Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2017 6:38 PM
353 online now:
Coragyps, Coyote, JonF, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 348 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 819,118 Year: 23,724/21,208 Month: 1,689/2,468 Week: 198/822 Day: 73/69 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
58NextFF
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9912
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 361 of 858 (819532)
09-12-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by jar
09-12-2017 10:53 AM


Re: All Evidence is Equal (But some evidence is more equal than others)
First, almost everything in the Bible is anonymous; the author is unknown.

Many of the stories in Genesis are not witnessed. Nobody witnessed creation, there is no claim that Noah or his entourage wrote the description of the flood, and in fact, the account includes things that Noah surely did not witness. By tradition, Moses wrote the Torah, but even Moses did not witness the events in Genesis.

A cash register receipt is some evidence that your items passed by the cashier, but the Bible is evidence that someone told a story about an event. The vetting process (canonization) is evidence that the stories were found inspiration and believed.

The evidence in the Bible is Hebrews 11 style "evidence" and not evidence in any conventional sense.

Multiple witness accounts that agree is more reliable than a single witness.

Sometimes...


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by jar, posted 09-12-2017 10:53 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2956
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 362 of 858 (819533)
09-12-2017 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 359 by NoNukes
09-12-2017 10:40 AM


Re: No lies, just a difference of context
NoNukes writes:

I'm sorry, but this kind of dismissal is not honest if done knowingly.

I completely agree.

There is certainly some sort of notion about "honest discussion" that involves understanding the possibility of contextual differences and making an effort in order to "get on the same page" so that proper points of contention can be discussed.

Faith certainly seems to actively try to shy away and hide from these differences in order to pretend they don't exist (for whatever reason, likely only known to her if known at all) as opposed to trying to get to the bottom of things together. This is shown by her inability to follow through with any step-by-step examples I've tried to go through with her. She abandoned my examples showing how strata layers form in one thread, and abandoned my examples showing how genetic variation can increase in another thread.

Honest discussion should hold "mutual understanding" as a high priority (perhaps the highest?)
Where Faith's discussions don't seem to move in this direction. Faith seems to hold "unquestioningly agreeing with Faith" to be one of her high priorities.



The rest of this post is just me rambling about the psychologist's dream that is Faith

Every discussion she ever has, though, can be completely understood if you hold the Bible-as-interpreted-by-Faith to be your lens-of-reality for where even "honesty" comes from. That is, the word "honesty" doesn't even have an agreed-upon definition by the participants.

Faith's idea of "honest discussion" would not include mutual understanding and the possibility of different ideas. Her idea of "honest discussion" means something more along the lines of "if this discussion doesn't agree with how I interpret the Bible, then it's not honest at all." That's the problem with focusing all parts of your life on Jesus, or the Bible or any single thing really (not even necessarily religion). You lose the ability to communicate with anything outside you're own tiny, fragmented box. Because your language doesn't even contain the same definitions.

We all have words that describe the ideas of "religion" or "non-religion" or "that religion" or "this religion."
Faith does not.
She (effectively) has two ideas: "My religion" and "wrong."

That lens focuses everything. She can't understand the concept of "objectivity" because it falls into the "wrong" category not foundational in her Bible.

The way you and I cannot understand the concept of "ghosts" because it falls into the "unknown" category of reality.

We can talk about ghosts. We can draw one and you'll understand that "it's a ghost." But, because they're not real... we both understand that "ghost" has no definitive definition. That sort of "non-defined-idea" is understood by both of us.

This is how Faith is with words like "objectivity" and (the colloquial usage of the word) "honesty."

She can talk about the concepts, and say "I understand them perfectly!" But as ghosts are un-definable to us, these concepts are equally un-definable for Faith as she "knows" they don't exist according to her religion.

The difference is that Faith (and the few others in her religion) are the only ones that think this way.
They can talk to each other just fine because they all have the same "non-defined-idea" about the same things.

However you and I have very different "non-defined-ideas" than Faith does.

This makes discussion between the two entirely difficult.
Words like "objective" or "honest" or "true" simply do not have the same meaning to us as they do to Faith.
Not in the sense that they mean something different... but more in the sense that to us they "are defined" but to Faith they are a "non-defined-idea." This is what leads them to meaning something different... but on an even more fundamental level.

