Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 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
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 781 of 899 (820150)
09-16-2017 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 775 by Faith
09-16-2017 2:44 PM


Re: The Premise of a Creationist
Faith writes:
Why don't you stop being a vindictive creep?
Well, since we're asking questions:
  • Why don't you stop making false accusations, issuing insults, making untrue claims, constructing scenarios out of whole cloth, and insisting that everyone just accept all your abuse and the things you make up?
  • Why don't you drop out of one-liner mode?
  • Why don't you address all the rebuttals instead of just repeating your original claims over and over again?
  • Why don't you come up with scenarios that don't contradict known physical laws?
  • Why don't you come up with ideas supported by actual evidence?
  • Why don't you behave with the maturity of at least a ten-year old?
  • Why out of everyone here do you behave in the least Christian manner?
  • Why, since you're obviously so miserable and no one's making you stay here, don't you go somewhere else?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 775 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 2:44 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 783 by GDR, posted 09-16-2017 5:16 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 784 of 899 (820163)
09-16-2017 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 783 by GDR
09-16-2017 5:16 PM


Re: Understanding Faith
GDR writes:
I think what we have to understand about Faith, (and I do suggest that we should be understanding of her position), is that her whole her world view, in fact her whole life, is based on a belief in an so-called inerrant reading of scripture.
It isn't Faith's religious world view that anyone objects to. It's her social world view where anyone who disagrees with her is deserving of whatever rude and demeaning behavior she decides to dole out.
I have a world view, too, predicated upon mutual respect, understanding and consideration. This means that of course I agree with all the sentiments you express. The question is what level of special dispensation is warranted. To what degree must my world view yield to Faith's? Ironically, by my world view's very nature it must surrender to Faith's world view of scorn and derision and insult every time. Of course, in reality my world view is a starting point that begins with respect and consideration but that evolves depending upon the degree of mutuality.
I do not believe that out of respect for Faith's religious beliefs we are obligated to become her whipping boy and just take it as she dishes out her scorn and disdain and bombast in a variety of forms. A steady diet of, "OH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. SO WHAT" (from Faith's Message 759) and so forth deserves an appropriate response. This appropriate response would not indicate any lack of respect for Faith's religious beliefs. It would indicate that you will not tolerate the kind of behavior that certainly has no place in a science discussion board.
As to whether Faith stays or goes, that is up to her. She certainly never listens to anything I say. I imagine she must be getting something out of this, else she wouldn't keep coming back.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 783 by GDR, posted 09-16-2017 5:16 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 785 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 8:10 PM Percy has replied
 Message 786 by GDR, posted 09-16-2017 8:17 PM Percy has replied
 Message 857 by Phat, posted 09-19-2017 4:24 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 794 of 899 (820173)
09-16-2017 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 786 by GDR
09-16-2017 8:17 PM


Re: Understanding Faith
GDR writes:
I understand that Percy but she gets a lot of abusive aimed at her as well.
I have moderated many Faith threads. The most significant problem in defending Faith is that she almost always starts it, and then even when requested to let moderation handle things, she continues lashing out. It isn't often abuse that she is responding to but simply pointing out how she is wrong. Read ahead to Faith's Message 788 and Message 789 where she describes how angry she gets when people say she is wrong. Her reaction to being told she's wrong isn't to muster her evidence and advocate for her point of view but to strike out. 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.
Sometimes Faith keeps herself in check long enough for a moderator to take action, and over the years I have issued many suspensions to people who were in debate with Faith.
How often his her faith in particular, but even that of non-fundamentalist Christians, been called superstition, a fairy tale or mocked in other ways such as in references to Dawkin's Flying Spaghetti Monster. Posts like that are often cheered and are pretty much the accepted norm.
How often in science threads has Faith declared that the Bible is the final word? Including this one?
There is no doubt that Faith goes overboard in many of her posts, but I suggest that as she is so virtually alone in her position she carries a level of frustration that has to be higher than the rest of us. It seems to me that she has held in there when pretty much all other creationists have left the site.
Other forces are at work. Discussion boards are a dying breed. Social media is where the action is now. Google won't even give our search results much visibility because we don't fit well into a mobile form factor. In any case, it makes no sense to give Faith favorable treatment because she's the last creationist here. There are Forum Guidelines and there are rules of common human decency, and Faith should follow those.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by GDR, posted 09-16-2017 8:17 PM GDR has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 827 of 899 (820258)
09-18-2017 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 785 by Faith
09-16-2017 8:10 PM


