Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
40 online now:
nwr, PaulK (2 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,697 Year: 9,445/23,288 Month: 460/1,544 Week: 174/561 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(3)
Message 241 of 518 (810837)
06-02-2017 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
06-02-2017 1:02 AM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
quote:

I've proved the Flood many times over by showing that the strata can't be explained by the Time Table

No, you have not.

quote:

that they are too straight and flat to fit that scenario

You haven't even made a good attempt at that, ignoring counter-examples, ignoring the fact that sea beds are expected to be mostly flat and really no evidence other than a handful of photographs which are bound to miss a lot of evidence.

quote:

that time periods can't be marked by rocks

Which seems to be a silly strawman, although you can't explain it well enough to even be sure of that.

quote:

that the strata were all laid down before any serious erosion took place, such as for instance the Grand Canyon itself, and before any tectonic disturbances.

Which we know to be false.

quote:

Layers supposedly millions of years apart bent together as one block.

And were subsequently eroded, and unbent laters deposited on top...

quote:

The other problems don't matter a lot when the main facts support the Flood and discredit the Time Scale.

A more rational evaluation would be that your arguments are to weak to matter much in the face of the fact that you have not even a hint of a valid explanation of the order of the fossil record. And that is before we get into considering all the other evidence better explained by the scientific view.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 1:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4194
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 242 of 518 (810863)
06-02-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
06-01-2017 11:46 PM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
And here I thought we were having a perfectly pleasant exchange.

Until you chose to deliberately lie to my face, denying a claim that we have all seen you make repeatedly.

Having had to deal with creationist dishonesty for over three decades, I have zero tolerance for lies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 06-01-2017 11:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 3:42 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 243 of 518 (810882)
06-02-2017 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
06-02-2017 1:02 AM


Re: Just the Usual Flood Scenario
I've proved the Flood many times over by showing that the strata can't be explained by the Time Table, ...

I don't even know what you mean by this.

The 'time table' (assuming you mean the geological time scale) does not 'explain' the strata in any sense that I know. It provides a temporal framework of relative ages of the rocks, but it cannot tell us anything about a rock.

... that they are too straight and flat to fit that scenario, that time periods can't be marked by rocks, ....

And this is exactly what we expect from sediments.

If you core modern lake sediments or just look at the bottom of any body of water, you see flat expanses upon which sediment is being deposited.

No flood is necessary for 'straight and flat' (your meaning) sedimentary contacts.

... that the strata were all laid down before any serious erosion took place, ...

Utter nonsense.

We see angular unconformities all over the planet. By analogy, we live on an a modern unconformity. And theoretically, the supposed pre-flood people lived on an unconformity which, amazingly, shows no evidence of human habitation.

... such as for instance the Grand Canyon itself, and before any tectonic disturbances. Layers supposedly millions of years apart bent together as one block.

Again, demonstrably no.

We see both erosion and deformation within the stratigraphic column of most places on earth. You may deny it, but you have to ignore a lot of solid evidence against you.

Supposedly hundreds of millions of years of undisturbed strata as are seen in the walls of the Grand Canyon a mile deep. The Time Scale can't possibly explain all that.

And why not? Why has no one noticed this but you after centuries of geological research?

Why could a region not be undisturbed tectonically for millions of years?

Your say so?

And you consider that to be evidence?

But in less than a year the Flood could have laid the strata, and while the layers were still malleable the tectonic pressures could have bent them as a unit. Couldn't happen if there were millions of years between layers.

Why not? We know for a fact that under certain conditions rocks are ductile. Those conditions exist within the crust.

And lots more than that.

More than what? you haven't given us anything but personal incredulity.

The other problems don't matter a lot when the main facts support the Flood and discredit the Time Scale.

Faith, this is silliness on your part. Denial is not evidence and known processes are not miracles.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 1:02 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:01 PM edge has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 244 of 518 (810884)
06-02-2017 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by dwise1
06-02-2017 10:28 AM


Not lying
dw writes:

Faith writes:

And here I thought we were having a perfectly pleasant exchange.

Until you chose to deliberately lie to my face, denying a claim that we have all seen you make repeatedly.

Having had to deal with creationist dishonesty for over three decades, I have zero tolerance for lies.

