Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence of the flood
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 815 of 899 (820201)
09-17-2017 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 812 by Faith
09-17-2017 1:47 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
quote:
What's physically impossible is the absurd idea that the GU is the root of a former mountain range that grew up and then eroded down to flatness before the strata started building above it.
The physical evidence points to exactly that happening. And why do you think it is impossible? Seems to me that with enough time it could happen.
quote:
Or that strata would lay themselves down in a mounded form a mile deep
I don't think anyone has said that.
quote:
Or that the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon
The evidence says that it did - helped by uplift of the plateau, and additional erosion of the exposed walls. Even you have been known to admit that the meandering sections were carved by the river, and if those were then there's no sensible objection to the river carving the rest of it, too.
quote:
Or that a whole scenario of a "time period" could have existed where there now is only a vast flat slab of sedimentary rock, let alone dozens of them.
And now you are just being daft.
quote:
Or that mammals evolved from reptiles.
The evidence says that they did, and if you want to make a claim of physical impossibility it would be nice to have some argument.
quote:
Or that mutations are the source of healthy alleles
Unlikely events are generally not physical impossibilities. And I'd say that it is statistically certain that it has happened, many times. (To make a simple point, any change a mutation might make could be reversed by another - therefore, for every possible mutation that might make a "healthy" allele into an "unhealthy" one there is a mutation that could convert the "unhealthy" allele back to a "healthy" one)
There must be possible mutations that would produce "healthy" alleles - whatever that means - and the idea that some physical law would selectively prevent those from occurring is one of the silliest ideas I have ever heard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 812 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 1:47 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 822 of 899 (820236)
09-18-2017 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 821 by Faith
09-17-2017 8:30 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
The boulder of course works perfectly well as evidence of normal erosion of the monadnocks. Given that you have no evidence of any upward movement at all - no movement in the lower strata, no faults where the monadnocks moved up it would seem to be the obviously better explanation
Likewise consider the fault in the tilted strata at the Great Unconformity. While one section is -or was - higher than the other they are eroded to the same level. How could that possible happen underground while leaving no other evidence at all? Try thinking things through for once.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 821 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 8:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 6:18 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 825 by edge, posted 09-18-2017 8:43 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 826 of 899 (820242)
09-18-2017 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 823 by Faith
09-18-2017 6:18 AM


Re: physical impossibiity
quote:
Just because you can explain the boulder in some other way doesn't make your explanation the correct one. How does your explanation account for the boulder's being a quarter mile from its source?
The debris flow proposed by your source is one explanation. And the fact that it doesn't have to move through solid material, leaving no trace, makes it rather less problematic than your ideas.
quote:
Erosion to the same level is explained by the movement of the GU. It's not going to differentiate between the heights, it's going to abrade them to the same level because it can't do anything else. abe: sort of like how an extremely heavy object would lop of protrusions of different heights to the same level just because it's so heavy.
You aren't thinking it through. How does upward movement even occur if the faulted rock is deeply buried ? How does the abraded material get removed when it is deep underground, surrounded by solid rock ? Obviously the conventional explanation is better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 823 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 6:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 832 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 1:45 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 834 of 899 (820281)
09-18-2017 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by Faith
09-18-2017 1:45 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
quote:
THE UPWARD MOVEMENT OCCURS THROUGH THE LATERAL TECTONIC PUSH. AND YES I HAVE THOUGHT ALL THAT THROUGH. THE ABRADED MATERIAL DOESN'T GET REMOVED, IT GETS PUSHED SOMEWHERE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO BE VISIBLE ON MOST INVESTIGATIONS.
If you had thought it through you could answer my question.
How does part of the tilted strata move up when it is deeply buried ? Remember that it leaves absolutely no trace in the strata above it .
And really an implausible assumption isn't really much good when you are claiming to have a solid case.
So the conventional view is still way ahead of you when it comes to the evidence.
And since you added by edit so will I. Given that this creationist is much better informed than you and offers a possible explanation that makes sense I am not about to dismiss his view out of hand. It is certainly a lot better than your ideas.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 1:45 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 849 of 899 (820319)
09-19-2017 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
09-19-2017 2:01 AM


Re: physical impossibiity
quote:
What is the need for the snarky tone?
To the extent there is one - and it is considerably less snarky than your reply it is probably due to your attempts to shoehorn everything into the scenario you made up without really caring about the evidence.
Now if you want some nasty snark, here is an example:
quote:
know it's galling to you that I don't accept standard geological interpretations and I'm truly sorry that everything I say is so offensive to you.
It's not your rejection of geology that is galling at all. It's your arrogance and pride and intellectual dishonesty. And you really ought to know that by now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Faith, posted 09-19-2017 2:01 AM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 875 of 899 (820498)
09-21-2017 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 871 by Phat
09-21-2017 10:55 AM


Re: Learning How Others Think
quote:
She likely believes that God knows more than secular science and certainly more than any atheist or leftist
Which is an utter irrelevance. God is not taking part in the discussions.
quote:
She likely knows that her knowledge is limited, though growing and that it comes from a belief paradigm versus secular scientific methods.
She doesn't seem to care about that. Remember that she assumed that she couldn't be wrong about a map she couldn't read properly. Despite the fact that any rational person would have realised that she almost certainly was wrong.
quote:
She is only attempting to frame Gods master plan and method and feels(she would say knows)...that the majority of secular science is deceived and even clueless of her assumptions.
In other words she feels that her fantasies are on a level with God's Word. That's a pretty damning accusation of hubris right there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by Phat, posted 09-21-2017 10:55 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 876 by Faith, posted 09-21-2017 3:27 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 882 of 899 (820521)
09-22-2017 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 876 by Faith
09-21-2017 3:27 PM


Re: Learning How Others Think
quote:
I doubt I felt I "couldn't be wrong" about the map, I simply read it the way I read it as anyone would do, until I became aware of lines I hadn't been able to see before.
You expressed a lot of certainty in spite of very strong reasons to doubt your conclusion. You certainly accused me of being unable to read a map when I corrected you Message 93. And I don't think I would have read the map as you did without a lot more checks - I made at least two after the fact that falsified your idea.
And if I remember correctly you admitted to being able to see some of the line outlining the present-day continent. Message 108
Edited by PaulK, : Added supporting links to posts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 876 by Faith, posted 09-21-2017 3:27 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 883 of 899 (820527)
09-22-2017 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 878 by Faith
09-21-2017 10:27 PM


Re: Learning How Others Think
In the name of understanding how others think, please explain this
quote:
I'm not certain about a lot of my interpretations, but when I get back the usual slap in the face for anything I say before I've had a chance to work on it a while and see how far I can take it I'm sure I go on defending it anyway, I have to until I've worked it through
If you present a half-baked idea on a debate site - especially if yo do so,without making it clear that it is preliminary and speculative - then surely it will come in for heavy criticism. But to call that a "slap in the face" seems extreme, to say the least.
quote:
At the moment I'm on a strike against some really offensive personal comments. Even though this is treated as my modus operandi, it isn't, it's a new thing. Oh sure I do it myself, and you all can point that out too, but I'm not taking the really egregious stuff that's been thrown at me recently, if I miss whole posts for that reason they are no loss to me.
I very much doubt that you have had anything that is any worse than you dish out. Even before we take the question of justification into account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 09-21-2017 10:27 PM 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