Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, ringo (2 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 196 of 1255 (857645)
07-09-2019 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
07-09-2019 9:57 PM


I'll go with Ayn Rand: no mystics of spirit, no mystics of muscle.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 9:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 07-10-2019 1:52 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15371
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 197 of 1255 (857646)
07-09-2019 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
07-09-2019 5:37 PM


quote:

All I know is that things were different beforfe the Flood...

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:

But whatever it means it's God's revelation and the later Bible writers believed that and treated it all as God's truth, including Jesus

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 Flood changed the climate, ppeople lived much much longer before than after and so on.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 5:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 198 of 1255 (857656)
07-10-2019 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Sarah Bellum
07-09-2019 10:52 PM


Ayn Rand digression
I'll go with Ayn Rand: no mystics of spirit, no mystics of muscle.

Oh, an Ayn Rand fan. We had another fan of hers here up until some time ago when he just disappeared and I've wondered what happened, hope he's OK. Coyote. I miss him-- he was friendly to me most of the time although he was certainly opposed to my creationism. In many ways he was a conservative, as you seem to be too, at least on the subjects of abortion and borders?

She despised religion, so did Coyote, so do you. If her influence on a person comes from her novels I must admit I don't get it: I couldn't stand her novels. Wooden characters, contrived plot, and just didn't interest me at all so her philosophy didn't get across to me either.

I don't get the reference to mystics, or maybe I sort of do but it's … oblique? to the topic.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-09-2019 10:52 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-10-2019 8:31 AM Faith has responded

    
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 413
Joined: 05-04-2019
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 199 of 1255 (857664)
07-10-2019 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
07-10-2019 1:52 AM


Re: Ayn Rand digression
The reference to mystics isn't part of the flood discussion. But since you asked:

A character in Atlas Shrugged gives an explanation

quote:
As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind.

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth—to his great-grandchildren.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 07-10-2019 1:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 07-10-2019 11:35 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 200 of 1255 (857676)
07-10-2019 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:39 AM


Faith writes:

No I don't expect my speculations to be "accepted as fact," I would like them to be considered as interesting ways of looking at a problem.

Same analogy as before with the Flat Earther who would like his speculations accepted as interesting solutions to a problem, except the problem doesn't exist.

And I'd rather not be raked over the coals for it.

After pushing his flat Earth ideas for 18 years while not learning anything about the available evidence from physics, astronomy, geology or even photography, and simultaneously ignoring most feedback, and periodically castigating everyone who disagrees with him, how much tolerance and patience do you think people will have left?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 201 of 1255 (857677)
07-10-2019 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:32 PM


Faith writes:

The Bible does not contradict itself.

Not to change the topic to the Bible, especially since this is a science thread, but the Bible contradicts itself all over the place. The Bible's a big book, and whatever you need it to say, somewhere it says it or at least people will argue it said it. It's used to back opposite sides of many, many debates. Relevant to creationism, the Bible has two divergent creation stories and two divergent but interwoven Flood stories.

If it clearly teaches a worldwide Flood it isn't going to turn around and imply that if we study the earth it will tell us something different.

People write books (the Bible was written by people) to say anything they want to say, contradictory or not. But if the geology of the Earth is the result of a global flood 4500 years ago then, at least in science threads, you need to study the Earth and find evidence that that's what happened, not cite 2000 year-old religious texts.

The many flood stories from many cultures, even with all their distortions,...

The flood stories of the Bible are no more free of inaccuracies, distortions and fictions than the flood stories of any other culture.

Only the Bible is presented to us as an accurate accounting of history, and its circumstantial details alone give credibility to that claim.

Biblical inaccuracies, contradictions and errors have been described in many, many threads here. Only scientific observations of the natural world have a chance of tending toward inerrancy, though never achieving it because of tentativity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:32 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 202 of 1255 (857678)
07-10-2019 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:42 PM


Faith writes:

Yeah but there isn't a universal lightning story or volcano story from all those cultures, as there is a flood story,...

While flood myths are common amongst the cultures of the world, it is a creationist concoction that all cultures have flood myths, and those that parallel Noah's flood myth to any significant degree are very uncommon. The flood myth most like Noah's Flood, the more ancient Epic of Gilgamesh, was obvious source material in the construction of the Noah myth.

All these flood myths do hold one thing in common: a lack of evidence. Flood advocates who are sincere in their wish to be considered scientific must seek out evidence. Making up stories believable only to people with little or no science background, which is most people, will obviously make inroads in public perception, but convincing the public is not a measure of scientific validity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 203 of 1255 (857679)
07-10-2019 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Sarah Bellum
07-10-2019 8:31 AM


Re: Ayn Rand digression
Thanks. I'm not familiar with any of that. It's interesting to see what was preoccupying her.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-10-2019 8:31 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(5)
Message 204 of 1255 (857682)
07-10-2019 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
07-09-2019 12:17 PM


Faith writes:

They did not overturn it on any scientific grounds.

