Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2071 of 2887 (831592)
04-21-2018 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1909 by PaulK
04-15-2018 3:53 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
PaulK writes:
And edge and I have been explaining it to you. But you don’t seem to like that. I don’t really see any honest attempt to understand - you seem to be far more interested in finding excuses - even false excuses - to dismiss the standard view.
I see the main problem not as Faith's dismissal of the standard view but of her inability to understand it. If she understood it but rejected it then we could intelligently discuss it. But how do you have an intelligent discussion with someone about something they don't understand?
It isn't that Faith doesn't know a great deal more about geology than your average person, because she certainly does. But what she knows is an eclectic patchwork of terms and concepts, and what she doesn't know or rejects is another eclectic patchwork of terms and concepts. There's also a general lack of understanding of how the real world behaves.
One key example of something Faith doesn't understand is that sedimentary layers are being deposited today that are just like those we find in the strata exposed at the Grand Canyon. Another is that floods don't follow Walther's Law.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1909 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2018 3:53 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2075 by edge, posted 04-21-2018 12:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2072 of 2887 (831593)
04-21-2018 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1929 by Faith
04-16-2018 1:01 PM


Re: Column all together before disturbance: salt basin evidence
Faith writes:
I've found a few such discussions on Search but Search is being difficult these days. You get a list of posts on a subject and when you check one out and try to go back to the list you get some kind of error message and have to start the search all over.
You're using IE 11? I just checked it out, works fine. I did this:
  • Hover over the Search button at the top of the page.
  • The search box appears. I move the cursor over the search box and enter the word "test".
  • I hit return. I could have instead clicked on the Search button, they both do the same thing.
  • A list of search results appear. I click on one of the message links.
  • The message is displayed.
  • I click the back button. The list of search results reappears.
  • I click on a different message link.
  • That message is displayed.
  • I click the back button. The list of search results reappears.
I also tried clicking on the Search button and performing the search from the detailed search page. This worked also.
Is one of these pretty much how you did your search? Maybe you're using a different version of IE? What OS version are you running?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1929 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 1:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 2073 of 2887 (831596)
04-21-2018 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1941 by Faith
04-16-2018 2:51 PM


Re: De toit
Faith writes:
My conclusions DO rely on evidence.
No, your conclusions rely upon the first couple pages of Genesis and a bunch of stuff you made up. Evidence is not part of your approach.
I just don't happen to have the particular evidence of the ice sheet penetration.
Right, you don't have evidence regarding ice sheets, nor for anything else.
And at my age I'm not going to become a geologist or even be able to read much of the literature.
You're not a geologist nor even making any effort to just become conversant in geology. You're not going to read much about it. You can't even see much of the evidence presented to you here. Yet you think your views have merit. Delusional much?
I think I do very well to keep up as well as I do.
I agree you're doing very well maintaining ignorance, in just the way you describe above.
People who have evidence present and describe their evidence. People who don't have evidence just claim to have evidence, like the way you started your message: "My conclusions DO rely on evidence."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1941 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 2:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 2074 of 2887 (831598)
04-21-2018 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2058 by NosyNed
04-21-2018 12:25 AM


Re: simplify
For one reason or another a period of time (say the Cambrian) is deemed to have started when the layer was half laid down after only 50 units have passed. So in the case that particular layer of sediment (say the coconino sandstone*) is a continuous layer of sediment is half in the pre cambrian and half in the Cambrian period of time.
* I know the Coconino was much later but this is just a made up example.
Here is a diagram showing how certain formations might occur outside of their original assignment to the geological time scale.
For instance, we know that the Tapeats, practically by definition started deposition at the beginning of the Cambrian. The problem is that this doesn't make a whole lot of sense because it started deposition at different times in different places.
As long as we only had relative dating it worked fine.
The problem arose when we started to assign absolute ages to the time scale. That caused confusion. What if we found a place where the Tapeats (for instance) started a hundred thousand years earlier? We would have Cambrian rocks with a Precambrian date. We have also developed more precise dating methods and smaller differences became apparent. The solution, we think, is to have standard absolute ages for each Period, but the rocks themselves will deviate from that standard just because of the nature of sedimentary deposits as I mentioned earlier.
