Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 196 of 303 (233234)
08-14-2005 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
08-14-2005 8:24 PM


Re: Examples of use
Oh, it's very much on topic. The original question was related to Intellectual Honesty. This is yet another bit of evidence that shows that the arguments of YEC Fundamentalists cannot be intellectually honest. To take the element of age out of the existing geological structures is an act of willfull ignorance.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 8:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 8:34 PM jar has replied

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


Message 197 of 303 (233236)
08-14-2005 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by jar
08-14-2005 8:30 PM


Re: Examples of use
Oh, it's very much on topic. The original question was related to Intellectual Honesty. This is yet another bit of evidence that shows that the arguments of YEC Fundamentalists cannot be intellectually honest. To take the element of age out of the existing geological structures is an act of willfull ignorance.
Assert it all you like, it hasn't been shown to be the case. Example after example shows that the element of age is of no practical importance despite its thoroughly entrenched acceptance as an article of the faith as it were. Instead of just calling your opposition names, you'd do better to try to show that in fact, in the examples given, deep age has a direct bearing on the problem being discussed.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-14-2005 08:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 08-14-2005 8:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 08-14-2005 8:42 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 198 of 303 (233241)
08-14-2005 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
08-14-2005 8:34 PM


Re: Examples of use
Assert it all you like, it hasn't been shown to be the case.
Until you provide support for other ways for the geological structures to be created than age, there is no other explanation. If you wish to simply deny age as the method, that's fine. You can simply say "I don't believe that because it refutes my Faith". The other option is to provide the supporting evidence for a different method.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 8:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 8:53 PM jar has replied

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


Message 199 of 303 (233244)
08-14-2005 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by jar
08-14-2005 8:42 PM


Re: Examples of use
Until you provide support for other ways for the geological structures to be created than age, there is no other explanation. If you wish to simply deny age as the method, that's fine. You can simply say "I don't believe that because it refutes my Faith". The other option is to provide the supporting evidence for a different method.
Seems to me that demonstrating the falseness of a point of view should count for something scientifically speaking. If falsification is supposed to be an important criterion of science, well, I'm doing some falsifying here. Upon seeing that part of the theory doesn't hold together, I would expect the scientific heavies to do the work of rethinking the model, not li'l ol me.
Interesting how you keep avoiding the point of the discussion, jar.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-14-2005 08:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 08-14-2005 8:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 08-14-2005 9:12 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 200 of 303 (233248)
08-14-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
08-14-2005 8:53 PM


The point of the discussion?
The point of the discussion is "Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?"
1) Fundamentalists tend to advocate faith ,or mysticism, as superior to reason and the scientific method.
2) Fundamentalists tend to insist that if scientific data conflict with their religious texts or dogmas (as interpreted by the fundamentalists), the religious text or dogma is to be preferred as the arbiter of truth.
3) Nevertheless, most fundamentalists usually have no qualms about taking advantage of technologies that could not have been developed without the scientific concepts that conflict with their religious concepts.
My contention thoughout the discussion is that it's unreasonable to expect that behavior or to deprive such people from the advantages gained through knowledge.
This thread has been great support for my position. Geology has a perfectly workable explanation for how the geological column was created and it has been shown to be both predictive and functional. Geological formations such as the Cheddar or Dover Cliffs, the Mississippian Plateau, Cumberland Plateau, Fort Worth Basin and other such areas were created over time, long, long periods of time.
Trying to take time out of the method can only be done if you can provide some other method that works equally well, or by simply saying "I don't believe the time factor because it conflicts with my religious belief."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 8:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 9:21 PM jar has replied

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


Message 201 of 303 (233249)
08-14-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by jar
08-14-2005 9:12 PM


Re: The point of the discussion?
You are really getting into the old Unsupported Assertion mode here jar. Thought that was out of bounds.
My, how evasive you are being. The current topic to which you are allegedly responding concerns how oil is found. If you'd rather answer the OP from another angle you are certainly welcome to do so, but don't address your replies to me in the middle of this other context.
I've been challenging actual facts, jar, and your insinuation that I've been appealing to faith and mysticism and religious texts is Straw Man to the Max. Kindly address what I've actually said and try to show that I'm wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 08-14-2005 9:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by jar, posted 08-14-2005 9:34 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 202 of 303 (233254)
08-14-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Faith
08-14-2005 9:21 PM


