|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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 Some Why 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Percy,
What about, "& you only find marine OR terrestrial fauna in specific fossiliferous strata". OK, lacustrine etc. as well, but keep it simple. Mark This 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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:
Faith writes: Percy writes: Obviously our knowledge of other evidence (and what Faith would call our preconceptions) is what leads us to not for even a second consider the fossils as flood evidence, so *we* know that we dismiss the evidence for good reason. But how are others unfamiliar with this evidence specifically and with science generally supposed to know? The bolded part explains the madness that prevails here. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How is it an "answer" to creationists if creationists already agree with it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why question me and run me through a test that supports your view? What does indefensable evidence prove?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I've just told you that I consider the existence of fossils all over the earth to be evidence for me. 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.
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. 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:
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." 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.
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: Basically because the "whole story" is nothing but conjecture that cannot be tested or proved...I don't have any interest in pursuing it beyond what I've already said. 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.
Faith writes: And if you're going to characterize me in the insulting terms you do elsewhere, why bother being polite to my face? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Purpledawn,
Why should ALL mountains contain this abundance of marine fossils, and ALL deserts? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3797 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
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!!! )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
#!
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 06:38 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Faith writes: How is it an "answer" to creationists if creationists already agree with it? 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024