The unfortunate consequence of all this is that it becomes a giant puzzle for the lay person to understand and Faith is a classic, though extreme example.
Some things to remember are that most of the divisions of geological time are based on major life events such as the end of the Cretaceous or the Sauk transgression that started the Cambrian. Consequently some of the divisions between time periods were based on the rocks and their fossils and they appear to equate rocks with periods of time. That only works locally.
The other point I'd like to make is that most of the geological Periods are so long that they can encompass multiple formations (sensu stricto) representing a number of depositional environments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2058 by NosyNed, posted 04-21-2018 12:25 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2075 of 2887 (831599)
04-21-2018 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 2071 by Percy
04-21-2018 10:15 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
I see the main problem not as Faith's dismissal of the standard view but of her inability to understand it. If she understood it but rejected it then we could intelligently discuss it. But how do you have an intelligent discussion with someone about something they don't understand?
Well, the rejection of time is a major problem for Faith. According to her, all fossils died at once. All mountains rose at one time. There was only one ice age.
Until the time factor is recognized Faith will be confused.
And I think I can say confidently that this will never change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2071 by Percy, posted 04-21-2018 10:15 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2076 of 2887 (831600)
04-21-2018 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1938 by Faith
04-16-2018 2:36 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
Creationists only very recently have been trying to accumulate evidence...
Really? ICR traces its roots back to 1970, nearly a half century ago. Henry Morris's The Genesis Flood was published in 1961, more than half a century ago. The fundamentalist movement promoting Biblical inerrancy is over a century old. None of that is "very recently."
Creationism remains unchanged from when I first learned about it in the 1980s. The only new "development" was a brief fad called intelligent design, but it never really recovered from the Dover trial.
...and explanations to counter the current paradigm which has at least a couple hundred years head start on us.
Having a head start is not where the advantage lies. Having evidence is where the advantage lies. Newton's couple hundred years head start on Einstein didn't help him when the evidence showed Einstein right. Hutton's couple hundred years head start on Wegener didn't help him when the evidence showed Wegener right that the continents move.
So science's head start on Biblical literalism will be no help were the evidence to show Biblical literalism right, but so far there is no evidence that does that. Literally none. The best you've been able to do is come up with scenarios that are as magical as if God himself were to have done it through miracles.
After you've elaborated your paradigm for that many years of course it looks like all the evidence is on your side because you've got explanations for every little thing, but even the small amount YECs have put together in such a short time STRONGLY indicates that the whole conventional paradigm is a house of cards.
Any evidence you do have comes from conventional geology - none of it was gathered by YECs. The rest is just made up stories adhering to your interpretation of the first couple pages of Genesis.
But for people immersed in that paradigm the interlocking habits of explanation are hard to break, not to mention that motivationally nobody wants to break them, for the reasons mentioned even on this thread: it would supposedly mean the collapse of all "science."
Reputations in science are made by overturning existing interpretations or theory. The greatest hope of any scientist is to show some part of science wrong, or at least incomplete.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1938 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 2:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2077 of 2887 (831601)
04-21-2018 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1938 by Faith
04-16-2018 2:36 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
Creationists only very recently have been trying to accumulate evidence and explanations to counter the current paradigm which has at least a couple hundred years head start on us.
In fact, it was creationists who had the head start. They had all the time in the world to accumulate evidence but they never bothered to try until after they had been proven wrong.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1938 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 2:36 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2079 by jar, posted 04-21-2018 2:09 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2078 of 2887 (831602)
04-21-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1944 by Faith
04-16-2018 3:02 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
Old style "creationism" was as much a crock as the current paradigm, though even less rationalizable.
I don't know what "old style creationism" is - when did it change? The only thing notable about Faith-style creationism is that it makes even less sense than actual creationism.
And it also contradicted the Bible which made it wrong for starters.
The measure of science is how well it describes reality - the Bible has nothing to do with it.
I wish I had the time and the energy to put together all the evidence I've already assembled in one place.
