Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 796 of 899 (820175)
09-16-2017 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 795 by GDR
09-16-2017 9:09 PM


Re: No, it's all science
I know my argument and I know what I'm doing and I've been at this a very long time and you know absolutely nothing about it and shouldnj't have said a single word. It's not about the Bible, it's about the observed physical factsw. How dare you come along after years of not following any of it and stick your nose into something you know nothing about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 795 by GDR, posted 09-16-2017 9:09 PM GDR has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 797 of 899 (820176)
09-16-2017 9:28 PM


Yes I get very angry at being told I'm wrong when I know I'm right and all you are doing is trumpeting the party line which is right only by convention.
And yes at the end of the day the Bible trumps everything but the arguments I make here are based on the physical facts.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 801 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2017 1:33 AM Faith has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


(4)
Message 798 of 899 (820177)
09-16-2017 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 790 by GDR
09-16-2017 8:34 PM


Re: Understanding Faith
I wrote this in Message 794 before I saw any of the other messages:
Percy in Message 794 writes:
If you want to be Faith's advocate that is your choice, but be wary because like Trump she could turn on you in a second.
So while I was still typing my message you submitted this Message 790:
GDR in Message 790 writes:
Good point. I sometimes don't notice that it is a science forum. The thing is though that Faith's religious beliefs are the foundation for her beliefs where science is confirmed, and as a result she will make the science conform to her religious beliefs.
And then Faith responded in Message 793:
Faith in Message 793 writes:
You are wrong now.
And then goes on in Message 796:
Faith in Message 796 writes:
I know my argument and I know what I'm doing and I've been at this a very long time and you know absolutely nothing about it and shouldnj't have said a single word. It's not about the Bible, it's about the observed physical factsw. How dare you come along after years of not following any of it and stick your nose into something you know nothing about.
Boy, that prediction that she would turn on you sure didn't take long to come true.
Faith goes on to say:
Both of my arguments against the Old Earth and evolution from species to species and for the Flood and rapid evolution within the species are based on nothing but observed facts, not my Christian beliefs.
This is untrue. In this very thread Faith has stated that the Bible is the final authority for her. For example, this is from Faith's Message 210:
Faith in Message 210 writes:
Yes I know early geologists expected geology to confirm the Bible but their imagination was too limited to see that it really does;
This is just a single example of another thing that drives people crazy, the way Faith denies saying things that she very clearly said. She just lied to you. Is she really just a creationist beset by a sea of evolutionists and doing the best she can, or, especially given the severity and extended period of time over which this has gone on, is there something more pathological at work here that allows her to justify in her own mind all her lies and antagonisms.
Whatever the internal causes in Faith's mind, my own theory is that even in a forum full of creationists like Evolution Fairy Tale that she would still find a way to fight with everyone.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 790 by GDR, posted 09-16-2017 8:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 799 by GDR, posted 09-16-2017 9:49 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 800 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 10:07 PM Percy has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 799 of 899 (820178)
09-16-2017 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 798 by Percy
09-16-2017 9:34 PM


Re: Understanding Faith
Ya, but by tomorrow she'll calm down.
Bottom line, I'd miss her around here.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 798 by Percy, posted 09-16-2017 9:34 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 800 of 899 (820179)
09-16-2017 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 798 by Percy
09-16-2017 9:34 PM


Re: Understanding Faith
So much for the Rule against personal attack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 798 by Percy, posted 09-16-2017 9:34 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 828 by Percy, posted 09-18-2017 12:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 801 of 899 (820182)
09-17-2017 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 797 by Faith
09-16-2017 9:28 PM


quote:
Yes I get very angry at being told I'm wrong when I know I'm right
Which is a bit of a problem when you really are wrong, as is often the case.
quote:
And yes at the end of the day the Bible trumps everything but the arguments I make here are based on the physical facts.
Often they aren't. Is your idea that the buried monadnocks in the Grand Canyon rocks were formed by being pushed up based on physical facts ? Do you have any evidence of the faulting or the folding of the underlying strata that would inevitably be there if you were correct ? Any evidence at all ? Or is it just a refusal to accept -literally - massive evidence of major erosion between strata ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 797 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 9:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 805 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 6:42 AM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 802 of 899 (820184)
09-17-2017 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 788 by Faith
09-16-2017 8:26 PM


