Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 10:12 AM
36 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Stile, Theodoric (7 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,278 Year: 15,314/19,786 Month: 2,037/3,058 Week: 411/404 Day: 15/63 Hour: 2/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
84NextFF
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
JonF
Member
Posts: 5359
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 256 of 1255 (857777)
07-11-2019 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by mike the wiz
07-11-2019 10:06 AM


PRATTS
Quite the Gish Gallop of PRATTS there.

Flumes are not simulations of open water floods.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2019 10:06 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18806
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 257 of 1255 (857778)
07-11-2019 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
07-10-2019 2:53 PM


Faith writes:

JonF writes:

Try presenting data, evidence, and reasoning.

You're kidding. It doesn't matter if I do that or not.

Sure it matters whether you present "data, evidence, and reasoning." It matters a lot. If you have facts and a strong rationale behind the interpretation of those facts that coheres with the rest of science (e.g., doesn't break any scientific laws or contradict any well established scientific theories), then you are likely to prevail in any discussion.

The key word here is "rationale," which implies rational, which implies that you understand how the world works. For me there are a few excellent examples where you demonstrate your lack of understanding of how the world works. One is that a worldwide flood would be different in character from a normal flood, though you're unable to explain why that would be or how you know that this is so. Another is that the Supergroup layers tilted while deeply buried without affecting the overlying layers. Another is that mutation cannot have any effect beyond what existing alleles already do. Another is that erosion can only make a landscape more irregular rather than smoothing it out.

I assume you're still strongly convinced that you're right about all these, but you must sincerely consider the possibility that your approach to discussion is designed to protect and maintain your views no matter what the challenge, rather than to promote understanding, both yours and everyone else's. Your history is that as people start narrowing in on the details of how they think you are wrong that you become vague, insist on your own terminology, argue over even the most obvious things, start replying with meaningless one-liners, claim you've been insulted, instigate fights, stop replying, disappear, change the subject, reset discussion to square one, etc. Discussion with you often ends with a crescendo and then an abrupt break. Resolution rarely occurs.

So to change your karma, pick the facts that support their view, carefully organize your arguments for how they support your view, present your facts and arguments in a message, then absorb the feedback and forthrightly address it. If you find yourself using words like "absurd" and "idiotic" then take that as a strong indication that you've abandoned the rational approach.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 07-10-2019 2:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18806
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 258 of 1255 (857779)
07-11-2019 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Faith
07-10-2019 3:28 PM


Replying to Message 219 and Message 221:

Faith writes:

If I weren't trying so hard to practice spiritual principles I'd want to strange you all. Well I DO want to strangle you all. But I know it wouldn't accomplish anything and would just hurt me so hooray hooray I don't even have to THlNK that's what I want to do.

Faith writes:

Actually it's because you all so aggressively always insist on misrepresenting me just as you are doing now.

I'm pretty sure you know that, you just continue to delight in aggressively misrepresenting me, so perhaps instead of telling you why I want to strangle you I should have asked if you KNOW why I want to strangle you --according to ME and not according to YOU. I wonder what you would have said. I thlnk you'd probably just have repeated your own opinion. Or MAYBE you'd have said something close to my reason why but then you'd immediately take it back and repeat your misrepresentation about how I'm just so unfair because I want to strangle you because you aren't convinced by my nonnsense and are willing to say so. (which of course DOESN'T "say a lot" about me at all, which is more reason why I want to strangle you, but really does say a lot about you.)

But again this is just my karma, which of course I deserve, and again although I wish I had a solution I don't but maybe I will eventually.

Ah, come on. Now you're not even trying. These should never have been posted, or at least only posted to a Private Musings thread. It doesn't belong in a flood thread in the science forums. In this thread at least, stop talking about your feelings and yourself and anyone else and start focusing on the topic.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 07-10-2019 3:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18806
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 259 of 1255 (857781)
07-11-2019 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
07-10-2019 7:55 PM


Faith writes:

That's exactly what I meant by deserving it. And I am practicing stopping my misdeeds. Interestingly only a few of those that get labeled my misdeeds here are really my misdeeds. And there are extremely few if any of them on this thread.

Again, I strongly suggest you stop talking about yourself and making claims about yourself. A one or two day hiatus from malfeasance and misbehavior is hardly meaningful in the face of an 18-year history, and you don't even have that. Just a few short hours ago you were telling PaulK how you wanted to strangle him.

