The few geocentrists you find around today are Protestants and Catholics who consider themselves to be Bible fundamentalists.
So if the Bible is so heliocentric as you make it out to be, why wouldn't other "true Bible believers" also see that simple fact? So why would these extant geocentrists who are also "true Bible believers" who base their geocentrism on the Bible not be heliocentrists instead?
Hey, everybody! You fail to see the obvious in Faith's photos.
Faith, your choice of photos betray your failed reasoning and understanding of erosion.
With the GU we are talking about the erosion of rock by all erosional processes. Your examples -- and hence your understanding of the GU -- fail to take any of that into account. You are restricting your examples to loose soil and to erosion by running water.
What about the erosion of rock, which is what we're really talking about? Is that solely by running water? No, it is not. What about wind erosion? Blowing sand that etches away at the entire surface of the rock in a somewhat uniform manner, in which the main factor to vary the amount of erosion is how hard the different exposed rock are? What about weathering, which involves several different processes, such that water's main role would be to transport the resulting debris to lower elevations? Weathering would also act somewhat uniformly over the entire exposed surface of the rock.
Instead of relying on an overly simplistic view of erosion, you need to take in account the full range of erosional processes and their effects.
BTW, even in your overly simplistic view that is restricted to just water erosion of loose soil, those channels only cut so deep before they widen into broader channels, doing more to erode away at the banks than to cut ever deeper. You've seen river beds before, haven't you? Not sharply and deeply cut V's, but rather wide with a wide, shallow, flat river bottom.
This is an ordeal with a malfunctioning space bar. Must have splashed something on it.
Or there might be something lodged underneath it. That happened to me once with the shift key I normally use to type my password when I start my computer. After the first flash of panic, I noticed that the key wasn't travelling down fully. After I gave it a blast of canned air, it worked fine.
Could be a bread crumb or a seed or a clump of lint. It can make even more of a difference on a laptop whose keys have very little travel. If you have canned air, try that. If not, then you could your own breath, but that can be difficult to keep dry. Or you could tilt the keyboard in various directions and either shake or tap (ie, like somebody menacingly slapping a club into the palm of the other hand, though much more gently).
If you read the history of this nonsense you would recognize that you are making the EXACT same mistakes Price did.
One thing you have to get used to is that creationists are extremely poorly read. Whereas we take care to research our material, they have no idea where their bat guano comes from. Many times I would immediately recognize the source of a creationist's claim (since he had repeated it absolutely verbatim) and comment with something like, "Oh, I see you like Kent Hovind.", only to face the response of "Never heard of the guy!" Creationist claims spread like urban legends, such that except for the very few exceptions it's impossible to trace how they had spread. Even now, you will find countless websites repeating Kent Hovind's lies verbatim without acknowledging the source, so that countless more creationists will regurgitate the same lies without any knowledge of their source (which most certainly was not the Bible! Nor God even!).
Similarly, Dr. Henry Morris, PhD Hydraulic Engineering, AKA "The Father of Flood Geology", had obviously borrowed most of his Fludde ideas from George McCready Price, a Seventh-Day Adventist (which most fundamentalists consider to be a cult -- I wonder what Faith thinks of SDAists), albeit without properly crediting his sources.
We do not know what Faith's ultimate sources are (certainly not God nor the Bible, but rather channeled by the arbitrary and false requirements of her theology). Perhaps she had suckled at the teat of Dr. Henry Morris or of any of the Legion ("our name is Legion, for we are many!") of vectors of that particular virulence, so that she would be totally unaware of the source of that poisoned milk. At any rate, she has proven herself quite adept at spinning her own particular brand of bat guano.
Yes, and how to feces become fossilized? By being buried! Even dessicated (ie, dried up) feces. In a Flood?
Did you ever see that movie from a couple years ago, Marley and Me. Based on a true story about a dog, Marley. Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston with Kathleen Turner in an unrecognizable role as the woman running the dog obedience class that Marley absolutely fails. At one point, Wilson buys his wife a gold necklace, which Marley immediately eats. For the next few days, Wilson followed Marley around in the back yard and every time Marley pooped Wilson would dissolve his feces with a garden hose. Finally, there came a time when Marley had passed the necklace and his feces dissolved away to reveal it.
