Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 9:52 PM
113 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), Coyote, DrJones*, Hyroglyphx, scoff, Tangle, xongsmith (7 members, 106 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,173 Year: 13,779/21,208 Month: 3,261/3,605 Week: 47/556 Day: 47/54 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 76 of 137 (722590)
03-23-2014 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
03-23-2014 12:24 AM


Re: the so called evidence
Somehow Faith still doesn't know that science doesn't work on 'proof', but on scientific evidence...where's Faith been the last 300 years?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 12:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 10:20 AM Pressie has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3535
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 77 of 137 (722591)
03-23-2014 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
03-22-2014 6:09 PM


Re: the so called evidence
To dismiss a person's argument without even stating it, calling the person "ignorant" as the reason for ignoring it, is an ad hominem

Not when the person's ignorance is as well-established as yours. Your ignorance is a fact that must be taken into account when evaluating your fantasies.

However, even as an insult, which you are willing to own, it's extremely bad form on a debate board.

True, but you got it the old-fashioned way. You earned it by years of blithering. And enthusiastic participation in insulting others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-22-2014 6:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 78 of 137 (722594)
03-23-2014 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
03-23-2014 12:24 AM


Re: the so called evidence
Faith writes:

His method is still all you've got for the age of the earth.

Nope.

Don't fool yourself.

I'll start.

Theespruit Formatian. Komati Formation. Hooggenoeg Formation. Kromberg Formation. Onverwacht Group. Empangeni Suite. Commondale Formation. De Kraalen Formation. Assegai Formation. Dwalile Formation. Nondweni Group. Kraaipan Group. Bandelierkop Formation. Beit Bridge Formation. Ngawane Gr. Steynsdorp Pl. Tsawela Gr. Vlakplaats Gd. Doornhoek Tr. Stolzburg Gn. Theespruit Pl. First Barberton Mountain Land metamorphism.

We've got plenty.

Any arguments left?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 12:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 10:21 AM Pressie has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 79 of 137 (722605)
03-23-2014 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Pressie
03-23-2014 8:04 AM


Re: the so called evidence
Faith knows your little word games and that there's nothing wrong with the word "proof" as I use it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Pressie, posted 03-23-2014 8:04 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Pressie, posted 03-23-2014 10:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 80 of 137 (722606)
03-23-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Pressie
03-23-2014 8:43 AM


Re: the so called evidence
If those are angular conformities I'd explain them the same way I explain Siccar Point. But just making an incomprehensible list of names isn't an argument.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Pressie, posted 03-23-2014 8:43 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Pressie, posted 03-23-2014 10:34 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Pressie, posted 03-23-2014 10:43 AM Faith has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 81 of 137 (722607)
03-23-2014 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
03-23-2014 10:21 AM


Re: the so called evidence
He-he-he

Incomprohensible? The gold mining companies operating in my country sure don't find those those names incomprehensible at all.

Any comment about those 'incomprehensible names' yet?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 10:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 82 of 137 (722608)
03-23-2014 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
03-23-2014 12:28 AM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
So I guess that on the rest you haven't done the research and don't intend to. Not even your "experiment". And you certainly haven't considered the forces involved, which your "explanation" supposedly relies on.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 12:28 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 10:43 AM PaulK has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 83 of 137 (722609)
03-23-2014 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
03-23-2014 10:20 AM


Re: the so called evidence
Sure is in science.

Whether you like it or not. You can't change facts.

You're allowed to have your own opinions; not your own facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 10:20 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 84 of 137 (722610)
03-23-2014 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
03-23-2014 10:21 AM


Re: the so called evidence
Faith writes:

If those are angular conformities I'd explain them the same way I explain Siccar Point. But just making an incomprehensible list of names isn't an argument.

These are not just names. They're rocks. Rocks Geologists named. Tens of thousands of geologists. Tens of thousand of different rock 'kinds'.

For very, very good reasons. They studied those rocks. Nothing incomprehensible it at all. All published in peer-reviewed geological journals. Not in religious propaganda on the internet.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 10:21 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 10:44 AM Pressie has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 85 of 137 (722611)
03-23-2014 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by PaulK
03-23-2014 10:35 AM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
What are you going on about? Siccar Point is off topic in this thread, I've discussed it at length elsewhere and already got too far into it here. You are raising your endless questions and I'm not interested in pursuing them here. As I said, I've discussed this to death elsewhere. If you want to continue with your endless questions and demands and accusations please move it to one of the threads where we've already discussed it to death.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2014 10:35 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2014 10:47 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2014 10:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 24846
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 86 of 137 (722612)
03-23-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Pressie
03-23-2014 10:43 AM


Re: the so called evidence
I'm glad to hear it. I wouldn't like to think they didn't have good reasons.

And to you too: This is off topic here. Maybe you and PaulK could combine your efforts and take it somewhere else.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Pressie, posted 03-23-2014 10:43 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Pressie, posted 03-23-2014 10:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 87 of 137 (722613)
03-23-2014 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
03-23-2014 10:43 AM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
Fine, you've got nothing. Not even an interest in the truth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 10:43 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by JonF, posted 03-23-2014 11:25 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1605
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 88 of 137 (722614)
03-23-2014 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
03-23-2014 10:44 AM


Re: the so called evidence
Maybe if you could just try to start studying the basics of geology, then you could stop being seen as just another fruit loop when commenting on geology?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 10:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12688
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 89 of 137 (722615)
03-23-2014 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
03-23-2014 10:43 AM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
OK, You've got nothing, not even a real interest in the truth. And Siccar Point and other angular unconformities stand as real evidence of the antiquity of the Earth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 03-23-2014 10:43 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3535
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 90 of 137 (722616)
03-23-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by PaulK
03-23-2014 10:47 AM


Re: the so called evidence: Siccar Point
She's explicitly stated that she has no interest in learning anything about geology. Fantasy suits her fine.

Of course she also explicitly stated that she knew most of what Dr. A posted in his intro to geology thread. She likes to lie, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2014 10:47 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017