|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Oh dear. Don’t you think it would be easier to accept that the Bible authors lived in ancient times and had beliefs typical of those times ?
By the way, the mist watering the Earth is only mentioned in Genesis 2:6 and there is no implication that it continued beyond that. In Genesis 7:4 God expects Noah to understand what rain is, which would be odd if it were completely new.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You don’t know any such thing. For all you know most of it is just how they viewed the world. Which is far more likely.
quote: So you assume. But I very much doubt that you can show that. We know that the authors of Luke and Matthew didn’t take that attitude with Mark, for just one example.
quote: The Bible doesn’t say anything about the climate changing. It doesn’t even imply it. That’s just something creationists made up. And you only assume that the ages are literally true - there is no reason they have to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: quote: Well you could make the effort to actually understand instead of inviting criticism by posting ill-informed nonsense in defence of an obvious falsehood.
quote: Maybe you should consider the fact that criticism is an essential part of science and genuinely absurd ideas don’t last.
quote: If it stops in the Permian it’s hardly the whole (notional) column, is it ?
quote: This is your usual misunderstanding. The association of the rocks with the time periods is simply due to the time when the original sediment was deposited. That obviously is not absurd. The idea that the formations directly correspond to time periods is just wrong. In the Grand Canyon the Esplanade Sandstone, the Hermit Formation, the Coconino Sandstone and the Toroweap Formation - as well as the Kaibab Limestone - were all deposited in the Permian. As for “often very specific sediments” there is no real correlation between periods and the types of sediment (the chalk beds of the Cretaceous are a bit of an exception but other sediments were deposited then, too). Strata are often impure and formations often include other types of rock. The Temple Butte formation is an example of that - and hardly unusual. It is not even really true that the strata definitively mark the boundaries between periods - even in the case of continuous deposition. The absurdity seems to be more in your erroneous ideas than in the reality.
quote: As Christianity would collapse if the existence of Jesus as a historical person were seriously questioned ? But the evidence we have for the dating of the rocks - which is all you are really talking about - is rather stronger. But that is an advantage of science over history.
quote: Hardly. Really, do you expect people to change their minds just on your say-so ? When your objections are largely based on an ignorance that can only be wilful ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You also haven’t posted an accurate picture of geology or pointed out a single genuine absurdity. The other shortcomings of your argument hardly entitle you to complain about truthful criticism. Nor does such criticism justify your silly martyr complex. It’s not as if we do anything you don’t - except for producing good evidence, and sound reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Since you’ve never done it, how would you know ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Do we need to quote your ridiculous complaints about how you’re so hard done by ? It’s obviously emotional and obviously not factual.
quote: Grow a thicker skin so you can take criticism. Stop working so hard to earn criticism. Get the facts right, use good reasoning, don’t make up ridiculous nonsense. There is no other sensible solution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: And all because we aren’t convinced by your nonsense and dare to say so. That says a lot about you, doesn’t it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I see more aggressive misrepresentation coming from you than heading your way.
quote: No. I do not intentionally misrepresent you at all.
quote: Well no. I do know what I have done and I know you want to strangle me. And I do know that you object very strongly to people being unconvinced by your nonsense and saying so. You’ve complained about it often enough. It’s not hard to put things together.
quote: But it isn’t likely, is it ? I mean you’ll probably complain about imaginary persecution and imagined offences.
quote: Of course. You post nonsense and then get angry that people don’t agree with it and point out that it’s nonsense. We’ve seen that. The solutions are obvious. Too bad you can’t see them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: And you are completely wrong. The way to knowledge is to understand, not to make up excuses to pretend that Faith is right. You look at these things very superficially and assume that the Flood did them, and that all the tectonic movement only started after the strata were all in place. But a deeper look - even a slightly deeper one - shoes that that is all wrong. You make up excuses to try to get around much of the evidence, you ignore large parts of it, and even that little you are willing to accept pays no part in your conclusion. And that really is obvious. So how can you really believe that you have massive evidence ? It’s been shown that all the things you point to cannot be reasonably attributed to the Flood, that they point more to an ancient Earth, without any world-wide Flood. That is why geology takes that view. And that is why you don’t have massive evidence.
quote: You haven’t really made much of an argument though. You have never produced evidence supporting the bizarre excuses you have invented to deny the evidence against you. You have tried to pretend that the evidence is weaker than it is to try to put your own opinions on a level with science - often making false claims, but never really dealing with the issues. But you have never made a case that stands up. Don’t blame us for your failure to find real evidence or your inability to defend your claims. Have the honesty to admit that you don’t have a case that deserves to be believed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: And if you are putting falsehoods in God’s mouth and demanding others believe them - and sinning in the name of doing so - shouldn’t you be worried about that ? And there is a pretty good case that you are doing exactly that.
quote: Since you obviously refuse to even understand the standard interpretation of the geological column, and the “absurdity” is in your misunderstanding the best idea would be for you to stop being so convinced of your ignorant opinions and get the facts right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It is obvious that you are extremely prejudiced in favour of the Flood. And your main evidence isn’t even anything you’ve really observed (nor has anyone). Indeed, the fact that you dismiss far stronger evidence out of hand only illustrates the degree of bias.