Re: Understanding Faith
Faith writes:
Funny how you've tolerated Dr. A's nothing- but- snarky one liners over the years.
Well, what do you know, another one line message, and a lie at that. I've suspended Dr A many times over the years, probably mostly when he was responding to you. And many other times I was probably participating in the debate, not moderating, and so could do nothing.
Dr A did post one message to this thread, not a one-liner, so let's examine it:
Dr A in Message 68 writes:
But as usual since it is claimed over and over and over that there is no evidence for the biblical worldwide Flood I just have to point out all the in-your-face evidence y'all ignore with as much wacko exertion as it takes to make a mountain out of the molehill of the cute scared birdy in the taxi.
Strata
Fossils
We don't ignore strata and fossils, remember? We rubbed them vigorously in your face, remember? Until you admitted your complete inability to explain the fossil record, remember?
And if you don't remember, have a look here.
EvC Forum: The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
This is why I hardly bother posting any more, we've crushed you in every argument and the reason you don't seem to realize this seems to go beyond mere stupidity and into actual amnesia.
Dr A was responding to what has become your perpetual misrepresentation, that you've successfully argued that the strata and fossils are evidence for the flood. You're of course entitled to your opinion, but you can't ignore facts: a) this has been rebutted many, many times; and b) you haven't responded to the rebuttals.
Briefly, the Flood can't explain the stratification, the order of the strata, the boundaries between the strata, the tracks and burrows in the strata, the increasing radiometric age with increasing depth, and the increasing difference of fossils from modern forms with increasing depth. Virtually nothing about strata or fossils is evidence for the Biblical Flood, and you have no answers to any of these rebuttals.
Your every attempt at supporting your claim that fossils and strata are evidence of the flood has been full of errors and blunders. This thread has been no different.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 8:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 828 of 899 (820262)
09-18-2017 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 800 by Faith
09-16-2017 10:07 PM


Re: Understanding Faith
Faith writes:
So much for the Rule against personal attack.
What personal attack? I was responding to GDR congratulating myself on my successful prediction that you would turn on him after he defended you.
You didn't quote anything from my message, so I suppose it's possible you're instead referring to my criticism of the way you deny saying things you just said. This wasn't a "personal attack" but an accurate description of something you do, and that you had just done. You told GDR you never used the Bible to support your position, and I quoted you doing exactly that in this very thread.
If you don't want to expose yourself to personal criticism then a) quit directing personal criticisms at other participants; and b) quit making obviously inflated claims about yourself, for instance that you know you're right, because it forces people to rebut the claim by listing the many things you've been wrong about.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by Faith, posted 09-16-2017 10:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 829 of 899 (820264)
09-18-2017 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 806 by Faith
09-17-2017 6:56 AM


Re: Temple Butte layering in channel
Faith writes:
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.
Changing from one story unsupported by evidence to another story also unsupported by evidence does not advance your cause. As Edge pointed out in Message 810 (to which you haven't responded), "acidic water that dissolves limestone" would have left evidence of that kind of "chemical attack" behind. Where is this evidence?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 6:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 830 of 899 (820272)
09-18-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 812 by Faith
09-17-2017 1:47 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
Well, since you haven't responded to any of the rebuttals to your message, I guess I'll just add one more.
Faith writes:
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.
Really? Physically impossible? Can you tell us what physical laws are violated by tectonic uplift and erosion?
And just to inject some accuracy into what you say (always necessary), it isn't the Great Unconformity that "is the root of a former mountain range." The Great Unconformity is a boundary. It is the Zoraster Granite that is thought to be part of a former mountain range ancestral to the Mazatzal Mountains in Arizona.
Or that strata would lay themselves down in a mounded form a mile deep.
No one has ever said this. Sedimentary deposits follow the contours of the landscape, tending to fill in the lower regions faster, but the strata of the Grand Canyon are thought to have been deposited mostly flat and horizontal before tectonic forces uplifted the region.
Or that the Colorado River cut the Grand Canyon.
Rivers cut canyons the world over. Why are you being so ridiculous in claiming it's physically impossible?
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.
Only dozens of them? There are far more than dozens of regions around the world where sediments are being deposited on vast fairly flat and horizontal surfaces.
Or that mammals evolved from reptiles.
We're been over this before, you're repeating the same mistake you made earlier. Mammals did not evolve from reptiles. Mammals (Synapsids) and reptiles (Sauropsids) evolved from a common ancestor (Amniotes) around 300-320 MYA.
Or that mutations are the source of healthy alleles.
You're wandering even further off topic now. PaulK's response was sufficient rebuttal, but it bears repeating. If a single nucleotide change could change a healthy allele to an unhealthy allele, then the reverse is equally possible.
You managed to compose an entire paragraph of six sentences where not a single one contained correct information.
--Percy