The bulk of your evidence was uncovered by geologists (the rest comes from charlatans like Steve Austin, Guy Bertault, Andrew Snelling and John Baumgardner). You've misunderstood, misinterpreted or simply made things up about evidence and then were immediately corrected and/or rebutted. Hundreds of times.
The "fossil order" can't be explained because it's a big fat illusion that there IS any real order to the fossils.
You're calling things names again. Mammals are only found in strata back to Pennsylvanian layers. Dinosaurs are only found in strata from shortly after the beginning of the Triassic up until the end of the Cretaceous. Reptiles are only found in strata back to late Carboniferous layers. Fish are only found back as far as early Silurian strata. Multicellular life is only found back as far as Archean strata. These are facts, not illusions, and no flood, global or of any other sort you might imagine, is capable of such sorting.
There is a supposed "petrified forest" in the Yellowstone area that looks just like the layers of "forests" in Spirit Lake. I don't know anything about your example except that it sounds like a similar situation as it is described.
I collected some petrified wood at Yellowstone back in '61. The present is the key to the past, so anything a volcano could do today to trees and a lake volcanos in the past could do also. You give no hint of what evidence at Yellowstone you're referring to that is similar to what happened to Spirit Lake (yet another opportunity for you to present evidence that you pass up, but I'm sure that won't stop you from telling us again and again how much evidence you've presented when the actual truth is that you almost never present evidence but a great many stories), but anyone can read about the many successive layers of petrified forest there.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1944 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 3:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2079 of 2887 (831604)
04-21-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2077 by ringo
04-21-2018 12:44 PM


Honest Creationists abandoned Creationism when faced with reality.
Faith writes:
In fact, it was creationists who had the head start. They had all the time in the world to accumulate evidence but they never bothered to try until after they had been proven wrong.
Actually it was the honest Creationists that gathered all the evidence needed to prove Creationism wrong.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2077 by ringo, posted 04-21-2018 12:44 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 2080 of 2887 (831608)
04-21-2018 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1988 by Faith
04-17-2018 2:23 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
A lot of this is nothing but semantics,...
No, actually it's all you making things up.
...which is why creationists like the term Kind to designate an irreducible grouping, and I'm trying to define the Kind in terms of shared structure which can be varied in many ways and still be the same Kind.
You're trying to define kind? Where? You've made no attempt to define kind.
And that shared structure is what I mean by Species,...
You contradict yourself below by saying the opposite, that sea stars, sea cucumbers and sea daisies have shared structures that make them the same kind. Which is it? Do shared structures indicate the same species or the same kind?
It's undoubtedly wrong to say that shared structures indicate the same species, since many structures are shared among many different species. As I said earlier, if poisonous tentacles, mouth location and segmentation means that sea stars, sea cucumbers and sea daisies are all the same species, then number of limbs, mouth location and segmented vertebrae mean that you're the same species as a chimpanzee. But that's obviously not true, right? So you are wrong to say that shared structures define species, right?
...which I capitalize to equate it with Kind...
If sea stars, sea cucumbers and sea daisies are all the same kind, then because they cannot interbreed they cannot be the same species. So you are wrong to equate species with kind. You are also wrong to capitalize kind.
...although any terms at all are problematic just because they are all linguistically synonymous.
You are once again wrong. If kind groups together different species, then kind and species cannot be synonymous.
So there is a cat Kind, defined by the fact that the body structure of a lion or a tiger or a bobcat or a tabby is always recognizably that of a cat.
If you say so. But this just proves you wrong again to claim species and kind synonymous.
Apparently you didn't mean to be saying that as I had thought, but to my mind it makes a good definition.
Using the word kind in a sentence is not a definition.
"Species of cat" just confuses things.
Really? Then you're easily confused. A lion is a species of cat. The American robin is a species of bird. The rainbow trout is a species of fish. Where's the confusion?
Of course there are "species" of cats, or "kinds" of cats,...
Are you calling species and kind synonymous again? How many times do you want to be wrong?
...but if the aim is to define an irreducible category of animal,...
Species is an irreducible category in terms of breeding populations. You haven't defined kind.
