Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 2521 of 2887 (832236)
05-01-2018 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 2520 by Faith
05-01-2018 7:28 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
quote:
I'm calling you on your dismissal of my argument about the two different trilobites. That argument is nothing less than brilliant and I refuse to accept your dismissal. I argued it from the point of view of the basic genetics of the creature
You neglected to include any information about the genetics. Perhaps that is why your argument wasn’t accepted as brilliant.
quote:
The only way you could answer it is by finding a trilobite example that I can't explain in the same way
I think that pointing out that by the same standard a human and a chimp are the same species was actually a telling answer.
Before we have to play by your rules for identifying species (by morphology) you need to show that your rules are correct. And at present you’re just assuming that - you can’t show that they are better than the rules used by taxonomists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2520 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 7:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2554 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 4:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 2522 of 2887 (832237)
05-01-2018 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 2481 by Faith
04-30-2018 4:15 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Faith writes:
The whole idea of landscapes in ancient time periods is impossible.
What evidence is telling you this?
I'm talking about the idea that a layer of rock in the geo column represents a landscape. The rock itself is the evidence against the idea.
Maybe you meant to talk about that, but you didn't. So please explain how lithified strata are evidence they were never at the surface with life in, on and above them? Isn't your own scenario in essence the same, with lithified strata that were at one time at the surface with life in, on and above them? How can eventual lithification of a landscape that hosted life be impossible in geology but possible in your flood scenario?
As far as I know there is no rock that is purported to represent such a supposed landscape.
But what you know doesn't go very far, and as I just pointed out, on the key point regarding a living landscape becoming lithified your scenario is basically the same as standard geology. Contradictory much?
I think you are completely missing the point.
I think you rush through your posts creating brief salvos of declarative vague unclarity.
As for the rest I've given the evidence and am not going to repeat it because you didn't get it then and won't get it now either.
I didn't get your evidence, and no one else did either, because there's no evidence to get. You haven't said anything of substance or engaged in meaningful discussion for days now. Mostly you've been doing the dodge determinative discussion dance.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2481 by Faith, posted 04-30-2018 4:15 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2523 by edge, posted 05-01-2018 8:59 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 2523 of 2887 (832238)
05-01-2018 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2522 by Percy
05-01-2018 8:00 AM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Maybe you meant to talk about that, but you didn't.
I still say that Faith is confusing marine sedimentary environments with terrestrial ones that have dinosaurs walking around and streams and mountains. At the same time, she just ignores the stratigraphic column for the Lower Peninsula that we have shown her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2522 by Percy, posted 05-01-2018 8:00 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2524 by jar, posted 05-01-2018 9:24 AM edge has not replied
 Message 2555 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 4:58 PM edge has replied
 Message 2596 by Percy, posted 05-02-2018 2:22 PM edge has replied