In order to actually talk about something, we would have to specify everything to the minute detail... every time. Something that becomes extremely verbose (such as my posts ) and most people simply don't read them, including Faith

Instead of saying "if you honestly look at the fossil record.." you would have to say:
"If you look at the fossil record under the idea that things were placed by natural mechanisms..." you will run into the real answer to Faith's issues. She doesn't think the fossil record was placed by "natural mechanisms" she thinks it was placed by a God-inspired-world-wide-Flood which may use some "natural mechanisms" to place things that can be verified by her interpretation of the Bible... but it may also use "supernatural mechanisms" or perhaps "natural mechanisms we do not yet understand" to place things that cannot be verified by her interpretation of the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2017 10:40 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2017 1:33 PM Stile has responded
 Message 406 by Percy, posted 09-13-2017 8:24 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 363 of 858 (819536)
09-12-2017 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by NoNukes
09-11-2017 4:26 PM


NoNukes writes:

Jesus talked about faith enough, that your interpretation can readily be seen as unlikely. Jesus did not make his remark out of thin air.


Indeed He didn't. Look at Matthew 5: "Blessed are the poor in spirit." Is it preferable to be poor in spirit? "Blessed are they that mourn." Is it preferable to mourn? "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake." Is it preferable to be persecuted? "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Is it preferable to be reviled, to be persecuted?

It seems that blessings are a mixed bag. By no means does it automatically suggest "preferable". In some cases, the blessings are only a comfort for people who have nothing else.

Jesus offered the evidence. He didn't say, "Accept the story by faith or go to Hell."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2017 4:26 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by NoNukes, posted 09-12-2017 4:40 PM ringo has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13110
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 364 of 858 (819540)
09-12-2017 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Stile
09-12-2017 11:22 AM


Re: No lies, just a difference of context
quote:

Instead of saying "if you honestly look at the fossil record.." you would have to say:
"If you look at the fossil record under the idea that things were placed by natural mechanisms..." you will run into the real answer to Faith's issues. She doesn't think the fossil record was placed by "natural mechanisms" she thinks it was placed by a God-inspired-world-wide-Flood which may use some "natural mechanisms" to place things that can be verified by her interpretation of the Bible... but it may also use "supernatural mechanisms" or perhaps "natural mechanisms we do not yet understand" to place things that cannot be verified by her interpretation of the Bible.

I think that represents a severe misunderstanding of Faith's claims. Faith does not insist that some supernatural mechanism happened to produce the order in the fossil record - indeed, such a claim would be ad hoc and still be insufficient to turn the fossil record into evidence of the Flood.

Instead she insists that the order is somehow not real - despite two hundred years of research confirming it. She can give no reason why it should be considered an "illusion" other than her other "evidence" for the Flood, which would be a weak argument even if she had solid evidence - the fact that she does not makes that argument worse than useless.

So really all we have is Faith making obvious excuses - which an honest assessment would see as hopelessly implausible - to reject a very strong piece of evidence against her views.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Stile, posted 09-12-2017 11:22 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Stile, posted 09-12-2017 1:47 PM PaulK has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2956
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 365 of 858 (819542)
09-12-2017 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by PaulK
09-12-2017 1:33 PM


Re: No lies, just a difference of context
PaulK writes:

I think that represents a severe misunderstanding of Faith's claims.

Perhaps, Faith is really the only one who knows such a thing.

Faith does not insist that some supernatural mechanism happened to produce the order in the fossil record - indeed, such a claim would be ad hoc and still be insufficient to turn the fossil record into evidence of the Flood.

I agree.
That's why I put in the part about 'or perhaps "natural mechanisms we do not yet understand" to place things that cannot be verified by her interpretation of the Bible.' which she's talked about many times.

Perhaps I should have put more (all?) emphasis on the last part and less (none?) on the first part about supernatural mechanisms.

The point, however, was to show how she defines things "honestly" or "objectively" based on how they fit according-to-her-interpretation-with-her-Bible as opposed to "against reality."

Which, really, is the only severe misunderstanding going on around here...

So really all we have is Faith making obvious excuses - which an honest assessment would see as hopelessly implausible - to reject a very strong piece of evidence against her views.

I completely agree.
I just used different words and a longer, much more round-about explanation of the situation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2017 1:33 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2017 2:11 PM Stile has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13110
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 366 of 858 (819544)
09-12-2017 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Stile
09-12-2017 1:47 PM


Re: No lies, just a difference of context
quote:

That's why I put in the part about 'or perhaps "natural mechanisms we do not yet understand" to place things that cannot be verified by her interpretation of the Bible.' which she's talked about many times.

