Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
63 online now:
(63 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 161 of 899 (819089)
09-06-2017 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
09-05-2017 5:49 PM


Re: Strata n Fossils
quote:

Yes indeed it is amazing that the obvious is so overlooked

Faith, we are not overlooking the fact that you are lying, but we don't consider it a reason to believe you.

quote:

Strata are laid down in water, neatly stacked with neat flat contacts just as we see them

Except when they aren't. And we find evidence of long periods of time between deposition, of massive erosion, of terrain features.

quote:

Millions of years of evolution is ridiculous for many reasons, but at least the idea of time periods of millions of years, each bounded by a water event that laid down strata before the next occurred. Such a neat demarcation? By an event that would have killed off whatever was living during the supposed time period and killed evolution right there and then?. At the end of each "time period?" It makes NO sense. It is BO-gus!.

It is indeed "BO-gus". It is also your invention. If you really had "many reasons" why evolution over millions of years is ridiculous, then why on earth would you make up a silly strawman ?

quote:

Fossils in such abundance demonstrate rapid deposition in water, not gradual deaths over millions of years. It's SO obvious.

Even the abundance of fossils works against you there are TOO many.

But the really obvious evidence is the order of the fossil record. There is no way that rapid deposition in water would produce that. As you know.

So this is just another of your failed attempts to destroy the truth. And they will go on failing so long as you rely on ignoring the evidence against you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 5:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 09-06-2017 2:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 164 of 899 (819096)
09-06-2017 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
09-06-2017 2:17 AM


Re: Strata n Fossils
In other words just ignore the evidence that proves you wrong and believe your lies instead.

And why exactly should we do that ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 09-06-2017 2:17 AM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 169 of 899 (819138)
09-07-2017 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Faith
09-05-2017 8:06 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
quote:

Actually I've many times answered your ridiculous claim with a description of my model.

Except that your "model" doesn't explain the sorting. That is why you keep inventing excuses to ignore it. So jar was telling the truth and you are dishonestly trying to cover up that fact.

quote:

And the Bible certainly is evidence of God, that's one of its major purposes, to document the miracles that prove His existence and who He is.

It's not exactly good evidence, in fact it is pretty much worthless as evidence for God. Your evaluation is based on a doctrine which assumes that the Bible is absolutely true ignoring even the internal evidence to the contrary. When you start with a question-begging and false assumption you can't hope to get a reasonable answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 8:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 11:42 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 172 of 899 (819161)
09-07-2017 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
09-07-2017 11:42 AM


Re: Utter lies from jar
quote:

The evidence is so obvious for the Flood it pre-empts the supposed order of the fossils, which is an ililusion anyway.

Even if that were true it only proves me right. You do not have an explanation for the ordering. jar told the truth and you called it an "utter lie" - even though you know it to be true.

quote:

And the Bible is evidence of God, that's a big part of what it's intended for whether it persuades you or not.

If you want to call your God incompetent that's your problem. The fact remains that the Bible is pretty much worthless as evidence of God - and anyone who intended it to be otherwise failed dismally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 11:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 12:13 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 174 of 899 (819165)
09-07-2017 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
09-07-2017 12:13 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
quote:

the Bible is the only source of witnessed evidence of miracles that only God could do, in both the Old and the New Testaments.

And that is a big part of the problem. Miracle stories are a lot more common than actual miracles, and when the stories come from biased and superstitious people, often far removed from the actual events - let alone when the story is essentially fiction anyway - you haven't got anything like good enough evidence to accept a miracle.

I don't want to go off-topic by pushing it too much - but if you really think you have a good case feel free to start a topic on any example you like.

Just remember that your idea of a good case often isn't. For instance your guess about a map you can't even read properly is hardly solid evidence, no matter how strongly you believe it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 12:13 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 178 of 899 (819174)
09-07-2017 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by ringo
09-07-2017 1:26 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
Well what can we expect of someone who calls a statement they know to be true an "utter lie" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 09-07-2017 1:26 PM ringo has seen this message

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 197 of 899 (819214)
09-08-2017 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
09-07-2017 11:31 PM


Re: Utter lies from jar
quote:

The only reasonable explanation for the strata and fossils is the worldwide Flood.

Provided the criteria for "reasonable" is "Faith likes it".

