Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 151 of 409 (680223)
11-18-2012 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by RAZD
11-18-2012 2:33 PM


Re: PICTURE TOO BIG
Better?

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2012 2:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 152 of 409 (680224)
11-18-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by cavediver
11-18-2012 7:00 AM


Re: Bible versus Geology
Rottingdean actually :-)

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 7:00 AM cavediver has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 153 of 409 (680225)
11-18-2012 3:24 PM


Ken Ham's response
It turns out that Ken Ham has a response to this road trip video:
(found via a blog post)

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by nwr, posted 11-18-2012 3:59 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 154 of 409 (680229)
11-18-2012 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by nwr
11-18-2012 3:24 PM


Re: Ken Ham's response
Quoting Ken Ham:
quote:
Maxwell considers creationism a conspiracy, no different than a belief in UFOs.
I can't read Maxwell's mind, but I suspect Ham has that wrong. The more common view is to see creationists as "conspiracy theorists". That is, they imagine huge implausible conspiracies as an explanation for all of the evidence that contradicts them.
quote:
Of course, it becomes obvious that the program is not intended to sincerely search out a matter but to make a mockery of Christiansparticularly biblical creationists.
It was an entertainment program, not a news program. Of course it was not trying to "search out a matter." However, I don't see that it is aimed at making a mockery out of Christians. It seemed to steer clear of mocking.
Of course, Ken Ham might see it as mockery. He really does enjoy wearing that Christian Persecution Complex on his lapel.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 11-18-2012 3:24 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 9:02 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 155 of 409 (680250)
11-18-2012 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by nwr
11-18-2012 3:59 PM


Re: Ken Ham's response / and a note on this thread
Ham's discussion was good I thought, dealt with all the points other creationists took note of, including me at my blog. We're all on the same page, we all build on each other.
Obviously this discussion on this thread is futile, however, all of it, the polarization is so wide. There is no agreement from any of you for even a single point made by a creationist that I've ever seen here, no matter how hard we might work to be thorough in our reasoning. I might as well continue to argue on my blog instead.
Evidence for the Flood doesn't need to be searched for, it's plain as day in the entire geological column, best demonstrated at the GC. The idea that you've all "looked and haven't found" is just absurd. But what you "see" -- by your data -- is those millions upon millions of years instead, like a veil over the canyon really. But that's the way it is, that's what you "see" and nobody is going to get you to see it any other way.
Now I note that the creationists have answered me, and if I have to explain the time factor of the Bible I know that discussion is hopeless too, extra time has somehow been "found" there and all my arguments that it is not there but imposed on it aren't going to make any difference. The argument by ICANT that an inference from the Bible is adding to the Bible is just too absurd to even consider, and anyone who would say that is beyond reaching. "Finding" millions of years in the Bible IS adding to it, unfortunately.
Well, so much for attempts to communicate at EvC. Futility and hopelessness.
I thought I might try to answer Tangle's post since I have considered the chalk cliffs many times before and think I have at least some idea how the Flood formed the features of England including the chalk.
Maybe I still will I don't know.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by nwr, posted 11-18-2012 3:59 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 11-18-2012 9:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 11-18-2012 9:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 158 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2012 9:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 221 by Phat, posted 11-19-2012 1:22 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 156 of 409 (680251)
11-18-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
11-18-2012 9:02 PM


Re: Ken Ham's response / and a note on this thread
Obviously this discussion on this thread is futile, however, all of it, the polarization is so wide. There is no agreement from any of you for even a single point made by a creationist that I've ever seen here, no matter how hard we might work to be thorough in our reasoning. I might as well continue to argue on my blog instead.
The classic example of the "Avoidance Christianity", when you can't support your position just run away. It is the signature of particularly the American Biblical Christian. Create avoidance carny shows and call them "Creation Museums", create avoidance schools, TV channels, browsers, science and call it "Creation Science", avoidance textbooks, ...
It's pitiful.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 9:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 157 of 409 (680258)
11-18-2012 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
11-18-2012 9:02 PM


Re: Ken Ham's response / and a note on this thread
Faith writes:
Now I note that the creationists have answered me, and if I have to explain the time factor of the Bible I know that discussion is hopeless too, extra time has somehow been "found" there and all my arguments that it is not there but imposed on it aren't going to make any difference. The argument by ICANT that an inference from the Bible is adding to the Bible is just too absurd to even consider, and anyone who would say that is beyond reaching. "Finding" millions of years in the Bible IS adding to it, unfortunately.
Well, so much for attempts to communicate at EvC. Futility and hopelessness.
Ah, I see, your inability to persuade even other creationists is EvC's fault.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 9:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 9:46 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 158 of 409 (680260)
11-18-2012 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
11-18-2012 9:02 PM


