Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1036 of 1352 (812286)
06-15-2017 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by PaulK
06-15-2017 5:13 PM


Re: It seems simple to me
No, it's your straw man, not my view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2017 5:13 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1037 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2017 5:32 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1037 of 1352 (812287)
06-15-2017 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1036 by Faith
06-15-2017 5:26 PM


Re: It seems simple to me
You do realise that your position is even more hopeless without changes to physical law ? Which negates your "straw man" accusation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1036 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 5:26 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 1038 of 1352 (812300)
06-15-2017 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1004 by Faith
06-14-2017 11:15 AM


Re: I've proved it a million times already
And angular unconformities are the ONLY supposed evidence for deposition following tectonic disturbance ...
Not really. The are, however, the most notable and spectacular. Other indicators would be overthrust faults, growth faults, molasse deposits, foreland basins, intermontane basins, alluvial fans, etc., etc. How many do you want?
... and they are usually pretty pathetic looking broken horizontal pieces perched on top of some buckled strata.
What do you mean by "broken horizontal pieces"? And why is that pathetic?
Which indicates that whatever caused the tectonic disturbance knocked off all the strata above the pathetic piece.
Well, yes, erosion 'knocked off" some of the exposed parts of the folded rocks.
The only 'pathetic piece' around here seems to be your argument against the geological record of the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1004 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 11:15 AM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1039 of 1352 (812302)
06-15-2017 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1034 by Faith
06-15-2017 5:06 PM


Re: It seems simple to me
Couldn't be that you have the wrong idea about how the laws of physics work in such a situation.
That is utter nonsense. The thing about laws is that they're not situational.
He's right: You're proposing breaking the laws of physics in order to maintain the possibility of your conception.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1034 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 5:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1041 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 11:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


(2)
Message 1040 of 1352 (812304)
06-15-2017 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1034 by Faith
06-15-2017 5:06 PM


Re: It seems simple to me
Faith writes:
Couldn't be that you have the wrong idea about how the laws of physics work in such a situation.
Of course it could and so thinking people looked for the evidence that the laws of physics might have worked differently in the past.
But of course, all of the evidence showed that the laws of physics have been working just as they do today and for billions of years.
They looked at the starts to see if they found evidence of the laws of physics behaving differently in the past. But what they found was that over the whole period of billions of years the laws remained the same.
They looked at geology to see if the laws had been different in the past. But of course, they found that the processes over the last few billion years here on Earth have remained the same.
The looked at the Oklo Reactor to see if the laws had been different in the past. But of course, they found that the processes over the last few billion years here on Earth have remained the same.
They looked at biology and genetics, at fossils and societies, at cities and pottery and agriculture and technology and, of course, they found that the laws of physics and genetics and geology and archeology and paleontology and biology haven't really changed over the past.
Yes Faith, we could have had the wrong idea so we checked.
And we found out we did not have the wrong idea.
It really is that simple.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1034 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 5:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1041 of 1352 (812308)
06-15-2017 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1039 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2017 9:15 PM


Re: It seems simple to me
No, I'm saying that since nobody witnessed the Flood there's no way to know whether it's possible by the laws of physics or not. All we've got is speculation as usual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1039 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2017 9:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1042 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2017 11:10 PM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1042 of 1352 (812310)
06-15-2017 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1041 by Faith
06-15-2017 11:05 PM


Re: It seems simple to me
No, I'm saying that since nobody witnessed the Flood there's no way to know whether it's possible by the laws of physics or not. All we've got is speculation as usual.
And that is utter nonsense. It doesn't matter if anybody witnessed the Flood or not, the laws of physics are the laws of physics. They are not situational. Your conception of how the Flood occurred violates the laws of physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1041 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 11:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1043 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 11:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1043 of 1352 (812311)
06-15-2017 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1042 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2017 11:10 PM


Re: It seems simple to me
Don't be an idiot. The Flood was a unique one-time event and all the arguments here are about whether this or that scenario about how it could have happened are possible or not. By the laws of physics. You certainly don't know and your opinions on this subject have been consistently ignorant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1042 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2017 11:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1044 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2017 12:03 AM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 1044 of 1352 (812317)
06-16-2017 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1043 by Faith
06-15-2017 11:14 PM


Re: It seems simple to me
Faith, radiometric dating methods are firmly based on the laws of physics as we know them. Likewise the dismissal of hydraulic sorting as an explanation for the order in the fossil record. If you don't want to argue for changes to the laws of physics you are not just arguing against historical science you are arguing against all the relevant science.
As I pointed out, arguing for changes in the laws of physics - desparate as it is - is actually your least bad option for "things were different".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1043 by Faith, posted 06-15-2017 11:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1045 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 12:21 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1045 of 1352 (812318)
06-16-2017 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1044 by PaulK
06-16-2017 12:03 AM


Re: It seems simple to me
Strata and Fossils. Flood explains them, Time Scale can't possibly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1044 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2017 12:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1046 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2017 12:28 AM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 1046 of 1352 (812321)
06-16-2017 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1045 by Faith
06-16-2017 12:21 AM


Re: It seems simple to me
quote:
Strata and Fossils. Flood explains them, Time Scale can't possibly
In reality mainstream geology explains them, Flood geology utterly fails. As we have seen you have to suppress large amounts of evidence, make false claims and use silly straw men to make your case.
As I have pointed out before, the order of the fossil record is a large-scale global feature of that record. If you can't explain that - and you can't - you do NOT have a viable explanation for fossils. Mainstream geology does (especially if we throw in evolution which makes much more sense of it)
That is why geology and evolution are science and Flood geology is just religious apologetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1045 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 12:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1047 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 12:34 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1047 of 1352 (812322)
06-16-2017 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1046 by PaulK
06-16-2017 12:28 AM


Re: It seems simple to me
Strata and Fossils. Flood explains them, Time Scale can't possibly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2017 12:28 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1048 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2017 12:45 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 1048 of 1352 (812324)
06-16-2017 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1047 by Faith
06-16-2017 12:34 AM


Re: It seems simple to me
Repeating an obvious falsehood won't make it any less laughable.
If you can't address my points you would be better off admitting that you are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 12:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1049 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 1:27 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1049 of 1352 (812329)
06-16-2017 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1048 by PaulK
06-16-2017 12:45 AM


Re: It seems simple to me
The Strata and Fossils are so obviously the best explanation for the Flood, and the Time Scale so obviously impossible, as I've argued many times already, I don't see any point in getting lost in distracting rabbit trails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1048 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2017 12:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1050 by PaulK, posted 06-16-2017 1:40 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 1050 of 1352 (812330)
06-16-2017 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1049 by Faith
06-16-2017 1:27 AM


Re: It seems simple to me
It is very clear that your argument is based on a superficial and highly selective view of the evidence, backed up by falsehoods and straw men.
Accordingly your claim is not only false - it is so obviously false that even you ought to know it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1049 by Faith, posted 06-16-2017 1:27 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