Re: Understanding Faith
Faith writes:
I've been honing this particular argument for a long long time by now...
I respect the passion that you put into the argument, but I don't see why its obvious and don't know enough to consider it true.
It's a complete model unto itself and it works.
But why is your method of evidence incomprehensible to most of EvC? Have you somehow tapped into the creative mind of an intelligent designer? Were you cosmically blessed? (I'm not being facetious...this is a valid question)
I know it's a paradigm clash but people who have some pretense to scientific thinking should recognize that I'm making sense at least.
And yet for some reason they don't get it. I see nothing evil or warped about them (EvC peanut gallery) apart from they get snarky occasionally. So why don't they get it?
One more question, if you would. Is there any group of people..perhaps at church or in your community...who have heard your presentation and given you compliments on it?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 788 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 8:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 804 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2017 3:31 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 807 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 7:21 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


(2)
Message 803 of 899 (820186)
09-17-2017 3:19 AM


Faith's problem is that she doesn't actually know what knowledge is.
She thinks that it can be acquired remotely sitting at her keyboard and thinking really hard. She can't have had any experience writing a real scientific paper or even studying a scientific subject In depth. If she had she'd get an inkling of the massive amount of research and evidence supporting each and every detail of, say, the tooth of a fossil ape. She'd also know how difficult it is to get new ideas reviewed and published. You can't just think them and everyone applauds.
Without any concept of how everything is linked together, ToE, Geology, DNA, Astronomy, Radio dating, Palaeontology, Embryology and even some form of pure Physics she thinks she can just make up plausable (to her) little stories for each difficult problem found in each discipline. In her mind the stories all make perfect sense and don't need to form a whole story consistent either with itself or other disciplines and evidence.
She's pretending to be an expert in several complex disciplines simultaneously despite have absolutelty no formal training or knowedge of any. It's a phenominal feat of hubris which can only come from a position of real ignorance and overaching belief that her belief is all that matters.
But there are some areas where she can't go. She can't and won't argue with the consilience of dating methods. She knows that there there is very little room for her imaginative little stories and simply relies on her belief that despite the overwhelming evidence of an old earth it just must be wrong.
It's puzzling to me though why she bothers with trying to prove her beliefs in the physical world. Why not just believe? It can only be that deep down she has doubts.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 804 of 899 (820187)
09-17-2017 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 802 by Phat
09-17-2017 2:42 AM


Re: Understanding Faith
If Faith answers my question about the monadnocks above, you might find it more enlightening than anything she says in answer to your post.
However, the basic pattern is quite obvious. Faith jumps to a conclusion she likes without adequate consideration of the evidence. Then when others provide the evidence that shows that she is wrong she fights tooth and nail against it.
Even in the Triassic map incident it shows, although that time Faith eventually admitted that she was wrong - some time after it was absolutely obvious (but if she had been rational she would have realised from the start that she was almost certainly wrong, and if she had bothered to investigate properly she could have found that out - and if she had been honest she would have admitted that she was only guessing)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 802 by Phat, posted 09-17-2017 2:42 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 805 of 899 (820188)
09-17-2017 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 801 by PaulK
09-17-2017 1:33 AM


monadnocks
And yes at the end of the day the Bible trumps everything but the arguments I make here are based on the physical facts.
Often they aren't.
AS OPPOSED TO BEING BASED ON THE BIBLE. READ IN CONTEXT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE! THE POINT IS I'M ONLY THINKING THROUGH THE PHYSICAL SITUATION AND NOT RELYING ON ANYTHING ELSE.
Is your idea that the buried monadnocks in the Grand Canyon rocks were formed by being pushed up based on physical facts ? Do you have any evidence of the faulting or the folding of the underlying strata that would inevitably be there if you were correct ? Any evidence at all ? Or is it just a refusal to accept -literally - massive evidence of major erosion between strata ?
It's all based on the Great Unconformity's tilting and the strata in the Supergroup and the granite and the schist and the magma fingers, all ililustrated on the cross section, illustrated as confined to the basement area beneath the Tapeats. This is what is interpreted on the standard theory as having to have occurred before the strata were laid down, but I'm interpreting it as having occurred afterward and I give evidence for that.
My argument is that all those facts are the effect of the great tectonic event that occurred after the Flood, after all the strata were laid down, at which time they would all still be somewhat wet and malleable. In fact I also hypothesize that the Flood began to recede as part of the same tectonic event so it was all still underwater. This malleability is why the whole stack could be lifted up over the GU in the mounded form that is illustrated on the cross section. The GU was tilted and the stack lifted by that tectonic action. The volcanism occurred as part of the same event, forming the granite and the schist. There is one major monadnock which is an extension of the Shinumo quartzite layer in the Supergroup. Most of the Supergroup got broken off by the sliding at the Great Unconformity, but the quartzite was hard enough not to break so easily so that a great length of it coujld penetrate upward into the still-softish layers
above. The faulting in the Supergroup is evident on the cross section; the angle of the monadnock was formed by the tilting of the Supergroup.
That is the only explanation consistent with the scenario I've built.
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 801 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2017 1:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 808 by JonF, posted 09-17-2017 8:42 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 809 by edge, posted 09-17-2017 8:50 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 811 by PaulK, posted 09-17-2017 9:38 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 806 of 899 (820189)
09-17-2017 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 773 by Percy
09-16-2017 2:42 PM