Feces cannot withstand a garden hose and hold together against it. And yet many instances of feces were able to withstand and hold together against your All-Mighty Fludde which is so much mightier and unlike any other flood that we have ever witnessed? Is a garden hose truly so much mightier than your All-Mighty Fludde?
Really? How could any turd ... er, fecal instantiation ... possibly have been able to withstand a Fludde that could have scoured whole continents as you have described?
Plus, many of these coprolites had dessicated before having been fossilized. How could that have ever been possible under the conditions of your Fludde?
And if you don't believe me, then please watch the movie. It is quite enjoyable, though sad at the end when they have to put him down -- if you're not a dog person, then you wouldn't understand anyway. I grew up picking up the poop with a shovel and never knowing otherwise, but it's right there on film before your eyes. Garden hoses obliterate dog poop. Why are garden hoses so much more powerful than your measly Fludde?
Maybe you missed this message in another topic: Message 598.
There is a magma hot-spot under the Pacific tectonic plate. It created Hawaii. It also created a line of islands and sea-mounts. Those islands and sea-mounts have been radio-dated. Those dates correspond directly with when that magma hot-spot would have been present under that particular spot of the Pacific plate at that particular time if the earth were indeed old and if the Pacific plate had been moving at about its current rate.
Now, what are the odds of all that data being unrelated? Vanishingly small.
Given your incredible ignorance, I'm certain that you have absolutely no grasp of the mathematics of probability.
Let's toss an evenly-weighted coin (actual coins are not evenly weighted and so will predominantly come up tails, since the heads side is slightly heavier). 50% probability of it coming up heads. One toss, the probability of it coming up heads is 0.5 (AKA 50%, to you math illiterates). For two independent tosses the probability of both turning up heads is 0.5 × 0.5, which is 0.25. So what is the probability of ten heads in a row? 0.510, which is 0.0009765625, AKA "1024 to 1". A hundred heads in a row? 0.5100, which is 7.8886×10-31, AKA "1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 to 1". A thousand heads in a row? 0.51000, which is 9.3326×10-302, AKA "1.07×10-301 to 1".
The probability of a scientific reading being accurate is far greater than 50%, more in the range above 95%. For literally thousands of such readings to provide the same results leads us to only one possible conclusion: for them all to be wrong is so incredibly improbable as to be deemed impossible.
No, we are not talking gibberish. You are thinking gibberish, so of course you cannot understand simple facts.
That message I linked to, which I'm sure you kept yourself completely ignorant of, describes the movement of the Pacific plate over a magma hot-spot which has produced a long string of islands and sea-mounts, including Hawaii, and is currently positioned just off the eastern shore of Kona. We know how fast that plate is moving. Those islands and sea-mounts have been radio-dated. The resultant ages agree very closely with when they would have been positioned over that hot-spot had the Pacific plate been moving at about its current speed.
That is an example of consillience, the way in which many independent pieces of evidence all yield the same results. Consilience has been discussed on this forum many times. For every test, there is a possibility of false results, so every test has a confidence interval, a probability (p) that the results are true, and hence a probability (q = 1-p) that the results are wrong. To determine the probability that two tests are both wrong, you multiply their q probabilities (ie, Q = q1 * q2). If you have 100 such independent tests, you multiply all 100 together. The probability that hundreds and thousands of independent tests that all yield the same results could all be wrong is so vanishingly small as to be less than virtually impossible.
Yes, the liars have won, getting their propaganda believed against true Christianity so that you'll defend the Compromising Christians instead, which of course is what you WANT to do anyway.
But what happens when the uncompromising Christians (AKA "true Christians") take a position that is obviously, blatantly, undeniably false? Wherein to admit the obvious, blatant, undeniably true fact would mean becoming a "Compromising Christian"?