From a more rational perspective the Flood utterly fails to account for the strata and the fossils. That is why science has rejected Flood geology - it just doesn't work as an explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 09-07-2017 11:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 12:41 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 199 of 899 (819218)
09-08-2017 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
09-08-2017 12:41 AM


Re: Only the Flood could possibly explain these things
quote:

Nothing else could reasonably account for the strata at such a depth and enormous horizontal extent

The depth is so obviously much better explained by slow accumulation over long periods of time that it isn't even funny.

The extent seems to be better explained by features like deserts (the Sahara being a modern example) or epeiric seas (not currently present but a good fit for the evidence - unlike the Flood)

quote:

nor for such an amazing abundance of fossilized dead things which require special conditions to form,

Because obviously you only get sandstorms during a Flood. (Yes, some fossils seem to have been buried by sandstorms).

Again, the Flood fails to explain the abundance (you have to assume a ridiculous abundance of - for instance - crinoids) or other features of the fossil like the pervasive order.

quote:

The standard accepted explanation is hardly even plausible; it's really amazing how it ever got accepted

The fact that it obviously better explains the evidence you put forward for the Flood is a rather convincing reason.

quote:

Sure, a seeming order, but everything else says it's bogus. Even the fact that we know microevolution occurs in very short periods of time is an argument against it, and even the fossil record shows that, with its trilobites and coelacanths that show tiny changes from sedimentaqry layer to sedimentary layer, those layers that absurdly mark "time periods" of millions of years on the standard theory

That something can happen in short periods of time does not mean that it always happens in short periods of time. And there are two major points that you are ignoring. First you have no good idea of the scale of changes involved in the fossil record, second you have failed for the time needed to spread out and become abundant. Your examples of fast microevolution (aside from other doubts) deal with small island populations that are still small island populations. Not something likely to show up in the fossil record.

quote:

Millions of years is ridiculous. And see my other recent posts for more reasons it's ridiculous that I'm not spelling out with every post.

You mean like the idiotic nonsense you made up in Message 154? That's "BO-gus"

Hardly a reason to believe you - just more evidence that you don't have a real case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 12:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 3:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 201 of 899 (819229)
09-08-2017 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
09-08-2017 3:24 AM


Re: Only the Flood could possibly explain these things
quote:

the depth is easily explained by all the dirt that was stirred up by the forty days and nights of heavy worldwide rain, on land and in the oceans. That's a lot of dirt to get sorted into sediments and redeposited.

That's an opinion. But it should be obviously true that long term gradual accumulation can eventually overwhelm any any single event.

quote:

That's another thing: the "time period" explanation really can't explain the different separated sediments in the Geo Column, a gigantic sandstone, a gigantic limestone etc etc.;....

By which you mean that it obviously CAN explain it and the Flood obviously can't.

Different sediment from different sources because of different conditions at different times works. "The Flood sorted it" doesn't work.

quote:

Well some of the layers span an entire continent and even reach across the ocean to another continent.

Misleading. Where the same strata are found on different continents it's because they were together when the strata were deposited.

quote:

And it's hard to reconcile, say, a limestone slab with a desert

Nobody says that limestone is deposited in deserts. That's just silly, whether it's ignorance or dishonesty.

quote:

In any case, it's easy to explain a Flood that covered the entire world making layer after layer of different sediments and, really, nothing else can.

If it's so easy go ahead and do it. I'll stick with the explanations that fit the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 3:24 AM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(4)
Message 223 of 899 (819296)
09-09-2017 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Faith
09-08-2017 11:00 PM


quote:

Everything about the strata says Flood, not time periods, as I've argued here many times.

And that claim is false as we have shown. The fact that you have to keep ignoring or trying to explain away so much of the evidence is proof that you are on the wrong track.

quote:

It does become tiresome, it's hard to keep repeating the same obvious arguments. They're good arguments, you really should acknowledge that.

Faith, you may be desperate enough to believe obvious falsehoods - after all you'd have to admit that you were wrong about the Flood. But that is nothing to the rest of us. We don't have to ignore evidence that proves you wrong. We don't have to invent or believe daft distortions of the conventional view.

The evidence is conclusive. The strata were deposited over long periods of time. The fossils represent a long history of life. Neither were created by a single event lasting only a year. The idea is simply ridiculous. And your efforts do nothing to change that.