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


Message 2524 of 2887 (832239)
05-01-2018 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2523 by edge
05-01-2018 8:59 AM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
Also that almost every many geological columns ever taken on terrestrial surfaces will show both marine as well as terrestrial layers, and that's telling. Geological cores taken from the ocean floor though show almost all marine deposits which makes sense since the Ocean Floor is newer than any of the continents. The Continental cores show just what they should show if the conventional theories are correct; that the surface changes over time, sometimes dry, sometimes wet, sometimes freshwater lake, sometimes desert, sometimes saltwater marine intrusion.
Edited by jar, : I can't really say almost all because I don't know how many deep cores have actually been take, but I can strongly suspect it's a bunch.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2523 by edge, posted 05-01-2018 8:59 AM edge has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 2525 of 2887 (832240)
05-01-2018 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2520 by Faith
05-01-2018 7:28 AM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
I'm calling you on your dismissal of my argument about the two different trilobites. That argument is nothing less than brilliant and I refuse to accept your dismissal. I argued it from the point of view of the basic genetics of the creature.
Where did you mention the genetics? Nobody else would have done that based on the fact that they don't have that information.
Is that really what you call brilliant? What you actually did in your discussion was dismiss the pictures that were presented so that you could talk about a picture of some other samples. We can all see the features that were not present in your offering, but were present in the ones Percy offered.
There is a great variety of trilobites for sure, but as you look through the images available on the web you should notice that they are all the same creature with different features either emphasized or deemphasized, but they all have the very same features.
Nope. What we can see here is you glossing over the differences.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2520 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 7:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 2526 of 2887 (832242)
05-01-2018 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2491 by Faith
04-30-2018 9:00 PM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
Faith writes:
I'm talking about a bald flat rock with no signs of ever having been anything but a bald flat rock in the making, in other words a huge flat expanse of wet bald sediment.
Most strata, especially since the pre-Cambrian, contains signs of life. The Kaibab contains fossils of sea floor life. When what is now the Kaibab was on the sea floor, what is it about slow sedimentation gradually burying the layer to great depths that you have a problem with.
Are you just unable to entertain my completely different point of view or are you refusing? Because having to keep answering this sort of total adherence to the status quo point of view is depressing in the extreme and makes me feel Why bother?
But this is not a truthful characterization of what you've been doing. You haven't answered this question at all. Let me make sure of that and quickly review your posts over the past few days summarizing your answers to this and any similar questions. I'll go back through the 27th of April. Here's what you've said on the topic:
quote:
The rock itself is the evidence against the idea.
...
As far as I know there is no rock that is purported to represent such a supposed landscape.
...
Simply crushing a lumpy field with things growing on it is not going to produce anything like the rock surfaces found in the geo column.
...
"Pretty flat" is not flat as any rock in the geo column which was obviously formed originally as a flat wet expanse of sediment that in many cases covered so many hundreds of thousands of miles any comparison with lumpy bumpy fields with things growing on them that cover only a hundredth or thousandth of that area is ludicrous.
...
I'm talking about a bald flat rock with no signs of ever having been anything but a bald flat rock in the making, in other words a huge flat expanse of wet bald sediment. All these attempts to make these huge flat rocks into former landscapes are wild fantasies.
...
The whole idea of landscapes in ancient time periods is impossible.
...
But Percy (and others too), describes an ordinary land surface with animals on it, the kind we all see every day, and then acts like that lumpy variegated surface, to some depth of course, could just turn into a flat sedimentary rock if only enough dirt got piled on it. This hits me as utterly impossible, and I don't see how your chart addresses this.
...
Anything on the surface inhabited by life would have been lumpy and irregular and composed of all kinds of mixed sediments and gravel of all sizes and organic matter, and if buried would never turn into a flat slab of sedimentary rock and find itself neatly stacked among other such slabs of rock.
...
There cannot have been any kind of landscape where there is now a layer of sedimentary rock, all there could have been is the wet sediment that eventually lithified.
...
Not "on the spot" NOW, but still made up out of nothing because there is no justification at all for the "landscape" or time period interpretation of the rocks. They don't know when the rock was formed, it's all made up.