Keeping your focus on the topic will set you free and change your karma. After all this time no one expects you to agree with biology and geology, but it is not only reasonable but obligatory that you understand them. You can't discuss what you don't understand.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 07-10-2019 7:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 260 of 1255 (857786)
07-11-2019 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by mike the wiz
07-11-2019 10:06 AM


Re: Nope.
There is. The B.E.D.S model, inselburgs, (erosional remnants), experiments for progradation showing facies can be laid down both laterally and superposed in hydraulic conditions with flume experiments proving it. Water gaps, polystrate fossils, standing arches, paraconformities (flat gaps), and some methods of dating. (Geochronomoters). Trackways in straight lines indicating fleeing organisms. New experiments have also now shown bouyancy counters any sedimentation meaning you need a LOT of sediment to counter the gases in the carcasses of animals, which leads to bloat-and-float disarticulation of fossils. A flood is the perfect mechanism for fossilisation because of the large sediment hauls conducive to quick burial and preservation. There is also C14 in diamonds and soft tissue in various dino bones more favourable to youth, despite the desperate explanations put forward for why they could last millions of years.

There is also the correctly qualified evidence we would expect from a flood. Obviously because of what the bible says about the flood, a flood would have been easy to falsify, all you would have had to say before finding the rock record is this;"well if the flood killed everything while it was living, all we need to do is show we won't find every phyla or type of animal preserved dead killed by a flood."

That would have been easy, because obviously the bible says all life perished. But the fact we find fossils fighting, in the suffocation position, tracks of them scurrying, digesting meals, giving birth, and the fact we find all types of life, is the exact type of evidence to expect from a flood.

There is simply PLENTY of evidence better answered by a flood.

In the rocks we would also expect to NOT find any intermediates for bats, pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, snails, trees. Obviously if it is a history of created kinds, no matter how far back we went in the rock record we would expect to find things that pretty much look the same as they do today.


I am curious. Do you really think that mainstream science has no explanation for all of these complaints?

Is it possible that your professional creationist leaders are not giving you all of the facts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2019 10:06 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18806
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 261 of 1255 (857787)
07-11-2019 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by mike the wiz
07-11-2019 10:06 AM


Re: Nope.
mike the wiz writes:

Here's a little list I prepared earlier...

Most of your list is a copy-n-paste from the Internet. I think it might exist in a number of places, but one is ‘Oldest snake’ fossils found.

To say this is not the evidence expected from a flood/creation scenario is to LIE, and LIARS will have to answer to God when they stand before Him.

Believe or else, huh. Did you notice this is a science thread?

Most of your post is just a grab bag of stuff. Could you distill it down to just the evidence showing the flood really happened?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2019 10:06 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3646
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 262 of 1255 (857791)
07-11-2019 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
07-11-2019 5:44 AM


Re: Consequences of Errorth
The question is anything but simple and direct. Yes I'm sure I can be wrong about some points, but the overall interpretation of the main message I'm very sure of because I got it from many teachers.

Yes the question is simple and direct, very much so, even though answering it would require some thinking on your part, thinking that you should have done from the very start.

And, no, trying to justify your position does not even begin to address the question, but rather you are avoiding the question. You are putting a lot of effort into avoiding that question, which raises another question: what are you so afraid of?

If you are wrong, then what would that mean?

Since you seem to require to have everything, even the simplest, explained to you in excruciating detail, please note that that is a hypothetical question that starts a conditional (the clues there is the word, "if", in the dependent clause and the use of the conditional in the main clause) Is use of the English language yet another subject that you are ignorant of?

[NOTE: Over the years in attempts at discussion with creationists, in addition to their "selective blindness" (defense mechanism in which one cannot see something that they don't want to see) I also noticed what I would call "selective schtupidity", another defense mechanism in which one cannot understand something that they want to avoid even to the point of being unable to understand the simplest use of English. Is that what we are seeing at work here as you try to avoid the question?]

With that simple, direct question, I am not challenging your position but rather asking what you think you are keeping from happening by holding to your position so stubbornly against all evidence and discussion. Especially considering that as a fallible human you are far more likely to be basing your position on a wrong interpretation. BTW, that is why JonF's question in Message 230 is so very pertinent: "What say you, Faith? Could your interpretation of the Bible be false?"