Re: The point of the discussion?
Please point out my unsupported assertions?
In fact I quoted the sections from the OP.
I also mentioned specific geological formations such as the Mississippian Plateau, Cumberland Plateau and the Ft. Worth Basin, geological formations that were used to find resources (resources that themselves took millions of years to form).
If you have some method other than time to create the formations quoted and the resources (oil and coal for example) please present it. You have two options, you can demonstrate your alternative method that does not include long periods of time, or you can (since we are not in the Science Forums) simply say that you don't believe time was a factor because it conflicts with your faith.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 9:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 08-15-2005 5:42 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 203 of 303 (233331)
08-15-2005 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by jar
08-14-2005 9:34 PM


Re: The point of the discussion?
I also mentioned specific geological formations such as the Mississippian Plateau, Cumberland Plateau and the Ft. Worth Basin, geological formations that were used to find resources (resources that themselves took millions of years to form).
This is simply background assumption. ALL the geo column is assumed to have taken millions of years to form, so a particular formation's having taken so many multiplied millions is meaningless in context. You haven't shown any of this to be of any practical use in the actual work of looking for oil. I'm not even sure you grasp the problem. When it comes down to the practical work of looking for oil or anything else, as has been shown in the various examples given here, the assumption of great age is not of any actual use in the process. It could be ignored without affecting anything. The formations you mention can be identified without reference to age -- their age is merely an incidental feature as it were that is tagged onto them.
If you have some method other than time to create the formations quoted and the resources (oil and coal for example) please present it. You have two options...
The ball is in your court, not mine. You have not addressed the fact that age is not really a functional factor in the practical seeking of oil. Physical considerations such as depth, position, composition and hardness of rock etc. are the useful factors, and the conventional labels of the various strata such as "Paleocene" and "Cretaceous" and "Mississippian" are no doubt also of use for identifying the conditions favorable or unfavorable to the location of oil or anything else. Age is really quite incidental to the process in all the descriptions so far given.
you can demonstrate your alternative method that does not include long periods of time, or you can (since we are not in the Science Forums) simply say that you don't believe time was a factor because it conflicts with your faith.
But that is not my argument. I've consistently focused on the presented facts, which you have failed to address.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by jar, posted 08-14-2005 9:34 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by bernd, posted 08-15-2005 3:04 PM Faith has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 204 of 303 (233351)
08-15-2005 8:36 AM


How should intellectually dishonest fundamentalists live?.
I honestly do not understand why rox got censured for simply blowing a gasket, when the reason was a poster who is blatantly being dishonest. Look at the continued mischaracterizations:
1) "This is simply background assumption. ALL the geo column is assumed to have taken millions of years to form, so a particular formation's having taken so many multiplied millions is meaningless in context. "
Not only did I describe how OE can and did arise from practical study of rocks and wholly without background assumption regarding their formation, but I posted links on the subject which showed that to be true. Yet without addressing any of the info provided, Faith has routinely reasserted this same claim.
I think its time someone did start taking a stand for honesty here. Have I or have I not shown that the OE paradigm DID NOT EXIST as background assumption in geology and stratigraphy, and instead was generated in those fields using logical inductions (which is the exact opposite of presumption) based on practical observations of formations?
If Faith has a problem with the histories I have linked to it appears that she has the duty to make her case against those citations, beyond reasserting her original position. Perhaps some direct references showing how geologic pioneers presumed age to come to their conclusions.
If I have not made my case regarding the presumption of OE in creating geology and stratigraphy, then I want to know what else I need to show, beyond the histories of those fields which I have already linked to.
2) "You haven't shown any of this to be of any practical use in the actual work of looking for oil... When it comes down to the practical work of looking for oil or anything else, as has been shown in the various examples given here, the assumption of great age is not of any actual use in the process. It could be ignored without affecting anything. The formations you mention can be identified without reference to age -- their age is merely an incidental feature as it were that is tagged onto them."
Although perhaps less clear cut than the previous point, more than one person has delivered this exact evidence, and with solid examples. In no case has Faith actually managed to address questions or examples other than to say "Nuh-uh" and reassert her position.
The fact is that if the prediction of how a bed lies or what might be found around it requires identification of origin within a specific despositional environment, then by logical necessity both age and nature are part of the assessment. One does not logically get to claim one can use it, because it is necessary to the practice, and then not actually need it.
At the very least Faith should be required to give practical examples, perhaps from other fields.
I realize that any reasonable person reading these posts can figure out who is being honest and who is not, but it is beginning to get ridiculous when people upset with consistent dihonesty get knocked and the dishonest people continue to break forum rules without any sanction.
Whether she believes something to be true or not is of no concern to me, but to restate that she has dealt with any factual evidence given to her (particularly historical citations regarding OE not having been a presumption), or that she has provided any factual evidence (particularly when at every turn she admits she has no knowledge of geology and is only discussing "logic") for her "theory" of how geologists do, or could do, their work, is bordering on the intellectually obscene.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 08-15-2005 9:18 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 205 of 303 (233361)
08-15-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Silent H
08-15-2005 8:36 AM