...
It's ad hoc whether you say it or the article says it. All made up to fit the ridiculous "landscape" interpretation of what is only now a flat sandstone rock in most places, and a water-swirled sandstone formation elsewhere.
...
There could never have been any kind of landscape where any layered rock formation now exists. Any identification of rock with time is ludicrous, including any identification with pre-rock "sand dunes" or anything else pre-rock. I hope eventually this ridiculous imposition on the human mind is absolutely and totally debunked.
...
Sorry but the only way to answer this kind of thing is through incredulity. The idea that this represents an actual riverbed is some kind of joke. A cartoon riverbed at best. It's a trough or a channel cut in pure limestone and filled with pure limestone, both flush with the level of the contact with the Redwall limestone above. This could only have formed during the deposition of the sediments in the Flood, and since it is flush with the Redwall, meaning the Temple limestone doesn't spill over the top of the Muav, that's evidence that the Redwall was already laid down, which is what leads me to interpret the channel as a form of karst cut in the Muav after deposition of Muav and Redwall both. The "landscape" explanation is ludicrous.
I've read through the above a couple times now, and I see no evidence or explanation or answers of any kind. I just see bald assertions. At one point you say you hope the lithified landscape idea is "eventually...absolutely and totally debunked," which makes clear you know you haven't done that yet. At another point you say the only way to deal with it is incredulity, which makes clear you know you're not offering any evidence or reasoned argument.
Your writings do make very clear that you still do not understand how Walther's Law works, and you still don't realize that no one believes there was ever a Tapeats beach a thousand miles long and wide. That's because the Tapeats (and the Bright Angel and the Muav above it) formed through Walther's Law. Let me attempt another explanation.
Imagine you want to paint your basement floor with a roller just as wide as your basement. The floor is gray and you're going to paint it light brown, the color of sand. You load the roller with paint, position it at one end of the basement, then begin rolling it toward the other end of the basement.
The roller moving across the floor is like a transgressing sea. Where the roller contacts the floor is analogous to where the land meets the sea, and it is there that sand forms and a beach is created (a beach includes the sand extending from land on down into the water). You move the roller across the floor and it paints (deposits sand and creates a beach) as it goes. The gray floor in front of the roller corresponds to land, and the now-painted floor behind the roller corresponds to submerged sand deposits. And to repeat once more, where the roller contacts and paints the floor corresponds to the land/sea boundary where sand is deposited.
But just one roller isn't really analogous to Walther's Law. Imagine that we have another basement-wide roller loaded with purple paint (to correspond to silt/mud/clay) to roll along a few inches behind the first roller. Both rollers move from one end of the basement to the other in tandem, the first painting the floor light brown (depositing sand), and the second painting the floor purple (depositing silt/mud/clay on top of the sand).
To be even more complete we need another basement-wide roller loaded with white paint (to correspond to calcareous ooze) to follow along about a foot behind the purple roller. Now we have three rollers moving in tandem across the basement floor from one end to the other. The first roller paints the floor light brown (deposits sand), the second paints the floor purple (deposits silt/mud/clay on top of the sand), and the third paints the floor white (deposits calcareous ooze on top of the silt/mud/clay).
Notice that at no time was the light brown roller in contact with more than just a very short stretch of floor. That very short stretch of floor, call it a half inch, represents a beach where there is a stretch of sand that extends from dry land down into the water. In front of the roller the floor is gray, which represents dry land. Behind the roller the floor is light brown, which represents submerged sand deposits. Since only the point of contact between the roller and floor represents a beach, and since that point of contact is very narrow, at no time is the entire basement floor a beach.
If you followed this explanation you now understand why there was never a Tapeats beach that was a thousand miles long and wide. You also now understand why your version of the Flood is not an example of Walther's Law in action.
I'll now try to answer the rest of your post.
Are you unable to picture the great slabs of rock that make up the geologic column, or if you prefer, any given stratigraphic column?
We're all the beneficiaries of many images of the walls of the Grand Canyon (and other canyons and mountain sides and road cuts and so on), so no, I'm quite sure none of us have any problem picturing what strata in a stratigraphic column look like.
The sandstone or the mudstone or the limestone etc?
We've all seen images of the Tapeats Sandstone and the Bright Angel Shale and the Muav, so no, there's no problem picturing those either.
Can you not see them in your mind extending far and wide across the land flat as a pancake, which show up in the core samples among all the other vast slabs of rock?
