Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 5:12 AM
402 online now:
AdminAsgara (Asgara), dwise1, PaulK, Rrhain, Tangle (5 members, 397 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,983 Year: 6,589/21,208 Month: 2,350/2,634 Week: 13/525 Day: 13/11 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 391 of 409 (680987)
11-21-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:14 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Hi Faith

Mud is dirt dissolved in water. Get used to it.

See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking..

quote:
Daffynitions

Creationists have a tendency to use non-standard definitions to make their arguments, and this gets into the issue of logical fallacies (strawman, equivocation, etc) that will be discussed later, but for now we will address the basic validity of such definitions.


It leads to frustration, rather than communication, as you have experienced. The purpose of debate is to communicate your ideas in an understandable manner.

Message 388: ... But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. ...

Nope. The geologists here disagree as do the majority of those who actually practice geology.

See Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems (proposed new thread). It shows how real geologists evaluate the information in detail to show that creationist claims are bogus.

... So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details. ...

Amusingly, it is the details that kill it. On so many levels.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : spling


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 11-22-2012 3:36 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15474
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 392 of 409 (680988)
11-21-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:46 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
There's nothing that would change my mind THAT the Flood happened as described in the Bible although HOW it happened, which is all speculation, COULD change of course. But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details.

Yes, apart from all the details, you've got it pretty much worked out. "Such a flood would have dissolved everything dissolvable and apparently sorted it somehow." Behold flood geology in all its glory!

I think if you guys would just LOOK for a change you'd recognize that there's something wrong with that shallow seas in situ nonsense.

Geologists do look, Faith. They spend their lives looking at rocks. It's their job.

This is why they do not go about saying that "there is no difference in the appearance" of the layers in the Grand Canyon, and that they are "identical". It's because they've looked at the layers. And you do say such absurd things, because either you are the most terrible liar, or because you haven't looked. You haven't even taken a passing interest.

I'll tell you something else geologists look at. They look at sediment being deposited in flat layers in shallow seas. This, which you describe as "nonsense" is what is observed happening by people who actually look.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


(5)
Message 393 of 409 (680989)
11-21-2012 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:14 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Faith writes:

Mud is dirt dissolved in water. Get used to it.

Mud is not dissolved dirt in water, and this fact makes a huge difference to your ideas.

Fill two glasses with water. Add a teaspoon of salt to one glass, a teaspoon of dirt to the other. Stir until both the salt and the dirt are completely mixed into the water.

After a few minutes you'll see that much of the dirt has already fallen to the bottom on the glass. That's because the dirt is suspended in the water, not dissolved. The longer you wait the more dirt will gather at the bottom as smaller and smaller particles gradually fall out of suspension. But the salt remains mixed in with the water. That's because it is dissolved, not suspended. It will remain dissolved until the water evaporates.

If dirt were soluble then just the presence of water would dissolve it. The most quiet flood could dissolve all the soil, assuming sufficient water. There would be no need for an incredibly energetic flood to denude landscapes. The soil would precipitate out of water as it evaporated. Of course, there's no such thing as precipitated soils, and even if there were the Earth's geologic layers do not look like precipitated soils.

The same is true for rock, which is why we were trying to determine if you really believed that rocks dissolve in water. If you did then it would explain part of why you thought a flood could have taken up so much rock and then deposited it later.

But the reality is that rock must be broken up into tiny pieces before it can be carried by all but the most energetic water, and the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon consist primarily of tiny grains of rock or limestone.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Faith, posted 11-22-2012 3:20 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1324
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 394 of 409 (680990)
11-21-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:51 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
faith writes:

This is not just another flood, as some keep comparing it to, which ought to be obvious. GLOBAL, ya know, GLOBAL, endless rain for forty nights and day AROUND THE globe. Ah well.

I wonder how much rain that would be if you were standing outside trying to calculate how many inches of rain was falling per hour.

We know that there was enough rain for the new sea level to be more than 29,000 feet above today's sea level, to cover the highest mountains. I think someone calculated the volume of water that would be in an old thread, but I cannot find it. To get that volume of water coming down in just forty 24 hour days (960 hours) seems like it would make the air almost solid water. I wonder if you would drown just standing there? How fast would the water rise if you were standing in the middle of the Bonneville Salt Flats? Let's see, 29,035 ft (elevation of Mt. Everest above sea level) divided by 960 hours =30.2 feet per hour, so 6 inches a minute. That's not too bad. I would have to start treading water in 10 minutes or so.

