Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 8:28 PM
99 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones* (2 members, 97 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,560 Year: 3,597/19,786 Month: 592/1,087 Week: 182/212 Day: 24/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
127NextFF
Author Topic:   Why the Flood Never Happened
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 1896 (713303)
12-11-2013 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ProtoTypical
12-11-2013 4:00 PM


Re: Muddy Water
Would certainly be a problem for the fish and other sea creatures which we assume died in huge numbers in the Flood too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-11-2013 4:00 PM ProtoTypical has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 9:46 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-11-2013 10:49 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 1896 (713304)
12-11-2013 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
12-11-2013 4:56 PM


Re: Subaerial Erosion And Deposition In The Grand Canyon
Since you are in a gracious mood, would you care to correct your other statement that I required that only the Grand Canyon be the subject of discussion? What I asked was that a particular sort of Grand Canyon vista be the subject of discussion and since you didn't stick to that request it hardly matters if we discuss the Grand Staircase too.

If you are nice enough to do that then I may post something about that whole area, since I love that particular cross section you posted -- well, really another one that covers the territory better in my opinion, if I can find it. And then you can insult me to your heart's content, only at least try to represent what I'm saying accurately please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 4:56 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 9:49 PM Faith has responded
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2013 11:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 18 of 1896 (713308)
12-11-2013 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
12-11-2013 9:23 PM


Re: Muddy Water
Would certainly be a problem for the fish and other sea creatures which we assume died in huge numbers in the Flood too.

So there should be thousands of fossils of fish and other sea creatures in the Grand Canyon formations ... yes?

Where are they?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 9:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 19 of 1896 (713309)
12-11-2013 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
12-11-2013 9:29 PM


Re: Subaerial Erosion And Deposition In The Grand Canyon
Have you read Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.?

Haven't seen any creationist attempt that

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 9:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 11:06 PM RAZD has responded

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1074 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 20 of 1896 (713311)
12-11-2013 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
12-11-2013 9:23 PM


Re: Muddy Water
Would certainly be a problem for the fish and other sea creatures which we assume died in huge numbers in the Flood too.

Strange that you have time to answer questions not pertaining to the GC when you feel you have a good answer for them but you continue to avoid the points I've made for which you were unable to provide a rebuttal in the last thread. I can understand why you don't want to answer; the physical impossibilities required by your version of events that I have pointed out are a lot harder to explain away than the fate of the fish during the Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 9:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 10:59 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 1896 (713313)
12-11-2013 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Atheos canadensis
12-11-2013 10:49 PM


Re: Muddy Water
I answered your points.

You think the orientation of the grains defeats the idea that they were deposited in the Flood.

I believe that many other things about the strata prove that they were deposited in the Flood along with all the other strata and all my effort goes into trying to make that case. If the structure of the strata proves either no Old Earth or possibility of Flood, you'll have to rethink your certainty about the interpretation of the orientation of the grains.

There is nothing more to say about it.

There is a lot on this thread and I've been busy elsewhere and still have to decide whether and what to post. I post small posts because they don't take time. Nothing at all strange about it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-11-2013 10:49 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-11-2013 11:40 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 1896 (713315)
12-11-2013 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
12-11-2013 9:49 PM


Re: Subaerial Erosion And Deposition In The Grand Canyon
I happened to be here for that thread and there are ten of my posts on it which you can see from the "Thread details." I had to move my posts to another thread.

The thread was the standard establishment interpretation, a lot of tedious Rube Goldberg type explanations.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 9:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 11:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 23 of 1896 (713316)
12-11-2013 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
12-11-2013 11:06 PM


Re: Subaerial Erosion And Deposition In The Grand Canyon
and I repeat -- have your read it

The thread was the standard establishment interpretation, a lot of tedious Rube Goldberg type explanations.

But maybe I should have asked if you understood it ...

I didn't ask if you posted on it

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ,,


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 11:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(5)
Message 24 of 1896 (713318)
12-11-2013 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
12-11-2013 9:29 PM


Re: Subaerial Erosion And Deposition In The Grand Canyon
Since you are in a gracious mood, would you care to correct your other statement that I required that only the Grand Canyon be the subject of discussion? What I asked was that a particular sort of Grand Canyon vista be the subject of discussion ...