Re: How should intellectually dishonest fundamentalists live?.
Exactly what is it you claim I have overlooked? Please repost. If I haven't addressed it adequately I will. The evidence demonstrates what I said it does, that age is not of substantive value in any of the examples given, merely circumstantial or incidental labeling. Please repost and I'll show it again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Silent H, posted 08-15-2005 8:36 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Jazzns, posted 08-15-2005 11:02 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 211 by Silent H, posted 08-15-2005 5:51 PM Faith has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 206 of 303 (233363)
08-15-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
08-14-2005 8:14 PM


Re: Having your cake and eating it
Faith writes:
Why pick on my one little credo statement that wasn't central to the post but merely added on at the end for fun? Not the way to deal with the substance of this discussion. If I'd made it THE argument you'd be right to attack it, but I didn't, it was merely a little taunt tacked on at the end. Address the SUBSTANCE OF THE POST, deerbreh.
1) I fail to see the humor.
2) "I was just joking" is not a defense, it is a "face saving" device to avoid a real apology or retraction.
3) Dishonesty in a debate needs to be exposed whenever it crops up. There is nothing more dishonest than saying "I have the evidence but I am not going to show it to you because you wouldn't accept/understand it.
4) If it was so trivial to the "central point", why include it? If one really wants the reader to focus on the "central point", the way to do it is to avoid including "little taunts". Taunts, "little" or otherwise, don't advance debate, they stifle it.
5) There is no such thing as a "little taunt" in civil debate.
6) Please support the statement with evidence or retract it.
On edit:
Just so there is no doubt as to the dishonesty you are continuing to perpetuate here Faith, I have included the original point you were responding to and your complete response. You will note that in no way was your unsupported assertion "added on at the end".
As Randman pointed out, there are Evangelicals who accept an OE. I can't speculate as to why you feel this is not an option for you. But I don't envy you holding a position so inflexible that in effect, you have to perpetrate intellecual dishonesty against yourself to maintain it.
Faith writes:
Yes, well I do actually believe there's an intellectual way through this even if I won't ever find it, because not only do I see that there is simply no way to honestly reconcile the OE with the Biblical account, but that there are objective problems with OE interpretations of the physical reality of the strata, that are to my mind glaring impossibilities and actually funny, though getting it across appears to be impossible.
This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-15-2005 10:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 8:14 PM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 207 of 303 (233377)
08-15-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
08-15-2005 9:18 AM