Nope, no problem picturing this either.
Can you not envision them as originally a vast expanse of flat wet sediment on which nothing in a particular "time period" could have lived?
Nope, no problem picturing this either. Your oft-repeated descriptions of your flood scenario are not difficult to envision. The problem isn't that we don't understand what you're saying. The problem is that what you describe is not supported by any evidence, it's contradicted by a great deal of evidence, it doesn't take into account what we know of how geologic processes work, it follows processes that make no sense, and some of it violates known physical laws.
These aren't just bald declarations. The details have been explained to you many times in many threads, including this one, but your response has been to dimiss, to deny, or most often, to simply ignore.
Do you really believe your pictures of "flat" fields could ever become a flat single-sediment rock from any depth of burial?
If a flat prairie became buried beneath a mile of sediments and was subjected to a force of 5000 pounds/inch2, how could it fail to lithify?
Really? Flat as the rock with the archaeopteryx in it? Really? The depth might lithify it, but not flatten it and not turn it into a single sediment from the mixed soils and sediments that exist on any landscape.
Strata, including the familiar ones in the walls of the Grand Canyon, are rarely made up of a single sediment type. Go to the USGS site and read the summaries of each layer. This is the description of the Tapeats Sandstone:
quote:
Tapeats Sandstone (Middle and Lower Cambrian)Brown and red-brown, cliff-forming sandstone and conglomerate. Includes an upper slope-forming transition zone of nearly equal distribution of brown sandstone of Tapeats Sandstone lithology and green siltstone and shale of Bright Angel Shale lithology, and a lower unit of cliff-forming sandstone and conglomeratic sandstone. Lower cliff unit consists mainly of medium- to coarse-grained, thin-bedded, low-angle planar and trough cross-bedded sandstone and conglomeratic sandstone; sandstone beds 6—24 in. (15—60 cm) thick. Unconformable contact with underlying Middle and Late Proterozoic surface that forms the Great Unconformity. The Tapeats fills in lowland areas and thins across or pinches out against young Proterozoic highlands. Variable thickness 0—400 ft (0—122 m)
Did you read that? It's typical in describing different parts of a stratum as having different compositions. And this is just the Tapeats at the Grand Canyon. Along its lateral extent the Tapeats will also vary a great deal as to sediment composition. This means that you've been operating under a misimpression that a stratum consists of a single homogenous sediment.
But there's another important point you're missing. The example of the flat prairie lithifying when deeply buried carried with it no implication of being similar to any particular strata such as those at the Grand Canyon or anywhere else. It was simply a point about net sedimentation having the ability over time to gradually and deeply bury a landscape.
I'll mention another related point that has been oft-repeated but I fear seldom if ever heard by you. Most land is undergoing net erosion. Even if we consider blocked mountain valleys that are today experiencing net deposition, that's only a temporary situation. Eventually deposition will fill the valley and sediments will begin flowing out, and for a while the valley will be in deposition/erosion equilibrium. But eventually even the mountains surrounding the valley will erode away, and finally only a flat landscape will be left behind.
So most likely the prairie in that image is going to erode away and disappear. As long as it's a prairie it is very unlikely to ever be preserved in the geological record. Only when it becomes a coastal region because of subsidence or sea-level rise or a combination does that prairie have a chance of becoming a layer of strata, but by that time it will be a beach or a lagoon or a swamp.
You want evidence. Wow.
Evidence would be nice, yes. It is how science works.
All I can do is try to make you see what is really there, that's the only evidence.
We can already see what is there.
You really have no evidence at all Percy.
This again? Do you never tire of non sequiturs.
The fossils? They are better evidence for the Flood.
This is just a bald declaration. Can you place the fossils in an explanatory framework that turns them into evidence for the flood, particularly their distribution in the geologic column, and in a manner that has substance and that addresses rather than ignores or denies the evidence?
The Geologic Timescale is the Emperor's New Clothes.
This is a good example of a substanceless argument that ignores all the presented evidence.
I realize I have the advantage of being outside the charmed circle of what you all like to call Science, so I can see stuff you can't see, but I would think that by now it would at least be a little bit familiar.
Your arguments are very familiar to us, as are your failures to address the evidence and arguments of others.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar, delete a phrase of extraneous text accidentally left behind during original composition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2491 by Faith, posted 04-30-2018 9:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 2527 of 2887 (832243)
05-01-2018 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2493 by Faith
04-30-2018 9:07 PM


Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
Faith writes:
A bunch of numbers that as far as I can tell have no necessary relation to anything real that can be pictured. Just a lot of mystification...All those "joules" are really quite meaningless.
No sweat, Faith, I think everyone knew your request for calculations would end with incomprehension and rejection.
...any degree of increased heat would bring on the ice of the ice age.
How does increased heat cause an ice age?
Oh I'm probably way underestimating,...
You're neither under nor overestimating. You're making things up.
...but the point is that there is nothing to take seriously in the speculations of people who reject the Flood for starters.
I think people here will accept or at least consider pretty much anything that is strongly supported by evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2493 by Faith, posted 04-30-2018 9:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 2528 of 2887 (832244)
05-01-2018 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 2493 by Faith
04-30-2018 9:07 PM


Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
Faith writes:
Oh I'm probably way underestimating, but the point is that there is nothing to take seriously in the speculations of people who reject the Flood for starters.
This is a strange thing to say but it might help you understand something. The question is, why would anyone reject the Flood if there was evidence for it?
Most here are cultural Christians, we know the bible and it's supporting religions and what it claims about the afterlife. It's an attractive deal, just be good for a while here, worship the Lord and spend eternity in paradise. Why would anyone give that up? In the past people gave up their lives for it.
The difficulty is that the flood - and other YEC beliefs - have no evidence and several sets of independent evidence tells us they're simply wrong. Beyond all doubt wrong. Not even probably wrong. Just plain wrong.
So science and most branches of Christianity has abandoned the primitive beliefs about the bible we had before we knew anything about the world, not because they wanted to, but because of the evidence. The early scientists actually set out to prove the beliefs right, they believed in the Flood and everything else. They weren't looking to disprove it. But that's what the evidence shows.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2493 by Faith, posted 04-30-2018 9:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2532 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 3:00 PM Tangle has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2529 of 2887 (832245)
05-01-2018 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2496 by Faith
04-30-2018 9:33 PM


Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
Faith writes:
I wasn't insincere, I really wanted to see some calculations I could follow. Maybe there aren't any.
That's possibly true. You called joules meaningless, and joules are the units of heat and energy. If you're going to be hostile to knowledge then indeed the cause is hopeless. When you asked for calculations about the heat of accelerated continental drift did you imagine the answer would be in degrees per second or something?
There's nothing particularly difficult about basic heat calculations. It's not like derivatives, calculus, differential equations and so forth. If you tell me your level of math education I'll figure out how to explain it.
See if you can find anything, some homely analogy perhaps, like my ten thousand gallon pot over a candle.
Okay, sure. To boil a gallon of water from room temperature takes a million joules (approximately - I'm only going to use ballpark figures), so to boil 10,000 gallons would take 10 billion joules. A candle gives off about a hundred watts, so it would take about 3 years (10 billion joules divided by 100 watts) to boil the water in the 10,000 gallon pot. To do it in one year, the year of the flood, would take 3 candles. Naturally the pot would never boil because a year is a long time and the candle heat transferred to the water in the pot would just radiate into the air.
Now let's imagine that the heat of 3 candles for 175 million years were delivered to the 10,000 gallon pot, which would be equivalent to 525 million candles. Naturally the water would heat up much faster. In fact it would heat up so fast that the 10,000 gallons would take only .2 seconds to boil. Get the idea?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2496 by Faith, posted 04-30-2018 9:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2533 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 3:13 PM Percy has replied
 Message 2537 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 3:21 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2530 of 2887 (832246)
05-01-2018 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 2500 by Faith
04-30-2018 11:38 PM


Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
Faith writes:
DrJones* writes:
And you don't get to declare them wrong just because you don't understand it.
Sure I do.
Really? In that case you are -100eπi% correct.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2500 by Faith, posted 04-30-2018 11:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2531 of 2887 (832248)
05-01-2018 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 2516 by Faith
05-01-2018 7:05 AM


Re: Faith indulges in misrepresention again
I'm saying that since I'm not committed to your paradigm I am able to see things you can't, and I believe that.
In fact, that is exactly the same thing as what I said you do. You don't even know what a joule is, or what it means, or have the least idea how such numbers constitute evidence. That ignorance allows you to spout BS without feeling stupid.
What you call brilliance is what objective people would call ignorance. And you bask in it constantly.
Here is another example of what I am talking about:
Dr. Jones writes:
And you don't get to declare them wrong just because you don't understand it.
Faith writes:
Sure I do.
Bask, baby, bask.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box by adding second closing "[/qs]".

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2516 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 7:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2532 of 2887 (832249)
05-01-2018 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2528 by Tangle
05-01-2018 1:50 PM


