Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:04 PM
808 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, funny, jar, JonF, Louis Morelli, ramoss, Sarah Bellum (8 members, 800 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,976 Year: 12,012/19,786 Month: 1,793/2,641 Week: 302/708 Day: 77/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 105 of 409 (679845)
11-16-2012 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
11-15-2012 11:17 PM


Re: Dinosaurs and Nautiloids
quote:

Not in THIS kind of Flood which was an expansion of the oceans to cover every bit of land. The oceans are crisscrossed with currents at different depths, and different temperatures, that do carry things along within them. Such a flood would have dissolved everything dissolvable and apparently sorted it somehow. Of course we don't kow how for sure, it's all speculation, just as your stuff is speculation. Wave action also could have deposited layers over a huge breadth of land.

Actually it looks like a desperate attempt to dismiss the evidence without thinking. THere's no real explanation or even consideration of the problems here.

quote:

But the layering makes far LESS sense on the evolutionist interpretation.

By which you mean that the science of geology is complete nonsense. Evolution has VERY little input to geology. If geologists had found your ideas viable evolution would have failed. BUt they didn't and don't.

quote:

Why should eras of time be demarcated by any such geological phenomena?

For a start, the eras were determined by geology - or rather the geology that the scientists of the time knew. So the whole question is the wrong way around. Not that there are precise worldwide markers by any means.

quote:

Why shouldn't there be a continuous piling up of mixed sediments over those supposed billions of years?

Because conditions change over time. There is uplift and subsidence. Basins fill. Volcanic eruptions occur.

quote:

Such phenomena occur in the present for particular reasons in limited locations. The idea that the entire earth would be layered makes NO sense except on the basis of the Flood catastrophe which stirred up everything, dissolved everything and redeposited it in layers.

I guess you haven't been following the creationist claim that the geological column isn't real. There are a few areas on Earth that have seen deposition in every geological era, but they are unusual. THere are widespread layers, but none worldwide.

Even your solution claim is silly, because most rocks aren't that soluble - are you seriously suggesting that the Flood dissolved large quantities of silica? (glass is a form of silica, how soluble is that ?) Calcium carbonate is only weakly soluble (sea shells are made of calcium carbonate which would be pretty silly if it was liable to dissolve easily - and of course fossil shells are very common - how could that be if the Flood dissolved them ?) and of course we ought to see a layering based on solubility, with the less common deposits of highly soluble materials like salt at the very end. And then of course we can find solidified lava that erupted and cooled on the surface, and not underwater. How can the Flood account for that ?

So no, conventional geology makes a lot more sense than your ideas which can't cope with something as simple as a fossil shell.

quote:

Well, rivers sort and deposite sediments in layers too. This is the sort of thing that water does. The scale of the Flood was beyond anything we can imagine but we CAN say that WATER ACTS THAT WAY.

Which is why a lot of deposits are attributed to water action of various sorts. But obviously, even if water did dissolve a sea shell precipitating the calcium carbonate out of water would never reform the shell, water DOESN'T behave in THAT way. But there are also deposits which are not attributed to water action and you need to explain those, too.

quote:

There is no reason to think that the mere passage of time should create layers on the earth but the earth is covered with such layers.

Nobody claims that the mere passage of time created the layers - it is the events which happened during that passage of time. In fact the same events as you appealed to as showing what water does, and admitted to happening in the present time are among those causes. And it would be absurd of you to deny that such things could happen in the distant past.

quote:

And again, when you LOOK at the layers in their most undisturbed condition in the Grand Canyon, SO undisturbed for billions of years according to old earth/evolution theory, and THEN subjected to some pretty violent disturbances such as tectonic lifting and twistings (elsewhere, not in the GC) and the cutting of the canyon, how can you even THINK long ages?

This simply seems bizarre to me. How can you look at proof of long ages and reject it with such certainty ?

quote:

No, they are merely in thrall to the accumulated "knowledge" of their discipline. The work they do is done under that umbrella. They take it for granted, they have no reason to question it as far as they know. That's normal science. It doesn't make anyone stupid, but it would be nice if creationists could get our act together well enough to make some of you have to rethink the foundations you are taking for granted.

