Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
55 online now:
PaulK, ringo, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 51 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 885,056 Year: 2,702/14,102 Month: 367/703 Week: 20/168 Day: 20/21 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 303 (231316)
08-09-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
08-09-2005 10:28 AM


I recommend that you suspend yourself from EvC for 24 hours for personal attack ("some folk [who] worship a book") which is also a straw man.

Also for a straw man / misrepresentation of my point, calling it "wilful ignorance" and likening it to worse than 2+2=5, which is also an offense listed on the Forum Guidelines I believe.

My perfectly valid point is that age is irrelevant to the task of finding oil by stratigraphic means. It's a fact.

This message has been edited by Faith, 08-09-2005 10:37 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 10:28 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by deerbreh, posted 08-09-2005 10:55 AM Faith has responded
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 11:03 AM Faith has responded

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1755 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 32 of 303 (231321)
08-09-2005 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
08-09-2005 10:35 AM


I read Jar's post and I could see no "ad hominum" attack. It was a harsh attack on your beliefs but no harsher than your post he was responding to. "That straw man you are whipping must be in tatters from abuse by people who don't follow the argument."
"Heat, kitchen, etc."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 10:35 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 11:18 AM deerbreh has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 33 of 303 (231323)
08-09-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
08-09-2005 10:35 AM


No Faith, it's not an attack but rather an accurate decription of what you and other YECs do. It's an important point and one that needs to be pointed out again and again until it somehow is understood.

I would be happy to go into detail on how folk are worshipping a book in another thread. To stick to this thread and the example of the search for oil and the age of the earth, oil is found based on knowledge of the geological column and indicator fossils, mineral and soil composition. It was this same body of knowledge that lead to the absolute falsification of a Young Earth long before Darwin's publications.

You are saying, "Get and use the body of knowledge but don't make any determinations about the age of the earth or how the very body of knowledge was created".

This message has been edited by jar, 08-09-2005 10:03 AM


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 10:35 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 11:31 AM jar has responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 303 (231328)
08-09-2005 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by deerbreh
08-09-2005 10:55 AM


I read Jar's post and I could see no "ad hominum" attack. It was a harsh attack on your beliefs but no harsher than your post he was responding to. "That straw man you are whipping must be in tatters from abuse by people who don't follow the argument."
"Heat, kitchen, etc."

I'm not talking about "harshness." It's a flat-out lie, not harshness. Holmes was indeed whipping a straw man which has been beaten to death on this forum, misrepresenting me. Jar is misrepresenting me as well -- that is what "straw man" means. I do NOT "worship a book" and that mischaracterization should earn him a suspension after the umpteenth time of accusing Bible believers of it.

It would be like me saying of him that he worships the universe instead of God since he claims that the universe reveals God to him. Actually, it's a fatuous and stupid remark as well, if you want harshness.

And my point about stratigraphy was a valid one, a simple point of fact, which he should not be allowed to get away with answering with his usual stupid mischaracterization of it which is really nothing but a species of namecalling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by deerbreh, posted 08-09-2005 10:55 AM deerbreh has not yet responded

Annafan
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 35 of 303 (231329)
08-09-2005 11:18 AM


To start a bit on-topic, I would say that I agree with the subject

That should make clear that I'm on the side of "Evolution". But (unless I'm missing something, which someone will be able to point out) I have to agree that Faith does seem to have a point in the geological column - drilling oil issue. As long as the column is consistent, one does not need to subscribe a certain theory about how it all came about, in order to "use" it.

One can perfectly do accurate calculations without really understanding a background, as long as the steps that have to be taken are always the same and consistent? I suppose the column can simply be (under-)used as a consistent scale, without units?

(That said, I don't know ANY details about the specifics of how to find oil based on geological layers)


Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 11:23 AM Annafan has not yet responded
 Message 49 by paisano, posted 08-09-2005 12:48 PM Annafan has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 36 of 303 (231330)
08-09-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Annafan
08-09-2005 11:18 AM


I have to agree that Faith does seem to have a point in the geological column - drilling oil issue. As long as the column is consistent, one does not need to subscribe a certain theory about how it all came about, in order to "use" it.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I could kiss your feet you dear sweet smart thing! Somebody on the evo side who can THINK!