I forget things -- only too quickly these days -- I read things in the wrong context, I think you mean something else than what I said, I'm distracted because of other discussions going on, I don't think the issue you raise as important as you do, any of that, but I'm not lying. There is no need to accuse anyone of lying, there are always other possible explanations. Even now I'm not sure what this is about so I must have some otrher idea about what I said than you do. Perhaps you should make an effort to quote me when you want to accuse me of lying.

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 242 by dwise1, posted 06-02-2017 10:28 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 257 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 245 of 518 (810890)
06-02-2017 6:12 PM


Faith, stories are not evidence.

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 6:20 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 246 of 518 (810891)
06-02-2017 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by edge
06-02-2017 6:12 PM


edge writes:

Faith, stories are not evidence.

Could be. Depends on the story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by edge, posted 06-02-2017 6:12 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 06-02-2017 6:35 PM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32664
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 247 of 518 (810892)
06-02-2017 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
06-02-2017 6:20 PM


The Bible is an unreliable source
Faith writes:

edge writes:

Faith, stories are not evidence.

Could be. Depends on the story.

But when it is a story from a known unreliable, often contradictory, often inaccurate and often known to be false source like the Bible it is not evidence for anything more than the fact that the story does say what it says.

A great example is the Biblical flood myths where there are at least two mutually exclusive and contradictory fables as you have been shown repeatedly.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 6:20 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 11:35 PM jar has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 248 of 518 (810896)
06-02-2017 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by jar
06-02-2017 6:35 PM


Re: The Bible is (far from) an unreliable source
The Bible is accepted as the inerrant word of God by all the Christians I identify with. without contradiction and never false. Its critics are the ones at fault.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 06-02-2017 6:35 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2017 12:27 AM Faith has responded
 Message 257 by jar, posted 06-03-2017 7:41 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 249 of 518 (810897)
06-03-2017 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
06-02-2017 11:35 PM


Re: The Bible is certainly an unreliable source
Certainly as history, suffering the flaws of most ancient sources - and much more so than some. Genesis is especially unreliable in that respect, being composed of retellings of myth and legend.

Naturally if you twist the truth to support the false dogmas you cling to - even unwittingly - your arguments are going to fail. And that is the only reason you think you have "proof"

quote:

Its critics are the ones at fault.

Because accepting the Bible as it is, rather the way you want it to be is a "fault" ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 06-02-2017 11:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:05 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 250 of 518 (810900)
06-03-2017 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by PaulK
06-03-2017 12:27 AM


Re: The Bible is certainly (not) an unreliable source
Those who take it as the simple truth soar in the spirit. You might try just taking that position some time instead of insisting on the vaporings of the scholars who are just making up stuff anyway.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2017 12:27 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2017 1:17 AM Faith has responded
 Message 256 by RAZD, posted 06-03-2017 5:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 251 of 518 (810901)
06-03-2017 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
06-03-2017 1:05 AM


Even Christianity would be better
quote:

You might try just taking that position some time instead of insisting on the vaporings of the scholars who are just making up stuff anyway.

At least I wouldn't have to resort to hypocritical lies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:22 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 252 of 518 (810902)
06-03-2017 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by PaulK
06-03-2017 1:17 AM


Re: Even Christianity would be better
Funny, you do that every time you attack the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2017 1:17 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2017 1:31 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 253 of 518 (810903)
06-03-2017 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Faith
06-03-2017 1:22 AM


Re: Even Christianity would be better
Thank you for proving my point. In fact more than one point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:22 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:45 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 254 of 518 (810904)
06-03-2017 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by PaulK
06-03-2017 1:31 AM


Re: Even Christianity would be better
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

You can't read the Bible and deny it without lying to yourself because it's supernatural. You don't read it, it reads you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2017 1:31 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2017 1:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16320
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 255 of 518 (810905)
06-03-2017 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Faith
06-03-2017 1:45 AM


Re: Even Christianity would be better
quote:

You can't read the Bible and deny it without lying to yourself because it's supernatural

You seem to manage it easily enough.

I am happy to take the Bible as it is and treat it as a historian would. There is nothing about it that compels me to take any other approach.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Faith, posted 06-03-2017 1:45 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020