Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 11:03 AM
36 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, edge, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, vimesey (10 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,935 Year: 11,971/19,786 Month: 1,752/2,641 Week: 261/708 Day: 36/52 Hour: 1/16


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Faith
Member
Posts: 32147
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 378 of 409 (680966)
11-21-2012 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Rahvin
11-21-2012 6:59 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
In other words, Faith, give up all your reasoning about how the Flood happened because we don't agree with you.

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 375 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 6:59 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2012 7:14 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 382 by jar, posted 11-21-2012 7:16 PM Faith has responded
 Message 387 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 7:40 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32147
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 381 of 409 (680971)
11-21-2012 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Coyote
11-21-2012 7:11 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Mud is dirt dissolved in water. Get used to it.

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 379 by Coyote, posted 11-21-2012 7:11 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2012 8:00 PM Faith has responded
 Message 393 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 8:39 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32147
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 384 of 409 (680977)
11-21-2012 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by Rahvin
11-21-2012 7:29 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Well it's too late now Rahvin, I used the terms as I understand them on the level of stuff I figure an ordinary person could visualize happening in a Flood. Yes I learned those distinctions in junior high too, but I'm standing back looking at rain on the hill behind my house and scientific terms don't come to mind for that. Again, too bad if it would have helped, it's too late now.

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 383 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 7:29 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32147
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 385 of 409 (680978)
11-21-2012 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by jar
11-21-2012 7:16 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Jar, I don't see why I have to know how sand and clay formed to make my argument about how the Grand Canyon formed.

But I did read up on sand some time ago and there is no reason to think it takes a long time. Sand on the beach gets created fairly rapidly from sources not far out to sea that get pounded by the waves. Or some sand does. It's been a while since I read up on it but my impression was it doesn't take time. It can be formed from the tumbling of rocks down a mountain stream.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 382 by jar, posted 11-21-2012 7:16 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by jar, posted 11-21-2012 7:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32147
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 388 of 409 (680982)
11-21-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by Rahvin
11-21-2012 7:40 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
There's nothing that would change my mind THAT the Flood happened as described in the Bible although HOW it happened, which is all speculation, COULD change of course. But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details. The old earth stuff is LUDICROUS, and that's not coming from my belief in the Bible. I think if you guys would just LOOK for a change you'd recognize that there's something wrong with that shallow seas in situ nonsense.

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 387 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 7:40 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 7:52 PM Faith has responded
 Message 390 by roxrkool, posted 11-21-2012 7:53 PM Faith has responded
 Message 392 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-21-2012 8:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32147
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 396 of 409 (681014)
11-22-2012 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Rahvin
11-21-2012 7:52 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Rahvin writes:

Faith writes:

But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details.

But it's not, as has been well-demonstrated in this thread. For instance: how does a Flood transport a complete nest of eggs, completely intact, to deposit it in sediment?

First off, you aren't talking about the Grand Canyon. What I said is that the Flood-based geology OF THE GRAND CANYON is pretty well worked out except for the details and that is true. I don't know how you guys justify bringing in completely extraneous material and concluding you've defeated an argument about something entirely different on that basis. I barely get one thing described and other things are being thrown at me I'm supposed to answer while meanwhile I can't get anyone to actually think about what I've already said. It's quite possible for the explanation of the mechanics of the formation of the Canyon to make sense on its own. Yeah yeah yeah and all that.

As for the nest and eggs, why do we have to be able to explain EVERYTHING before we can explain ANYTHING? Talk about moving goal posts. But you don't know what happened in the Flood -- and from what I gather there's a strange inability to even begin to imagine what such a global event would have done on the part of my opponents -- and ALL this is is speculation you know, just as all the official sciences about prehistoric time are also nothing but speculation (how I wish someone on your side would recognize that fact). BUT I have no problem imagining exceptions and flukes in such an event. If a nest survived intact, conditions in the Flood somehow allowed that to happen and perhaps this has been demonstrated somewhere already or will be soon.

How do footprints wind up in between layers that were supposed to have been laid down in the Flood?

I believe I suggested back there somewhere that it had to be that the layers were laid down over some period of time so that there were still living things running around on the surface of some of them, but since the footprints are so well preserved it's quite clear that the next layer came in quite rapidly to fill them in.

Look, this whole debate COULD be most reasonably understood by tallying up good solid arguments on one side and reserving unanswered facts on the other. You can't defeat a whole system of thought with a few contrary facts, and certainly your own system of thought has a ton of those against it that you don't bother about.