Why would cultural Christians reject evidence if it existed?
That's a good question.
It is false that there is no evidence for the Flood. I see the evidence everywhere I look since I came to believe in it. And I've given evidence. The abundance of fossils alone IS evidence yet you all refuse to see it, which I think is bizarre. You think there is better evidence for the Timescale no matter how absurd it is.
The Bible speaks to all times, you prefer to call it primitive, and many dare to judge God for His severe justice against sin, calling it "genocide," accusing God the maker of the Moral Law of immorality of all things. You see contradictions where others are able to reconcile them. Perhaps it is just that it does take belief to understand the Bible ("Faith is the evidence of things unseen") and the Bible itself says the things of God are "foolishness" to those who don't believe. That certainly describes people here.
So it seems that one has to believe in order to understand. I experienced that when I became a believer myself, I couldn't make any sense of the Bible or Christian teachings before that, the prevailing doubt around me was insurmountable. The things of the Bible are "spiritually discerned," yet we are all mere "flesh" until the spirit is regenerated at the moment of believing. There is an actual change that takes place, a change in outlook. Whereas before I hated God and His law, now I love it all.
I wouldn't have expected that requirement to extend to questions of physical evidence for the Flood but perhaps it does. That may be the explanation for all this. IIt's a mental set that's opposed to these truths in any case. You explain it. I don't think you have.
2 Peter 3:5-6 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
This suggests that lack of evidence isn't the problem.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2528 by Tangle, posted 05-01-2018 1:50 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2534 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2018 3:17 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 2536 by JonF, posted 05-01-2018 3:20 PM Faith has replied
 Message 2569 by Tangle, posted 05-02-2018 3:11 AM Faith has replied
 Message 2601 by Percy, posted 05-02-2018 3:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2533 of 2887 (832250)
05-01-2018 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 2529 by Percy
05-01-2018 2:33 PM


Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
I did NOT "call joules meaningless." Sheesh. I called the whole vague speculative rambling meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2529 by Percy, posted 05-01-2018 2:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2603 by Percy, posted 05-02-2018 3:25 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 2534 of 2887 (832251)
05-01-2018 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 2532 by Faith
05-01-2018 3:00 PM


Re: Would the planet heat up too much?
The problem is one of paradigms.
We are concerned with honesty and truth.
You are concerned with your pride and the doctrines of your anti-Christian cult,
But the question is why should we put your ego or false doctrines before the conclusions of science ? You find it absurd that we should but the real absurdity is that you should expect us to,
You parade your sins before us as if we are supposed to find them reasons to agree with you. And of course it doesn’t work. Why should it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2532 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 3:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 2535 of 2887 (832252)
05-01-2018 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 2509 by Faith
05-01-2018 1:32 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
Faith writes:
Oh dear. Still trying to pretend that fossils are evidence of the Flood? We KNOW that isn’t true. And the rest is simply a wilfully ignorant opinion.
This is such a piece of nutty confusion. I'd think a moderately intelligent person could at least grasp that evidence can have different interpretations.
Inconclusive evidence could leave you with multiple possibly valid hypotheses, but the evidence of geology concerning an ancient Earth and of evolution concerning the diversity of life on the planet are fairly conclusive. Those who demur typically have philosophical rather evidential reasons, such as blind adherence to a holy book that they believe eclipses reality.
All you are doing is asserting your favorite interpretation, because the evidence itself of the great abundance of fossils does indeed support the Flood.
"Abundance" is a highly qualitative term and questionable anyway - the quantity of fossils varies greatly across strata. The distribution of fossils is impossible for a flood.
The Flood was intended to kill all land life, the huge numbers of fossils are certainly good evidence for such an event.
"Huge" is another qualitative term, and as I said before, the quantity of fossils varies greatly across strata.
The conditions of a worldwide Flood, the soaking of the entire planet, would have been optimal for the burial and fossilization of a huge number of dead things.
Wouldn't most buried "dead things", since they were suddenly and completely buried, still have a great deal of biological tissue left after just 4500 years? Shouldn't a great many fossils still be bones?
And rendering all that moot, wouldn't most dead things just float?
I'm not at this point even making any further claims that are also supportive of the Flood or against the conventional interpretation. These two ought to make the point.
Vague and questionable qualitative claims ought to make the point? Why do you think so?
You can still prefer your own interpretation but it's just biased stubbornness, willful ignorance for sure, that has a closed mind...
Do you actually believe your own propaganda? Why is it that all you can do is make vague unsupported claims, castigate people, and ignore evidence, information, explanations, diagrams, you name it.
Everyone will now want to argue all the points in favor of the other model.
You don't have a model. You have a religion where adherence to a holy book trumps real world evidence. You've said as much right in this thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2509 by Faith, posted 05-01-2018 1:32 AM 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