Of course, if the discipline were as absurd as you say then this situation would be impossible. The fact is that geologists know a whole lot more than you - you don't even understand basic facts like the solubility of the rocks or the extent of geological layering. And that I think is the problem - the geologists know what they are talking about, while you insist that knowledge is irrelevant - everyone should just jump to the conclusions you like. And you have no compunction in attacking anyone who dares to disagree with you, without caring if your attacks are really true enough (sufficient in court for a finding of malice).

quote:

I'm not asking for "trust," just a consideration of the evidence as I see it which I hope I argue with some intelligence.

Seems to me that you're demanding a whole lot more than trust. And considering the evidence as you see it, doesn't preclude a consideration of the evidence as it actually is - even evidence that you would rather we ignored.

quote:

Well, presumably AFTER they've been formed they could be MOVED and stacked in a layer, couldn't they? All in the form of loose sediments perhaps broken up by the Flood waters before being moved.

I suppose that you could claim that your dissolution and precipitation left no actual evidence at all, but what would the point of that be ?
How would you distinguish that from the original material being eroded and moved around ?

quote:

The lithification would have occurred over a much longer period than the period of the Flood itself, which merely did the work of deposition into layers. The weight of the stack must have done quite a bit of the hardening, at least of the lower layers, and then after the Flood receded it must have taken a fair amount of time for it to dry out and harden. Years? A century?

According to what I've read, much longer than that. Too long for you.

quote:

Sorry, I just figured the other creatures were sparsely represented and don't occur in the numbers needed to be evidence for the volutionist scenario, which I believe is borne out by the evidence, and I absolutized it, which I shouldn't have. But I did look up evidence and apparently I was writing my edit to that post while you were answering the earlier version.

I do hope that you realise that your beliefs about the evidence are not evidence in themselves. I can say from personal experience that while ammonites and belemnites are very common in some locales other fossils are also found there in some numbers (e.g. gryphaea) - and other areas nearby, from the same era can produce quite different fossils (crinoids, oyster beds, sea urchins and numerous small shells, for instance) in large quantities. And that is just my personal experience from amateur fossil collecting near my childhood home. Don't forget that different creatures live in different habitats, and that vertebrate fossils are only very rarely found by casual collectors (although certainly they are found in areas where ammonites are common).

quote:

What I added was links to Steve Austin's work on the nautiloid layer in the GC and the correction that there ARE other creatures in the layer with the nautiloids, but that nevertheless the nautiloids are found there in prodigious numbers, one to a square meter, or he estimates something like 10 billion over the hundreds of square miles he sampled. Such a dense preponderance of one creature in one layer is good evidence for rapid catastrophic deposition and killing, and not good evidence for the long-ages evolutionist interpretation.

I would disagree, in fact your argument makes no sense to me. Surely the numbers are BETTER explained by a long period of time - a catastrophic death can only catch a single generation, while over time many generations can live and die. Surely a catastrophic deposition would catch pretty much everything that lived there. So really I can't see how your evidence comes close to supporting your claim.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 11:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 126 of 409 (680014)
11-17-2012 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
11-17-2012 1:47 AM


Re: age of archaeological finds / carbon dating
I think there's a little tension in your objections here.

On the one hand you claim that scientists are wrong because they hold on to preconceived ideas and thus interpret the evidence incorrectly.

On the other hand you complain very loudly that they don't interpret the evidence on the basis of your preconceived ideas. (And as we,ve seen elsewhere this includes the invention of implausible ad hoc excuses to explain away evidence contrary to your views and even a refusal to accept truths that you dislike)

There's an inconsistency here. If it is a methodological error to cling too tightly to preconceived ideas then it is an error even if the ideas are ones you believe or like.