(That said, I don't know ANY details about the specifics of how to find oil based on geological layers)

Me either. It's strictly a point of logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Annafan, posted 08-09-2005 11:18 AM Annafan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by deerbreh, posted 08-09-2005 11:37 AM Faith has responded
 Message 46 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 12:41 PM Faith has responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 303 (231333)
08-09-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
08-09-2005 11:03 AM


No Faith, it's not an attack but rather an accurate decription of what you and other YECs do. It's an important point and one that needs to be pointed out again and again until it somehow is understood.

See my previous post to you.

I would be happy to go into detail on how folk are worshipping a book in another thread.

Are you worshipping the universe when you say it reveals God?

To stick to this thread and the example of the search for oil and the age of the earth, oil is found based on knowledge of the geological column and indicator fossils, mineral and soil composition.

All that is useful information for finding oil without the slightest reference to a theory of age, which is my point.

It was this same body of knowledge that lead to the absolute falsification of a Young Earth long before Darwin's publications.

They made a mistake and in any case it is not necessary to have any theory about the age of the earth in order to use the strata and fossils as indicators for finding oil. And at least one poster here GETS IT even if you don't.

You are saying, "Get and use the body of knowledge but don't make any determinations about the age of the earth or how the very body of knowledge was created".

You can make all the determinations you want, but they are irrelevant to the task of finding oil by means of stratigraphy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 11:03 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 11:44 AM Faith has responded

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1755 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 38 of 303 (231336)
08-09-2005 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
08-09-2005 11:23 AM


Faith writes:

Somebody on the evo side who can THINK!

And the implication is, most on the "evo side" can't think? As I said, Faith, you are in no position to complain about tone and "ad hominum" attacks as long as you wish to allow yourself the luxury of a little "evo" bashing now and then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 11:23 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 11:46 AM deerbreh has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 39 of 303 (231339)
08-09-2005 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
08-09-2005 11:31 AM


Willfull Ignorance
Are you worshipping the universe when you say it reveals God?

As I said, take it to a new thread and I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

They made a mistake and in any case it is not necessary to have any theory about the age of the earth in order to use the strata and fossils as indicators for finding oil.

You assert that they made a mistake. But the rest of your post simply supports my contention. You are saying that there are conclusions based on the evidence that should not be addressed. That deals directly with the topic of this thread, honesty.

When you set conditions on the conclusions that can be reached based on evidence, you show willfull ignorance. You are saying "I will not accept certain conclusions regardless of the evidence." You are going even further into theological despotism by saying that certain question should not even be asked.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 11:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 11:48 AM jar has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 303 (231340)
08-09-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by deerbreh
08-09-2005 11:37 AM


I'm tempted to characterize your posts on this topic in similarly harsh language as you fail to grasp the first thing about what is being discussed. Nobody has said a word about "tone" or "harshness." If you can't follow the argument you deserve the label you know I'm thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by deerbreh, posted 08-09-2005 11:37 AM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by deerbreh, posted 08-09-2005 12:21 PM Faith has responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 303 (231341)
08-09-2005 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
08-09-2005 11:44 AM


Re: Willfull Ignorance
Your posts continue to be irrelevant and a straw man. A decent mod would have put you out on the sidewalk to think about it a few posts ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 11:44 AM jar has not yet responded

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1755 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 42 of 303 (231358)
08-09-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
08-09-2005 11:46 AM


Faith writes:

I'm tempted to characterize your posts on this topic in similarly harsh language as you fail to grasp the first thing about what is being discussed. Nobody has said a word about "tone" or "harshness." If you can't follow the argument you deserve the label you know I'm thinking.

