Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

True. Speaking only for Christian "fundamentalists" anyway. True: no qualms.False: scientific concepts that conflict with their religious concepts. Again, speaking only for Christian "fundamentalists."Hey, let me get smart and ask you for proof of this. Evidence please that "fundamentalists" say scientific concepts conflict with their religious concepts. Nonsense. Christians have no problem whatever with science. Some of the greatest scientists in history have been Christians of the fundamentalist type, that is, followers of the literal Bible. Michael Faraday was oneEvidence again please. Total nonsense. Straw man. Speaking again only for Christian "fundamentalists."Evidence for this too please.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 08:38 PM

AW, you would point to my cute little medieval drawing of Noah's ark and claim I intend it as a scientific treatise? You call that evidence? Alas I suspect that you very well might, since you wrote that total straw man of an opening post in the first place. No wonder the EvoCreo debate goes nowhere with such egregiously irrational misrepresentations. Tch tch. Uh, what are you talking about? I asked you to prove that anyone, including myself, ever said anything rejecting of science. You seem to be blathering about some fantasy about my cute little avatar. I'm beginning to think that anybody who has such a bizarre idea about a person's avatar should well be kept away from machinery and all other products of modern engineering. Defend what again? My little medieval picture? From what again? The ToE and the Geo Time Scale are imaginative constructs, interpretations, science only in the most general and tenuous sense. This is the contention and the limit of the dispute with "science." They aren't science, merely frameworks within which science works, unfortunately, as they only mislead. Nobody has any problem with the actual science at all, the geology, the biology, the lab work, the field work, the genetics, and certainly not engineering. That's real science. Good stuff. Get rid of the ToE and the GeoTime stuff and real science can proceed with more freedom and less waste.Would you care to take a stab at coming up with support for your opening thesis again? And don't be so ridiculous.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-05-2005 05:32 AM

Um, the red herring appears to be your weird attack on my cute little avatar.Seriously, your accusations of "fundamentalists" are a straw man, and you are still obligated to produce evidence that anyone has said anything against science. My avatar is hardly a threat to science, cute little thing, though it certainly shows that they didn't know a lot about the Bible in the Middle Ages as the real ark was bigger than some modern battleships.I gave evidence that there is no contradiction between Christian fundamentalism and science, and that shoots your claim.

Tell you what. I will agree that we fundies should consider depriving ourselves of the enjoyment of any technology that owes absolutely nothing to the work of fundamentalist Bible believers, such as Blaise Pascal and Michael Faradaythough I suggest that YOU learn to live without those technologies we owe to them, since you don't appreciate the fundy mentality that contributed to their development.And if I am able to establish the fundy credentials of other scientists I will propose that you live without benefit of their work as well. Clearly it is we fundies who should enjoy the benefits rather than the debunkers.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-05-2005 11:23 AM

Pascal's group the Jansenists were borderline heretics from the Catholic point of view, a little too Protestant for their taste. He was an anti-Jesuit. No, I think YOU should prove that creationist scientists today do this "IN THEIR WORK" (as opposed to their creationist apologetics if they engage in it).This message has been edited by Faith, 08-05-2005 01:58 PM

Absolutely false. Facts are facts and all oil exploration needs is those facts; the interpretation of how they got that way is completely irrelevant. You are begging the whole question of the flood debate. The fossils are sorted the way they're sorted, period, and they are useful for locating oil no matter what interpretation you use to explain why they are sorted that way. It makes no difference how old any of them are, all that matters for locating oil is that their locations are predictable. Their locations fit the Flood theory better than the evo theory according to many of us.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-08-2005 03:28 PM

Doesn't matter. That theory isn't needed either. All that's needed is to be able to fairly reliably associate relevant elements in the strata with the possibility of an oil pocket, and as a matter of fact I understand from a quick google that fossil identification isn't as important a factor in locating oil as other methods anyway.

I don't think I understood a word you said in this post. I suspect you didn't address my point but it's very hard to tell. My point was that you don't need the theory, all you need is knowledge of the phenomena observed in the geological column from which you can make predictions. 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. You appear to have utterly misunderstood my point. The theory of age is irrelevant, an unnecessary detour in the recognition of the structures involved in locating anything in the geo column. 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 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."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.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-09-2005 08:30 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

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.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I could kiss your feet you dear sweet smart thing! Somebody on the evo side who can THINK! Me either. It's strictly a point of logic.

See my previous post to you. Are you worshipping the universe when you say it reveals God? All that is useful information for finding oil without the slightest reference to a theory of age, which is my point. 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 can make all the determinations you want, but they are irrelevant to the task of finding oil by means of stratigraphy.

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.

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.

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