Re: God's autobiography is more reliable than the dramatization
But the evidence IS used against God's word, because the evidence is trusted as if it were something final and authoritative, and the fact that it contradicts God's word is simply overridden, and this even though the "evidence" is no more than what mere imagination comes up with, such as Hutton's view that uncomformities MUST have taken ages to form just because he couldn't imagine the mechanics by which it happened otherwise -- nothing tested, no experiments, no scientific method involved at all. And the same with the fossil sequence -- it is taken as evidence for evolution based ONLY on its LOOKING LIKE a sequence -- sheer imagination. So much for scientific rigor.
Of course, I disagree with this, but I think it'll take us off on an unproductive tangent to debate it right now. The good news is that I understand your position, I simply disagree with it.
First let me say that I generally appreciate your attitude and your willingness to accept the YEC premise, which I should have said before.
Thank you. We can disagree on just about everything, but that should allow us to tackle the issues from differing positions, to help come to an understanding - even if minds are not changed (and lets face it, on either side of the debate changing minds is the kind of thing that makes headlines).
I think that just about wraps things up here. Best of luck with it Faith, I hope it goes well. Pop into the live chat sometime and have a chat with us.
Fine. I'll even give on the original horizontality. Do you dispute that you were ignorant of the other facts before you were told?
Fact: Mutations happen. Fact: Novel mutations happen. Fact: Law of original horizontality Fact: Burried river, canyon, island topography. Fact: Fossil and structure strain. Fact: High profile structures erode faster.
Yes I dispute that as I learned quite a bit of it on my own googles. I have always disputed the interpretation of everything on your list but original horizontality (which for pete's sake is common sense, sheesh), but I do not dispute the facts themselves. I question that everything that is called a mutation is a genuine mutation and that awaits further study. I wish it were possible to understand it better from posts here but that doesn't seem to be happening. I dispute the interpretation of buried landscapes as long-lived phenomena, seeing them as very short-lived stages in the Flood in its gradual recession from the land which certainly involved temporary rivers and lakes. I do not dispute faster erosion of high profile structures but I do dispute that it's faster than the erosion of the folded Appalachians which exposed more erodable surface to erosion according to the diagram deerbreh posted -- and yes I got that from his diagram. And you do get credit for informing me about strain in hard fossils and rock structures, but I'm still not convinced that this describes the formation of the Appalachians, though it doesn't matter if it does -- as you never gave any direct evidence of strain in their structure at all.
Rahvin, I think you need to catch up on this discussion. You are saying nothing that I have not already either agreed with or answered many times, and my emphasizing that debate here is a sham is for the purpose of making it clear to the science-minded that it is in fact a sham, as they are insisting on an impossible a priori from people who wouldn't even be here but for that premise, in effect demanding concession to their side of the debate before it even begins. And yes, I may very well give up on EvC altogether as a result, but first it needs to be clearly seen by the science side here exactly how they are stacking the deck against the very people they claim they want to debate with.
And yes, I may very well give up on EvC altogether as a result, but first it needs to be clearly seen by the science side here exactly how they are stacking the deck against the very people they claim they want to debate with.
Which is a lie of course - like many of the hardcore fundementalists you seem to love the attention you get on this board. The chance to wear a hairshirt is too much fun to avoid.The only way you are leaving is with a ban.
Look what happened the other day when you said you were taking a break - how long did that last? 24 hours 10 hours?
It's a ban or nothing - your ego will not allow you to give other people the last word.
Yes I dispute that as I learned quite a bit of it on my own googles.
Which I am not talking about.
I have always disputed the interpretation of everything on your list
I am not talking about interpretation.
but I do not dispute the facts themselves.
Yes you have. The first thing you did when you got where was disputed the facts about mutations. In fact you dispute them in your very next sentence!
I question that everything that is called a mutation is a genuine mutation and that awaits further study.
That these occur is not up for debate!
I dispute the interpretation of buried landscapes as long-lived phenomena, seeing them as very short-lived stages in the Flood in its gradual recession from the land which certainly involved temporary rivers and lakes.
So what. I wasn't talking about depositional environments. That wasn't in my list.
I do not dispute faster erosion of high profile structures but I do dispute that it's faster than the erosion of the folded Appalachians which exposed more erodable surface to erosion according to the diagram deerbreh posted
Even within the same sentence you have demonstrated that you do not understand the facts. You said you did not dispute faster erosion of high profile structures yet you still claim that the Appalachians are eroding fast. You are blatantly denying the fact. There is no arguing. The Appalachians are eroding slower than the Rockies based on their elevation and their profile. The more you get eroded the less you erode. FACT.
And you do get credit for informing me about strain in hard fossils and rock structures, but I'm still not convinced that this describes the formation of the Appalachians, though it doesn't matter if it does -- as you never gave any direct evidence of strain in their structure at all.
Oh yes I did!!! You just must not have read it. Message 150
Lets remember your initial ignorance of the facts with regards to erosion and deformation:
Faith previously writes:
Gotcha. Not the layers just the depostion of the layers. OK. Yes they had to come from somewhere and since the actual evidence shows that they were deposited quite rapidly and folded pretty soon after as previously discussed, we can figure that this occurred with the Flood's dissolving and battering of the pre-diluvian world, both undersea and on land, then either precipitating out or depositing in currents ior waves the separated out sediments. THEN the layers change into rock and are further eroded and/or uplifted. Sometimes more layers are laid down after the erosion.