When is the flood?
I don't understand why we are searching through deep geological time for evidence of the flood.
The consensus of biblical scholars places it far more recently, in historic times. Here are some of the opinions for the date of the global flood:
2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com
2500 BC -- Biblical Chronology
2522 BC -- Dr. Gerhard Hasel
2978-3128 BC -- http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199605/0162.html
3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)
These are just a sample of the biblical scholars who place the flood in historic times, well after dinosaurs and having nothing to do with geologic time millions to hundreds of millions of years ago.
But apparently there is a vast disagreement among creationists over when the flood occurred, spanning virtually the entire age of the earth. Now it occurs to me that if creationists can't read and interpret the bible to any narrower time frame than about four billion years for 1) the date of the flood, and 2) consequently the age of modern humans, it occurs to me that there is nothing in what they say that we need to take seriously.
And why is there such a span for these events, the flood and modern humans? I suggest it is because creationists are relying on belief (scripture, dogma, revelation, etc.) rather than evidence. In fact, most creationists avoid evidence like vampires avoid garlic!
But when there is a disagreement among various points of view, it is precisely evidence that can help to determine which (if any) of those point sof view might be the most accurate. This has led, over time, to the scientific method where evidence (facts or data) is the primary determinant of theory (explanation). If significant evidence contradicts your theory, the evidence wins out and your theory is out!
Given all of this, perhaps creationists could retreat to their lounge and debate this issue among themselves, and when they have reached consensus then get back to us with specific proposals, and we'll see how those ideas fit with the evidence?
Fair enough?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 9:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 9:53 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 159 of 409 (680262)
11-18-2012 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
11-18-2012 9:22 PM


Re: Ken Ham's response / and a note on this thread
Yes, Faith, I can see what you mean about how the walls of the Grand Canyon sure LOOK like there's no difference in age from bottom to top.
Yes, Faith, I've always thought it's forcing things to find millions of years in the Biblical text.
Yes, Faith, an inference obviously isn't adding anything, that's quite clear.
Etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 11-18-2012 9:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 160 of 409 (680264)
11-18-2012 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Coyote
11-18-2012 9:42 PM


Re: When is the flood?
Well, we AREN'T "looking through deep time" for the Flood. It DID occur about 4300 years ago -- and the Bible itself is the source of the calculations. I don't know why there are those other dates, either, it's depressing that there's so much discrepancy. I go with Morris. It's all recent time. It's just that the entire geological column was laid down IN THE FLOOD around 4300 BC [ABE: correction 4300 years ago or about 2300 BC], so it isn't "deep time" at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2012 9:42 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 11-18-2012 9:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 166 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2012 10:57 PM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 161 of 409 (680266)
11-18-2012 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
11-18-2012 9:53 PM


Re: When is the flood?
It's just that the entire geological column was laid down IN THE FLOOD around 4300 BC, so it isn't "deep time" at all.
That has to be the most inane and vacuous assertion I've heard in three quarters of a century.
Please present the mechanism that the Flood used to lay down the Vishnu schist.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 9:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 10:12 PM jar has replied

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


Message 162 of 409 (680269)
11-18-2012 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by jar
11-18-2012 9:58 PM


Re: When is the flood?
The schist was formed after the strata were all laid down, through the pressure of the weight and the volcanic eruption from below.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jar, posted 11-18-2012 9:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by jar, posted 11-18-2012 10:22 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 163 of 409 (680272)
11-18-2012 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
11-18-2012 10:12 PM


Getting to the details.
Beg your pardon.
How did the flood create the basic materials of the strata that became the schist?
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 10:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 10:31 PM jar has replied

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


Message 164 of 409 (680273)
11-18-2012 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by jar
11-18-2012 10:22 PM


Re: Getting to the details.
The Flood didn't "create" anything, it laid down loose sediments in layers that it carried from who knows where.
The weight of the stack, some two miles deep or so, put pressure on the lowest layers in conjunction with the volcanic magma and heat from below, to form the granite and schist.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by jar, posted 11-18-2012 10:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by jar, posted 11-18-2012 10:33 PM Faith has replied
 Message 170 by Boof, posted 11-18-2012 11:40 PM Faith has replied
 Message 172 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 11:43 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 165 of 409 (680274)
11-18-2012 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
11-18-2012 10:31 PM


Re: Getting to the details.
That's just nonsense Faith, word salad.
How did the flood get the materials that became the layer that eventually became the Vishnu Schist.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 10:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 11:26 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024