Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2019 2:21 AM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, Heathen, PaulK (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,532 Year: 12,568/19,786 Month: 2,349/2,641 Week: 304/554 Day: 2/104 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 3 of 409 (678483)
11-08-2012 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DevilsAdvocate
11-07-2012 9:07 PM


I really enjoyed this. I think Phil exemplified everything that is wrong with fundamentalist Christianity. His agenda all came out in the open when he began trying to censor the others on issues like abortion and gay marriage. He was a bully. You've got to wonder how he sorts it all out in his head. He claims to follow an all-loving God but sees evil in everything non-Christian. This supposedly loving person hates views that contradict his own.

Phil and Jo Jo were opposites. Jo Jo was very open to building her own theology as long as the Bible remained at the base. The other girl seemed to be sincerely wrestling with herself, saying that she didn't want to be blinkered but couldn't accept anything that might mean giving up her deeply held religious beliefs. Evolution was unacceptable to her because if evolution was true then Adam and Eve never happened, and I think she showed a fair grasp of logic there.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-07-2012 9:07 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-08-2012 8:34 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 30 of 409 (678583)
11-09-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by foreveryoung
11-08-2012 10:41 PM


Re: One Day
foreveryoung writes:

jar writes:

You say they recognize soviet style propaganda yet they watch Fox News?


Yes, because it is the only place where they can find an absence of it.

For an example of Fox News engaging in propaganda you have to go all the way back to, let's see now, let me think, it was all so long ago - oh yes, now I remember, this past Tuesday and the presidential election. Fox News cooked their stats and claimed they showed that Romney was going to win when the actual for-real data showed that Obama was going to win. Fox News even lies about math. There are a lot of Republican donors mad as hell at being duped into making large donations based upon false estimations of the chances of victory.

You're like Phil. You don't care about reality. You know what you believe, and evidence be damned you just stick with it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by foreveryoung, posted 11-08-2012 10:41 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 31 of 409 (678586)
11-09-2012 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
11-08-2012 11:02 PM


Re: One Day
jar writes:

What is wrong with socialism, after all Jesus would have been a communist, even beyond socialist.

In case FEY decides to dispute this, here is the account of Ananais and Sapphirra from the Bible:

Acts 5:1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

The penalties for selfishness and greed were evidently greater in the early church. I bet they were tithing 100% for decades after this.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 11-08-2012 11:02 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 11-13-2012 7:09 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 32 of 409 (678587)
11-09-2012 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by foreveryoung
11-09-2012 1:10 AM


Re: One Day
foreveryoung writes:

The key word is VOLUNTARY. I was talking about forced communal farming. What fearmongering are you talking about. I was only speaking to reality.

Except you're not speaking to reality, you're speaking to your fantasies. No one has mentioned forced communal farming except you. The idea of forced communal farming occurred to no one but you. Now that you've mentioned it, I'm sure everyone here thinks it a bad idea.

If you're really so determined to think up bad things to say about people you disagree with, you're going to need to put more thought into it and not be so ridiculous.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by foreveryoung, posted 11-09-2012 1:10 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 34 of 409 (678589)
11-09-2012 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Bolder-dash
11-08-2012 9:05 PM


It's a BBC Reality Show
Bolder-dash writes:

Here's what they did, they took a group of the most extreme kind of believers, people who believe in Noah's ark, or only in the extreme literalism of the bible, and the BBC decided that if they could win the argument over Noah's ark, then see, haven't we done a great job of dismissing creationism.

Conspiracy Road Trip is a reality show by BBC 3. There have been three episodes so far: Bombings, Creationism, UFOs. The approach seems to be fairly consistent, bring the conspiracy believers in contact with recognized experts.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-08-2012 9:05 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(5)
Message 74 of 409 (679322)
11-13-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
11-13-2012 7:09 AM


Re: One Day / Ananias and Sapphira
Faith writes:

Jesus did not advocate communism. There is one description of the church VOLUNTARILY sharing among themselves, it is not PRESCRIBED, it is not advocated or taught, and obviously they did not include people outside the church.