I want to stick to Kind and try to define it in terms of shared structure.
This has inherent problems. How will you select which structures to share, which to differentiate? For example, what structures separate the wolf kind from the cat kind?
By this criterion you can tell a trilobite by its three lobed structure, its bodily shape and all those "feet" they all have. Everything else is incidental variation.
How do you determine which structures matter and which are incidental? How do you keep from classifying yourself and a chimpanzee as the same kind?
The phylum in which are found the sea cucumber and the starfish and that roly-poly one WAS called a "phylum" in the film, but because of the basic structural similarities of the animals I think the man was saying they should all be classified as belonging to a Kind.
Here's that same contradiction again. Up above you said that "shared structure is what I mean by Species", now you're saying that your film said that shared structures is what it meant by kind.
That one is difficult because the shapes are so different, but he pointed out the structural similarities that make them kin, all of the same Kind, despite the shape difference: the poisoned tentacles, the way they ambulate by all those tentacles, the location of the mouth in the center bottom of the creature and their division into segments, though different numbers of segments. The question is whether those structural similarities outweigh the differences in shape for classifying them as related to each other as the same Kind, and he was arguing that they do, which seems logical to me.
Looking things up in Wikipedia, the tentacles of sea cucumbers are not poisonous, they do not ambulate via their tentacles, the mouth is not in the center bottom, and they are not segmented. Sea stars do not have tentacles (they have arms completely unrelated to the mouth tentacles of sea cucumbers), they do not ambulate via tentacles, and they are not segmented. I could find no good information about the sea daisy.
But clearly you've been misinformed.
If you found another creature of a different shape with poison tentacles it uses in the same way as those three, mouth in center bottom, and divided into equal segments, it should also be considered genetically related to them, another member of the same Kind.
I think what this little circus really shows is that you have a strong tendency to trust bad information.
Using kind as a synonym for species is completely contrary to how you've used kind in the past. Your scenario went like this. Noah collected two of each kind on the ark. After the flood the kinds, relying upon their built-in store of genomic variation, rapidly evolved into all the species we see today. Sound familiar?
You may be reading that in some way I didn't intend but I can't tell, and I'm not even sure I put it quite like that, but I guess it's close enough as long as what I meant can be made clear.
The only thing that is clear is that you are contradicting yourself, then doing it again when the contradictions are pointed out.
The original Kinds would not have been on the ark,...
There is nothing in Genesis saying this, there is no evidence of an ark, and still no definition of kind.
...but some variety or breed or race of the Kind because of the constant variation or microevolution all would have undergone since the Creation,...
Microevolution wouldn't produce different species.
...but yes the two of each on the ark would have had all the genetic ability to vary into every race or breed or variety of that Kind today.
What about species? If the ark only had two of the hawk kind, diverging into races wouldn't produce all the different species of hawk.
I think I have used Species for Kind at many points too.
Then that was wrong. Species has a clear definition for sexual species. Kind has no definition - all you've been able to tell us is that it is a larger taxonomic group somewhere above species.
The problem is that there are limited terminological choices and most of them are linguistically synonymous...
You're talking baloney. There's species and kind, and you seem to keep confusing the two terms.
...so other differentiations are necessary though hard to arrive at.
You're just full of excuses. All you need is an unambiguous definition of kind.
You seem to want to classify as genetically separated "species" what I would consider to be varieties of the same Kind but it's hard even to be sure of that given the linguistic difficulties.
You're the only one experiencing linguistic difficulties, and it's because you keep trying to employ a term for which you have no definition. Your confusion will continue until you define kind.
If I am the only one having a problem with the terminology it would be due to the fact that I'm trying to define a completely different model or paradigm than yours.
You're the only one having a problem because you're the only one making things up as you go along.
The semantic confusions in your post are just too much. I doubt I can sort it all out and not sure I want to try.
Any semantic confusions are of your own making. Stop making excuses and define kind.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1988 by Faith, posted 04-17-2018 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 2081 of 2887 (831609)
04-21-2018 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1938 by Faith
04-16-2018 2:36 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Creationists only very recently have been trying to accumulate evidence and explanations to counter the current paradigm which has at least a couple hundred years head start on us.