I guess you are right, it was not just another flood.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12442
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 395 of 409 (681011)
11-22-2012 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:51 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith, if your explanation best fit the evidence that you were aware of and prepared to admit to you would not have much of a case - you could support almost any position on that basis. But you don't even have that much. You have to handwave like crazy to even explain the stuff you know and accept.

You don't realise that your position is thoroughly anti-scientific. scorning all the detailed work that has been done through the centuries. Why examine the rocks of the Grand Canyon in detail when you can just look at photographs taken at a distance. Why bother to study how sediments are deposited or how landforms come into existence when you can just wave your hands and say that the Flood did it ? Indeed why even think about what a Flood would do - according to you it's stupid to do anything but assume that the Flood would produce results consistent with why we see today - whatever that might be.

But no, to you introducing evidence contrary to your views is bullying while your tendency to rant and call people idiotic for just disagreeing with you is somehow not. Suggesting that you show the intellectual honesty to admit that your knowledge is not really up to evaluating your beliefs is met with an angry, accusatory retort.

You can't even accept that through honest open enquiry mainstream geology has had huge success in explaining what we see in the rocks, while Flood geology is an abject failure in comparison, not even having come up with geological criteria to identify Flood rocks or a decent explanation of the order in the fossil record. Your own beliefs are even more poorly informed and - as a consequence - even less adequate than those of the Flood geologists. As I said earlier you set yourself up for failure and then try to blame everyone else for the inevitable consequence of your own actions.

In your words, how sad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 396 of 409 (681014)
11-22-2012 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Rahvin
11-21-2012 7:52 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Rahvin writes:

Faith writes:

But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details.

But it's not, as has been well-demonstrated in this thread. For instance: how does a Flood transport a complete nest of eggs, completely intact, to deposit it in sediment?

First off, you aren't talking about the Grand Canyon. What I said is that the Flood-based geology OF THE GRAND CANYON is pretty well worked out except for the details and that is true. I don't know how you guys justify bringing in completely extraneous material and concluding you've defeated an argument about something entirely different on that basis. I barely get one thing described and other things are being thrown at me I'm supposed to answer while meanwhile I can't get anyone to actually think about what I've already said. It's quite possible for the explanation of the mechanics of the formation of the Canyon to make sense on its own. Yeah yeah yeah and all that.

As for the nest and eggs, why do we have to be able to explain EVERYTHING before we can explain ANYTHING? Talk about moving goal posts. But you don't know what happened in the Flood -- and from what I gather there's a strange inability to even begin to imagine what such a global event would have done on the part of my opponents -- and ALL this is is speculation you know, just as all the official sciences about prehistoric time are also nothing but speculation (how I wish someone on your side would recognize that fact). BUT I have no problem imagining exceptions and flukes in such an event. If a nest survived intact, conditions in the Flood somehow allowed that to happen and perhaps this has been demonstrated somewhere already or will be soon.

How do footprints wind up in between layers that were supposed to have been laid down in the Flood?

I believe I suggested back there somewhere that it had to be that the layers were laid down over some period of time so that there were still living things running around on the surface of some of them, but since the footprints are so well preserved it's quite clear that the next layer came in quite rapidly to fill them in.

Look, this whole debate COULD be most reasonably understood by tallying up good solid arguments on one side and reserving unanswered facts on the other. You can't defeat a whole system of thought with a few contrary facts, and certainly your own system of thought has a ton of those against it that you don't bother about.

Why isn't everything in the Flood-deposited layers sorted by buoyancy, like what happens in literally every other case where matter is deposited over a brief period of time from standing water

You cannot just apply what happens in a local flood to this flood, or standing water as you have observed it, can't just apply it without further considerations anyway. Morris had an elaborate understanding of how water in such a quantity as the worldwide Flood would have done the sorting on principles of hydraulics. From what I've read about the nature of the oceans, they DO move things around, transport them long distances, they are crisscrossed with currents at various depths that carry things, waves also carry things, and they are also divided into layers according to differences in temperature the deeper you go.

These are reasonable considerations in relation to such a Flood. There is no way to replicate the conditions of such a Flood so reasonable considerations are a good start. Certainly you like your own speculations more than a creationist's so all we can do is argue which is more reasonable. I think yours are way too paltry to begin to account for what a worldwide Flood would have done, as are others here. I think the nature of oceans as I've mentioned above probably goes a lot further to explain what would have happened than anything based on local floods and anything we could ever have observed ourselves.