Edited by Admin, : "if" => "of"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 11-17-2012 1:47 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 11-17-2012 6:05 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 128 of 409 (680022)
11-17-2012 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
11-17-2012 6:05 AM


Re: age of archaeological finds / carbon dating
quote:

No, I'm not merely objecting to preconceived ideas as such, I know we all have them, I'm trying to get it noticed that they actually exist on your side and make a barrier to this discussion that's frustrating to a creationist who is coming from a completely other frame of reference.

I didn't say that you were objecting to preconceived ideas as such. I said that you claimed that scientists were making errors became they were following preconceived ideas.

And I have to say that the ideas that you object to are themselves founded in strong evidence.

quote:

I'm just saying your iron grip on your paradigm makes it hard to get another perspective into your thought processes, another way of thinking about exactly the same facts that explains them just as well or better. It's like having to dismantle the entire system before even one single point can be made. Or something like that.

But you can't explain the facts as well. That's why you had to invent a super-genome. That's why you have to insist that radiometric dating will be disproved, and why you have to refuse to accept it as science even though it is. Hell it's why you had to complain that i was looking at the "wrong" part of a geological diagram because it showed evidence that didn't fit your views. And, quite obviously, expert geologists will know a whole lot of facts that you don't, so they are in a far better position to work out which explanation.best fits the facts, which is why the Flood idea was rejected in the first place.

I suppose you are right that you have a lot of work to do, but that is because the evidence is massively against you.

And really you have no idea how arguing with creationists seems from the other side of the fence.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 11-17-2012 6:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 11-17-2012 7:05 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 11-17-2012 8:05 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 130 of 409 (680027)
11-17-2012 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
11-17-2012 7:05 AM


Re: age of archaeological finds / carbon dating
quote:

Well all you've done here is recite the Creed as usual, PaulK. Yes, you really believe you have the evidence and that I've never said anything that really challenge its, and that's the barrier I'm talking about.

Of course I pointed to evidence that what I said was correct. So no, I wasn't reciting any creed, I was pointing to the truth as I saw it - and without any reliance on preconceived ideas.

quote:

Of course geologists will know a lot of things I don't know but I reserve the right to consider their interpretation of the geological column wrong, in fact silly. I mean really really silly for the many intuitively obvious reasons I've given which anybody ought to be able to see if you'd just make the effort.

You have the right to your opinions, and I have the right to find your opinions as being based in nothing more than arrogance and false dogma.

quote:

As for the super genome, that was a first attempt to make sense of what must have happened since the Flood, or even since the Fall. Since those first thoughts I've come to see that the reduction of genetic diversity I kept talking about all the time is in fact a reduction to more and more homozygosity, so that the further back you go the more heterozygosity you should see in the genome.

But that obviously doesn't work. Many of the arguments assume maximum heterozygosity in the ark population, and two individuals - as is the case for all "unclean" species have a maximum of four alleles at any locus even under that assumption - it will produce a bottleneck and we don't see it. If we add in your other idea that the pairs in the ark are the ancestors of multiple species under the modern definition it gets even worse for you because you need a single pair to account for the genetic diversity of multiple species. That's WHY you needed the super genome.

quote:

As for the super genome, that was a first attempt to make sense of what must have happened since the Flood, or even since the Fall. Since those first thoughts I've come to see that the reduction of genetic diversity I kept talking about all the time is in fact a reduction to more and more homozygosity, so that the further back you go the more heterozygosity you should see in the genome.

But it doesn't. Bottlenecks don't create junk DNA, they drastically reduce the variation in DNA across the board - and it's the amount of variation in non-junk DNA that you have to explain. And you would have to consider the structure of junk DNA as well to make an actual argument. This is a prime example of you jumping to a conclusion without considering the evidence properly.

quote:

Oh I know how offensive this all is, but I'm not going to give up. Maybe some day something I say will make sense even to you.

But I bet that you don't understand WHY I find it offensive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 11-17-2012 7:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 133 of 409 (680036)
11-17-2012 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
11-17-2012 8:05 AM


Re: the offense of the debate
quote:

About the other side of the fence, which you first wrote as "offence" which I decided to take as a pun though I see now it wasn't.

