Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fountains of the deep, new evidence
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 26 of 106 (736221)
09-05-2014 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Colbard
09-05-2014 5:47 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:
One legend says that their ancestors - a family of eight members survived the great flood inside a fish. Sometimes you can find the missing details in the neighboring tribe.
Numerology is usually a bad idea. Sometimes the number eight is just a coincidence.
Colbard writes:
In regards to a test tube for myths and metaphysics, I consider the KJV Bible the only guide.
And yet you feel free to mangle the KJV Bible to fit some scientific article.
Colbard writes:
It has not been proven wrong to me yet.
Treasure Island has never been proven wrong to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Colbard, posted 09-05-2014 5:47 AM Colbard has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 48 of 106 (736299)
09-06-2014 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Colbard
09-06-2014 11:52 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:
I have failed, but I still dare to have an opinion.
Opinions are for ice cream. Subjectively, nobody can prove that their favorite is better than mine.
Objectively, opinions don't trump facts. Holding an opinion that defies facts isn't daring; it's just foolish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Colbard, posted 09-06-2014 11:52 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Colbard, posted 11-02-2014 4:01 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 52 of 106 (740197)
11-02-2014 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Colbard
11-02-2014 4:01 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:
To say that your opinions don't matter is to say that you don't matter, which is one of my primary objections to so called 'scientific method'
Your opinions about ice cream do matter - just ask Ben or Jerry.
What I'm saying is that your opinions don't matter to science - and necesarily so. By trying to inject your opinions into science, you're the one who's devaluing everybody else's opinion. Science can only draw useful conclusions by coming to a consensus on what is "true" - i.e. by eliminating individual opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Colbard, posted 11-02-2014 4:01 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 7:25 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 59 of 106 (742605)
11-22-2014 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Colbard
11-22-2014 7:25 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:
ringo writes:
Science can only draw useful conclusions by coming to a consensus on what is "true" - i.e. by eliminating individual opinions.
A process of elimination, yes it has value, but what if the majority of the consensus board are wrong?
You answered your own question: It's a process; it's ongoing.
Yes, the consensus might be wrong one day. Then the next day new evdence comes in and the consensus may still be wrong. But eventually, with enough new evidence, the concensus should move toward "truth".
What other method would you propose to improve it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 7:25 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Colbard, posted 11-23-2014 7:48 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 65 of 106 (742730)
11-23-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Colbard
11-23-2014 7:48 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:
I agree with the method, and accept progression, but I use both reasoning and faith.
Since you accepted by faith that somebody had radio-carbon dated a penny, maybe you should be leaving faith out of the equation. Reasoning should have told you how ludicrous that idea was, but your faith seems to let the ludicrous in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Colbard, posted 11-23-2014 7:48 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Colbard, posted 11-24-2014 7:22 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 69 of 106 (742870)
11-25-2014 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Colbard
11-24-2014 7:22 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:
Not really, as a kid I believed what I was told to pass exams. Fortunately there never was a Question about dating in the final.
But you don't accept the dating today. Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Colbard, posted 11-24-2014 7:22 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Colbard, posted 11-29-2014 8:16 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 74 of 106 (743298)
11-29-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Colbard
11-29-2014 8:16 AM


Re: Water in the earth
Colbard writes:
ringo writes:
But you don't accept the dating today. Why not?
Because I have had far too much evidence on the contrary.
Is all of your "evidence" as idiotic as carbon-dating a penny? Surely you ought to be embarrassed to even mention any other "evidence" you've seen.
What you ought to be doing, instead of sticking to your story, is re-evaluating all of that so-called "evidence" before you make any more pronouncements about dating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Colbard, posted 11-29-2014 8:16 AM Colbard has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 89 of 106 (743967)
12-06-2014 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Colbard
12-05-2014 7:35 AM


Colbard writes:
I don't believe the ancient layers in the earth with their corresponding fossils is evidence of millions of years per layer, unless there was a flood for each layer.
Well, there are flood layers, a lot of them. The problem is that there are other layers between them - volcanic ash or wind-deposited sand, for example - so we know that the flood layers are not all related.
When you see a pile of leaves, do you assume they were all from one giant tree? You probably accept the sensible conclusion that they came from a lot of trees. So why would you assume that all flood layers come from one flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Colbard, posted 12-05-2014 7:35 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Colbard, posted 12-07-2014 4:53 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 93 of 106 (744019)
12-07-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Colbard
12-07-2014 4:53 AM


Colbard writes:
It's a good analogy for the flood layers.
Maybe you didn't understand the analogy. It's supposed to make the idea of one flood look ridiculous.
Do you seriously believe that every leaf came from one gigantic tree? If not, your flood evidence is completely worthless. It points to many floods, not one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Colbard, posted 12-07-2014 4:53 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:50 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 98 of 106 (744118)
12-08-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Colbard
12-08-2014 8:50 AM


Colbard writes:
As a global flood recedes, the waters are divided by land masses, earth upheavals and changes over a 500 year period, during which time the earth is also coming out of an ice age.
Of course the Bible doesn't support any of that. You're not only twisting science; you're twisting the Bible too.
But in any case, stretching to five hundred years doesn't help you at all. There's no way for all that lithification to take place in such a short time frame. Multiple flood layers indicate multiple floods over a long period of time, with time between floods for drying, hardening, compaction, metamorphosis, etc. And between floods, life goes on, leaving tracks, burrows, etc. between the layers.
Flood geology doesn't come close to explaining all of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 8:50 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Colbard, posted 12-09-2014 8:21 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 101 of 106 (744251)
12-09-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Colbard
12-09-2014 8:21 AM


Colbard writes:
You don't believe in sudden changes, because the scientific models are virtually static and not dynamic.
No, science has no problem with sudden changes. Volcanic eruptions are an excellent example, one that floodists ignore. There are many "igneous adventures" interspersed with the many floods in the geological record. It is just not possible to explain all of the sudden changes with one event.
Colbard writes:
As the apostle Peter says "they say that all things have continued as from the beginning" the change rates are static.
Nobody says the change rates are static but they do stay within certain ranges. You want to extrapolate so far outside the known possible ranges that you're not connected to reality any more.
Colbard writes:
But a few modern storms and earthquakes will get people to think differently than the sleepy everlasting story of mini progressions.
The biggest storms and the biggest earthquakes you can imagine are miniscule on the world geographic scale and the geologic time scale. Storms and earthquakes are tiny local events. You can't just scale them up.
Colbard writes:
No, creationists don't always teach the Bible....
I know. They have no foundation in the Bible and no foundation in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Colbard, posted 12-09-2014 8:21 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024