I'm afraid they did overturn widely accepted Biblical myths on scientific grounds.

It was James Hutton's wild speculations...

Well now you're just making up stories again. Hutton relied upon geologic observations that have for the most part stood the test of time. His conclusion that the Earth is an ever-changing canvas perpetually worked upon by natural forces over very lengthy time periods is precisely what all the evidence continues to suggest.

...that started that ball rolling but it was only wild human speculation and did not deserve scientific standing.

You are making up accusations again. Saying untrue nasty things about ideas and people is as far as you can get from providing evidence-based rebuttal. Here's a link to Hutton's book: Theory of the Earth. Go to town, show us where he's unscientific or wrong given the evidence then available to him.

Also their interpretations of the Flood were just as silly as they are now. No sense of the magnitude of the thing for starters.

No one has any trouble understanding the magnitude of a world-wide flood: we need only look to the oceans, which already flood 71% of the planet.

The 2011 Japan tsunami provides more evidence. Helicopters and planes in the air provided us many birdseye videos of ocean inundating the land. Once the water receded we observed firsthand what such a flood can do. There were no stratified layers left behind other than sorting by size/weight/density. No pieces of land or ocean floor were transported intact from one place to another. No animals were running out on mudflats to leave their tracks behind between waves. No gophers or worms dug burrows or wormholes in the mudflats between waves. In fact, regarding waves, except at the coastline there were no waves. The successive waves just fed the wall of water flooding over the land.

And they accepted what seems to me to be the utter absurdity that time periods of millions of years of earth's history are memorialized in slabs of rock of identifiable sedimentary content, each bearing a peculiarly distinct set of dead things, fossilized in a remarkably consistent way over hundreds of millions of years despite the fact that fossilization needs very specific conditions which are not all that easy to come by. This is a truly absurd science, sorry. Sometimes the scientific romance we've all learned from grade school is just that, a romance.

This is just a collection of unscientific and unsupported claims. Incredulity is not evidence. As Sherlock Holmes said, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." On this basis we can eliminate pretty much all your ideas, and what remains has the support of all the available evidence. The Earth is ancient, and its geology that is constantly but very slowly changing often includes a fairly clear record behind of what went before.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 07-09-2019 12:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by JonF, posted 07-10-2019 12:52 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 205 of 1255 (857685)
07-10-2019 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Percy
07-10-2019 12:15 PM


Also the Southern Ocean gives us a good idea of how an uninterrupted ring of water acts.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 07-10-2019 12:15 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 206 of 1255 (857686)
07-10-2019 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by AZPaul3
07-08-2019 7:25 PM


Aabsurdity
Sorry, I forgot about this post, but since I said I'd come back to it I'll try to answer it.

If you can't see why it's aabsurd I can't explain it to you.

No. Not allowed. Data, facts, reasoning. Required.

Well, what I said is going to end up being true, either you get how it's aabsurd or you don't, so that asking me to defend the idea is just going to bring all Eevo Hell down on my head, but I'll make an effort to do the EvC thing, futile though I know it will be. And yes I know there will be a chorus of wounded science-minded ppeople who will respond about how how wrong I am and how innsulting I'm being, and how the resonse I get is my own fault because i'm not meeting the requirements and so on and so forth, as well as a chorus of denunciations if I object to that chorus along with a denial that anything I'm saying about that or anything else could possibly be true although it patently is; in any case as usual it's all my own fault.

But hey, this is my destiny and I'm coming to accept it at least for now. The Buddhist frame of reference is interesting as I've been following it recently: it's my karma and I can see that concept in both a Buddhist way and a Christian way. And I certainly hope that even at my age if I follow the buddhist methods, which are remarkably like Christian methods though perhaps easier to identify and for that reason maybe easier to follow, I can change my karma before I die. What a relief that would be.

Obviously I'm not eager to get into the subject of this post. Sigh.

And here comes the tidal wave of denunciations.

And I probably won't do a very good job of saying why the standard interpretation of the geological column is aabsurd either.

It's aabsurd just to look at it. Which can be seen most clearly in the Grand Canyon which exposes the whole column from the Great Unconformity, or at least the Tapeats sandstone, through the Permian time period or Kaibab limestone.

There it is: the idea that time periods (Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Eonian, etc) get expressed in the physical form of discreet separate layers of lithified sediments, often very specific sediments such as sandstone or limestone or shale and so on, that's what's aabsurd.

This linking of the time periods with the sedimentary rocks of the geological column is so completely and uncritically accepted (yes it is), so taken for granted, and so intimately connected to the Fossil Record which is a sacred tenet of the Theory of Evolution, if it is seriously questioned the whole edifice will not only be shaken but will probably collapse. This edifice which is apparently so necessary to the wellbeing of everybody at EvC at the very least. Which is why it can't be questioned and why simply suggesting it will be met with lengthy discourses on all the OTHER "scientific reasons" for the validity of the fossil record and the ToE which I encounter all the time from RAZD and PaulK and JonF in particular. while totally dismissing as well as denouncing the point I'm making here.