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 831 of 899 (820274)
09-18-2017 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 814 by Faith
09-17-2017 2:11 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
Faith writes:
Yeah I do foolishly rely on people to be able to grasp obvious points. My mistake.
Your "obvious points" contained obvious errors, which you're ignoring. If you don't want to be called out on your errors and mistakes then stop making them. And if you want to have a leg to stand on when complaining about poor treatment then don't insult entire threads of participants.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by Faith, posted 09-17-2017 2:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 837 of 899 (820291)
09-18-2017 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by Faith
09-18-2017 1:45 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
Faith writes:
THE UPWARD MOVEMENT OCCURS THROUGH THE LATERAL TECTONIC PUSH. SO DOES THE TILT. AND YES I HAVE THOUGHT ALL THAT THROUGH.
If you're going to make claims of having "thought all that through" then you have to expect rebuttals questioning the quality and thoroughness of your thinking. You've thought it through at about the level of a 2nd grader. Take a stack of foot-square floor tiles. Explain how you will raise and tilt the bottom four tiles, and where the extra material will go (the material that would be trying to tilt up into the layers above and the material that would be trying to tilt down into the layers below).
THE ABRADED MATERIAL DOESN'T GET REMOVED, IT GETS PUSHED SOMEWHERE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO BE VISIBLE ON MOST INVESTIGATIONS.
The cubic miles of "abraded material" of your scenario not only aren't visible on "MOST INVESTIGATIONS," they aren't visible in any evidence anywhere. If your scenario had happened it would have left evidence behind.
Your scenario has the added disadvantage that it isn't possible. You'll understand once you see why you can't raise and tilt the bottom four tiles. The Grand Canyon Supergroup was deposited, uplifted and eroded long before the Grand Canyon layers (beginning with the Tapeats) were deposited. We know this because of the nature of the Grand Unconformity, because of radiometric dating, and because of the distinct differences in strata composition and fossil content.
--Percy

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 838 of 899 (820292)
09-18-2017 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 824 by JonF
09-18-2017 8:13 AM


Re: physical impossibiity
JonF writes:
None of that is evidence. It's all hypotheses.
If we take this as the definition of hypothesis:
hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Then Faith doesn't even have a hypothesis. Because she hasn't started with "limited evidence," all she has is stuff she's made up.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 824 by JonF, posted 09-18-2017 8:13 AM JonF has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 845 of 899 (820312)
09-19-2017 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 841 by Faith
09-18-2017 9:53 PM