Re: How should intellectually dishonest fundamentalists live?.
Faith writes:
Exactly what is it you claim I have overlooked? Please repost.
There is no point in either holmes, rox, or I to repost anything because exactly what you have overlooked has been every single point that has actually been made. The posts that you have "addressed" are sitting there for anyone to see. Specific points and examples were given to you but instead of addressing them in a meaningful way they were addressed by nothing more than fanciful semantics that truly make you look like a fool. Your understanding of what people are telling you is embarrassing. I am truly embarrassed for you.
I have been trying to get across to you the kind of impression you are leaving to those who know about geology and who had every good intention of explaining just how mainstream geology works without expecting you to change your beliefs. No one was asking you to become and old earther but rather to actually TRY and understand the theory before you comment on it so that the discussion can actually be meaningful.
You may not like the analogies but I can think of nothing else to try to explain how your posts look like to us. Let me try one more and others should chime in to tell me if it is a good one.
[holmes] The theory of card counting completely relies upon the size of the deck and I will show you why. If I am playing a game of 21 and I identify that three queens, 2 kings, and 1 jack have gone out. Then based on the size of the deck and the number of cards already out of play I can precisely calculate my odds of obtaining an additional card worth 10 points. This prediction can be strengthened by what cards my opponents have in play and the likelihood of having a 10pt card hidden based upon the additions they ask for.
[faith] You see but all of those things are just relating to the "characteristics" of the cards. In no way does the actual SIZE OF THE DECK matter when applying the theory. You can identify the cards that have gone out without regards to the size of the deck and you can guess the probabilities of your opponents cards based on their face cards without regards to the size of the deck. All of this terminology regarding the deck size is simply ingrained in the heads of professional gamblers and they will never be able to see that it is all just semantics with regards to the "characteristics" of the cards in question. The deck could just as well have 4 cards in it and the predictive power would be the same.
[holmes] Wait! But don't you see? If I don't know how big the deck is then there is no way I can compute the actual probability of getting a 10pt card. The size of the deck is absolutely essential variable to the calculation. The whole theory relies on knowing the deck size so that the cards you count are adequately represented in the sample size which is the deck. How would you even begin to calculate the probability of getting a 10pt card without knowing the size of the deck? Please give us an alternative.
[faith] Now, I am no professional gambler, but it seem to me like all you are doing is referring to deck sizes as FIFTY TWO when it really all that matters is what cards have been played out and the layout of the cards in play by my opponents. You can call the prediction based on the state of the cards a "probability" if you want to use that terminology but really it is just an educated guess. I am not here to present an alternative to "calculate" anything but rather just to point out the obviously silly flaws in your large deck theory. The deck size could easily be 4 or 5 cards but it does not matter when playing cards.
[holmes] Well no. A probability is a precise mathematical calculation that will tell you the exact odds of getting the card you want out of a set based on the criteria I listed before. But you MUST know the size of the deck or there is no foundation to the calculation. Besides, if there are only 4 or 5 cards there might not be enough to have a whole game!
[faith] You can call it a "calculation" or "probability" but it is nothing more than a guess based on the "characteristics" of the cards. Plenty of small-deck-gambling sites that you all hate so much explain exactly how you can have a full game of 21 with only 4 to 5 cards.
[holmes] *head explodes*
You can use your favorite phrase of "straw man" if you like but the characterization is accurate to those of us reading your posts. The absolute non-comprehension is painfully obvious. No one here is asking you to believe in an old earth. But what we are asking is that if you EVEN CARE to have a discussion that is in any way meaningful you will have to at least understand the basics of the science you are trivializing.
And now...your moment of zen.
Faith writes:
The evidence demonstrates what I said it does, that age is not of substantive value in any of the examples given, merely circumstantial or incidental labeling.
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-15-2005 09:03 AM

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 08-15-2005 9:18 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Silent H, posted 08-15-2005 5:28 PM Jazzns has not replied

bernd
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 208 of 303 (233457)
08-15-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
08-15-2005 5:42 AM