Acts 2:44-45: And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 11-13-2012 7:09 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 11-14-2012 11:46 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 91 of 409 (679718)
11-15-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
11-14-2012 11:46 PM


Re: One Day / Ananias and Sapphira
Hi Faith,

The point was that the "I've got mine and I'm keeping it" principles of modern American conservatism stand in stark contrast to the teachings of Jesus concerning sharing and community.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 11-14-2012 11:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 11-17-2012 1:27 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(4)
Message 132 of 409 (680031)
11-17-2012 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by foreveryoung
11-17-2012 1:27 AM


Re: One Day / Ananias and Sapphira
foreveryoung writes:

That isn't what modern american conservatism is about. It is "I've got mine and I am going to do with it AS I WISH and NOT as the government wishes."

Isn't that what Ananias and Sapphira did, keep some of their wealth to do with as they wished? Didn't Jesus say to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's? Didn't Jesus say that merely being rich denied heaven? Doesn't this passage from the Bible speak against keeping one's wealth to oneself:

Acts 2:44-45: And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Like the antebellum south where few possessed the wealth required to own slaves but most defended a slavery that provided them little benefit, few modern conservatives are rich yet defend policies that are antithetical to their own best interests. Often too poor to effectively save for their own retirement or access healthcare, they nonetheless vote for policies and politicians that will forever keep these out of their reach.

Conservatives can legitimately argue that Jesus was pro-life and pro-marriage, but he definitely was not pro-rich. He was for sharing and community, not for mansions walled off from the poverty and squalor produced by their own selfishness and neglect.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by foreveryoung, posted 11-17-2012 1:27 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 157 of 409 (680258)
11-18-2012 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
11-18-2012 9:02 PM


Re: Ken Ham's response / and a note on this thread
Faith writes:

Now I note that the creationists have answered me, and if I have to explain the time factor of the Bible I know that discussion is hopeless too, extra time has somehow been "found" there and all my arguments that it is not there but imposed on it aren't going to make any difference. The argument by ICANT that an inference from the Bible is adding to the Bible is just too absurd to even consider, and anyone who would say that is beyond reaching. "Finding" millions of years in the Bible IS adding to it, unfortunately.

Well, so much for attempts to communicate at EvC. Futility and hopelessness.

Ah, I see, your inability to persuade even other creationists is EvC's fault.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 9:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 9:46 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 299 of 409 (680654)
11-20-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Faith
11-20-2012 11:42 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Hi Faith,

The problems people are finding with your ideas about the flood fall into two categories:

  • Things that aren't possible.

  • Things that are possible but for which there is no evidence.

There's a third category you've ignored completely: things that are possible for which there is evidence.

You and MindSpawn, who's posting over at Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo, should try to get on the same page. He believes that all layers up until the P-T boundary (Permian-Triassic boundary) are pre-flood, those after are post flood.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 11:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(4)
Message 351 of 409 (680787)
11-21-2012 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Faith
11-20-2012 8:56 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Hi Faith,

The reason for the questions about "dissolve" is because you keep using it in ways that imply you think rocks can dissolve in water. When people challenge you on this you respond that you know that rocks don't dissolve, as you just did here:

Faith writes:

No, Tangle, I was not thinking that rocks would dissolve, never said anything to imply that as far as I know so I don't know where the idea came from.

But then you follow it with another statement that implies that you still think rocks dissolve in water, as you did here immediately after saying you know they don't dissolve:

The context of the quote you give was my comment that I think layers of the Grand Canyon would re-dissolve if the Flood repeated itself. It was an afterthought.

So there you go, two consecutive paragraphs, two contradictory statements, and you do this kind of thing over and over again. If you stop making claims of understanding that are belied by your own confused statements then questions like the one about "dissolve" will also stop.

Some small proportion of components of soil and a very tiny proportion of those in rock will dissolve in water, but for the most part soil and rock can only be transported in suspension by energetic water. Once the water loses its energy the suspended components will fall out of suspension. This is how sedimentary layers form.

Dissolved components will remain dissolved until the water evaporates. Many salt deposits form this way from seas that repeatedly form and evaporate, something that couldn't happen during a flood.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 8:56 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:06 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 354 of 409 (680790)
11-21-2012 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Faith
11-21-2012 1:52 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:

I haven't misunderstood the Grand Canyon at all, I actively reject the ridiculous time scale explanation of how a stack of sediments formed that so clearly all formed by the same physical mechanisms...