I am not making this up. There was a recent documentary that aired on HBO, which I seem to recall was called "Questioning Darwin." As I recall, it consisted entirely of interviews with people on both sides of the "issue", though the vast majority were on the creationist side -- and, no, they did not come off well. One creationist, a leader in an evangelical ministry, stated that if he were to find that the Bible says that 2 + 2 = 5, then for him that is exactly what 2+2 would be. That is exactly what he did say.
Faith, what is two plus two? Four, right? Obviously, blatantly, undeniably true. If your theology were to teach you that the Bible says that two plus two is five, then what would your answer be? Four or five? Would you be a "true Christian" or a "Compromising Christian"?
Again, Faith, what if you are wrong?
BTW, fighting against the liars is what I've been doing ever since I got started with "creation science" in 1981 and that has been my primary motivation all these decades.
What if you are wrong, Faith? That is the key question for your entire involvement here.
Bunch of iddiotts frequent EvC who haven't a clue how to think hypothetically.
Actually, the fine individuals to whom you had addressed that are in fact very well versed in thinking hypothetically. It is you who has no clue how to think hypothetically. Indeed, most of what the rest of us have been doing has been to try to complete the process for you.
Thinking hypothetically is at the core of thinking scientifically. It's part of that entire process of forming and testing hypotheses:
You observe something that you want to figure out.
Based on your observations and on your understanding of how the universe works, you make some guesses that might explain what you're seeing.
You then test your guesses both against the evidence already observed and against new evidence.
Your guesses (AKA "hypotheses") either survived those tests, failed those tests, or the results were inconclusive. The important point was that your guesses have to be tested.
Even if your guesses survived the tests, parts of it were found to be wrong, so you refine your guesses and submit them to further testing.
Now, comparing actual hypothetical thinking to your own methodology, do you see a glaring difference? In actual hypothetical thinking, testing your guesses (AKA "hypotheses") is an essential step. In your own wishful thinking, you do everything you can to avoid testing your guesses. In fact, our overwhelming response to your guesses is to test them, which you persistently fight every time. So then, which of us are engaged in hypothetical thinking and which of us refuse to?
Faith, we really, truly, and most deeply wish that you start engaging in thinking hypothetically. It would really help the discussion to progress if you were to.
Actually, that was precisely my point. Faith was accusing all of us of not doing what we actually do all the time, while claiming that she does what she has never done: hypothetical thinking.
Her most glaring omission is the total lack of testing her guesses. But, being the nice helpful people that we are we all do that testing for her. And she always reviles us for it.
But even more insidious is her other omission, the lack of any knowledge of physics or of geology which causes all her guesses to be complete rubbish to begin with. Without that knowledge and understanding, her "hypotheses" (in quotes because they cannot begin to approach the loft status of real hypotheses) cannot hope to ever have any bearing on reality except through pure accident. And it is not just that she is so incredibly ignorant. She has repeatedly and explicitly refused to even consider learning anything about geology or physics. As a result, all that she can come up with is sheer nonsense.
So, she falsely claims to engage in hypothetical reasoning whereas she has no clue what that even is or entails. And she accuses us of being incapable of hypothetical reasoning whereas in reality we do it all the time.
It would be such a wonderful change if Faith were to learn how to engage in hypothetical reasoning. Sadly, that will never happen.
Re: STENO'S PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY: ORIGINAL HORIZONTALITY, ETC
[ Off-topic content hidden. Click on "peek" to see content. Please, no replies to this message. --Admin ]
Faith, decades ago I listened to a presentation by a former fundamentalist minister, one who had grown up a fundamentalist. He described the condition of being a fundamentalist as being when your theology becomes your psychology. In the subsequent decades, especially after my divorce, I have seen his description born out as true, especially in the fact that fundamentalist and near-fundamentalist Christians need specially-trained counselors and in how their own DivorceCare program and singles counseling presentations have nothing positive for non-Christians (eg, DivorceCare repeatedly emphasizes that you cannot ever possibly recover from divorce, but rather that only Jesus can help us to recover -- ergo they teach that only Christians could ever possibly recover from divorce; please note that the US Army Chaplain Corps had required that all Army personnel going through marital problems to undergo the DivorceCare program). BTW, that former fundamentalist minister and life-long fundamentalist was Dan Barker, now known as "America's Leading Atheist."