Obviously, there is some dire consequence that you imagine will befall you should your young-earth position turn out to be wrong. So what is that "dire consequence" that you imagine?

If we can get a straight answer out of you (I can dream, can't I?), then that might shed some light on what's going on in the beady little brains of other creationists who similarly refuse to think about what they think would happen if the earth does indeed turn out to be old (among other things), what they though would happen if their fallible human interpretations (virtually certain to be wrong) prove to be wrong.

The next question would be how likely that imagined dire consequence would actually be so dire. A teenage boy wanting to ask a girl he likes out on a date imagines all kinds of dire consequences should she reject him, but when she does reject him none of those dire consequences happen (eg, the earth does not open up beneath him and swallow him up). So many imagined dire consequences never happen.

Similarly (real world case; I read her deconversion testimonial myself), a Christian woman believed that all the books of the Bible were written in the order that they appear. That was her interpretation. When she learned that that was not the case, she decided that her church had lied to her and she became an atheist. Her imagined dire consequence to her own interpretations being wrong was that her religion and the Bible would all be lies, so when her own fallible human interpretation (virtually certain to be wrong) turned out to be wrong, that triggered her imagined dire consequence. Right decision, but for the entirely wrong reasons. This shows that many imagined dire consequences end up happening, but only because the person makes them happen (AKA "self-fulfilling prophesy").

I have a number of ICR quotes to the effect that if the earth is old or evolution (begging the question of how they are redefining and misrepresenting that, like you do with "species") is true, then God does not exist (or variations on that same theme). That God does not exist is the imagined dire consequence of their fallible human interpretations (virtually certain to be wrong). That is what they teach their followers. As a result, when their fallible human interpretations (virtually certain to be wrong) inevitably turn out to be wrong, then the self-fulfilling prophesy of God not existing comes true. Ironically, creationists accomplish what even the most anti-religion atheist could never accomplish: disprove God.

As I said, you should have already thought about what I am asking for. When you started getting involved in YEC, you should have thought about why you are getting involved and what the consequences would be of your interpretations being wrong. If instead you had jumped into the fray without giving it the least bit of thought, then you were being most extremely foolish.

So, please avoiding the question and just answer it: If you are wrong, then what would that mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 07-11-2019 5:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18806
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 263 of 1255 (857793)
07-11-2019 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
07-10-2019 9:24 PM


Re: The Vexed Problem for Creationists of Providing Evidence
Faith writes:

I'm not up on the thinking about how there was rain before the Flood, I've understood the opening of the windows of heaven to refer to the first rain.

The actual question was about what scientific evidence you're looking at that tells you there was no rain until the flood.

I'm not sure it matters much since the forty days and nights of rain that began the Flood was far in excess of any other before or after, but it's something to think about.

What scientific evidence are you looking at that tells you that it rained for forty days and nights sometime 4500 years ago? Does the evidence indicate whether the rain was continuous across the entire globe for that period, or did it start and stop everywhere or in some places?

I've assumed there is no evidence that could be pointed to for the climate differences before and after the Flood, but I'd love to think there is.

In a scientific context, if there is no evidence for pre/post Flood climate changes, what makes you think there was any such change?

There was already a big change at the Fall when Adam and Eve were cast out into a world changed from lush abundance to requiring hard labor to grow food and cope with thorns and thistles that apparently hadn't existed before.

What scientific evidence exists that there was a "Fall", that Adam and Eve were real people, or that the world's climate changed from lush to desolate 6000 years ago?

That may be the time of the biggest change but none of this is crystal clear from scripture as far as I know.

This is a science thread. A significant number of recent posts have stressed the need for facts. Scripture isn't relevant. Where are your facts?

But of course I think the evidence for the Flood itself is enormous and obvious wherever one looks around the Earth,...

When will you begin describing this evidence?

...including the strata...

How are geologic strata evidence for a global flood?

...and a general impression of a wrecked environment,...

This sounds completely subjective, but if you have any evidence for how the existing environment is "wrecked" then please present it. Human environmental damage since the Industrial Revolution doesn't count.

...and if that evidence isn't apparent to anyone else after all my arguments there's little hope in my mind that evidence for a climate difference would be apparent either.

As always you claim to have presented evidence when you have not.

I can point to thistles and thorns and the hard work of growing food,...