Except that they didn't form under the "same physical mechanisms". Sandstone forms in deserts or offshore in coastal areas. Shale forms further offshore. Limestone forms in quiet shallow seas far from shore. Salt forms from evaporative rather than sedimentary processes. Volcanic layers flow onto a landscape. The only thing similar about these "physical mechanisms" is that they are all natural.

Why do you need natural explanations for a God-caused flood?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 1:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:27 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(5)
Message 356 of 409 (680792)
11-21-2012 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Faith
11-21-2012 9:06 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Faith writes:

It was very frustrating because ALL i was trying to say is that the LAND MASS would have been the source of the sediments that became the strata, and I had LOOSE material in mind.

Then where did the sedimentary layers of rock come from? They're certainly not composed of soil.

The sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon are records of regions that were once shallow seas for millions of years, then offshore regions for millions of years, then shorelines for millions of years, then deserts for millions of years, and so on. Going from the top the major layers of the Grand Canyon consist of:

Limestone
Shale
Sandstone
Shale
Sandstone
Limestone
Shale
Limestone
Shale
Sandstone

Material suspended in flood waters falls out of suspension according to density and particle size. The mere fact of alternating layers is the simplest way to eliminate a flood as a possible cause of the layers of the Grand Canyon.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:06 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Stile, posted 11-21-2012 11:40 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:38 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 358 of 409 (680799)
11-21-2012 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Faith
11-21-2012 9:27 AM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith writes:

The flood didn't "form" the strata in the sense you mean. It only only "formed" the strata by moving the sediments and depositing them. It did not create the sediments themselves unless by breaking up the land mass. It picked up clay, it picked up sand, it picked up calcium carbonate sea creatures and moved them, from wherever they had initially resided or formed, and carried them most likely in currents of the Flood waters -- that occur naturally in layers in the oceans and do transport things -- to be deposited as layers over the continents where they piled up very deep and eventually became rock.

As someone said before, this is just a "magic water" explanation. Floods do not behave this way, they do not deposit sediments in neat layers, and the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon are of the same type we see forming all around the globe today, and it's just normal natural processes doing it, not magic floods.

A global flood would only inundate each landscape region once. In order to deposit the miles of layers we see today your flood would have had to pick up huge amounts of sediment by denuding landscapes of miles of whatever you think was there before. Turbulent waters capable of scouring might occur as a flood first overflows a landscape, but then the area is submerged and no more scouring occurs. Plus the rock particles that make up many sedimentary layers need millions of years of erosion and weathering to form from the original rock.

Since you think the flood scoured landscapes to acquire the sediments it later deposited, one thing you could look for as evidence for the flood is the topmost pre-flood layer that the flood scoured down to. Shouldn't we see a global layer that was the lowest the flood scoured down to?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 9:27 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(5)
Message 393 of 409 (680989)
11-21-2012 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:14 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Faith writes:

Mud is dirt dissolved in water. Get used to it.

Mud is not dissolved dirt in water, and this fact makes a huge difference to your ideas.

Fill two glasses with water. Add a teaspoon of salt to one glass, a teaspoon of dirt to the other. Stir until both the salt and the dirt are completely mixed into the water.

After a few minutes you'll see that much of the dirt has already fallen to the bottom on the glass. That's because the dirt is suspended in the water, not dissolved. The longer you wait the more dirt will gather at the bottom as smaller and smaller particles gradually fall out of suspension. But the salt remains mixed in with the water. That's because it is dissolved, not suspended. It will remain dissolved until the water evaporates.

If dirt were soluble then just the presence of water would dissolve it. The most quiet flood could dissolve all the soil, assuming sufficient water. There would be no need for an incredibly energetic flood to denude landscapes. The soil would precipitate out of water as it evaporated. Of course, there's no such thing as precipitated soils, and even if there were the Earth's geologic layers do not look like precipitated soils.

The same is true for rock, which is why we were trying to determine if you really believed that rocks dissolve in water. If you did then it would explain part of why you thought a flood could have taken up so much rock and then deposited it later.

But the reality is that rock must be broken up into tiny pieces before it can be carried by all but the most energetic water, and the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon consist primarily of tiny grains of rock or limestone.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Faith, posted 11-22-2012 3:20 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019