Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

quote:

---

You're remarkably intellegent for a woman.

---

So what's your excuse? :D

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-06-2005 07:04 PM

Ah, my excuse is that I am not a woman. I am like the fabled cat that studied ornithology.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Schraf writes: On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, she just called me the stupidest person on EvC.

But you're used to being a lightning rod.

One thing discussion with Faith makes apparent is that she approaches the debate with pretty much the same attitude we do. She believes all the facts are on her side, and that once she makes us aware of those facts that we'll be persuaded. In her view, denying the obvious truth of the Bible after all the information she's provided is simply stubborn and perverse. In her eye we're just mindlessly arguing for our viewpoint even though we must know by now that it's wrong.

Persuading Faith (which, let's not kid ourselves, is unlikely) is going to be a two step process. First, she's got to be convinced of the nature of true evidence. The opinion of fifty billion Christians *can* be wrong, but more importantly, it doesn't mean squat as evidence. Second, she has to be presented the evidence for geology (not evolution, since she doesn't seem actively involved in that topic right now) and be provided the means of interpreting it properly. While old rivers and streams should occasionally be preserved in the geologic column, in general erosion is like sandpaper - it smooths and levels. And we must realize that as she learns more her misconceptions will increase, not decrease as we might expect, because she's driven by the need to preserve consistency with the Biblical stories.

If Faith decides to stay it should be quite an interesting battle. Faith is willing to explore the logical implications of evidence, but her innate ingenuity often finds implications we hadn't anticipated.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I know, I know ... but I've got to post this somewhere

In Message 101 Admin posted Faith's image. I guess she (is that settled?) is asking why we don't see that sort of thing. The answer is that we do see that sort of thing, in radar images and seismic images and satellite images and borehole chains and what-not ... and these observations are obviously incompatible with a global flood. Faith's just tremendously overestimating the likelyhood of such features breaking through to view in a place like the Grand Canyon.

From River Channels Buried deep in the Geologic Column, a picture of channels in Pleistocene rock:

Click to enlarge

From We've Done Rivers, Let's Do Canyons, an Eocene canyon buried a mile under the ocean floor:

Click to enlarge

(Lots more pictures and discussion at the above URLs).

From Space radar image of Wadi Kufra, Libya, another buried river:

Click to enlarge

From South Africa, Namibia Diamond Deposits a look at the ancient course of the Orange River, where diamonds might be found:

Click to enlarge

From SUBSURFACE MORPHOLOGY AND GEOARCHAEOLOGY REVEALED BY SPACEBORNE AND AIRBORNE RADAR one of the first SIR-A pictures of channels just beneath the Sahara desert:

From Salt water timebombs buried terrain in eastern Australia:

Finally, from Komex Geophysics: Seismic Refraction and Reflection, another seismic of a buried channel:

Click to enlarge

I would be cautious about the corrolaries between the U.S. and right/wrong, and also about the corrolaries between Christianity and creationism. Beyond that, I agree with you wholeheartedly about Jesus being a real person (and alive today!) and I am impressed, BTW about your presentation of knowledge from varied sources.

One thing that I need to find out, as I glance up at the topic:
Who is Ham or Ross?? :)

Seriously, though...you are tenacious, Faith!

Percy writes: The opinion of fifty billion Christians *can* be wrong, but more importantly, it doesn't mean squat as evidence.

In regards to creationism and straight up literalism, I agree with you.

In terms of God Himself and Jesus Christ, the experience of fifty Brazilian Christians, whom we knew well, would count as something in the evidence department, would it not? I mean, is EVERYTHING empirical? By the way...before I drift us off topic, I really MUST find out who Ham and Ross are! :)

NOW I Know who Ken Ham is...I question his science.

Who is Hugh Ross?

Hugh Ross is but another con man.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hugh Ross
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c014.html

Here's his home web site

http://www.reasons.org/index.shtml

jar writes: Hugh Ross is but another con man.

Just curious what you base that statement on jar.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

Website with a shopping cart. LOL

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar writes: Website with a shopping cart. LOL

I know what you mean. :) In the end though, I think that only matters if the money raised by a ministry is for the ministry or the minister. I'm not prepared to lump him in with Benny Hinn without more knowledge about him.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)