Emphasis by me.
Faith previously writes:
Erosion of relatively soft sediments doesn't take millions of years. The Rockies were thrust up at steep angles, their highly compressed strata remaining parallel and intact. The Appalachians were buckled and folded, which exposed more surfaces to erosion.
I went back to the sedimentation thread to look up the lack of facts about buried topography. That was pretty much the whole thread so I couldn't find just 1 quote that really captured it. TO be fair I was also unable to find you a good example.
I am still digging in the archives for that first mutation thread you were in.
You are not the first and will not be the last. The primary deficit with nearly all of your arguments the moment you try you hand at empiricism is a basic lack of knowledge of the facts. This is not just a you thing. This is a YEC thing. Every single time. Every single article on every single YEC propaganda site. Every single debate with a Hovind or a Gish. If it is not ignorance it is deception. You get a free pass here because the posters and the mods assume it is the former.
This is not a stab. We have discussed this before in my "Why Won't Creationists Learn" thread. You know you lack, yet you do nothing. SO none of this should be a suprise or offensive to you.
All I am saying is that all this fuss over weather or not you should participate in IRH's thread is rediculous. I think your ban on the science forums should be lifted. I think you should be able to say whatever you want. You position is complete valid as a belief and especially since you have already stated that you DON'T want the school system changed or any other kind of political indoctrination. I am not here to change your mind. I have already decided that that is impossible. BY all means, show us what you got in IRH's thread. All this suspension and validity of reasoning is pure nonesense. It has no bearning on the legitimacy or impression of your debate.
No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Please keep debate on the topic here. Let's use that thread for discussing with admin whether or not it's something they're willing to try and, if they are willing to try, the actual parameters they'd be willing to try it under.
but first it needs to be clearly seen by the science side here exactly how they are stacking the deck against the very people they claim they want to debate with.
As I commented in the other thread: you are not someone that I want to debate with: you are doing fine in your own world; you want to leave the schools; you don't pretend to be operating with the rigours of science.
Why should we care? Why should you bother here.
And if you think I don't understand your viewpoint you are probably wrong.
Well, that's not something she would want to do, if she's serious about actually finding an explanation of the flood consistent with known observation. She's got her work cut out for her, because she's doing the work of literally thousands of people. So I'm sure she tries to find alternatives that work for her such that she doesn't have to do all the work herself. I can see how that would lead to using discredited assertions.
Thanks for recognizing this. So many times I've encountered the "well, you asserted such-n-such, so you need to come up with a reasonable explanation of this or that geological feature (or genetic feature, or whatever)."
I'm a fast-food cashier. I make less than $10,000 per year. I'm developing arthritis at an alarming rate. I have a severely negative personal net-worth. What am I going to do? Go to the Grand Canyon? Go on fossil digs? Build a genetic research lab in my back yard?
The federal government funds all kinds of things -- but I bet it will not fund those endeavors. (Me to the federal bureaucrats: Hi, I'd like to try to overturn the evolution paradigm; I'm gonna need a few million to get going...)
All I can come close to affording is Google (and probably not even that for much longer). All Google can give me is the existing evolutionary interpretations of the evidence and the existing YEC explanations of the evidence.
For the record, our possition is very simple. "We believe what the evidence shows us to be correct."
Yes, although often it's really not evidence but untestable interpretations of evidence that you are treating with such confidence. I've said many times that science subjects God's word to evidence, but YECs subject evidence to God's word. This means that anything that contradicts God's word has to be rethought.
The more evidence that indicates the same thing, the more reason we have to believe it. The more reliable that information, the more reason to believe it. The more testable that information, the more reason to believe it.
Yes, I know. But for a YEC God is the authority over all of it, and if it contradicts Him, it has to be rethought.
This is dramatically different from "We believe that this one source of information is more valuable than all other information combined."
Yes it is dramatically different. The one relies on human interpretation of evidence, the other relies on what is understood to be the revelation of the God who made it all. This is a real unresolvable conflict without one side giving in to the other.
These two possitions can never come to agreement, so debate is futile.
I've been saying that debate is futile. That's been my theme song today. I want it clearly recognized that a priori excluding the YEC premise renders debate impossible, and since that is the policy of EvC, which considers the YEC premise to violate its standards of science, it needs to be recognized that it is their own policy that makes it impossible. There may in fact be no solution, meaning debate just IS impossible, but it needs to be recognized that you can't exclude your opponent's premise and call your terms fair. All the disputes, the berating and namecalling of YECs and suspensions of YECs are based on the fact that YECs operate from this premise that is rejected by the very nature of the EvC enterprise. This is Catch-22 to the YECs. This is stacking the deck. I simply want this recognized -- again, whether or not there is a solution to it.
And if you truly are hands off about the schools, then I have absolutely no problem with you going the rest of your life with your beliefs. I think we both can agree that what an individual does in the privacy of their own home is their business and no one elses
I would like to see a mass exodus of Christians from the public schools into private schools and homeschooling. But this has nothing whatever to do with private beliefs. I simply think the schools are not good for Christians.