It was an iPad spelling "correction" - and you had to get in fast to even see it.

quote:

I probably can't really know what it's like to be on that side but I've seen how many silly ideas on the creationist side come through here, and I can easily imagine that being confronted with ANY ideas, silly or not, that come from nonscientists and don't follow scientific protocols and treat well-trained scientists as wrong about their own field on what seems like such a flimsy basis, must be felt as an extreme offense by those on the inside, going back to that word. But how should we deal with that if we DO think you're wrong? Say a lot of polite respectful words? I don't think so.

Oh, the silliness of the ideas is the least of it. I would say that the arrogance - and the frequent appearance of dishonesty are far worse.

quote:

I've seen some good creationist arguments, however, that you guys treat as trash, and I think my own arguments are good, even though the work of an amateur. And it seems to me that it's a combination of your being intellectually paradigm-bound, along with the expectable pride in your trainnig and your work that closes you to even a reasonable idea from a creationist, in other words it IS an offense, to your pride. That's understandable.

I won't dare to speak for everyone but I certainly try to be fair and I believe I succeed more often than not. If you can find a genuinely good argument that I've "trashed"I'd be willing to take another look at it.
But again you're wrong about the source of the offence. It's the pride of the creationists which I find offensive.

quote:

But all this started with an offense to Christians and to the true God way back there somewhere

And this is really the heart of it. You complain about "thought police" - but here you are considering dissenting views an offence. Can't you see that that view is inherently offensive to anyone who wants to think for themselves?

And let me repeat one thing that I've said before - if you want us to accept your arguments based on your theological beliefs you have to get us to accept your theological beliefs first. It is odd then that you are so adamant in refusing to discuss the theology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 11-17-2012 8:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 146 of 409 (680197)
11-18-2012 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
11-18-2012 10:07 AM


Re: A Biblical geologist's take on the road trip
I have to agree with nwr. Pointing out a gaffe on the part of the host, who is after all, a comedian, not an expert is more a sign of desperation. The most interesting part for me is that he confirmed that Phil was Phil Robinson, an experienced creationist.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 11-18-2012 10:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by roxrkool, posted 11-18-2012 12:45 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 200 of 409 (680317)
11-19-2012 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
11-19-2012 1:04 AM


Re: The ENTIRE geological column.
In other words, Faith, your demand to be worshipped isn't arrogant, REAL arrogance is refusing to worship you.

I hope that you see how ridiculous that is.

It isn't arrogant to look for the truth - even when it means looking at evidence that you demand we ignore.

It IS arrogant of you to attribute disagreement to stupidity - or a failure to communicate rather than consider that your arguments might be inadequate. Your arguments are typically poorly-thought out and often based on a very limited knowledge of the evidence.

It isn't arrogant to disagree with the teaching of your cult. It isn't even anti-Christian. There are other ways of looking at the Bible. In fact I would have to say that you belong to an anti-Christian cult. You certainly try to encourage people to reject Christianity. Look in your Bible - there's nothing to say that obedience to your cult's theological masters is a requirement for salvation.

It isn't arrogant to disagree with your opinions, especially when your opinions make no sense. Why does a global flood HAVE to either deposit the entire geological column or do nothing visible ? It seems to me that a global flood would be very unlikely to do either in the course of a year.

And of course it is arrogant of you to characterise disagreement with your beliefs as "telling God he's wrong" . If your HUMAN masters were here I'd tell them that THEY are wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 7:38 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 210 of 409 (680344)
11-19-2012 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
11-19-2012 7:38 AM


Re: The ENTIRE geological column.
You've also said that it is a sin and even arrogance to disagree with your religious beliefs. You told Foreveryoung to abandon Christianity rather than to accept a view of the Bible contrary to your beliefs. You insist that it is stupid to think that a global flood would be on a scale likely for a global flood. You're not even happy if I do consider your arguments unless I agree with them. I could go on and on but I think the point is made.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 7:38 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 8:05 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 215 of 409 (680352)
11-19-2012 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
11-19-2012 8:05 AM


