Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 501 of 899 (819717)
09-14-2017 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Faith
09-13-2017 8:11 PM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
Faith writes:
Sorry, perhaps I just skip your insulting messages too often.
You behave badly on purpose so that when called to your attention you can claim insult and use it as an excuse for ignoring the message. You have an inventory of excuses you use for ignoring information.
I think you should deal with the issues as they arise without acrimony or accusation, begin developing an understanding of natural processes, and follow the evidence where it leads.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 8:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 7:46 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 503 of 899 (819719)
09-14-2017 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Faith
09-13-2017 8:55 PM


Re: Again, the Geo Column shows the absurdity of the OE/ToE
Faith writes:
The question is Which others? A gaggle of biased anticreationists? Ha ha de ha.
Your tremendous bias is coloring your judgment. You are debating with a number of very intelligent and well informed people who are not anti-creationist but pro-science and pro-rationality. Nothing would delight them more than new opportunities for exploring and understanding the world in which we live, and if evidence pointed in new directions then they would follow it eagerly.
But you don't have evidence pointing in new directions. All you've got is stuff you've made up that follows the Biblical story and follows some rules that you've made up for yourself, such as not allowing any miracles so that it seems more scientific. Unfortunately you usually ignore the laws of nature, which is no different than miracles, so your approach is counterproductive.
OK I'll make an effort to review your posts but the rebuttals do tend to be the same old same old so what's the point? I state my case, you state yours. That's the best that ever happens here.
That does seem to be the best that you can manage, but it can be so much better. What does happen is that you state your case, we rebut it, then you state your case again all over from scratch. That's not the way it's supposed to work. In response to the rebuttal you should develop your own counter-rebuttal. Simply repeating your original argument again is not rebuttal - it's a broken record.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 8:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 506 of 899 (819722)
09-14-2017 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 502 by Faith
09-14-2017 7:46 AM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
Faith writes:
Cut the personal comments Percy. Didn't you write the rule against that?
Refraining from making personal comments doesn't mean ignoring when other people get personal, and getting personal is a large part of your approach. You just called my comments insulting when all they did was describe your behavior. If you feel insulted when your behavior is described for you then maybe you should consider changing your behavior. Keep your focus on the topic, and stop seeking excuses for ignoring posts and information.
Here's a compendium of your rude and insulting behavior from just this thread alone:
Faith while lying or being personal, rude and insulting writes:
jar should worry about himself; he's the one off the track. In the ditch even.
I just have to point out all the in-your-face evidence y'all ignore with as much wacko exertion as it takes to make a mountain out of the molehill of the cute scared birdy in the taxi.
...despite EvCers' insistence on the utterly ridiculous delusional time period argument.
I'm flattered that you come out from under your rock occasionally just to insult me, but you can go back now.
....your lame mind-reading is false, insulting and stupid.
I'm not interested in this thread, and all I am doing is responding to other posts.
But I get it. Character assassination is the game here, and misrepresentation, and silly straw man gambits.
Oh well, I knew from the beginning this was a rigged game...
Zowie, lots more of the same smear campaign, lies galore too.
In any other context I'd sue you.
It's a matter of honest seeing, as I said But that isn't going to happen is it?
I don't have the patience to read through the last day's posts...
I really think the OE/ToE evidence is a bunch of sophistry, self-delusion and garbage.
Perhaps it says I'm one of the honest few here,...
Arguing with you is like throwing one's mind down a rathole.
First, I've presented my case and nobody is addressing it. [I posted 19 responses to Faith yesterday]
Oooooo hivvens to bitsy, a YEC's thoughts can only be validated by a gaggle of evolutionists? Ha de ha ha ha.
Sorry, perhaps I just skip your insulting messages too often.
The question is Which others? A gaggle of biased anticreationists? Ha ha de ha.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 7:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:32 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 507 of 899 (819724)
09-14-2017 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by Faith
09-13-2017 9:26 PM


Re: Again, the Geo Column shows the absurdity of the OE/ToE
Faith writes:
I simply wanted to restate my points...
But that's all you ever do is restate your points. Your points contain a great many problems that are described in the rebuttals, which you ignore. You simply restate your original points. You have to stop doing that.
...none of the rebuttals have ever dealt with them...
Of course the rebuttals have dealt with your points. You just choose to ignore them.
Not that I'm holding my breath. In this environment they will NEVER get a fair hearing.
You cannot get a hearing, fair or otherwise, if you refuse to address the rebuttals.
BUT I WILL NOW TAKE A BREAK FROM THIS MESS AND DEAL WITH THE POSTS YOU REFER ME TO LATER.
Oh, of course, you're leaving. Gee, never saw that one coming. Can we assume that when you return you'll be leaving all the rebuttals in the lurch (you've replied to only about 1/3 of the messages posted to you) and that you'll be repeating your original points from scratch again?
And thank you for ceasing toning down your abusive personal attacks.
If you keep your focus on the topic and stop your lies and manipulations and accusations then there will no longer be any reason to call attention to some of the worst behavior ever observed here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Faith, posted 09-13-2017 9:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:45 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 534 of 899 (819769)
09-14-2017 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Faith
09-14-2017 3:22 PM