Faith, you have your own unique way of looking at the world. It is your theology that controls how you think. I asked you directly what it would mean it you were wrong. That is all tied up with your theology. With your Man-made humanly fallible theology.
The rest of us do not share your theology and therefore are not bound and blinded by your theology.
One Sunday afternoon, my Lindy Hop instructor offered this thought. We rotate partners during the class. With some partners, the moves we're learning work, but with some partners they don't. So we expect to see that with some partners it will work (because they know what they are doing) and with others it won't (because they do not know what they are doing). If it doesn't work, then either you are the problem or your partner is the problem. His suggestion that Sunday afternoon was that, if it doesn't work with any of your partners, then you are the problem.
BTW, FWIW, my prevailing experience as a leader was for my new partner to exclaim joy that she was finally able to perform the move, followed by a sigh or groan of regret when she had to rotate to the next guy.
Faith, you think differently than we normals do. Here is a hint at how we think:
We are familiar with physics. Physics explains how the universe works. Therefore, we are familiar with how the universe works.
You are not familiar with physics. In fact, you have explicitly expressed opposition to even attempting to learn anything about physics. Therefore, you have no idea how the universe works nor do you have any desire to learn.
Therefore, you are not familiar with how the universe works. And hence any statements you may attempt to make regarding how the universe works can only be met with dismissal and uncontrollable sniggering.
We are familiar with basic geology. You are not. In fact, you have explicitly expressed opposition to even attempting to learn anything about geology. Therefore, you have no idea how geology works nor do you have any desire to learn.
Our motivation is always to examine and follow the evidence. Your motivation is to always adhere to some kind of dogmatic stance that you never fully reveal to anyone. We seek the truth, whereas you seek to support your dogma no matter what. That should be a red flag to any seeker of truth.
We understand how depositation occurs. You do not. You have received a kit with which you can perform your own experiments, but to my knowledge you have refused to do so. And yet you continue to pontificate on how depositation occurs. All of which is completely and utterly false.
Logic is orderly thought, but logic always depends on premises. You can form any number of different logics upon different sets of premises. Pick idiotic and false premises and you can derive a valid logical conclusion, only it will be utterly false (actually, it could be true, but you cannot prove it to be such with this logical argument). Start with true premises and you can arrive at a conclusion whose truth you can be assured. Premises that are in accordance with observable and testable truth are far more trustworthy than premises that are contrary-to-fact.
What the rest of us here discuss is based on our understanding of the universe. Everything that we say and think is compatible with that understanding. That understanding is based on physics and geology and direct experience and a myriad of other sources. What we know from all of those sources is self-consistent. And we are able to construct any number of experiments with which to test our own understandings and which confirm what we understand about the universe.
Faith, you have no understanding of the universe. You have a set of arbitrary and contrary-to-fact assertions that you somehow feel must be absolutely true even though everything that is known about the universe indicates otherwise.
Going back to Lindy Hop class, you are the one who always has a problem with every body else. That means that you are the problem.
Re: STENO'S PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY: ORIGINAL HORIZONTALITY, ETC
[ Off-topic content hidden. Click "peek" to view content. Please, no replies. This post presents an excellent question, but it's a discussion for another thread. ]
Faith, I asked you this before: What if you are wrong?
You really do need to answer that question.
Other "true Christians" have taken the position that if they are wrong, then the Bible is false and God does not exist. Is that your position? If it is, then you need to tell us so. If it is not, then you need to tell us so.
You have mumbled something about you protecting the truth of the Bible. But your theology has nothing to do with the truth of the Bible, except for what your theology tortures the Bible to imply as opposed to what it actually says (your description of our methodology in the discussion of biblical support for the Trinity was most instructive; thank you very much for that).
If you are wrong, then your theology is wrong. Your Man-made fallible theology. Says nothing about your Bible nor about your god.
You are willing to deny everything about reality. Why? What if you're wrong?