Re: The point of the discussion?
Hello Faith,
I hope you don't mind, when I join the discussion, I have just some remarks to add. You are claiming that
Faith writes:
age is not really a functional factor in the practical seeking of oil. Physical considerations such as depth, position, composition and hardness of rock etc. are the useful factors, and the conventional labels of the various strata such as "Paleocene" and "Cretaceous" and "Mississippian" are no doubt also of use for identifying the conditions favorable or unfavorable to the location of oil or anything else. Age is really quite incidental to the process in all the descriptions so far given
I think we can agree that a correct understanding of a structure like the Mississippi Interior Salt Basin helps to decide where to drill for oil. But how do we get this information about depth, position, composition and hardness of rock? We have only sparse direct observations, for example by drill holes, which give exact but punctual information and by aeromagnetic or seismic data, which are useful for the big picture, but don’t provide much detail.
That means, to build a stratigraphic map we have to interpret the data, better said, to connect the dots. This connection will be more accurate when it is based on a adequate model of basin formation. The description of basin scale stratigraphy is helpful, it is needed for predicting changes in depositional setting, lithology, and texture when logs or core are not available [1], but it is not sufficient, a regional scale model of burial and thermal history is necessary for the prediction of trends in hydrocarbon accumulation, as we can see from the following quotes [1]:
Burial-history modeling is crucial in crucial in determining the generation, migration, and preservation of hydrocarbons in the basin. Since it is dependent upon a sound regional model for the basin's tectonic and depositional history, the magnitude of depositional and erosive events are critical to interpreting the
burial and thermal history
Thermal history modeling, which builds on burial history modeling, is crucial to deter-
mining whether a basin has hydrocarbons in commercial quantities and whether they are oil, natural gas, or both. Information critical to thermal analysis includes determining present-day heat flow and paleoheat flow and thermal conductivity, as well as the amount and type of kerogen and timing of heating events.
The mentioned models for basin formation, burial history and thermal history are based on physical processes which require almost always time spans in the order of millions of years . That should be evident after a short look at the plots of BasinMod [2], the program for basin modeling which was used by the authors of the quoted article.
But that’s probably not enough to convince you, therefore lets have a look at one of the models. (The following argument is a paraphrase from [3], page 179, Thermal and subsidence History of Sedimentary Basins)
The basic idea here is to explain one type of sedimentary basin as result of cooling. Assumed is an area which at one point in history was hot, for example due to volcanic activity or seafloor spreading. At this time no sediment covered our region , the top layer had a temperature T(1) and the density rho(m). When the surface cools down, for example because the volcanic activity stops, the contraction of the rocks causes subsidence and in consequence the development of a basin. Under the assumption that there is sufficient supply, the basin will be filled by sediments (if not a deep ocean basin will develop). In both case is the depth of the resulting basin proportional to the square root of time.
The depth can be calculated by
y = ((2*rho(m)*alpha(m)*( T(1)-T(0)) /(rho(m)-rho(s))) * ((k(m)*t)/pi)^0.5
With
rho(m) - density of mantle
rho(s) - density of sediment
alpha(m) - volumetric coefficient of thermal expansion (mantle)
T(1)-T(0) - temperature difference between base and surface
k(m) - thermal diffusivity of mantle
t - time since cooling started
With a slight modification we can use the same expression to calculate the depth of each layer of sediment, instead of the time since cooling started, we use the time since sedimentation started.
An example of a basin which was created by cooling is the Los Angeles basin. Volcanic rocks from drill holes have ages between 10 and 15 million years. At about 10 million year BP volcanic activity ceased and the basin started to develop.
When we apply the model to the south west block of the basin, which is the site of several major oil fields and therefore geologically well known, we get reasonable good agreement between the measured and the predicted depths of Pleistocene and Miocene layers. (At an age of 10 million years, the model predicts about 2.9 km)
When we assume an age of the earth of 10.000 years, the model would predict a maximum of 94 m for the depth of the LA basin and for all other basins as well. Because in real life most of the basins are deeper than 100 m, the model is not compatible with the assumption of a young earth .
Your conclusion is probably, that for this reason the model has to be wrong. In this case I would ask two questions:
When the world is only 10000 years old, nearly all the models from standard geology - at least all which have something to do with heat, kinetic energy, friction and so on - would not only be wrong but useless.
Why does the oil industry ignore this?
Why don't we see a successful tool for oil exploration based on young earth assumptions?
- Bernd
References
[1] Whoops! Page Not Found | Petroleum Technology Transfer Council
[2] PRA | Platte River Associates – Serving the Global Oil and Gas Industry for over 25 years!
[3] Turcotte, Schubert (2001)
Geodynamics
Cambridge University Press

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 08-15-2005 5:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Silent H, posted 08-15-2005 5:31 PM bernd has replied
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 08-17-2005 12:14 AM bernd has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 209 of 303 (233492)
08-15-2005 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Jazzns
08-15-2005 11:02 AM


Re: How should intellectually dishonest fundamentalists live?.
You have summed up my feelings nicely, and provided an accurate analogy, though you should have given yourself the credit by using yourself instead of me.
You've definitely gone beyond the call of duty working on this particular brick wall.

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 207 by Jazzns, posted 08-15-2005 11:02 AM Jazzns has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 210 of 303 (233495)
08-15-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by bernd
08-15-2005 3:04 PM


Re: The point of the discussion?
Nice post. I've already tried the first point you made, so its unlikely to work. Your second point (temperature/cooling) is an interesting one and something I thought of going into (though I was going to use cooling/age for mines) right before totally giving up on Faith. Hopefully it will work as it is nicely constructed.
This message has been edited by holmes, 08-15-2005 05:33 PM

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 208 by bernd, posted 08-15-2005 3:04 PM bernd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by bernd, posted 08-16-2005 8:29 PM Silent H 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