The "other creationists, including GEOLOGISTS" is just an appeal to a nameless authority - it doesn't lend your argument an ounce of credibility when your model simply cannot explain a particular set of observations.

It's meant to answer the accusation that I'm just making stuff up off the top of my head without any geological authority or background whatever. If I'm in accord with some actual geologists that ought to help answer that accusation, or even just in accord with creationist thinking, period. Steve Austin is a creationist geologist who has studied the nautiloid layer in the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon to show that it demonstrates catastrophic burial of those creatures. I also found Tas Walker's Biblical Geology site back up thread, and although I haven't had time to get back to it to be sure what he's arguing it looks like he's arguing the same basic Grand Canyon argument I've been arguing. And he's a geologist.

If your sources have worked out mechanisms to explain those observations, your job is then to relate those ideas to us - else all we see is your argument, refuted by an observation that falsifies your model.

Your argument does NOT falsify my model. Nothing anyone has said here has managed that. You change the subject and call that falsifying my model of the formation of the Grand Canyon. No, you have to think about the mechanics of its formation, a dinosaur nest is not going to refute it. You have objections from your own speculations, it's all a war of interpretation since there is no way to objectively establish any of this. I know you dispute that idea but it's one of the main things I've been trying to get across.

Please, you all accept juust about THE most utterly ridiculous bit of lore about the formation of the strata imaginable, the idea that you can find in a mere slab of rock, a flat slab of rock, evidence of whole former historical scenarios. You probe around in this rock, say limestone, which is already absurdly accepted as some kind of evidence of the "environment" of the time, and you find, oh, a bunch of marine life and you conclude that there was on that very spot once upon a fine fairy tale a sea in which such creatures lived. BUT IT'S FAR MORE REASONABLE FROM ITS OBVIOUS APPEARANCE, ITS CONDITION, ITS PRESENTATION TO THE NAKED EYE, TO SUGGEST THAT ROCK WAS MERELY DUMPED THERE AS A LAYER WITHIN A STACK OF LAYERS, A ROCK THAT WAS ORIGINALLY A CERTAIN KIND OF SEDIMENTS CONTAINING MARINE LIFE THAT WAS PICKED UP IN THE FLOOD AND DEPOSITED THERE.

This is a case of the Emperor's New Clothes and eventually all the sciences that have been buying into it should have to acknowledge this. In a ROCK you guys find fairy tales. You find, oh, a fern fossil in another rock and you allow yourselves to imagine whole tropical scenes for that "era" in "deep time" but IT'S ONLY A ROCK that was originally sediment that held some flora and probably fauna as well that came from a tropical location and got moved and dumped there. You come up with these scenarios as if the actual appearance of the rock means nothing.

Oh well. The hardest thing about this is getting you all to stop throwing your objections at my "model" before you've even grasped what the model is actually saying. Oh yeah, you'll say you KNOW what it's saying. No, you don't. All I get from you is these objections from out of the blue and no acknowledgment of anything in the argument I've actually presented.

Oh well. Way it goes.

Edited by Faith, : grammar

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 7:52 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 397 of 409 (681016)
11-22-2012 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Percy
11-21-2012 8:39 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
According to the dictionary definition I supplied up thread there is nothing wrong with my use of the word "dissolve" to describe the formation of mud. I'm amazed that you all are willing to hang up this thread on such a nitpicky point, and it IS nitpicky because the way I'm using it IS perfectly correct by the definition given in that dictionary for how ORDINARY ENGLISH uses the term.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 8:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 398 of 409 (681017)
11-22-2012 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by RAZD
11-21-2012 8:00 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
I refer you back to the definition I already supplied from a standard English Dictionary. There is absolutely nothing unusual about my use of the term "dissolve" despite your strained attempt to discredit me. I'm using STANDARD DiCTIONARY-VALIDATED ENGLISH, ORDINARY ENGLISH.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2012 8:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2012 4:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 399 of 409 (681018)
11-22-2012 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by roxrkool
11-21-2012 7:53 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Thanks, rox, I like you too, I even like others here who drive me crazy.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by roxrkool, posted 11-21-2012 7:53 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4408
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 400 of 409 (681023)
11-22-2012 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Faith
11-22-2012 3:36 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Dictionary.com

dis·solve   [dih-zolv] Show IPA verb dis·solved, dis·solv·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1.
to make a solution of, as by mixing with a liquid; pass into solution: to dissolve salt in water.
2.
to melt; liquefy: to dissolve sugar into syrup.
3.
to undo (a tie or bond); break up (a connection, union, etc.).
4.
to break up (an assembly or organization); dismiss; disperse.
5.
Government . to order the termination of (a parliament or other legislative body).