Except that isn't really any better. There is no reason to think that any natural sorting mechanism should arrange for all trilobites, from the largest to the smallest, should end up before the Triassic, or to think that the huge variety of (non-avian) dinosaurs should be only found in Triassic to Cretaceous - emphasised by the fact that the Great marine reptiles such as icthyosaurs appear within that period, yet none of the marine mammals do.

quote:

The point, however, was to show how she defines things "honestly" or "objectively" based on how they fit according-to-her-interpretation-with-her-Bible as opposed to "against reality."

If you said that is how Faith effectively defined them I would agree. However, I don't think we can justify a claim that Faith literally defines honesty as agreeing with her, no matter what an honest-in-the-normal-sense evaluation would say. Yes, Faith does use private definitions without telling anyone but that one would go a little too far. It makes the whole point of talking about "an honest look" nothing more than deceptive abuse.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Stile, posted 09-12-2017 1:47 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Stile, posted 09-12-2017 2:24 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2956
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 367 of 858 (819549)
09-12-2017 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by PaulK
09-12-2017 2:11 PM


Re: No lies, just a difference of context
PaulK writes:

Except that isn't really any better. There is no reason to think that any natural sorting mechanism should arrange for all trilobites, from the largest to the smallest, should end up before the Triassic, or to think that the huge variety of (non-avian) dinosaurs should be only found in Triassic to Cretaceous - emphasised by the fact that the Great marine reptiles such as icthyosaurs appear within that period, yet none of the marine mammals do.

You're absolutely right.

Faith's ideas are not reasonable, or logical nor do they align with what we know of reality in any way.

However, she does defend them by making sure they align with her interpretation of her Bible.
And she does defend any notion of "but that doesn't happen in reality!" by saying the natural explanation for how it aligns perfectly with her Bible simply isn't known yet.

...which is all I was saying.

PaulK writes:

If you said that is how Faith effectively defined them I would agree.

Good. Because that's the only thing I'm saying in these paragraphs you've been replying to


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2017 2:11 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26273
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 368 of 858 (819552)
09-12-2017 3:15 PM


The forced logic of evolution imposed on the fossils
I don't have the patience to read through the last day's posts so I don't know how relevant this is, but I keep being asked about the fossil order. I can't answer it directly, but indirectly I believe there is no way the time periods conception of the geological column holds up. I know Stile made a heroic effort to justify it but as I recall he didn't account for the flatness over huge distances or the tight contacts, OR the fact that to get the layers we actually see would require that nothing be living there when they formed. That's an indirect objection to the fossil order in that there's no way the strata could have formed on the standard interpretation which destroys the whole idea of the time periods and therefore the whole idea of how the fossils occurred.

Another indirect objection is the one about the trilobites and the coelacanths. It can be rationalized away but to my mind it's pretty telling on the face of it: two fossilized creatures that occur in many "time periods" amounting to I think hundreds of millions of years, without any changes that suggest anything close to a change from one species to another: they remain recognizable trilobites and coelacanths through all those supposed "time periods." While at the same time the ToE makes the huge leap of asserting that mammal evolved from reptile although they are only I think one "time period" apart? Also when you try to track out the steps that would have to be involved in the formation of the mammalian ear from the reptilian the complex changes that would have to occur in that time period defy all reason.

But the trilobites and the coelacanths that just happen to have been buried in so many time periods demonstrate what we can see of the speed of microevolution in real time: it takes at most hundreds of years to get some striking new varieties of just about anything, and they always remain recognizably whatever it is they are.

In millions of years any evolving creature would have long since been extinct, there would have been no reptile to become a mammal, and no trilobites or coelacanths at all. Each kind of trilobite would reach an end to its ability to keep on changing LONG before even one "time period" had passed.

Sure you can rationalize this away: you can claim it just happened this way, there's no reason we have to assume any particular time frame. But we do. You don't have the necessary transitionals to prove mammal evolved from reptile, it's a huge leap based only on belief in the ToE.

From these observations I conclude that assigning hundreds of millions of years to the geological column/fossil record is wrong.

