Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(5)
Message 118 of 1352 (804485)
04-10-2017 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
04-10-2017 7:26 AM


quote:
You are simply missing the whole point
I don't think that pointing out how science is meant to work misses the point at all.
quote:
We KNOW that God's word is true, so that is where we MUST start. You don't put aside something you know is the truth, it's exactly where you have to start.
But to do a scientific investigation you have to set that "knowledge" aside. And why wouldn't you ? If you really believed it you would have every expectation that you would be able to confirm it
quote:
There isn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind that it's the truth as revealed by the God who made the universe; I'd be an idiot to put it aside to start with the observations of my own fallen mind.
In other words you trust a belief held by your "fallen mind" so much that you daren't put it to the test. Do try to think about what you are saying, especially when you are talking about a view of the Bible that is hardly supported by the Bible itself.
quote:
Uh huh, well we've come to a very strange situation where the standard historical Protestant view of the Bible is treated as just one of many acceptable views, but that's entirely irrelevant to the point anyway.
If you aren't able to enforce conformity with your views why would you expect other people to automatically follow them ? Especially given the rather obvious problems.
quote:
My views certainly represent the majority of creationists and Creationist ministries who affirm Bible inerrancy, and what I've said above is true for how we have to go about science with the premises we happen to have.
Which only means that your religion forbids you to scientifically investigate anything that might contradict your preferred interpreting of the Bible. Pointing that out is hardly missing the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 04-10-2017 7:26 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 129 of 1352 (804558)
04-11-2017 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Davidjay
04-11-2017 1:41 AM


quote:
Step 1 was absolutely proven with easy mathematics.
Yes, its straight from the Bible. Yes there are no missing links, Yes its exact.
Which is why you have - to date - given three different results. And your "easy mathematics" fails to take account of precision and rounding errors.
And the rest is equally bad
So I guess you've proven that you are an ignorant liar who knows nothing about mathematics beyond basic arithmetic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Davidjay, posted 04-11-2017 1:41 AM Davidjay has not replied

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


Message 140 of 1352 (804722)
04-12-2017 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by caffeine
04-12-2017 4:34 PM


David Jay's idea of a mathematical proof is to claim that he added up some numbers and got a particular result (which is wrong). Then he claims that the addition is correct because nobody corrected him - even though someone did - and that the answer is a different number.
in the unlikely event that he has a genuine degree it obviously wasn't in any numerate discipline.
Just pathetic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by caffeine, posted 04-12-2017 4:34 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Theodoric, posted 04-12-2017 10:51 PM PaulK has not replied

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


(1)
Message 144 of 1352 (804744)
04-13-2017 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Davidjay
04-13-2017 12:42 AM


quote:
No PaulK, I just started you off with an easy mathematical summation of the exact years as mentioned by the Creators BOOK.
I am sorry that you object to me telling the truth. Let me remind you:
Message 58
How many years until the Flood ..... 1646 years. Thats your product RIGHT ? RIGHT ? The genesis or Biblical history says that exactly 1646 years after Creation there was a worldwide flood.
Now dont throw a fit and start writing the words, myth, lies etc etc...
Mathematically you cant deny the addition of these years. Its easy, its a basic, a cornerstone, its EXACT. Its not billions and trillions of years, changed with every new theory of a new theory of an old theory. Its a standard.
The number of years is 1646.
So let us note you originally claimed that the total was 1646 - stating that number 3 times.
In Message 61 I corrected you since you had not only added up the numbers incorrectly, you had ignored the rounding errors (which make it impossible to come up with an exact result)
In Message 65 you stated:
As no one above could or can differ with the exact number of years Genesis gives. The Math is correct, the total addition product is 1656 according to Biblical references exactly.
If it was wrong, the above math types would have stated such. But the MATH IS CORRECT.
Just as I said - you declared that the total was a different number - 1656 instead of 1646 and denied the existence of the correction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Davidjay, posted 04-13-2017 12:42 AM Davidjay has not replied

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


Message 212 of 1352 (805437)
04-18-2017 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
04-18-2017 1:10 PM