Temple Butte layering in channel
The Temple Butte streambed is filled with sedimentary layers. "Limestone dissolution" somehow filling the streambed would leave completely different evidence.
That's a good point. So the channel was filled by the Flood deposit of the Temple Butte limestone. But something had to cut the channel after the strata were laid down, and that is often done by the acidic water that dissolves limestone.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 773 by Percy, posted 09-16-2017 2:42 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 810 by edge, posted 09-17-2017 8:52 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 829 by Percy, posted 09-18-2017 12:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 807 of 899 (820190)
09-17-2017 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 802 by Phat
09-17-2017 2:42 AM


Re: Understanding Faith
But why is your method of evidence incomprehensible to most of EvC? Have you somehow tapped into the creative mind of an intelligent designer? Were you cosmically blessed? (I'm not being facetious...this is a valid question)
I start from a different set of assumptions than the others here do, and I think it all through from that different set of assumptions. I also do pray about it. Nobody else here has a reason to consider it from my different set of assumptions so they often don't even try to think about it from my point of view, they just keep throwing out the arguments based on their very different set of assumptions. I'm doing what the creationists all do but I do it independently of most of their arguments, think it through on my own.
And yet for some reason they don't get it. I see nothing evil or warped about them (EvC peanut gallery) apart from they get snarky occasionally. So why don't they get it?
Because they are absolutely committed to their different way of thinking about it and just don't bother to try to get into the other mindset.
One more question, if you would. Is there any group of people..perhaps at church or in your community...who have heard your presentation and given you compliments on it?
I don't even know anybody personally who gets into the scientific questions in relation to creationism. If I try to say anything about it I get a blank stare. And then there is the fact that I'm working independently as I say above, so that even sharing the same perspective with other creationists who come here doesn't happen.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 802 by Phat, posted 09-17-2017 2:42 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 808 of 899 (820192)
09-17-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 805 by Faith
09-17-2017 6:42 AM


Re: monadnocks
And yes at the end of the day the Bible trumps everything but the arguments I make here are based on the physical facts.
Often they aren't.
AS OPPOSED TO BEING BASED ON THE BIBLE. READ IN CONTEXT FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!
Read in context for Heaven's sake! Obviously he meant "often your arguments are not based on physical facts".
THE POINT IS I'M ONLY THINKING THROUGH THE PHYSICAL SITUATION AND NOT RELYING ON ANYTHING ELSE.
You should be relying on observations of the physical world and not relying on only your fantasies. How many geology field trips have you taken to inspect the rocks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 805 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 6:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 809 of 899 (820193)
09-17-2017 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 805 by Faith
09-17-2017 6:42 AM


Re: monadnocks
It's all based on the Great Unconformity's tilting and the strata in the Supergroup and the granite and the schist and the magma fingers, all ililustrated on the cross section, illustrated as confined to the basement area beneath the Tapeats. This is what is interpreted on the standard theory as having to have occurred before the strata were laid down, but I'm interpreting it as having occurred afterward and I give evidence for that.
My argument is that all those facts are the effect of the great tectonic event that occurred after the Flood, after all the strata were laid down, at which time they would all still be somewhat wet and malleable. In fact I also hypothesize that the Flood began to recede as part of the same tectonic event so it was all still underwater. This malleability is why the whole stack could be lifted up over the GU in the mounded form that is illustrated on the cross section. The GU was tilted and the stack lifted by that tectonic action. The volcanism occurred as part of the same event, forming the granite and the schist. There is one major monadnock which is an extension of the Shinumo quartzite layer in the Supergroup. Most of the Supergroup got broken off by the sliding at the Great Unconformity, but the quartzite was hard enough not to break so easily so that a great length of it coujld penetrate upward into the still-softish layers
above. The faulting in the Supergroup is evident on the cross section; the angle of the monadnock was formed by the tilting of the Supergroup.
That is the only explanation consistent with the scenario I've built.
Still no evidence to support this contention.
Show us the tectonic fabric formed by this type of detachment and faulting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 805 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 6:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 810 of 899 (820194)
09-17-2017 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 806 by Faith
09-17-2017 6:56 AM


Re: Temple Butte layering in channel
That's a good point. So the channel was filled by the Flood deposit of the Temple Butte limestone. But something had to cut the channel after the strata were laid down, and that is often done by the acidic water that dissolves limestone.
So, this acidic water cut the channels but left no evidence of chemical attack in the rest of the rock?
Please show us evidence for this mechanism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 6:56 AM Faith 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