By repeating false claims again and again, all you show is your refusal to accept the truth. And we have no reason to support you in that refusal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 09-08-2017 11:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 09-09-2017 4:34 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 226 of 899 (819299)
09-09-2017 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
09-09-2017 4:34 AM


Really Faith. You know perfectly well that there is a huge amount of evidence against the Flood, even though you try to deny it. You can't be bothered to even understand the mainstream view before attempting to refute it with silly misrepresentations.

You aren't telling the truth at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 09-09-2017 4:34 AM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 258 of 899 (819360)
09-10-2017 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
09-09-2017 7:21 PM


Re: Atheistic science?
quote:

But any of those terms imply that God is left out of the scientific reckoning so my question still is What if there is a God who made it all and science is ignoring Him?

It still would not imply that science was at all wrong about the Flood, or the age of the Earth or evolution. You might be able to deal with some arguments against your belief by invoking convenient miracles but the evidence would still say that the Flood never happened, that the Earth is very old, that the fossil record shows how life on Earth has changed over time.

So really your point is just an attempt to discredit science by appealing to prejudice. Which might fool uninformed Christians but was never going to work here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 09-09-2017 7:21 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 292 of 899 (819431)
09-11-2017 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
09-10-2017 6:06 PM


Re: Why Creationists can never be trusted in a decision making postion
quote:

You guys don't know the difference between evidence and proof, as Riverrat keeps trying to get you to recognize

If you want to reduce the bit about Noah taking animals two of every animal that needed saving on to the Ark to a few desperate singletons taking refuge, then I guess riverrat has evidence of that. But if he does that he's already removed the big implausibility from that part of the story anyway. Likewise with the implicit reduction of the Flood to a merely regional event.

As for your claims, the strata and the fossil record could not have been produced by your Flood and show no sign of anything that might be more plausibly be evidence of a global Flood.

quote:

Strata and fossils are evidence for the Flood.

In the same way that bullet wounds are evidence of death by natural causes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 09-10-2017 6:06 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 293 of 899 (819432)
09-11-2017 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
09-11-2017 12:52 AM


Re: Capitulating to the truth is the real mistake?
quote:

I said it's not about creationism or Creation Science, it's what Bible believers believe who are not at all involved in creation science or creationist debates, who don't follow Kent Hovind or Ken Ham or any of them.

It's unfortunate that people get stuck in ignorance and close their minds. But trying hard to suppress the fact that they are wrong hardly seems a good strategy for dealing with the problem.

quote:

Of course there are Christians who capitulate to the science claims but they are wrong to do so. It's a form of weak-mindedness.

Equating an honest concern for the truth with "weak-mindedness" is just one of the ways you show us that you aren't really Christian.

quote:

The evidence is really not all that compelling, it's more illusion than reality

What a silly falsehood. You haven't managed to dent the evidence yet, nor have the major YEC organisations - and they are well ahead of you.

quote:

It takes guts to stick with what the Bible says when it is contradicted by those claims, but that kind of guts is what we have to have.

But you aren't sticking with the Bible. You are even going against it in some ways.

I guess it does take guts to call yourself a Christian while setting men up above God, twisting and misrepresenting the Bible to prop up your dogma. But it isn't something I can respect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 09-11-2017 12:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 09-11-2017 2:36 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 295 of 899 (819434)
09-11-2017 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
09-11-2017 2:36 AM


Re: Capitulating to the truth is the real mistake?
quote:

I'm telling the truth,

No. Even when you aren't lying you are saying things that are untrue, that you could find to be untrue if you were willing to look at it honestly and fairly.

quote:

I'm fairly representing what Bible believers believe the Bible says

And they are wrong about the Bible. It's not hard to find that out. But you resort to your usual tactics of distortion and smears to suppress that fact.

quote:

Instead of acting like you know it all wouldn't it be more reasonable for you just to acknowledge that we disagree about these things?

You mean that I should ignore some truths you don't like? Why should I do that ?

Wouldn't it be better for you to admit that you haven't bothered to properly understand conventional geology rather than dismissing it as nonsense ?

quote:

Surely you know I'm right about what these particular Christians believe.

And surely you know that I didn't say that they didn't believe it. What I did say is that they are wrong to believe it and more wrong to fight against the truth to cling to those beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 09-11-2017 2:36 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022