Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
85 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 82 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,115 Year: 4,227/6,534 Month: 441/900 Week: 147/150 Day: 1/16 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Depositional Models of Sea Transgressions/Regressions - Walther's Law
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 424
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009

Message 84 of 533 (725992)
05-05-2014 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
05-05-2014 3:52 PM

Re: The point is not whether God is behind it but whether it is miraculous
So you're saying it just coincidentally rained at the exact time your god got pissed off? Because it either happened naturally, according to physical laws, or by a violation of natural processes. I don't see any coherent middle ground there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 3:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-05-2014 4:10 PM Capt Stormfield has taken no action

Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 424
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009

Message 400 of 533 (727633)
05-19-2014 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Faith
05-19-2014 12:12 PM

Re: salt basin
"Sorting fossils in water' is not something I've ever said.

...and that, if it were true, would just exacerbate the problem. Issues like the ones JonF raised are observable in the real world. You seem to follow a consistent pattern of segregating factoids from their real world context and then attempting to explain them with ad hoc rationalizations. This has led to your failure to present any coherent explanation of how your proposed flood would work when all available observations are considered at the same time.

It's easy to make up hypotheses when you don't let all those other facts intrude. But, as you said earlier:

It rapidly gets too complex and requires an enormous amount of time...

Yes. Yes it does. That is why current theory has required hundreds of years and the life-work of thousands of dedicated people to develop. How on earth do you see this reality, which you just acknowledged, as supporting your ad hoc "I don't want to talk about all that other stuff right now" style of argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Faith, posted 05-19-2014 12:12 PM Faith has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022