Yes I know I'm still evading the subject. But in a way I've already answered it and I've answered it a million times before anyway.

OK I've already worn myself out with this. Sorry, I do intend to come back and finish it but the very anticipations I'm describing plus the very length of it so far have done me in. Back soon I hope.

In the meantime here comes the tidal wave.

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 114 by AZPaul3, posted 07-08-2019 7:25 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2019 1:50 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 208 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2019 2:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 209 by JonF, posted 07-10-2019 2:31 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 227 by edge, posted 07-10-2019 4:52 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 229 by dwise1, posted 07-10-2019 7:18 PM Faith has responded
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 07-11-2019 9:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15371
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 207 of 1255 (857687)
07-10-2019 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
07-10-2019 12:53 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
quote:

Well, what I said is going to end up being true, either you get how it's aabsurd or you don't,

quote:

...so that asking me to defend the idea is just going to bring all Eevo Hell down on my head, but I'll make an effort to do the EvC thing, futile though I know it will be.

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:

And I probably won't do a very good job of saying why the standard interpretation of the geological column is aabsurd either

Maybe you should consider the fact that criticism is an essential part of science and genuinely absurd ideas don’t last.

quote:

It's aabsurd just to look at it. Which can be seen most clearly in the Grand Canyon which exposes the whole column from the Great Unconformity, or at least the Tapeats sandstone, through the Permian time period or Kaibab limestone.

If it stops in the Permian it’s hardly the whole (notional) column, is it ?

quote:

There it is: the idea that time periods (Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Eonian, etc) get expressed in the physical form of discreet separate layers of lithified sediments, often very specific sediments such as sandstone or limestone or shale and so on, that's what's aabsurd.

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:

This linking of the time periods with the sedimentary rocks of the geological column is so completely and uncritically accepted (yes it is), so taken for granted, and so intimately connected to the Fossil Record which is a sacred tenet of the Theory of Evolution, if it is seriously questioned the whole edifice will not only be shaken but will probably collapse

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:

This edifice which is apparently so necessary to the wellbeing of everybody at EvC at the very least.

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 ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 07-10-2019 12:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4504
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 208 of 1255 (857690)
07-10-2019 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
07-10-2019 12:53 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
Remember it was you who said to edge that his facts on the geologic column are absurd.

You think it absurd because it doesn’t fit your bronze age mythology. You don’t have any logical factual reason for this view. The actual geologic data refutes your flud therefore it cannot stand. ‘Cept you have no facts/logic/reasoning to dispute the geologic data other than it proves your flud a fake.

More importantly for this part of your discussions, when given the factual data in detail you insist on producing the most inane ad hoc fantasy explanations. Then you insist your delusions are viable just because you voiced them regardless of the torrent of facts stacked against you. You don’t address the opposition facts except for repeating your ad hoc fantasies and insisting they are correct since you already stated them.

Crazy.

It's aabsurd just to look at it. Which can be seen most clearly in the Grand Canyon which exposes the whole column from the Great Unconformity, or at least the Tapeats sandstone, through the Permian time period or Kaibab limestone.

There it is: the idea that time periods (Cambrian, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Eonian, etc) get expressed in the physical form of discreet separate layers of lithified sediments, often very specific sediments such as sandstone or limestone or shale and so on, that's what's aabsurd.

You say this without giving any facts or reasoning other than “it is”. Yet the actual facts deny you.

As much as you would like, your religion does not grant you license to deny demonstrable facts. Nor does it grant you any standing to disagree with scientific conclusions.

Use caution here. I did not say you are required to accept our conclusions. I said you haven’t the intellectual chops to challenge our conclusions. Nor do any of your apologists. The dictates of your religion have no effect and mean nothing.

You cannot just deny facts. You have to produce other demonstrable facts that can be verified in the same rigourous way as those you seek to deny.

You have to bring stronger science than the science you are trying to defeat. You have not done this. You provide nothing but fantasy and emotion.

You will continue to meet stiff opposition by denying demonstrable fact with incredulity and ad hoc excuses.

Faith, M’lady, you have become an insult to intelligent discourse and you leave your opposition here little but ridicule to give you in response.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 07-10-2019 12:53 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 07-11-2019 2:47 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5473
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 209 of 1255 (857691)
07-10-2019 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
07-10-2019 12:53 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
Calling mainstream science absurd is not evidence against mainstream science or for your view.

That whole message boils down to "I think mainstream science is wrong". Not convincing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 07-10-2019 12:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32898
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 210 of 1255 (857692)
07-10-2019 2:42 PM


Righto to the above three. The usual as I predicted though I haven't really tried to present data, evidence, rasoning. Oh well.

ABE: No point in trying. I don't thlnk I'll be back although I said I would. Just no point.

Cheers to everyone.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by JonF, posted 07-10-2019 2:51 PM Faith has responded
 Message 213 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2019 3:00 PM Faith has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019