So there are two reasons why the whole standard interpretation of the fossil record is wrong, and that being the case this is indirect proof that the fossil order is also bogus.

And of course rapid deposition of the strata makes far more sense, which is what would have happened in the Flood.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by jar, posted 09-12-2017 3:31 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 370 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2017 3:36 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 371 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2017 3:58 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 408 by Percy, posted 09-13-2017 8:38 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 423 by Percy, posted 09-13-2017 1:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 369 of 858 (819553)
09-12-2017 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
09-12-2017 3:15 PM


How Faith, how
Faith writes:

And of course rapid deposition of the strata makes far more sense, which is what would have happened in the Flood.

How does your flood deposit a column of millions of layers of fine silt alternating with coarse silt.

Millions of layers Faith. And you only have at most 365 days to accomplish that miracle.

What is the model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that allows your magic flood to deposit a column of millions of layers of fine silt alternating with coarse silt.

Did I mention it has to deposit millions of alternating fine silt then coarse silt then fine silt layers?

You still have not presented the model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that allows your magic flood to deposit a column of millions of layers of fine silt alternating with coarse silt and if your flood cannot do that, it never happened.

Oh, and the fine silt is so fine it requires still water over an extended period of time.

Model, method, process, procedure, mechanism Faith.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 3:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13110
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 370 of 858 (819554)
09-12-2017 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
09-12-2017 3:15 PM


Re: The forced logic of evolution imposed on the fossils
quote:

but indirectly I believe there is no way the time periods conception of the geological column holds up

That is your opinion, and one that has a number of problems.

quote:

he didn't account for the flatness over huge distances or the tight contacts,

Aside from the fact that there are areas that are a long way from flat, depositional environments will tend to be low-lying - often sea bed or wetland. Larger areas are not obviously a problem in general, and we'd need to consider specifics to say more.

quote:

the fact that to get the layers we actually see would require that nothing be living there when they formed.

If you mean that nothing can live in areas where sediment is being deposited that is not a fact, it is a bizarre fantasy.

quote:

Another indirect objection is the one about the trilobites and the coelacanths. It can be rationalized away but to my mind it's pretty telling on the face of it: two fossilized creatures that occur in many "time periods" amounting to I think hundreds of millions of years, without any changes that suggest anything close to a change from one species to another

Certainly new species of trilobite appeared over time (many of them - and larger taxonomic groups too), and modern coelacanths aren't even the same genus as fossil specimens. So this version of the objection is just plain false.

quote:

But the trilobites and the coelacanths that just happen to have been buried in so many time periods demonstrate what we can see of the speed of microevolution in real time: it takes at most hundreds of years to get some striking new varieties of just about anything, and they always remain recognizably whatever it is they are

Given ideal circumstances it can be quick - however you have to wait for ideal circumstances to show up. The original population of lizards didn't change, remember ?

quote:

Sure you can rationalize this away: you can claim it just happened this way, there's no reason we have to assume any particular time frame. But we do. You don't have the necessary transitionals to prove mammal evolved from reptile, it's a huge leap based only on belief in the ToE.

Yes we do. You participated in a discussion about them, remember ?

quote:

From these observations I conclude that assigning hundreds of millions of years to the geological column/fossil record is wrong.

Since your observations are largely false and selective at best there is not much of a case there.

quote:

And of course rapid deposition of the strata makes far more sense, which is what would have happened in the Flood.

I guess that it makes no sense to you that your opinions could be wrong. However on the evidence rapid deposition only makes sense for some strata - and none at all for many others. Let alone the evidence for long gaps in deposition and massive erosion in many places all over the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 3:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13110
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 371 of 858 (819555)
09-12-2017 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
09-12-2017 3:15 PM


Re: The forced logic of evolution imposed on the fossils
Just one more note: according to Wikipedia there are 17,000 known species of trilobite. Seventeen thousand. How can you say that they don't show "anything close to a change from one species to another" ? Are you really assuming that trilobites are just one species ?

In fact, Trilobita is classified as an Order, the same as Mammalia (which includes the monotremes).

