Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

I stated exactly what you are saying under "evolutionist." Weird. Of course that's how it happened. But the fact that they are in mountains EVERYWHERE remains excellent evidence for a one time flood.Edit to add link:
http://EvC Forum: Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some -->EvC Forum: Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present SomeWhy should ALL mountains contain this abundance of marine fossils, and ALL deserts? Clearly a worldwide flood is the most parsimonious explanation.The mountains were once the soggy sedimented layers full of dead life that the flood caused all over the world. Tectonic activity released in the flood raised mountains here and there full of marine stuff.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 02:03 PM

Percy,What about, "& you only find marine OR terrestrial fauna in specific fossiliferous strata". OK, lacustrine etc. as well, but keep it simple.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-08-2006 02:06 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hi Faith,I didn't really propose this thread with the intention of discussing where anyone went wrong in the Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some thread. I was more interested in exploring PurpleDawn's observations about the weakness of the evolutionist arguments, and in that regard you raise a very intriguing point here. I don't quote everything you quoted, but I think this is enough: I thought I was saying that from an uninformed perspective it might seem like a flood was responsible, but once you know the whole story it becomes clear a flood couldn't possibly have been the cause. If that is also your interpretation, could you explain why my statement seems like madness to you?--Percy

I was proposing a response to creationists in general to be delivered whenever the "sea shells on mountain tops" argument is advanced. I know you have a different view, and if you'd like to discuss it then the Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some thread is probably the best place.--Percy

Basically because the "whole story" is nothing but conjecture that cannot be tested or proved, and requires specific ad hoc explanations for each little bit of phenomena and the Flood remains the #1 most parsimonious elegant explanation. I just explained all this. It remains my position and I don't have any interest in pursuing it beyond what I've already said. I've been down that path and enough is enough.And if you're going to characterize me in the insulting terms you do elsewhere, why bother being polite to my face?This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 02:16 PM

Work with me here, I'm trying to get you brainiacs to see the simple side of life, meaning the nonscience person. (not simpleton)

quote:

---

Okay, pretty much all of them.
The problem with the statements in the OP is that absolutely none of them really are evidence. They are simply assertions.

---

Again I think we have a different perspective on evidence. Has anyone explained the reasoned argumentation part of rule #4 yet? Sorry if I missed it.Let's say I've seen a wonderful Discovery channel show on fossils and I combine what I heard there with my Bible story of the flood. My opinion is based on that information that I have. Confident in my opinion, I make my statement "The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood."I've just told you that I consider the existence of fossils all over the earth to be evidence for me. I can't speak for you. I have nothing else to add to that. Asking me the grass question which supports your view doesn't make sense either from my viewpoint. Mainly because I can't answer it. If you notice when Faith answered it she said "I think". She wasn't really claiming anything. She was trying to reason an answer for you from her knowledge.Why question me and run me through a test that supports your view? From my standpoint I'm already comfortable with my evidence. I didn't ask you to walk me through anything. You're trying to make the horse drink once you've lead him to the water.(Now I have my PD hat back on, purple of course)
Now if you had posted the grass scenerio, basicly stating what it is and how that refutes the statements of the creationist, then I have an option of asking you questions. (remember right now I'm just a basic nonscience person) Then you can walk me through it.This way her statements are there and your comments are there. The reader has to make up their own mind.So it depends on your goal. If you want the science information out there or you want to convert the creationists. Right now it looks like you want to convert the creationists. I don't think that going to happen.Hopefully I'm making sense.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

How is it an "answer" to creationists if creationists already agree with it?

What does indefensable evidence prove?

Yes, but that is simply an assertion. You are just saying that the evidence supports your view. That's all. You have said nothing about the evidence. Well, there is nothing in what I posted that either supports or refutes any position, mine or Faith's.It is simply the steps that need to be followed to make any kind of determination.This goes back to something I mentioned earlier. There really are two types of folk, those that look for answers to questions and those that question answers.What you describe: is simply accepting answers to questions.To get to the truth though, or as close as we can to the truth, you need to question the answers.What I outlined is the typical procedure that anyone needs to go through to question the answers. But you need to also understand the topic. In that thread it was to explore any possible evidence for the flood. It was not to challenge the flood, but to look to see if there really was any evidence that might support it.What I outlined was the steps needed to see if the evidence did support the flood. Who knows, it actually might. But until someone comes up with some testable scenarios, there is simply nothing worthwhile, just assertions with no support.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

What does indefensable evidence prove?

---

It would prove nothing to you.I may not be able to defend it to your satisfaction, but I can to mine or another creationist.This is where the reader or opponent makes their own decision.So if the creationist has their statements out there and the science guys are still trying to get them to answer their questions, the science guys don't get their info out there clearly. Just a bunch of unanswered questions.That's why I keep asking, what is the goal?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

That's fine, we understand, you don't have to keep repeating this.Please keep in mind that at EvC Forum you are required to support your assertions. Though no one else feels you've supported your assertions, we understand that you believe you have. We haven't forgotten what you believe so there is no need to continue repeating your beliefs, and in fact it's against the Forum Guidelines if you're no longer willing to defend them. I think if you follow the Forum Guidelines and stay focused on the topic of discussion that it might diminish the chances of coming across characterizations of yourself that you don't find flattering.--Percy

Purpledawn, Firstly, this is evidence of mainstream geologies explanation, too, right?Secondly, please see my last post.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

You're right that I was attempting to explain that I thought a more detailed explanation of the theories was needed. It also probably needs to be done starting from the most basic level. I honestly think many on this board, like you, have tried to explain the theories to this level but are either ignored or the posts are lost in the shuffle of response and rebuttle (if we can call it that.) Many of those excellent posts get so lost or overlooked that they're neglected even though they are worthy of POTM nominations.You, Sylas, Roxrkool, RAZD, jar, crashfrog and many other contributors have written excellent posts that do much toward an attempt to explain the how's and why's of the many theories placed under the creationist hammer. I just think many of them get lost, or ignored in a quick tit for tat posting frenzy, often caused by over reactions to percieved slights (though I think many are often calculated attempts to shift the issue). I really believe that piling on of posts really doesn't help the situation and makes those most excellent posts that much easier to get lost or ignored.Of course, I really wish it were so easy (I am probably over simplifying or just plain WRONG!!! )

#!This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 06:38 PM

I was under the impression that only creationists who believe that only a flood that covered the highest mountains, as is described in Genesis, would use this argument in support of the flood. Any creationists like yourself who understand that the mountains are not just covered in fossil shells but are *filled* with fossil shells would not advance this as an argument for the flood, since it is the same as the evolutionist argument. There's a different reply to your argument, but that's probably best taken to the Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some thread.--Percy