Faith writes:
After that I did not run away, I posted more substantially. But I may yet run away, we'll see.
Of course you ran away, and of course you did not post "more substantially". This is your first post since returning from your brief hiatus, so it isn't even possible for there have been a message where you posted "more substantially."
And all those rebuttals to your arguments that you never replied to? Still waiting for you out there. Probably never to be replied to, and instead you'll just make your original arguments from scratch all over again. Prove me wrong.
After that I did not run away, I posted more substantially.
Of course you'll run away. After over a decade of "run and hide" debate, why would you change now?
Instead of playing "Now you see me, now you don't" while never completing discussion of anything, why don't you finally, at last, see a discussion through to the end.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 4:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 542 of 899 (819777)
09-14-2017 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Faith
09-14-2017 3:32 PM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
Faith writes:
Gosh most of those are me complaining about YOU guys insulting ME and you turn that against ME?
First, most of those are not "me complaining about YOU guys insulting ME."
Second, you do indeed complain a lot about being insulted, but in those cases nobody insulted you. You just used complaining about insults as a strategy for distracting attention from the topic.
And some others are me ridiculing the argument, not the person.
As I accurately described them in my post, they were a "compendium of your rude and insulting behavior."
I seem to have a much easier time drawing replies to my few posts about your deplorable behavior than to my many posts about the topic. Focus on the topic, argue your position using evidence rather than bald declarations, drop the childish behavior, and your problems will melt away.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 4:58 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 553 of 899 (819788)
09-14-2017 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by Faith
09-14-2017 3:34 PM


Faith writes:
Aussie writes:
But I may yet run away, we'll see.
You will. It's what you do.
It's all you are capable of in this topic.
Now who's lying? I've made the argument over and over here, MADE IT, proved it, even on this thread but certainly very thoroughly on others.
Who's lying? You of course. You haven't made any successful arguments, not here nor in any other thread. What happens is precisely what Aussie said. You argue yourself into a corner and then you run away. You use running away as tactic to bring discussion to a halt so that when you return you can pretend that none of the rebuttals you couldn't deal with ever happened.
You are not judge and jury of your own arguments. By coming here to debate you enter your ideas into the arena and see how they fare. Running away is an admission of defeat. The only thing you said that was true is that you've "made the argument over and over." Yes, that's what you do, make your original argument over and over again as if it hadn't been rebutted over and over again. You rarely deal with the rebuttals.
The other thing that you said, that you "proved it", is clearly false. Nothing is ever proved in science, but you haven't even been able to mount a preponderance of the evidence on any point, or usually any evidence at all. Mostly all you do is declare your position over and over again.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 559 of 899 (819794)
09-14-2017 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Faith
09-14-2017 3:37 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Faith writes:
I'm happy to go back to putting Green River in the OE column. I have arguments that work, I don't need another.
You don't have any arguments that work. Every argument you've made has been rebutted. Most of those rebuttals are still sitting out there unaddressed.
But it goes beyond arguments. Most of the time you can't even get your facts straight. Replying to you is an exercise in tedium as the errors in each and every sentence have to be identified and corrected.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:14 PM Percy has replied
 Message 680 by Phat, posted 09-15-2017 5:40 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 582 of 899 (819817)
09-14-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Faith
09-14-2017 3:41 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Faith writes:
Nothing, they're just sediments being deposited here and there, not part of anything.
Well, one thing this makes very clear, not that it wasn't clear already, is that you're not reading the rebuttals. This information has been described several times before in this thread. Please start reading the replies to you. Ignoring them and wallowing in ignorance, not just about facts but even about the very discussion you're trying to participate in, just invites well-deserved ridicule.
The sediments are not being deposited "here and there". The sediments are being deposited throughout most of the world. Sediments come to rest at the lowest local point, and the lowest local points are mostly in lake and sea beds, though some are on land. Ocean covers around 3/4 of the world, so at least 3/4 of the world is acquiring sedimentary deposits. Any region that is an area of net deposition will acquire sediments atop the stratigraphic column at that location, thereby adding themselves to that column.
Did you get that "3/4 of the world" part? Do you understand now that sediments are not being deposited "here and there"?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 584 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:36 PM Percy has replied
 Message 586 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:36 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 594 of 899 (819830)
09-14-2017 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Faith
09-14-2017 3:45 PM


