think I will dispense with the courtesy of calling it a theory).
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : point

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 2:11 AM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 82 of 1896 (713488)
12-13-2013 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
12-12-2013 1:46 AM


Re: Muddy Water
So now you've gone from verbally trying to avoid addressing a the huge problem I have pointed out with your Flood fantasy to simply sending a jeer in my direction and scuttling away. I know I've pointed this out already, but you are really displaying a truly first-class level of hypocrisy. You say over and over that all of us should open our eyes and look at the evidence but you explicitly and repeatedly refuse to do the same yourself. I have pointed out that your fantasy requires a physical impossibility. The simple fact of the matter is that you know you can't weasel your way around that and so you have chosen to ignore it. Gotta love that christian virtue.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 1:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 89 of 1896 (713501)
12-13-2013 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
12-13-2013 5:27 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
Moving water creates layers in rapid deposition, and tides and long waves that wash across thousands of miles of land mass would give a fair amount of time between waves too
You keep saying this and it keeps making no sense. Perhaps you are simply not communicating effectively so try to be as clear as possible this time. Based on what you've said e.g.
During the Flood there would have been SHORT periods of exposure at the surface BETWEEN WAVES
...you believe that during the Flood there were huge waves that a) went down deep enough that the substrate was exposed at the base of them and b) had enough time between them to allow ephemerally-exposed sediments in which animals left tracks. Is that right? You think that there was ground exposed between waves during a flood that covered the tops of mountains?
Two points about this. First, it makes absolutely no sense. How could a wave have exposed substrate before or behind it? This is not how waves work.
Second, this is completely extra-biblical and in fact un-Biblical. You have made it clear that you think the Bible is the only way to know anything about the past, but here you are averring something (dry land during the Flood) that is definitely not in the Bible. And where exactly did the track-makers come from? You're claiming that in the middle of a global flood there were still animals that were paddling around, waiting for these fantastical waves to expose the substrate so they could walk around for a little while, then be engulfed again by the next wave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 5:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:01 PM Atheos canadensis has replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 105 of 1896 (713525)
12-13-2013 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
12-13-2013 8:01 PM


Re: How did you determine this?
The long waves at least allow a period of time in which footprints could have been registered in the wet sediment
Okay, so I think I have a clearer understanding now. You hadn't made it clear that you envision this all happening near the tail end of the Flood. You don't think the substrate was exposed, you just think that between waves the water was shallow enough to allow animals to make tracks. This doesn't really solve your problem though. You admit that you are unable to explain all these animals survived all throughout the Flood, which is good, but then you pretend like this glaring problem with your explanation is a minor detail, which is bad. Not that I'm surprised; you do after all classify defying the laws of physics as "minutiae". As you have stated, you think these tracks were being lain down at the end of the Flood, meaning that (according to the Bible), these animals must have survived at least five months from the start of the Flood to the time when the water began to recede. Impressive. What were they eating? And again, what were they doing in between these low-water periods? The fact that you have absolutely no idea of how to explain this in the context of your Flood should be a red flag. And your bird explanation is weak. Besides many theropod tracks being far too big for a flying animal, this fails to account for the multitude of tracks that are clearly not remotely bird-like. How many more impossibilities do we have to point out for you to stop handwaving them away?
Speaking of impossibilities, I'm still waiting to hear how you explain the major issue of the physical impossibility of wet sand having a 34 degree angle of repose. Clearly writing a long post is not the issue, so it is once again clear that you are simply afraid to actually address it because even you sense how hard it destroys your fantasy. I know you will not have the courage to address it now anymore than you did before, but I do get a chuckle out of seeing you back down over and over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 12-13-2013 8:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(2)
Message 120 of 1896 (713570)
12-14-2013 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
12-14-2013 3:14 AM


Re: carry on
So after much deliberation you have granted yourself permission to ignore all the objections to your Flood fantasy. What integrity. You continue to insist that you needn't deal with all the impossibilities required by your fantasy because your gut reaction to the appearance of the strata (but only if you don't look too closely) tells you that the Flood is the only explanation, but this convinces no one. It's like insisting that Lamarckism is right because there is a large-scale pattern showing that animals are well-adapted to their environments. Never mind all the minor details that show Lamarckian evolution is impossible and not responsible for what we see, the big picture is all we need. Just look at those giraffes stretching their necks up to the tops of trees! It's so obvious!
It's no wonder you've never found yourself convinced by anything presented to you over the years; you just avoid questions, refuse to think about them and then run away from the discussion when your constant evasions reveal the weakness of your position even to yourself.
Run along then. Ask Santa for a snorkel so you don't suffocate with your head buried in the sand the way it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 3:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 123 of 1896 (713574)
12-14-2013 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
12-14-2013 2:42 PM


Re: Why is the Old Earth interpretation impossible?
I don't want to be here, I don't want to deal with all this right now
You say "right now", but you clearly mean "ever". "Right now" implies you mean to deal with them at some point, but we know that's not going to happen. You've made it clear that you have no intention of considering the points presented in this thread, so don't try to pretend your retreat is only temporary. Everyone including you knows that you are unable to answer these objections and so will avoid dealing with them indefinitely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 12-14-2013 2:42 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2013 4:37 PM Atheos canadensis has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024