What do thistles and thorns have to do with making farming into hard work? Seems like a truly minor, minor issue. I have a large yard perimeter - taking care of the thorn bushes that sprout up every spring takes maybe 15 minutes a year.

...but that won't show a change, it will only be interpreted as the way it's always been.

In the absence of evidence, how do you know such a change ever happened. Scientifically.

What evidence could there be of a former lush environment since it's all been destroyed?

Things that happen leave evidence behind. Find that evidence.

Also, why do you call it a "former lush environment." We live in the woods, here's a shot out my family room window. Is this not lush enough for you:

Some parts of the world are lush all of the year, some part of the year, and some are not lush at all. Perhaps you mean to say that less of the world is lush today than preFlood? But whatever you mean, what facts are you basing it on?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 07-10-2019 9:24 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-11-2019 2:46 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18806
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 264 of 1255 (857796)
07-11-2019 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
07-10-2019 10:27 PM


Re: Consequences of Error
Faith writes:

If I'm using God's word as the basis for my understanding of the age of the Earth, which is possible to calculate from the various time clues given throughout, starting with the pre-Flood patriarchs, then I'm not worried about the consequences of being wrong. I'd worry a lot more if I denied those calculations.

We already know your views are based upon your trust in scripture, but what scientific support do you have for these views?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 07-10-2019 10:27 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20054
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 265 of 1255 (857804)
07-11-2019 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by mike the wiz
07-11-2019 10:06 AM


Re: Nope.
There is. The B.E.D.S model, inselburgs, (erosional remnants), experiments for progradation showing facies can be laid down both laterally and superposed in hydraulic conditions with flume experiments proving it. ...

I'll need more than this. I suspect creationist pratt.

Google Search results:

quote:
Your search - "B.E.D.S." model -beds - did not match any documents.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2019 10:06 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12683
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 266 of 1255 (857805)
07-11-2019 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by mike the wiz
07-11-2019 10:06 AM


Re: Nope.
Even though I am a firm believer in a living God through Jesus Christ, I am not as sold on this whole mindset that defends Biblical Creationism. Critics will no doubt accuse me of nitpicking, but your Link from AnswersInGenesis is suspect because this ministry has been shown to be dishonest and exploitative of secular funds in furthering their ridiculous Biblical Ark theme park. Now to be fair, Mike...I wont claim so much arrogance as to write you (and Faith) off as delusional in regards to YEC. We all have essentially the same critics and the secular critics lambaste me as much as they do you guys. (in regards to my insistence that God is alive through Jesus and that we are in a Spiritual War)
MTW writes:

nitpicking one or two examples then complaining, won't change the overall theme here which is that evolution is fiction.

Explain why the only "scientists" who see this obvious "evidence" which you mention see the picture differently than do the mainstream scientists? Are the mainstream scientists blinded by denial of the living God? Are the "creationist" scientists somehow enlightened by and through the Holy Spirit? We need answers in reality, not simply cut & pastes from Answers In Genesis.

Addressing the rest of you, and mindful of the fact that this is a science thread, I can only post yet again the basic reason that creationists never argue the position rationally:

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.


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

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2019 10:06 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by dwise1, posted 07-11-2019 3:09 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 12683
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 267 of 1255 (857809)
07-11-2019 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Percy
07-11-2019 12:55 PM


Re: The Vexed Problem for Creationists of Providing Evidence
Physical evidence should exist. We need to open a belief based thread to further discuss this stuff, since none of us (believers) can provide satisfactory evidence for our claims. Personally I label myself as a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe that God existed eternally before matter and energy. I have no physics-based proof of my claim and can only speculate inferentially and philosophically as to my World View.

I trust the Pastors who have this non-evidence based supernatural view, however. Ed Taylor is Aurora, Colorado is one of them.
Word Of Knowledge,Prt 1

You are correct, however Percy. This "word of knowledge" has no facts to back it up.


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

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Percy, posted 07-11-2019 12:55 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 07-11-2019 4:04 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32712
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 268 of 1255 (857810)
07-11-2019 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by AZPaul3
07-10-2019 2:15 PM


Re: **********
It would be nice if those objecting to my arguments would at least refrain from assuming they understand my motivations, such as that I
...thlnk it (sensored word) because it doesn’t fit your bronze age mythology.