Some more quotes:


For such a long-lasting group of animals, it is no surprise that trilobite evolutionary history is marked by a number of extinction events where some groups perished while surviving groups diversified to fill ecological niches with comparable or novel adaptations

While this is a bit technical the take home point is clear - lots of evolutionary change:


Principal evolutionary trends from primitive morphologies, such as exemplified by Eoredlichia,[21] include the origin of new types of eyes, improvement of enrollment and articulation mechanisms, increased size of pygidium (micropygy to isopygy), and development of extreme spinosity in certain groups.[17] Changes also included narrowing of the thorax and increasing or decreasing numbers of thoracic segments.[21] Specific changes to the cephalon are also noted; variable glabella size and shape, position of eyes and facial sutures, and hypostome specialization.[21] Several morphologies appeared independently within different major taxa (e.g. eye reduction or miniaturization).[21]

17 Clarkson, E. N. K. (1998), Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (4th ed.), Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell Science, p. 452, ISBN 0-632-05238-4

21 Fortey, R. A.; Owens, R. M. (1997), "Evolutionary History", in Kaesler, R. L., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part O, Arthropoda 1, Trilobita, revised. Volume 1: Introduction, Order Agnostida, Order Redlichiida, Boulder, CO & Lawrence, KA: The Geological Society of America, Inc. & The University of Kansas, pp. 249–287, ISBN 0-8137-3115-1

And there is more in the second paragraph.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 09-12-2017 3:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9912
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 372 of 858 (819557)
09-12-2017 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by ringo
09-12-2017 11:47 AM


It seems that blessings are a mixed bag.

Ringo, I understand that you like to keep an argument going, but I have to label this attempt at fairly ridiculous. If you actually believe that Jesus was not only elevating Doubting Thomas, but denigrating the others for their faith, you are welcome to hold that belief. But I find your position an incredible stretch that I am not going to entertain further.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by ringo, posted 09-12-2017 11:47 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by ringo, posted 09-13-2017 3:15 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18959
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 373 of 858 (819561)
09-12-2017 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by JonF
09-12-2017 9:25 AM


Re: The evidence says otherwise
Don't know if you're aware of this, but there's a lake in Sweden with 9,000-odd varves that are still forming today. As you know one of the alleged issues with Suigetsu is that the varves aren't forming today.

Validating a Swedish varve chronology using radiocarbon, palaeomagnetic secular variation, lead pollution history and statistical correlation

Sweet. I am looking for other data that has collected time vs climate indices for part 3 to show that the climate correlations are like the 14C correlations and wiggle-matching.

PM me and email address and I can send you the paper.

It's in my sig (to share: RAZD8@yahoo.com) -- also my sign-in for facebook.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 347 by JonF, posted 09-12-2017 9:25 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26273
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 374 of 858 (819562)
09-12-2017 6:34 PM


Yes you have varves and tree rings, but that just means there's evidence on both sides.

ABE: And all those facts do is push back the timing of the Flood by a very very small amount in comparison to the OE anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by jar, posted 09-12-2017 7:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 379 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2017 9:11 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 424 by Percy, posted 09-13-2017 2:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26273
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 375 of 858 (819563)
09-12-2017 7:06 PM


Craziness of the OE/ToE
There are other things wrong with the strata/fossil record as interpreted through the OE/ToE perspective.

There's the fact that the geological column is FINISHED, and yet they actually absurdly claim it is continuing to build, in lakebeds and in the oceans. Lakebeds have bumpy sloped and rounded rounded bottoms, there is no such surface in the geological column, and lakebeds today are really small compared to the breadth of the strata. And the strata are not building on the geological column itself, which is the only way they could continue to be part of it, in the oceans. The geo column is on the land, not in the oceans.

There is the consistency of the strata that supports the Flood scenario, the fact that the geo column does exist as a stack of flat slabs of sedimentary rock. There are no signs of any of it ever having been on the surface of the earth, which one would certainly expect after millions of years of "time periods" punctuated by, good grief, sedimentary deposition often of a single sediment, flat flat flat. And yet they go on and on and on pretending it makes sense to interpret all this in terms of millions of years. It makes no sense but they refuse to acknowledge this. Because they have OTHER evidence. Varves and tree rings which make the earth older than the Flood timing as understood from the Bible. But this doesn't answer the evidence against the strata as depositions millions of years apart. At best it suggests the Flood goes back farther than the Bible suggests, but not far enough to justify the millions of years of Old Earthism.

The consistency of the strata is against the idea of periodic shallow floods too. The surface would have changed between floods, but it hasn't changed. The contacts are tight and flat.

More when I think of it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Percy, posted 09-13-2017 3:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
58NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017