quote: And you are not only wrong, you have no problem entertaining ideas which do violate any reasonable physical explanation, like your idea that the Flood somehow sorted the fossil record.
quote: First, you exaggerate the straightness and the uniformity - and ignore the fact that you are talking about geological formations which contain many strata . Second, you have no understanding of the usual way things happen in reality. Such as your idea that regions of net deposition are barren wastelands.
quote: The idea of “neat burial arrangements” seems to be something you made up. And of course you don’t consider environmental conditions or even the fact that fossilisation is not the normal outcome.
quote: Please explain how you know all the scientific research into fossilisation is wrong.
quote: Obviously it isn’t. Indeed, as you once admitted your religious dogma compels you to believe that there must be evidence for the Flood. So when you try and force the evidence into the Flood story it is quite clear what is going on. The observed evidence is overwhelming. There is no desire to smash your claims, it is just that they are obviously untrue.
quote: And yet you seem to prefer to answer those, rather than posts whichraise serious points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: That is not very plausible. You just happen to reject the views of all the experts, without any serious consideration of the evidence and just happen to come up with the exact conclusion you say that you have to reach if your Biblical beliefs are true. I admit that your “explanation” makes you look bad, but it would hardly be the first time you made yourself look bad to maintain a pretence.
quote: But you obviously didn’t look at a lot of the facts before jumping to the Flood conclusion and you maintain it despite those facts.
quote: And yet your views on the age of the Earth are derived by adding up the ages of the Patriarch. Your “independent observations” aren’t really even observations. You try and force-fit the evidence to your beliefs even when it really doesn’t fit.
quote: And yet you don’t even understand the mainstream view - indeed, your ideas about it look more like a desperate attempt to find excuses to reject it. In fact some of the ideas you have put forward certainly fall into that category. And you have certainly tried to fudge all the evidence of erosion between strata and of tectonic events while the geological column was forming and - of course - the order of the fossil record.
quote: You’ll even say “never” when the post you are replying to lists lines of evidence you refuse to address. Eg Message 627 quote: And when evidence of your behaviour is produced you still ignore it. Your refusal to admit to what you are doing hardly makes you any more endearing. Indeed your whole attitude seems to be that people who dare to tell the truth about you deserve to be smeared.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: And having to deny or explain away the vast majority of the evidence to do it.
quote: I can’t say that you are even trying to look at the evidence. Your main evidence is your ideas about the strata - and those are based on a very superficial view.
quote: Your main argument against evolution is purely theoretical and ignores the evidence. You haven’t even tried to gather the evidence you’d need.
quote: But your main argument lacks any real observations. And you spend most of your time trying to deny observations, even to the point of denying that obvious mutations are mutations. Eg Message 117 quote: It seems that the order of the fossil record is easy enough to understand. Yet you have called it an “illusion” and more recently claimed that the Flood somehow sorted the fossils despite the obvious problems of such a claim.
quote: And there is your bias in action. Me, I’m not a scientist but I care about the truth. And there is no real evidence for the Flood, and that’s a fact. See The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology and the linked pdf for a strong case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It’s not at all obvious. That’s just your bias speaking. Yes, actual statistics would be needed. That should be obvious if you were actually interested in honestly examining the evidence. Indeed, I would say that you fail to appreciate the magnitude of the time available and the population numbers involved. Just as an illustration, 1 in a billion is rare, but if 1 in a billion people ended up as fossils 7 or more people alive today would end up as fossils. Imagine that over a timescale of millions of years.
quote: Aside from the fact that they aren’t as neat as you assume, don’t the sequences produced by transgression and regression provide a neat refutation? Aren’t they clearly possible and actually found ?
quote: I.e. you don’t want us to look at other highly relevant evidence until we agree with your opinion. What is more you actually asked Percy to give examples of facts you were ignoring.
quote: Trying to attack an opposing view with falsehood and misrepresentation is hardly dealing honestly with the evidence.
quote: That makes no sense. If the Flood created the fossil record then every fossil must be a pre-Flood life form. But, if you are arguing that a substantial part of the fossil record is post-Flood - and created in only a few thousand years at most (more likely a few hundred) then you would contradict your whole argument against the mainstream view. Another case where you make up excuses without thinking it through.
quote: That isn’t really about Walther’s Law - and you obviously don’t accept it anyway.
quote: In other words you can see evidence refuting your claims that only the Flood could produce the strata as they are actually seen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Which in practice means that you put your interpretation of the Bible ahead of science.
quote: That doesn’t seem to be the case. It looks far more like you take a cursory look at the facts in the hope of finding something to prop up your beliefs. Certainly you don’t look at the evidence in anything like enough depth to produce decent arguments, let alone a coherent view that actually fits the evidence. That’s why you have no real case for the Flood, just biased opinions that you call “obvious”.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024