Really? Then what was all that about accusing Jar of personal attacks? And "beating the strawman", etc. And secondly, no, even if I can't follow the argument doesn't mean I deserve to be labeled by whatever you are thinking. Furthermore, because someone disagrees with what you think the "facts" are doesn't mean they can't follow the argument. You yourself admitted that you don't know a great deal about stratiography. So how can you be so sure that the predictive value of an evolutionary understanding of the geological layers wouldn't give someone an "edge" over someone who had just memorized all of the historical data but may not be able to relate that historical data to newly discovered data. Drilling through the earth's crust is an expensive undertaking. It is quite possible that some stratiogaphic fossil associations could be observed that have never been observed before and that only a thorough understanding of evolution and yes, dating mechanisms will allow an accurate interpretation of the data. I do believe that a dogmatic belief in YEC and the Flood would hinder someone's ability to attain that understanding - maybe not impossible for them to attain it - but hinder it. The fact that you may disagree with that doesn't mean that I can't think or follow the argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 11:46 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 12:34 PM deerbreh has responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4682 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 43 of 303 (231359)
08-09-2005 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
08-09-2005 7:24 AM


That is, you do not need to hold any views as to the great age of a stratum and its fossil contents or lack thereof, you simply need to know its predictable position in the column and its value for predicting the possible location of oil. Geologists are needed because they understand the lay of the land, but they would have this knowledge with or without OE terminology.

This makes absolutely no sense. How exactly does a geologist understand the "lay of the land" in a predictive sense without using a model of stratum deposition/formation?

If they use one it will have to be OE, because there are no others unless you want to offer one?

The theory of age is irrelevant, an unnecessary detour in the recognition of the structures involved in locating anything in the geo column.

Whether one starts with deep age or not, one ends up using depositional and formational models that refute biblical depictions. If "the flood" is the answer to everything, then anything can appear anywhere and there is no predictive ability.

Geologists don't just say X precedes Y precedes Z, but understand the finding X and Y will likely mean finding Z because that is a specific depositional environment. What's even more important than predicting straight down, is predicting laterally. That involves understanding how the beds have to relate because of the nature of deposition.

Frankly you sound like someone that has no idea about geology and are just talking.

On my quick google of the subject I found that there are many indicators used in the location of oil deposits and that stratigraphy is just one and one that happens to be less in use than it used to be.

I have already said someone can just dig holes, and there are modern techniques (and equipment) which lessen the need to refer to stratigraphy. That does not wholly negate stratigraphy, nor explain why stratigraphy works as a predictor.

I have never ever appealed to "miracle" in any discussion of the Flood, ever. That straw man you are whipping must be in tatters from abuse by people who don't follow the argument.

Whoaaaaaa... maybe I missed something, but I though the flood was always described as miraculous, even by its proponents. Are you claiming that the worldwide flood as stated in the Bible occured according to normal mechanics and required no miraculous intervention by God to occur and cause certain phenomena we see today?

"Age of a structure" is unknown, irrelevant, a superfluous bit of evo theory. What is needed is to recognize the structure itself, and its association with the likelihood of finding diamonds. Diamonds are formed under great pressure. Age is irrelevant beyond a certain minimum.

So to you a sedimentary or igneous structure estimated less than a million years old, due to surrounding structures is just as likely to yield diamonds as any other structure? Oh wait, you said minimum, what minimum would that be?

By the way, if you are googling, maybe you should google geology and start brushing up on it. Deep time was a finding in geology well before Darwin came along. It is that geological theory which allowed Darwin to theorize evolution, and not the other way around.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 7:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 12:38 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 12:43 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 44 of 303 (231361)
08-09-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by deerbreh
08-09-2005 12:21 PM


Nobody has said a word about "tone" or "harshness." If you can't follow the argument you deserve the label you know I'm thinking.

Really? Then what was all that about accusing Jar of personal attacks? And "beating the strawman", etc.

Apparently you think that "personal attack" means "harshness? Since when? It's a formal offense Jar committed by mischaracterizing my views as a support of wilful ignorance etc. It's against the rules. Harshness is absolutely not the point. You can attack a person quite politely and unharshly. The tone is irrelevant to the offense.

The fact that you may disagree with that doesn't mean that I can't think or follow the argument.

It is not a matter of disagreement. You are not following the argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by deerbreh, posted 08-09-2005 12:21 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by deerbreh, posted 08-09-2005 1:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 45 of 303 (231363)
08-09-2005 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Silent H
08-09-2005 12:26 PM


You determine the presence of oil or diamonds or whatever by knowing the formations themselves, not how old they are. Annafan gets it, why don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 12:26 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 12:47 PM Faith has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021