Re: Again, the Geo Column shows the absurdity of the OE/ToE
Faith writes:
I've made the case many times.
The truth is that you've repeated your original arguments unchanged many times, and you've ignored the rebuttals many times. Whether you've made your case or not is for others to decide. Even creationists reject your arguments.
If you ever feel like recognizing that fact I may feel more like participating.
You're already not participating. You've ignored nearly 2/3 of the replies to you - how is that participating? You spend a great deal of your time complaining - how is that participating? Instead of discussing you simply declare your original positions over and over again - how is that participating? You rarely bother to gather evidence for your positions, you just make unsupported declarations - how is that participating?
It doesn't seem relevant whether you feel like participating - you're already not.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:43 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 607 of 899 (819843)
09-14-2017 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by Faith
09-14-2017 3:48 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Faith writes:
The Geologic Column was formed by the Flood, the current deposits are not continuous with the deposits of that one-time event.
Granting, in just this post and just for the sake of making an argument, that the Flood was an actual event, there had to have been a topmost layer deposited by the flood. After the flood there would be places in the world where there was net sedimentation. These sediments were deposited atop the topmost Flood layer and were therefore continuous with it. Nothing else is possible. This must be true by definition.
And the deposits on top of those first deposits on the topmost Flood layer are in turn continuous, and the deposits above those, and the ones above those, and so on right up to the current day.
You are therefore wrong to state that "current deposits are not continuous with the deposits of that one-time event" and will have to rethink your position.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 3:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:55 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 610 of 899 (819846)
09-14-2017 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 606 by Faith
09-14-2017 5:51 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Hi Faith,
You're reverting to one-liner messages again. This is extremely unconstructive. It is causing other people to respond in kind because they know that putting time and effort into a lengthy post that will just be met with another one-liner is a waste of time. You are bringing the thread down. Please stop this behavior now. If you're too frustrated to participate constructively then take a day off.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 5:56 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 621 of 899 (819857)
09-14-2017 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by Faith
09-14-2017 4:07 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Faith writes:
HEY! SHOW ME these supposed current varve deposits that I'm supposed to think are part of the Geo Column.
All sedimentary deposits are part of the stratigraphic column, by definition. Beneath the varves are just more sedimentary deposits (with the occasional other types of deposits like volcanic and ash) until below a certain depth there are no more sedimentary deposits, just mantle.
You seem to think that the top of the stratigraphic column lies buried beneath the surface somewhere. It's not. The stratigraphic column continues right up to the surface you walk on. The deeper parts of the stratigraphic column are rock strata, but the topmost strata are unconsolidated soils and clays and so forth. The stratigraphic column *is* continuous from top to bottom.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 4:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 624 of 899 (819860)
09-14-2017 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 531 by Faith
09-14-2017 4:26 PM


Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Hmmm. I'm reading and posting through this thread more slowly than posts are accumulating. Maybe I should start posting one-liners. Nah. It's tempting, but it might encourage people who seem to think this is Twitter and not a discussion board.
Faith writes:
Prove it. Show me a KNOWN example of a RECENTLY deposited LAYER like those in the Geo Column.
The problem isn't that you don't have examples, because you do. Everywhere there is net-deposition throughout the world the stratigraphic column is growing. As I keep saying, the world's oceans cover 3/4 of the planet, and almost that entire realm is one of net deposition where the stratigraphic column is growing. And Edge provided the particularly deep examples of the Mississippi Delta and the Bahamas Banks as recent sedimentary deposits atop the stratigraphic column.
The problem is one of definitions. You've defined stratigraphic column (you're using the term geologic column, but close enough) to be the layers deposited by the mythical Flood. That is not the definition of the stratigraphic column. The stratigraphic column rises right up to ground level. It isn't something that is buried beneath the ground. It isn't something that starts only after you've dug down to rock. In geology the covering layer of soils and clays and so forth are the least interesting and so receive the least attention, but they are part of the stratigraphic column nonetheless.
I can't say I'm certain in my terminology, so if Edge or someone wants to jump in then please feel free.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 4:26 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 628 by edge, posted 09-14-2017 7:09 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 626 of 899 (819863)
09-14-2017 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by Faith
09-14-2017 4:48 PM


Faith writes:
You are wrong. I did start giving up on threads but only about three years ago...
Well, that's a lie. You've been abandoning threads since you began participating in earnest here in 2004.
...because the attitude here was getting to me.
When the problem is with everyone's attitude but yourself, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is your own attitude that is at the root of the problem.
But even after that I posted a LOT of VERY substantivel argument.
You've made up an evolving (how ironic) story out of thin air that follows your eclectic Biblical interpretations, and then instead of finding evidence to support it you just repeat the story over and over again and ignore all rebuttals.
And for you to say otherwise is just another example of the attitude I'm talking about.
I'm just recounting history. The entire forum history is here for you to peruse. If you think I'm wrong it will be very easy for you to prove.
The real question is why I post here at all given the attitude I have to put up with.
That's right, blame everyone but yourself. You're the only one behaving badly, but it's everyone else's attitude that's at fault. Yeah, sure.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Faith, posted 09-14-2017 4:48 PM Faith has 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