Why isn't everything in the Flood-deposited layers sorted by buoyancy, like what happens in literally every other case where matter is deposited over a brief period of time from standing water

You cannot just apply what happens in a local flood to this flood, or standing water as you have observed it, can't just apply it without further considerations anyway. Morris had an elaborate understanding of how water in such a quantity as the worldwide Flood would have done the sorting on principles of hydraulics. From what I've read about the nature of the oceans, they DO move things around, transport them long distances, they are crisscrossed with currents at various depths that carry things, waves also carry things, and they are also divided into layers according to differences in temperature the deeper you go.

These are reasonable considerations in relation to such a Flood. There is no way to replicate the conditions of such a Flood so reasonable considerations are a good start. Certainly you like your own speculations more than a creationist's so all we can do is argue which is more reasonable. I think yours are way too paltry to begin to account for what a worldwide Flood would have done, as are others here. I think the nature of oceans as I've mentioned above probably goes a lot further to explain what would have happened than anything based on local floods and anything we could ever have observed ourselves.

The "other creationists, including GEOLOGISTS" is just an appeal to a nameless authority - it doesn't lend your argument an ounce of credibility when your model simply cannot explain a particular set of observations.

It's meant to answer the accusation that I'm just making stuff up off the top of my head without any geological authority or background whatever. If I'm in accord with some actual geologists that ought to help answer that accusation, or even just in accord with creationist thinking, period. Steve Austin is a creationist geologist who has studied the nautiloid layer in the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon to show that it demonstrates catastrophic burial of those creatures. I also found Tas Walker's Biblical Geology site back up thread, and although I haven't had time to get back to it to be sure what he's arguing it looks like he's arguing the same basic Grand Canyon argument I've been arguing. And he's a geologist.

If your sources have worked out mechanisms to explain those observations, your job is then to relate those ideas to us - else all we see is your argument, refuted by an observation that falsifies your model.

Your argument does NOT falsify my model. Nothing anyone has said here has managed that. You change the subject and call that falsifying my model of the formation of the Grand Canyon. No, you have to think about the mechanics of its formation, a dinosaur nest is not going to refute it. You have objections from your own speculations, it's all a war of interpretation since there is no way to objectively establish any of this. I know you dispute that idea but it's one of the main things I've been trying to get across.

Please, you all accept juust about THE most utterly ridiculous bit of lore about the formation of the strata imaginable, the idea that you can find in a mere slab of rock, a flat slab of rock, evidence of whole former historical scenarios. You probe around in this rock, say limestone, which is already absurdly accepted as some kind of evidence of the "environment" of the time, and you find, oh, a bunch of marine life and you conclude that there was on that very spot once upon a fine fairy tale a sea in which such creatures lived. BUT IT'S FAR MORE REASONABLE FROM ITS OBVIOUS APPEARANCE, ITS CONDITION, ITS PRESENTATION TO THE NAKED EYE, TO SUGGEST THAT ROCK WAS MERELY DUMPED THERE AS A LAYER WITHIN A STACK OF LAYERS, A ROCK THAT WAS ORIGINALLY A CERTAIN KIND OF SEDIMENTS CONTAINING MARINE LIFE THAT WAS PICKED UP IN THE FLOOD AND DEPOSITED THERE.

This is a case of the Emperor's New Clothes and eventually all the sciences that have been buying into it should have to acknowledge this. In a ROCK you guys find fairy tales. You find, oh, a fern fossil in another rock and you allow yourselves to imagine whole tropical scenes for that "era" in "deep time" but IT'S ONLY A ROCK that was originally sediment that held some flora and probably fauna as well that came from a tropical location and got moved and dumped there. You come up with these scenarios as if the actual appearance of the rock means nothing.

Oh well. The hardest thing about this is getting you all to stop throwing your objections at my "model" before you've even grasped what the model is actually saying. Oh yeah, you'll say you KNOW what it's saying. No, you don't. All I get from you is these objections from out of the blue and no acknowledgment of anything in the argument I've actually presented.

Oh well. Way it goes.

Edited by Faith, : grammar

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 389 by Rahvin, posted 11-21-2012 7:52 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32147
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 397 of 409 (681016)
11-22-2012 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Percy
11-21-2012 8:39 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
According to the dictionary definition I supplied up thread there is nothing wrong with my use of the word "dissolve" to describe the formation of mud. I'm amazed that you all are willing to hang up this thread on such a nitpicky point, and it IS nitpicky because the way I'm using it IS perfectly correct by the definition given in that dictionary for how ORDINARY ENGLISH uses the term.