Free Dictionary.com

dis·solve (d-zlv)
v. dis·solved, dis·solv·ing, dis·solves
v.tr.
1. To cause to pass into solution: dissolve salt in water.
2. To reduce (solid matter) to liquid form; melt.
3. To cause to disappear or vanish; dispel.
4. To break into component parts; disintegrate.
5. To bring to an end by or as if by breaking up; terminate.
6. To dismiss (a legislative body, for example): dissolved parliament and called for new elections.
7. To cause to break down emotionally or psychologically; upset.
8. To cause to lose definition; blur; confuse: "Morality has finally been dissolved in pity" (Leslie Fiedler).
9. Law To annul; abrogate.

Wiktionary

Verb
dissolve (third-person singular simple present dissolves, present participle dissolving, simple past and past participle dissolved)
(transitive) To terminate a union of multiple members actively, as by disbanding
The ruling party or coalition sometimes dissolves parliament early when the polls are favorable, hoping to reconvene with a larger majority
(transitive) To destroy, make disappear
(transitive) To liquify, melt into a fluid
(intransitive) To be melted, changed into a fluid
(chemistry) (transitive) To disintegrate chemically into a solution by immersion into a liquid or gas.
(chemistry) (intransitive) To be disintegrated by such immersion.
(transitive) To disperse, drive apart a group of persons.
(cinematography) (intransitive) To shift from one shot to another by having the former fade out as the latter fades in.
(intransitive) To resolve itself as by dissolution

I'm bored now.

You're tainting all your arguments by proving yourself to be too stubborn to admit a mistake.

By now, I know that you know you're wrong on a simple and provable point - you know the difference between adding sand to water and adding salt to water; by refusing to let it go you're just demonstrating that you can't be persuaded by anything at all.

Nothing, not even the totally bloody obvious.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Faith, posted 11-22-2012 3:36 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


(2)
Message 401 of 409 (681027)
11-22-2012 6:16 AM


Bumpy Trip in Debate Land with some Scenic Stops
Here's my summation.

First I want to thank Admin/Percy for letting this thread go rollicking merrily on without interruptions by Moderators, since certainly there must have been cause for such interruptions at times. But it's a great joy to have been allowed to argue freely here, back and forth from the scientific thoughts to the Bible since that's how a creationist thinks, and insisting that we discuss only one or the other makes things difficult. Of course that may all be due to the nature of this particular thread. In any case I'm grateful for it.

Second, I'm sorry about the flap over definitions. Stubborn I may be but I'm not giving in on this because there's no way I can meet the standard of using technical language that is required by some on this thread. If it's required I simply cannot participate here. As it is I avoid threads that address the more technical issues. There may be really good creationists arguing on some of those threads but I can't join in at that level.

I posted a dictionary definition of the word "dissolve" back in message 314 that makes it quite clear that my use of it is within standard usage. For reference here's that material again, edited for emphasis:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissolve

DISSOLVE
transitive verb
b : to separate into component parts : disintegrate...
b : melt, liquefy...
intransitive verb
1a : to become dissipated or decomposed
b : break up, disperse
2a : to become fluid : melt
Origin of DISSOLVE
Middle English, from Latin dissolvere, from dis- + solvere to loosen

Any of those definitions fit what I was describing.

Third, this WAS very much a Road Trip, with various stops along the way at different topics that touch on the debate, plus eventually a more focused discussion of the Grand Canyon which was one of the topics of the Road Trip film.

I'm rather pleased with my attempt to get the gist of my analysis into one post, back there in Message 352.

Fourth, The analysis of the formation of the Grand Canyon from a purely physical/mechanical perspective holds up without having all the particulars in place. You can jeer all you like and huff and puff about science all you like, that understanding of the Canyon on the part of creationists is only going to get better and more specific over time. Contrary to claims that we have to address ALL the issues in the debate to make ANY valid observations at all, a focus on a limited area is a perfectly good place to start to question the establishment paradigm. The Canyon has already been explained by many in terms of the Flood, it can only improve. Again, I'm quite happy with my own analysis of it, some of which IS my own.