Re: The ENTIRE geological column.
quote:

I've said nothing that doesn't reflect the belief of thie historical traditional Protestant Church

Protestantism has a lot of branches, and I'm pretty sure that most of them don't insist that it's a sin to disagree with literalist or even inerrantist views of the Bible.

quote:

Trying to make it out to be MY particular belief that I'm asking to be taken seriously is pretty devious of you. I'm asking that the historical religion of Jesus Christ be taken seriously. But I gather that perhaps nobody here knows a thing about the history of these things. That's too bad. You don't know the Protestant foundations of England and America.

Funny how your ignorance doesn't invalidate your views on geology. And I would suggest that "taking seriously" doesn't require believing. And I dare say that you know rather less than you think, given your willingness to believe anti-Catholic propaganda.

quote:

None of this includes my arguments about geology for which I've only asked that you think about them. Those arguments are mine, but they are also the arguments of creationist scientists, but nobody is asking worship of such things, just consideration.

Well that's funny. Are you seriously claiming that the "historical Protestant church" holds that a global Flood 4300 years ago MUST either produce deposits equivalent to the entire geological column or leave no evidence that would be discernible to us? Or is this one of your arguments about geology ?

And is it not true that when people disagree with your arguments or come to conclusions that you don't like that you call them stupid or blind ?

And is it not true that you insist that all proper geology must be done on the basis that your religious beliefs be assumed to be unquestionably correct ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 8:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 228 of 409 (680417)
11-19-2012 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
11-19-2012 2:09 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
The same "common sense" that causes you to believe crazy conspiracy theories ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 2:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 2:15 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 233 of 409 (680428)
11-19-2012 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
11-19-2012 2:15 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
Funny how you haven't produced any evidence then. And pardon me if I suspect that your evaluation of the evidence has more to do with your prejudices than the facts.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 2:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 242 of 409 (680460)
11-19-2012 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
11-19-2012 3:54 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
quote:

Christ wrote the Book. To follow it is to follow Him.

Well there's an unbiblical view for you. There are a good number of books of the Bible that are absolutely clear that they were written by humans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 3:54 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 3:59 PM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 249 of 409 (680467)
11-19-2012 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
11-19-2012 3:59 PM


Re: Another claim goes "poof"
quote:

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Christ.

If you get to boldly making assertions that even you don't believe then you ought to take a step back and think about your position.

In fact you really need a good dose of self-awareness. You need to recognise that you know very little about geology, and that you are highly prejudiced against it. Is it really plausible that ALL the more knowledgeable and comparatively open-minded people are "blinded" by prejudice and that YOU aren't ? Isn't it the height of arrogance for you to consider it even likely, let alone a fact ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 3:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 4:16 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 266 of 409 (680490)
11-19-2012 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
11-19-2012 4:46 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff
Faith, you really are proving that you can't tell good arguments from bad. The main constituents of most rocks are calcium carbonate (VERY poorly soluble) or silica (almost completely insoluble). Very little rock has precipitated out of solution. Sedimentary rocks are typically formed from small solid particles which settle out of water, not material that precipitates out of solution.

This is simply not a sensible argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 4:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 11:19 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 284 of 409 (680628)
11-20-2012 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
11-20-2012 11:19 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
quote:

What's very odd here is that I haven't said one word about dissolving ROCKS, you guys are making that up. Tangle and now you. I've said many times that the Flood would have dissolved WHATEVER COULD BE DISSOLVED. The sediments now in the geological column had to be in some condition that made them dissolvable and separable into their separate types.

I wasn't talking about dissolving rocks, I was talking about dissolving the materials the sedimentary rocks are made of (in whatever form). So we're talking about the same thing.

Again we're down to the problem that you have great difficulty believing that your arguments could be bad and you try to blame everyone else for something that is, really, your own fault.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 11:19 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 11:42 AM PaulK has responded

    
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