A demonstrably false statement and a testimony to your ignorance of the subject.
The earliest geologists were creationists. Even they started to see that the details of the evidence they were finding did not quite line up with Genesis, leading them, for example, to postulate a series of floods instead of just one.
Modern geology got its start around 1800. One prominent group was the Scriptural Geologists (AKA "diluvialists"), two members of which, William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick, argued in 1820 that river valleys and certain other sedimentary deposits were the results of a recent worldwide flood.
Therefore, creationists have been in the game for two centuries, the same amount of time as other geologists.
As it turns out, it only took a few years for Buckland's own field work to start to undermine diluvialism and then, with the publication of Lyell's Principles of Geology, both Buckland and Sedgwick not only abandoned diluvialism, but even became strong opponents.
The creationists kept chugging along, still getting nowhere. In the 1920's and 1930's, there was George McCready Price, a "self-taught geologist" who didn't know what he was doing. Henry Morris' 1961 The Genesis Flood, which is the foundational document of "Flood Geology", is basically a rehash of Price's ideas without acknowledging Price as their source.
What followed is what Price had been doing nearly a century ago: search through the legitimate geology literature for anything that you can misrepresent and distort into some kind of support for your position. Since the 1970's, the heyday of "creation science", creationists had been trying to recruit people with actual credentials in geology, who then are bound to go apologetics instead of science even to the point of subverting the evidence and the truth in the service of their ideology.
In stealing from Price's work, Morris made a mistake. Two competing groups in the early 1800's were "catastrophists", who held that most geological formations were formed by catastrophic events, and "uniformitarians", who held that most formations were formed gradually over time. Please note that the two positions were not mutually exclusive as creationists currently misrepresent them, since both groups acknowledged that both catastrophic and gradual processes had operated in the past; they just disgreed over the degree to which the two processes had contributed (gradual processes won that argument).
In contrast, creationists think the two positions to be mutually exclusive, such that they will "disprove" uniformitarian geology by pointing out evidence for a single catastrophic event. The problem is that George McCready Price had changed the meaning of "catastrophism", which Morris unthinkingly copied. Henry Morris didn't know what he was doing, but Price did know:
quote:
"The theory of 'catastrophism' as held a hundred years ago, had no resemblance to the theory here discussed, except in name."
(The Geological Ages Hoax, George McCready Price, 1931, Fleming H. Revell Co., pg 101)
It should be noted that the meaning of "uniformitarianism" has also changed, something lost on most creationists, including the creationist experts in that film, "Is Genesis History?". It doesn't refer to strictly uniform rates of gradual processes, but rather it's the idea that "the present is the key to the past."
After you've elaborated your paradigm for that many years of course it looks like all the evidence is on your side because you've got explanations for every little thing, ...
Well, that's what happens when you work with the evidence. You examine it, analyze it, try to understand it (ie, develop hypotheses and theories), follow it to find even more evidence, etc. You end up learning a helluva lot.
Your problem is that your side decided to ignore the evidence. You had all those centuries to accumulate evidence and explanations, yet you wasted it all!
And now you have the audacity to complain that you haven't had enough time? You had just as much time as science, more even, and just as much access to the evidence. You could have done something with all that time and evidence, but you didn't. You took all that time and opportunity and you wasted it! You have nobody to blame but yourselves.
Of course, what this also shows us is how intellectually bankrupt creationism is and how at odds with reality it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1938 by Faith, posted 04-16-2018 2:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 2082 of 2887 (831610)
04-21-2018 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 2062 by Faith
04-21-2018 4:31 AM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
...there's no way you could get thousands of square miles of a single sediment spanning most of a continent...
So, never heard of the Sahara? The ocean floor? Kansas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2062 by Faith, posted 04-21-2018 4:31 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 2083 of 2887 (831611)
04-21-2018 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2000 by Faith
04-17-2018 7:56 PM


Re: The Imaginary Fossil Order is a false interpretation
Faith writes:
Obviously you don't appreciate the problems involved in a paradigm clash for the underdog paradigm. Definitional problems are a huge problem because facts don't have the same interpretation in the different paradigms.