Re: the idea of more than one biblical flood is what's silly, AND the date of course
quote:
I didn't say anything about violence. The strata have all the earmarks of following Walther's Law, the layering of different sediments by the rising of the oceans, which of course would describe the first phase of the Flood
So, the "first stage" didn't produce the sediments you would expect from flooding, instead it looks like sea level rises over a very long period of time. Why would it do that ? Or are you suggesting that the first stage took tens or even hundreds of thousands of years ?
quote:
Walther's Law also describes SIMULTANEOUS layering, so that the idea that one layer succeeded another is false,
Not exactly. In any vertical section the law of superposition is followed for obvious reasons. In fact it is probably better to say that the layer was NOT simultaneously deposited - the base of the stratum in one place may have been deposited later than the base in another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 04-18-2017 1:10 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 310 of 1352 (805684)
04-20-2017 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Faith
04-20-2017 6:50 AM


Re: Two Evidences For the Flood and Against the OE/ToE
quote:
Walther's Law itself is such an evidence, because it shows that the layers accumulate one on top of another in a relatively short period of time, as sea level rises, really just about simultaneously.
No, it does not. Walther's law is about how deposition varies with environment. It does not say anything about short times and your Flood is a radically different environment from the slow changes in sea level along the coastline, typically envisaged.
quote:
Then I was pondering the fact that trilobites appear in the Geologic Time Scale over a huge range of time periods, from the Cambrian through the Silurian and Devonian and Carboniferous, and even the Permian, relatively unchanged.
In fact there is quite considerable change over time. And how do you account for that fact ?
quote:
That led me to coelacanths which also show up in fossil form over quite a long period in the Geo Time Scale, from Devonian through Tertiary, and then surprised everybody by also turning up living in this world, all of them varying only very slightly from one to another, the same kind of situation as the trilobites
Modern coelacanths are different enough from fossil specimens to be classified as a different genus. And they live in the relatively stable environment of the deep seas, so slow change is not a great surprise.
So really these two pieces of evidence seem to favour an old Earth and no Flood.
quote:
But anything like this that actively questions the OE/ToE is a question they don't have to face because golly gosh, things seem to have gotten themselves so nicely sorted to fit the OE/ToE. (Ignoring here that Walther's Law suggests there is no such nice order, it's all an illustion) So we can just assume reptiles evolved into mammals just because mammals are above them in the column and the theory says that's what happened.
So you misunderstand Walther's Law and ignore the evidence for the reptile-mammal transition. But I guess that you don't like us seeing that truth at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 6:50 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 334 of 1352 (805782)
04-20-2017 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Faith
04-20-2017 4:32 PM


Re: Two Evidences For the Flood and Against the OE/ToE
The fact that you label the changes in trilobites as "microevolution" - despite them clearly qualifying as macroevolution by scientific standards doesn't really say much without a clear way of telling the distinction between micro- and macro-.
quote:
It's the creatures in the fossil record that persist the longest that also evolve the least. That is a highly significant fact that gets ignored.
Is it ? The trilobites underwent a good deal of change. However according to you mammals underwent significantly greater change - and mammals are still here. And even more changed from their ancestors who lived at the time of the first trilobites.
i'd be interested if you can come up with a version that is still a fact and is highly significant. I think that you count the trilobites as persisting because you consider them to have changed only a little which makes the point somewhat tautologous. Those that survive longest with "little" change will naturally show "little" change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 04-20-2017 4:32 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 365 of 1352 (805875)
04-21-2017 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
04-21-2017 9:49 AM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
A question. How is declaring the Flood story a myth different from your assertion that it is a reliable historical account ? And how is it worse than your rejection of the evidence confirming the reliability of scientific dating methods ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 9:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Davidjay, posted 04-21-2017 11:14 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 11:30 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 386 of 1352 (805913)
04-21-2017 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Davidjay
04-21-2017 11:14 AM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
quote:
Science dating methods are not reliable beyond a few thousand years, and assume "all things continued without catastrophic interfence..... therefore creation is definitely logical and rational, given its exacting dating methods which have been confirmed via numerous methods as evidenced HERE.
Scientific dating methods do not rely on assuming the absence of a catastrophe. And even if it did that would hardly make Creationism than the dogma of a cult.
Creationist dating methods are based on assuming that the Masoretic text is absolutely correct even though we know it is not. And your method of ignoring the imprecisions in the Biblical text is even worse. Even when you get the addition right. Neither logical, nor rational nor exacting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Davidjay, posted 04-21-2017 11:14 AM Davidjay has not replied