Oh, OK. Faith would like me to remind everyone that not only would she like us to look only at the Grand Canyon when considering whether or not there was a worldwide flood, but she would also like us only to look at it from a distance so's we get a really poor view of it. And no peeking below the Great Unconformity. If you find yourself in danger of getting a glimpse of any actual rocks, hold the Bible in front of your eyes and pray to God for myopia.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 9:29 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 12-12-2013 9:19 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1074 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 25 of 1896 (713319)
12-11-2013 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
12-11-2013 10:59 PM


Re: Muddy Water
I answered your points.

Not even close. Acknowledging and then ignoring is not the same thing as answering. You have stated variously that you think I am wrong, that it isn't important and that your pet theory about the GC strata is more important. You have not once explained the problems I point out with your position.

You think the orientation of the grains defeats the idea that they were deposited in the Flood

Nope. Unless by "orientation of grains" you really mean "orientation of strata". I think that because we find sandstone strata with a 34 degree angle of repose (a physical impossibility for aqueously-deposited sand) then obviously the Flood is not responsible for the entire rock record as you claim. I also maintain that finding a dinosaur sitting intact on its nest is very problematic for you. So do you, obviously, or you'd have responded to it by now with more than mere dismissal.

If the structure of the strata proves either no Old Earth or possibility of Flood, you'll have to rethink your certainty about the interpretation of the orientation of the grains.

It works both ways, Faith; I'm presenting evidence to you that certain strata had to have been deposited in a terrestrial environment and this should cause you to rethink your certainty about your interpretation of the strata's layout. In fact I would argue that the fact that you have to explain away a physical impossibility is a more important and decisive issue. I know you won't see it that way because you've now made it clear that you only want to answer the stuff you already think you know the answer to.

There is nothing more to say about it.

There is for you. You haven't said anything yet. I know you desperately want to avoid it because you know it represents a major problem for your position, but that's exactly the sort of willful blindness you keep accusing us of and is the reason I originally wanted to name this thread with the excellent pun "Blind Faith"

I post small posts because they don't take time. Nothing at all strange about it.

I'm not taking issue with the length of your posts, I'm taking issue with the way you're avoiding points you think are too hard to refute. Feel free to make a small post in response, just make sure it is actually a response instead of an evasion. The real reason you avoid it is obviously because you can't easily think of a plausible explanation for why your theory requires a physical impossibility.

Am I the only one who is curious to hear the answers to the questions I've posed to Faith?

Edited by Atheos canadensis, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 12-11-2013 10:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 12-11-2013 11:49 PM Atheos canadensis has responded
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 1:46 AM Atheos canadensis has responded
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2013 10:11 AM Atheos canadensis has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 26 of 1896 (713320)
12-11-2013 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Atheos canadensis
12-11-2013 11:40 PM


Re: Muddy Water
I also maintain that finding a dinosaur sitting intact on its nest is very problematic for you.

It's even worse than that!

The time scale from dinosaurs to the flood has to be compressed by about 14,943X to make it fit.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-11-2013 11:40 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-12-2013 12:22 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 1074 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


(1)
Message 27 of 1896 (713321)
12-12-2013 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coyote
12-11-2013 11:49 PM


Re: Muddy Water
It's even worse than that!

The time scale from dinosaurs to the flood has to be compressed by about 14,943X to make it fit.

I agree, but I thought things might go a bit more productively if I tried a very simple example that didn't require Faith to swallow deep time. It seems pretty obvious that a dinosaur sitting on its nest could not have been preserved thusly by a catastrophic flood, regardless of whether you think the dinosaur died 4300-odd years ago or 70 million. But Faith's rather transparent attempts to avoid this simple question have stalled the debate.

And do you not agree that explaining why a physical impossibility is required by her theory is a fairly pressing issue?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coyote, posted 12-11-2013 11:49 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-12-2013 1:10 AM Atheos canadensis has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1996
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(4)
Message 28 of 1896 (713322)
12-12-2013 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Atheos canadensis
12-12-2013 12:22 AM


Re: Muddy Water
And do you not agree that explaining why a physical impossibility is required by her theory is a fairly pressing issue?