Re: physical impossibiity
Faith writes:
Without leaving any evidence of deformation in the overlying rocks.
Sure.
There probably is some evidence but it's not exposed.
You can't know what happened before you find the evidence. You only know what happened after you find the evidence. Evidence first, then conclusions. You're working backwards from unevidenced conclusions.
Besides the sediments were wet so they'd just settle back to their condition before being disturbed.
So your evidence completely disappeared. How convenient for you. How do you know what happened if you have no evidence?
And what makes you think that sediments deposited by a flood (which the Tapeats does not resemble, but continuing the counterargument anyway) would look the same as sediments that have settled back down after having a 700 foot monadnock thrust through them. What would have happened to the imprint trails of trilobites and brachiopods when these wet sediments "settled back to their condition" after the the monadnock of Shinumo Quartzite disturbed them? Wouldn't they have been erased?
Our evidence has the advantage of being out in the open where anyone can examine it (well, anyone willing to hike for miles in the hot sun and scramble over very difficult terrain)
Why should it look like stripped gears if the sediments were still wet? And again, there may be evidence that just happens to be out of sight.
Just a hint: you can tell when you might actually be arguing scientifically when you refer to evidence that exists instead of to evidence that doesn't exist.
The evidence of the whole stack's being lifted is quite clear on the cross section as I've many times pointed out. The strata would not deposit over a hill like that, they had to have been pushed up.
Edge wasn't arguing that the "whole stack" (presumably you mean all the layers of the Grand Canyon, including the Grand Canyon Supergroup) was not uplifted. That it was uplifted is obvious. Gradual uplift is fundamental to the formation of the canyon. The Colorado flowed along eroding downward as the surrounding landscape was uplifted, forming the canyon.
What Edge actually said in Message 840 was this:
Edge in Message 840 writes:
And your scenario of undisturbed upper plate rocks is absurd. The only rocks that have anywhere to really move are the ones at the surface of the earth.
He was arguing that the layers of the Grand Canyon Supergroup could not have been pushed up into the layers of the Tapeats and above without disturbing them. He was pointing out that the rocks have to have somewhere to move, which is only true at the surface.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Faith, posted 09-18-2017 9:53 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 846 by Pressie, posted 09-19-2017 7:55 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 847 of 899 (820314)
09-19-2017 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 843 by Faith
09-19-2017 2:01 AM


Re: physical impossibiity
Faith writes:
What is the need for the snarky tone?
You're complaining about a snarky tone after wasting people's time arguing with no evidence or with evidence that has conveniently disappeared?
I'm trying to build on my model or hypothesis or whatever, and I'm making use of the evidence I have available,...
You have no evidence. What you have is a set of strategies that involve ignoring evidence, ignoring arguments, repeating your original unevidenced positions unchanged over and over again, and distracting attention from the topic by picking fights with other participants.
...and I'm not trying to hide anything,...
Sure. See list in previous paragraph.
...I'm just trying to get it all to work together based on the evidence I have.
You have no evidence. Getting a whole world to work together when there's no evidence to tie you down is what writers like Tolkein did. You've composed a geological equivalent of The Hobbit.
--Percy

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 848 by Pressie, posted 09-19-2017 8:03 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(3)
Message 854 of 899 (820360)
09-19-2017 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 853 by Aussie
09-19-2017 1:21 PM


Re: Millions of aternating layers Faith
As of this moment in this thread:
  • Faith has ignored 57% of the messages posted to her.
  • 22% of Faith's messages are one line or one sentence.
  • 13% of Faith's messages are all caps.
  • Faith has threatened to abandon the thread three times. Or was it four?
  • Faith thinks she's doing great.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 853 by Aussie, posted 09-19-2017 1:21 PM Aussie has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 859 of 899 (820378)
09-19-2017 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 858 by Faith
09-19-2017 5:04 PM


Re: evidence of God
Even when you're off-topic you can't muster a decent evidence-based response. In Message 855 Aussie says:
Aussie in Message 855 writes:
The Koran gives evidence galore throughout, historical accounts of Allah's doings in the world, as witnessed by many people who are named, and much of the Koran describes Allah's miraculous doings to verify His deity; but the Bible just assumes the existence of Yahweh and doesn't give one iota of evidence.
And you respond with another content-free one-liner:
Faith writes:
No, that is not true of the Koran, as I said.
I'm not trying to discuss the Bible versus the Koran, that's not the topic, but I do want to strongly register my disapproval of your continued incredibly poor contributions. Responses of value do not merely assert or repeat positions but add something new. You know this already, it shouldn't have to be said. You often remind me of an oppositional child who does things simply because they know they shouldn't.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 858 by Faith, posted 09-19-2017 5:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 860 by Faith, posted 09-19-2017 10:40 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024