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


(1)
Message 389 of 1352 (805918)
04-21-2017 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
04-21-2017 11:30 AM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
quote:
Let me see if I can make the point clearer. It's become a broken record that doesn't further the debate in the slightest. We've been exchanging the same opinions over and over but this can never go anywhere because they are basic premises that aren't going to be changed. They are just being asserted rather than used in the argument to any real purpose
That is certainly true of your assertion that the Bible is reliable. And yet you saw fit to do it in the same post where you objected to Coyote calling the Flood story a myth.
quote:
It's just a huge waste of time to keep getting this same old same old stuff about the Bible being a myth and dating methods being the last word on the discussion
I don't think that you can fairly ask us to stop using strong evidence just because you point blank refuse to accept it.
quote:
Or my statements about the absurdity of the OE/ToE assumptions or that the Bible's dates trump the dating methods. They can be stated as a conclusion from an argument but too often they are just stated over and over and over and over and over in the place of an argument.
The difference is that we have good arguments. If you ever came up with a good reason why dates derived from radiocarbon, tree rings, varve counts ice cores and all the other methods should agree while you can't find a single valid dating method that supports your view things would be different. Instead all you do is assert that your dogma is correct and science must therefore be wrong. Or many, many other bad arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 11:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 1:22 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 393 of 1352 (805925)
04-21-2017 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Faith
04-21-2017 1:22 PM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
quote:
It's just repetitive assertions, and yes I answser with my own repetitive assertions. What's the use of that?
We have had long presentations of evidence for dating methods to which you have offered no adequate response. In contrast claims for the accuracy of the dates in Genesis don't seem to have ever risen above assertion.
So I don't see any real equality here. We have the evidence, you have opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 1:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 1:31 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 396 of 1352 (805928)
04-21-2017 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Faith
04-21-2017 1:31 PM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
quote:
Well, I'm now taking the position that the Bible is evidence. It's God's word, it's the truth, it trumps all the contradictory dating claims
That's your opinion. It's not demonstrable - while the scientific dating methods have huge amounts of confirming evidence. And remember that a considerable amount of that evidence has been discussed here.
quote:
I see no point in repeating this basic conflict ad nauseam.
Then stop. If you can't offer any sensible rebuttals to the dating evidence then don't waste time claiming that the dates are wrong because they contradict your beliefs - which pretty much begs the question anyway, when those beliefs are the point under discussion.
This whole side discussion seems to be nothing more than an attempt,put by you to suppress evidence you have no good answer to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 1:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 1:43 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 399 of 1352 (805931)
04-21-2017 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Faith
04-21-2017 1:43 PM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
quote:
I dispute your so called evidence.
Pointless arguing by assertion. We know perfectly well that you have no effective rebuttal because the subject has been discussed.
quote:
Get a clue. It is not proved it's just the usual conjecture and assumption that can't be proved.
By any reasonable standard it is proved. Ignoring the evidence won't change that.
Go back to RAZD's threads on correlations. Address the actual evidence. Don't waste time with anti-scientific arguments that ignore the evidence or irrationally reject any possibility of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 1:43 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 416 of 1352 (806002)
04-22-2017 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 412 by Faith
04-22-2017 3:08 AM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
quote:
No not on this thread I don't have to prove it. I can use it as reference.
This thread is in the Science forums, so yes you do.
Even if it wasn't, there are still theological arguments against your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Faith, posted 04-22-2017 3:08 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Faith, posted 04-22-2017 3:35 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 418 of 1352 (806004)
04-22-2017 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 417 by Faith
04-22-2017 3:35 AM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
You can take it as the basis of your beliefs but you can't use it as evidence that those beliefs are true without showing that it is reliable. Not on this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Faith, posted 04-22-2017 3:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Faith, posted 04-22-2017 7:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024