Fifth, a corollary to the analysis of the Canyon is the objection to the establishment explanation of the strata in terms of historical periods or eras as ludicrous in the extreme, as if nobody has noticed you're talking about mere slabs of rock. I'm sure you hardly expect our own era to get memorialized in a slab of rock. Oh maybe you're silly enough to think so. Ah well. Again I point out the glaring fact that NO appreciable disturbance occurred to that deep stack of layers quite visible in the canyon walls, or to any particular layer of it UNTIL the canyon was cut. Same with all the formations of that region, such as the GS and the Southwest in general, as I point out earlier. Yup, billions of years of different eras tied to particular kinds of ROCK with dead things scattered through them? Emperor's New Clothes.

Sixth, I would like to extend an apology to Boof if perhaps I did misread his last post. I didn't blame him for the miscommunication and I don't think I was the cause of it either, it was just something that couldn't help happening. But if he WASN'T just baiting me with his granite boulder THAT I apologize for.

Thanks to all for a stimulating if bumpy road trip.

ABE: Realized I could answer Boof's question here about where I got the idea of the "geological column" since it turns out that's not a term used by Geology, though it is by creationists. I didn't know that, but I also don't know where I got it. Probably from the creationist sites, but I don't know. It always seemed like a good objective definition of the strata and I never questioned it. I still am not sure what term I SHOULD use, however.

Edited by Faith, : last paragraph


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 402 of 409 (681029)
11-22-2012 7:00 AM


Summation
I'd been wondering why the daily post counts used to be so much higher, now I know.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15474
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(3)
Message 403 of 409 (681049)
11-22-2012 8:42 AM


Summation, With Added Dragons
I've come up with an explanation for the results of the last election.

Oh yes?

Yes. Dragons!

Dragons?

Yes, how else do you think Sauron became Emperor of Middle-Earth?

That's not actually what -

So much more plausible then your nonsensical speculations about voting.

You didn't notice the lines outside the polling stations?

Apart from anything else, your absurd fantasies of "voting" wouldn't explain how Sauron defeated a much more appealing candidate such as Aragorn.

That much, I will concede without reservation. 'Cos Sauron did not win the election.

If you would just LOOK, you would see that he won because of dragons.

And how, in your view, did dragons influence the result of the election?

Somehow!

"Somehow".

Yes, you see, I've nearly got it all worked out.

And, why dragons in particular?

I like dragons. They're in my favorite book.

---

An absurd conversation, and one you could never have with a Tolkien fan, since they can distinguish fantasy from reality. But alas, we are talking to a creationist, and they can't.

Apart from being real, Faith is painfully like my imaginary Tolkien fan. Let me draw out the parallels.

In the first place, Faith does not know what it is she's meant to be trying to explain. There are certain facts of geology which any explanation has to fit: for example, the fact that the "whole Earth" is not covered with layers of sediment, and that the layers in the Grand Canyon are not "identical". She is pitifully ignorant of these facts, because, obviously, she has never taken the slightest interest in them.

She does know what she wants to explain the facts. It's got to be the Flood. She likes the Flood, it's in her favorite book.

She doesn't know how it could conceivably explain the facts --- either the real facts or the imaginary facts in her head. The furthest she's got is the word "somehow". This word does not really explain how the Flood could produce the geological record any more than it explains how dragons can rig elections.

Meanwhile she dismisses as far-fetched any explanation of geological effects in terms of geological causes which we can actually see causing these effects. Layers of sediment being laid down in shallow seas? Absurd! (It is only what we witness.) Aeolian sand producing crossbeds? Preposterous. (It is merely what we observe.) Sediments forming a record of their depositional environment? Ridiculous! (It is simply what we see in every single depositional environment everywhere.) But of course Faith doesn't know this, because she is no more interested in geological processes than in the outcomes that they produce.

I have not attempted to convey in my satire the sheer level of smug self-satisfaction with which Faith's gross stupidity and bestial ignorance have apparently endowed her. Fortunately, this is unnecessary, as she has done so in her own summation. How am I even to begin to describe the monstrous scale of her misplaced vanity? One thinks of the Elephant Man putting on a pink satin ballgown, preening in front of a mirror, and murmuring to himself: "How ugly and unfeminine all other women are when compared with Me."


  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4408
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 404 of 409 (681055)
11-22-2012 8:58 AM


The road trip gave us a glimpse of how incapable creationists are of accepting - or even considering - information that does not conform to their beliefs.

Our discussions have now experimentally confirmed it.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5504
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 405 of 409 (681059)
11-22-2012 9:18 AM


Summation is impossible, because ...
The arguments of Faith don't add up.

Edited by nwr, : No reason given.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

  
RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017