|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christian Member (Idle past 6256 days) Posts: 157 Joined: |
Certainly this post of yours ignores it again I think the following paragraph addressed it pretty well:
As for the fossils, i don't see what the problem is. Terrestrial fossils are found in rocks that appear to have been formed on the surface or near-surface (lithified sand dunes, beach sands, lake beds, swamps, stream/river systems, etc.) and marine fossils are found in marine rocks. Depending on the depth of the water or the depositional environment (beach, near-shore, deep water), the fossils are consistent from one location to another - so consistency of fossil occurrences is expected in mainstream geology. also I think it would be a good idea if you responded to this:
Maybe you should explain why you don't think fossils should be consistent in the absence of a flood or why sediments should not be laid down slowly - as they are today. I have to admit I'm responding here without having read a whole lot of this thread, so there could be something I've missed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Percy, I did not ask Faith to provide any evidence for fossils in that statement you quoted, so I fail to see how I was derailing the thread.
It's tiresome that Faith gets to smugly insult those who don't understand or agree with her illogical points, but I get a warning for stating "as usual." Faith is already ignoring this thread because she can't provide an answer for the questions I and others have asked, so see no reason to promote any thread where she is given a chance to ask mainstream science to support sedimentation rates. This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-06-2006 06:30 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Percy,
You haven't shown what it explains that mainstream geology doesn't. I disagree that this it off topic. We have two propositions (or more, I suppose), if the evidence in a given case can be interpreted to support either, then as far as the flood/mainsteam geology goes, it is meaningless. What we are looking for is evidence that the flood model explains, that the mainsream doesn't. If the interpretation of the facts can't tell between either ,then it's not evidence that one or the other is correct. And for the record, I am finding it both tedious & frustrating at the continued accusations that I have ignored Faith's alleged evidence "in another thread", which I demonstrably did address in the OP of this thread. It was the point of the OP, after all. Boring, boring, boring. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-06-2006 07:02 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I think many are missing a very important point. Yes it is a thread where evidence is to be presented that supports a global flood. Faith provided evidence that she feels supports the idea of a global flood. As a nonscience person, I cannot provided a level of evidence that will convince a geologist that there was a global flood if he feels his knowledge says otherwise. I can only provide the evidence that convinces me of the global flood, which IMO, is what Faith has provided. Your question in the OP: So where is this "staggering" evidence of a global flood? The wording of the OP, doesn't really support that this thread was intended to prove that the evidence presented is right, wrong, or ambiguous. Just because you disagree with what is presented doesn't mean the presenter needs to provide more. I can see discussing what is presented, but not demanding more evidence. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
the problem isn't that faith hasn't said enough, rather that what she has said are exemplary statements, not evidentiary ones. she keeps saying "the flood explains _____ better than modern geology does" but never saying how. how is the necessary evidence, not the what. we know what exists in geological formations; we want to know why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Way back in Message 119 I tried to outline the type of thing needed.
If we are going to see if the flood scenario is possible, then we need to do just what was done in the past. We need to look at what the landscape should look like if a global flood happened, and then see if that is what is actually found. There are many areas to consider. Grass is one of those. Other possible questions would be
These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered. The format would be similar to what I laid out in the earlier message. This would then provide something that could actually be tested. This message has been edited by jar, 03-06-2006 06:52 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
purple,
Just because you disagree with what is presented doesn't mean the presenter needs to provide more. So if I said my evidence of the moon being just out of arms reach was because I just-couldn't-reach-it, & that was convincing to me, that's enough? I don't need to provide more? No, evidence, & in this case evidence that seperates the flood from mainstream geology, needs to actually be facts that support a logically constructed argument & not be contradicted by other facts. Not post-modernist bullpuckey that you are suggesting. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not interested in defending the flood. I made a mistake coming to this thread. I said my piece on the other thread, that's all I wanted to say, I've reiterated it here and that's that.
It included the statement that the slow accumulation interpretation of the strata is ridiculous, however, so I don't see why that is off topic here. As soon as somebody gets what I'm saying about that I may be more motivated to continue the discussion. But I won't hold my breath
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alasdair Member (Idle past 5750 days) Posts: 143 Joined: |
I want to see this continued but thought it would be impudent of me to make a thread. You should make a thread based solely on the slow deposition of sediments in PNT, and see how that goes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
PD, this is a science forum, therefore scientific evidence is expected here, not someone's opinions or arguments from incredulity.
If Faith wants to provide her opinions as evidence, then she should stick to the Theological Creationism and ID forum since I believe that's what it was created for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:IMO, not if the thread was stated as a place to present your evidence and not a place to prove your evidence. Of course, Faith's statements weren't on the level of your example. I get the impression you think they were, but from a nonscience standpoint they weren't. Your comments weren't any more enlightening. In Message 77 Mallon at least gave some constructive feedback, that could lead to an enligtening discussion.
quote:Then you should have specified your criteria for evidence, considering that you are asking for evidence concerning an event depicted in an ancient religious writing. More than likely, people who are not scientists are not going to have the facts that you require in the form that you require. I can't provide you with anything on the level you seem to need. Obviously I don't know Faith's level of knowledge, but sometimes all we have are simplistic views of what science we do understand and apply them as we understand them. We shouldn't be made to feel like students who have to come up with the right answer for the professor. In the link you directed me to you told Faith:
Science doesn't "prove" anything, it simply piles on the evidence to such a point that it would be foolish to deny the theories veracity. Evidence is something that makes another thing evident or something that tends to prove. Even what is evident to one scientist is not necessarily evident to another. I just don't feel the scientist here should expect more than we can provide. Keep it within reason. Which this is my last comment concerning this, since it really is off topic now. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Faith writes:
I think you've made that perfectly clear since the beginning. I'm not interested in defending the flood. You are all about making grandiose proclamations about the flood explaining the geologic record much better than mainstream geology, but it's all all too clear you haven't a clue WHY. I'm glad we finally understand your position.
I made a mistake coming to this thread. I said my piece on the other thread, that's all I wanted to say, I've reiterated it here and that's that. Good. Then we shouldn't expect you back here.
It included the statement that the slow accumulation interpretation of the strata is ridiculous, however, so I don't see why that is off topic here. For the astoundingly simple reason that this is a thread where you are supposed to provide evidence in support of your flood theory and since your argument from complete ignorance and incredulity does not suffice as scientific evidence against the mainstream model, it was considered off topic.
As soon as somebody gets what I'm saying about that I may be more motivated to continue the discussion. But I won't hold my breath I think I understand what you are saying. Unless people agree with your illogical conclusions, we're all too stupid to enjoy the pleasure of discussing geology with you. Don't worry. I personally don't mind forgoing that pleasure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
'm not interested in defending the flood. I made a mistake coming to this thread. I said my piece on the other thread, that's all I wanted to say, I've reiterated it here and that's that.
which was the same unsupported nonsense you always say when asked to defend your position
t included the statement that the slow accumulation interpretation of the strata is ridiculous, however, so I don't see why that is off topic here.
because you are just making a sweeping statement, and you show you know next to nothing about geology, muchless floods. dismissing something because you don't think its possible, when people have shown why it is, is ignorace to the max
s soon as somebody gets what I'm saying about that I may be more motivated to continue the discussion. But I won't hold my breath
i guess you consider disagreeing with you is not getting it? sure we get it faith, but your claims are not answers to any of the questions being asked
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
'Evident' is not the same thing as 'evidence.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Fossils, stratification, geological columns, fossil record. Sounds scientific to me. No opinions or arguments from unbelief. Interesting. Now you know why I don't usually participate on this side of the river. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024