You have clearly demonstrated several of the impossible consequences of her flood deposition hypothesis. If she was an honest debater she would acknowledge the flaws, but that would mean she would have to abandon the whole thing and that will never happen.

She will never address the issues you have pointed out and will continue to brush them aside or continue to misinterpret and minimize those issues. Plan on being frustrated.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-12-2013 12:22 AM Atheos canadensis has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 1896 (713323)
12-12-2013 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Atheos canadensis
12-11-2013 11:40 PM


Re: Muddy Water
There are hundreds of points people argue to prove the Flood couldn't have happened. I may or may not have some answers to some of them, but what I said is true: I have been pursuing my own line of argument for years because I think it defeats the Old Earth explanation of the strata absolutely and fits the Flood model very well. Nothing has changed my mind about that and I keep learning things that contribute to the argument every time I come back to it.

You know what, the strata themselves ARE evidence of the Flood. Yes, it's that simple, and if people weren't blinded by the theory of long ages per layer I think it should be easy to get it across. You want something more complex, citations and so on, but no, evidence of the Flood is everywhere really, but most tellingly in the strata. You think I'm just being rude I guess but when I say the Old Earth explanation of the layers is "ridiculous" I mean it IS ridiculous, and I actually wish it would be taken as a serious criticism. I do think simply thinking about the physical structure could lead to an awareness of the obviousness of the Flood explanation and the ridiculousness of the OE explanation but I point out the features that lead to that conclusion to help you out. And I am quite serious, very very serious. The timing of the disturbances, of the cutting of the canyon, of the volcano beneath the GC that I believe brought about the Great Unconformity, all that contributes to the basic picture, and there's a lot more than that. Armed with such facts and a willingness to consider that maybe I'm right you could see it the way I see it. Grains of sand would become quite irrelevant.

This is a reasonable way to approach the problems in my opinion. You are focused on minutiae, I'm trying to focus on the big picture. Even if the minutiae seem to be ironclad they will have to give if the big picture can be established.

The minutiae are small things that you have observed in the present, you have no idea how a Flood would have affected them, none, you simply extrapolate from the present to your idea of the Flood. That's not an unreasonable way to approach it but it is never going to definitively defeat the Flood, but if I could get the big picture across that WOULD definitively defeat the Old Earth theory.

In my experience half my problem is just getting across what I mean, everybody thinks they understand when they don't, or they ignore it or change the subject or whatever. It does get tiresome being accused and misrepresented. I don't even know what you think you've "pointed out about my position" because nothing you've said hit me as relevant. And I have to deal with a small army of critics, you know, not just you, and you're new and somehow expect me to regard your arguments as something special too. Why should I?

By the way since you ARE new you may not know that the dinosaur nest is an old argument; the sand grains have also come up many times before although I think you have more variations on it. I haven't even read enough of your argument to try to think of an answer. I simply don't try to deal with that kind of argument here. I never have and I'm not starting now.

Anyway, I haven't decided yet what to do on this thread if anything.

ABE: After reviewing the last column of posts I'm in a mood to hang it all up. Wow.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-11-2013 11:40 PM Atheos canadensis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Pressie, posted 12-12-2013 3:18 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 31 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-12-2013 7:21 AM Faith has responded
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2013 8:57 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 12-12-2013 10:53 AM Faith has responded
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-12-2013 12:25 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-12-2013 10:08 PM Faith has responded
 Message 82 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-13-2013 4:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 30 of 1896 (713326)
12-12-2013 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
12-12-2013 1:46 AM


Re: Muddy Water
Faith writes:

....but if I could get the big picture across that WOULD definitively defeat the Old Earth theory....

Shouting a word at us or writing something in capital letters doesn't make it true. Doesn't matter how many times you shout it.

Oh, and an old earth isn't a theory. It's a fact. You should read up on what a scientific theory is.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 12-12-2013 1:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456
...
127NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019