Even if you all thlnk my views are indefensible, does it really help to assume I didn't come by them honestly? That is, I observe the situation and arrive at my view of it. I've described my reasoning from that observation. In this case the word I use is inherently objectionable and I'd llke to have a better one. But the idea should be pretty clear: the standard explanation of the geo column with its fossils violates any reasonable physical explanation, and I've said why many times: straight strata often of a single more-or-less single uniform rsediment, each assigned to a particular time period of millions of years, is far from the usual way things happen in reality: when animals die they don't normally get buried at all but here there are all these neat burial arrangements, neat and straight and flat, originally miles deep; conditions for fossilization don't happen the way the explanation assumes either, and so on.

It's *********, yes, but not false. I do understand why you have to smash any claim I might have to reasonable ******* of course, to avoid the ********* possibility. In any case, it's got nothing to do with my Christian belief, it's entirely my judgment from observation.

=====================\\\I

The glib dismissiveness of so many posts on this subject doesn't invite response. I'm going to go watch some spiritual stuff.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2019 2:15 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2019 3:13 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 271 by JonF, posted 07-11-2019 3:49 PM Faith has responded
 Message 276 by AZPaul3, posted 07-11-2019 5:20 PM Faith has responded
 Message 279 by Percy, posted 07-11-2019 6:31 PM Faith has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3646
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 269 of 1255 (857812)
07-11-2019 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Thugpreacha
07-11-2019 2:16 PM


Re: Nope.
Answers in Genesis can be a mixed bag.

On the one hand, they have long promoted typical YEC nonsense, some worse than others; eg, a mind-boggling bogus claim that scientists believe that ancients such as the Egyptians at the beginning of history (ie, at the invention of writing) were "ape-men" and not fully human (I had heard it elsewhere attributed by a creationist to David Coppedge and then found it repeated on AiG, but I don't remember the link).

Then on the other hand they have come out for seeking the truth.

For example, in 2002 they published their article listing false creationist claims that they warned creationists to avoid using. Some examples are "men's missing rib", "why are there still monkeys?", missing neutrinos (that was figured out in the mid-90's), Darwin's "death-bed conversion", etc. That sparked an angry attack from Hovind (since he uses and depends on many of those false claims) and a response by Sarfati which I quote at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/quotes.html#AiG and in which he says the exact same thing that I've been telling creationists for decades, that they are doing great damage by using fake claims and shouldn't do things like that.

Another example is an article by YEC astronomer Dr. Danny Faulkner where he explains that the perennial "shrinking sun" claim is just plain wrong and shouldn't be used.

So even though Answers in Genesis normally pushes false claims, they can also try to stand up for truthfulness. A mixed bag.

… the basic reason that creationists never argue the position rationally:

The basic reasons are that they do not have a rational position to argue and they have no interest in creating one. Their primary concern is to oppose another position (which is a rational one) and to convince themselves and others that that other position is false (and hence their position, the "only other alternative", must be true even though they never present it nor will discuss nor support it).

Consider their standard "Two Model Approach", which is a false dichotomy, and all its ramifications, some of which I just described above. Fodder for future discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Thugpreacha, posted 07-11-2019 2:16 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15327
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 270 of 1255 (857813)
07-11-2019 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Faith
07-11-2019 2:47 PM


Re: Aabsurdity
quote:

Even if you all thlnk my views are indefensible, does it really help to assume I didn't come by them honestly? That is, I observe the situation and arrive at my view of it

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:

But the idea should be pretty clear: the standard explanation of the geo column with its fossils violates any reasonable physical explanation, and I've said why many times:

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:

straight strata often of a single more-or-less single uniform rsediment, each assigned to a particular time period of millions of years, is far from the usual way things happen in reality

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:

reality: when animals die they don't normally get buried at all but here there are all these neat burial arrangements, neat and straight and flat, originally miles deep;

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:

conditions for fossilization don't happen the way the explanation assumes either, and so on

Please explain how you know all the scientific research into fossilisation is wrong.

quote:

It's *********, yes, but not false. I do understand why you have to smash any claim I might have to reasonable ******* of course, to avoid the ********* possibility. In any case, it's got nothing to do with my Christian belief, it's entirely my judgment from observation

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:

The glib dismissiveness of so many posts on this subject doesn't invite response.

And yet you seem to prefer to answer those, rather than posts which
raise serious points.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Faith, posted 07-11-2019 2:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
1920
...
84NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019