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 393 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 8:39 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32147
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 398 of 409 (681017)
11-22-2012 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by RAZD
11-21-2012 8:00 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
I refer you back to the definition I already supplied from a standard English Dictionary. There is absolutely nothing unusual about my use of the term "dissolve" despite your strained attempt to discredit me. I'm using STANDARD DiCTIONARY-VALIDATED ENGLISH, ORDINARY ENGLISH.

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 391 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2012 8:00 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Tangle, posted 11-22-2012 4:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32147
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 399 of 409 (681018)
11-22-2012 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by roxrkool
11-21-2012 7:53 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Thanks, rox, I like you too, I even like others here who drive me crazy.

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 390 by roxrkool, posted 11-21-2012 7:53 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32147
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(2)
Message 401 of 409 (681027)
11-22-2012 6:16 AM


Bumpy Trip in Debate Land with some Scenic Stops
Here's my summation.

First I want to thank Admin/Percy for letting this thread go rollicking merrily on without interruptions by Moderators, since certainly there must have been cause for such interruptions at times. But it's a great joy to have been allowed to argue freely here, back and forth from the scientific thoughts to the Bible since that's how a creationist thinks, and insisting that we discuss only one or the other makes things difficult. Of course that may all be due to the nature of this particular thread. In any case I'm grateful for it.

Second, I'm sorry about the flap over definitions. Stubborn I may be but I'm not giving in on this because there's no way I can meet the standard of using technical language that is required by some on this thread. If it's required I simply cannot participate here. As it is I avoid threads that address the more technical issues. There may be really good creationists arguing on some of those threads but I can't join in at that level.

I posted a dictionary definition of the word "dissolve" back in message 314 that makes it quite clear that my use of it is within standard usage. For reference here's that material again, edited for emphasis:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissolve

DISSOLVE
transitive verb
b : to separate into component parts : disintegrate...
b : melt, liquefy...
intransitive verb
1a : to become dissipated or decomposed
b : break up, disperse
2a : to become fluid : melt
Origin of DISSOLVE
Middle English, from Latin dissolvere, from dis- + solvere to loosen

Any of those definitions fit what I was describing.

Third, this WAS very much a Road Trip, with various stops along the way at different topics that touch on the debate, plus eventually a more focused discussion of the Grand Canyon which was one of the topics of the Road Trip film.

I'm rather pleased with my attempt to get the gist of my analysis into one post, back there in Message 352.

Fourth, The analysis of the formation of the Grand Canyon from a purely physical/mechanical perspective holds up without having all the particulars in place. You can jeer all you like and huff and puff about science all you like, that understanding of the Canyon on the part of creationists is only going to get better and more specific over time. Contrary to claims that we have to address ALL the issues in the debate to make ANY valid observations at all, a focus on a limited area is a perfectly good place to start to question the establishment paradigm. The Canyon has already been explained by many in terms of the Flood, it can only improve. Again, I'm quite happy with my own analysis of it, some of which IS my own.

Fifth, a corollary to the analysis of the Canyon is the objection to the establishment explanation of the strata in terms of historical periods or eras as ludicrous in the extreme, as if nobody has noticed you're talking about mere slabs of rock. I'm sure you hardly expect our own era to get memorialized in a slab of rock. Oh maybe you're silly enough to think so. Ah well. Again I point out the glaring fact that NO appreciable disturbance occurred to that deep stack of layers quite visible in the canyon walls, or to any particular layer of it UNTIL the canyon was cut. Same with all the formations of that region, such as the GS and the Southwest in general, as I point out earlier. Yup, billions of years of different eras tied to particular kinds of ROCK with dead things scattered through them? Emperor's New Clothes.

Sixth, I would like to extend an apology to Boof if perhaps I did misread his last post. I didn't blame him for the miscommunication and I don't think I was the cause of it either, it was just something that couldn't help happening. But if he WASN'T just baiting me with his granite boulder THAT I apologize for.

Thanks to all for a stimulating if bumpy road trip.

ABE: Realized I could answer Boof's question here about where I got the idea of the "geological column" since it turns out that's not a term used by Geology, though it is by creationists. I didn't know that, but I also don't know where I got it. Probably from the creationist sites, but I don't know. It always seemed like a good objective definition of the strata and I never questioned it. I still am not sure what term I SHOULD use, however.

Edited by Faith, : last paragraph


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

    
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019