First, you don't have a paradigm. You have religious beliefs trying to pawn themselves off as science.
Second, the only definitional problem is that you haven't defined kind.
YEC's biological model has separate created Kinds that have a lot of variation built into the genome but can't change beyond the genome.
Genomic change is inevitable because copying errors during reproduction are inevitable.
That creates all kinds of semantic and definitional problems in relation to the ToE model of evolution from Species to Species.
You're posts represent a continuum of excuses for why you can't make coherent arguments. Define kind.
YEC also views the Earth as only 6000 years old, and explaining all the facts that standard Geology interprets in terms of millions and billions of years sometimes requires different terminology.
Invent new terminology all you like. There are only two rules. 1) You have to define your terms; and 2) You can't redefine existing terms.
There is no way to use all the ToE and OE terminology to discuss YEC principles. You don't recognize that the terms you use are interpretive, you think they are simply factual but you are wrong and that creates confusion and havoc for anybody defending YEC.
More silly excuses. If you can't articulate what you're trying to say then you shouldn't be posting.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2000 by Faith, posted 04-17-2018 7:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 2084 of 2887 (831612)
04-21-2018 4:40 PM


Build...errr...Paint That Wall
Not that Faith has the slightest desire to understand, but a way of helping the sincerely gormless understand the order amid apparent chaos in the geological column can go like this:
Imagine you start with an unpainted wall. Every day someone enters the room with a couple cups of thick paint and covers a few random square feet of the wall.
The next day someone else comes in with a few cups of a different color and paints a random different part of the wall.
And so on and so on. Some days the new paint overlaps almost right on top of a previous layer, some days it overlaps several previous patches.
This goes on and on for years. Some times a dude comes in and sands off a random area or chips out a chunk of paint.
After a few years, the paint is about a foot thick. No matter where you bore through the paint, you find layer on layer of different colors.
Most of the core samples you bore out have different colors. But when you start comparing a lot of samples, you can figure out a pattern. You see the same sequence of layers when you drill holes near each other, and you see different colors dropping in and out of the sequence as you move around.
With a whole lot of work - pushing 200+ years in the world of geology - you can draw a pretty good map of where the different areas of paint were laid down, and in what order.
Paint, incidentally, takes a while to dry.
It really is just that simple, and you really have to be extra stupid, or extra dishonest, not to understand it.
Lookin' at you, Faith.
Ken "Capt Stormfield" Phelps
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : Edit typo & omission.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 2085 of 2887 (831613)
04-21-2018 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2001 by Faith
04-17-2018 8:16 PM


Re: Permian Age et al
Faith writes:
Faith writes:
There are lots of Christians in name only.
That seems to describe you pretty well.
If you just want to call me a bad Christian I will agree with you about that, but probably not about some of your criteria.
Here's a criteria:
quote:
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you:
do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets
So do you want people to ignore much of what you say? To make up evidence? To make up explanations with no evidence? To repeat arguments that you've already rebutted but that they ignored? To parade religious views as science? To use terms they don't define? To give new definitions to terms that already have definitions? To hide behind name calling like "illusion" and "paradigm" instead of making arguments that have substance? To claim confusion to avoid discussion? To create confusion to avoid discussion?
You don't, right?
So why do you do it to other people?
I wouldn't call you a bad Christian because I don't make judgments in terms of religion. But it is clear from your participation across a range of topics and from the way you treat people here that you do not possess the qualities one normally associates with Christians, like consideration, tolerance, generosity, empathy, compassion, integrity. Your main interest seems to be to inflict your own beliefs on as many people as possible, and not out of concern for their souls but because you're right and others should yield to your will.
In this thread you've continually accused people of being enthralled by a paradigm, but you've been sold a bill of goods by a religion. Religions are cheap, there's thousands of sects out there, and a number of them are just as dogmatic and certain as yours. But the key to how the world works isn't written in a book. It's written in the world itself.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2001 by Faith, posted 04-17-2018 8:16 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