Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

If science agreed with religion, there wouldn't be a for a different word for it.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You seem to think that science is against the bible, that it's going out of its way to prove it wrong.This is silly.Science doesn't give a stuff about your bible, the Koran, Talmud, Veda or any of the hundreds of other holy books that have been made up in ancient times.It really doesn't - it's not a conspiracy against belief systems, it's simply a set of evidence based understandings of how things actually work which is independent of what those books say. And, oddly, it's practiced by the followers of all those various books.Your problem is that science's discoveries are revealing truths that seem to contradict your own personal reading of the particular book you've chosen to put your faith in.So all you can do is thrash around trying to imagine strange and silly ways that the science is wrong. You're trying to do this from ignorance. You're being told that in order to criticise the science you need to properly understand it first but you resist any attempt to educate yourself about it and instead make things up.We can only suppose that you do this because you are frightened that you'll find that the science, with its several hundred years of research, testing and practical application, is a better way of undestanding how thing came about than your childish interpretation of a primitive mythology.

Well I wish you luck with that - if it means insisting against the evidence that the earth is 6,000 yeras old and everything that that implies, you're beliefs are going to die with you.But I suggest your first step should be to develop a little humility and not claim that those Christians who disagree with you are dishonest.

Well, yes, of course you do. Sadly, this approach to science - making stuff up to please yourself when real science provides an inconvenient fact - isn't working for anyone else except you.

Well there's a really good way to test it. What you do is you write a paper and you submit it to Nature. It then gets reviewed and if your new science stands up to scrutiny it gets published. Ten years later you receive your Noble Prize for changing everything we know about the earth sciences.And we will all look on in wonder and say to ourselves, 'we were all fools, we had it all explained to us, but we just didn't get it.'Well worth a crack at it Faith, go for it.

I've noticed this trope. A person with an erronious opinion tries to argue their case with others. They can't find any support for the ideas and, in fact, the ideas are shot down in flames very quickly. Rather than admiitting their error or finding more evidence to support the claim, the poster retires to their blog to shout into the widerness.Preaching is so much easier than two way debate.

Aren't you in a good place to answer this? Weren't you a YEC until fairly recently? Perhaps you can help us understand the delusion.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Given that the bible has been interpreted in as many different ways as there are Christian sects, contradicts itself in many places, recommends the most evil actions we can think of and is just plain wrong about many things, the sanest thing to do is treat it as what it is - a set of myths and stories originally intended to entertain and guide primitive people in primitive days.

Oh good, this is going get very ugly very quickly.

These 'laters' are stacking up Faith, I'm still waiting for your explanation of the White Cliffs of Dover. There's quite a lot of geology outside the Grand Canyon you know.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

The problem, Faith, is not that you don't do geology, it's that you don't do biology, genetics, physics, history or economics either but you still feel you can have an opinion on them that differs remarkably from those that do do these things.And the only reason you feel you can have these erronious opinions is because of your personal interpretation of a single book of myths that most people who actually study the book believe you to be also wrong about.It seems that the more people that give you evidence on every subject that you are wrong, the more convinced you are that you are right. It's a wonderful thing.

I have an empty glass beaker and some beads of the same size and shape. I have 5 handfuls of different coloured beads and a single gold bead.In the beaker I put a layer of green beads, then a layer of red. Then my gold bead, then purple beads, then orange and finally blue.Because the beads were placed in the beaker a layer at a time - at different times (the geologist's model) - I always know that the gold bead is between the red and the purple layer.If I now shake the beaker up then let it all settle back (the flood model), where is the gold bead? What is the flood geologist now looking for to find it?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

What is the mechanism that separated similar sized particles after a flood? A simple experiment in your kitchen with a hadfull of soil in a bottle of water will show you that the solids settle into strata by size. You can not seperate the strata in any other way unless it happens at different times. There's no avoiding this, it's a simple mechanical certainty. TIME (ie AGE) is your unexplained ingredient. You need to explain how fossils of similar sizes got put into layers if they were all layed down at the same TIME. Geologists say that the fossils are of different ages and were layed down one on top of the other at different TIMES. How can you explain that the different layers were layed down at the same TIME if we know that that is not how particles seperate out of water?