Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
48 online now:
DrJones*, Meddle (2 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,152 Year: 4,900/23,288 Month: 21/1,784 Week: 119/353 Day: 21/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The TRVE history of the Flood...
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 369 of 1352 (805886)
04-21-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
04-21-2017 11:30 AM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
Faith writes:

Let me see if I can make the point clearer. It's become a broken record that doesn't further the debate in the slightest. We've been exchanging the same opinions over and over but this can never go anywhere because they are basic premises that aren't going to be changed. The debate is, or should be, BASED on them, not ABOUT them. It's just a huge waste of time to keep getting this same old same old stuff about the Bible being a myth and dating methods being the last word on the discussion. Or jar's endless carrying on about his ridiculous interpretations of the Bible. Or my statements about the absurdity of the OE/ToE assumptions or that the Bible's dates trump the dating methods. They can be stated as a conclusion from an argument but too often they are just stated over and over and over and over and over in the place of an argument.

What would really help is if you could describe geologic features that your model could NOT produce.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 11:30 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 12:05 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 402 of 1352 (805939)
04-21-2017 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
04-21-2017 12:05 PM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
Faith writes:

But that could be asked of your model too. The real issue isn't that either model can't account for this or that but that we dispute the validity of the theories on both sides that account for this or that. And that's the whole debate.

If you can't describe potential falsifications for your theory, then it isn't a valid theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 12:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 403 of 1352 (805940)
04-21-2017 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Faith
04-21-2017 1:31 PM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
Faith writes:

Well, I'm now taking the position that the Bible is evidence. It's God's word, it's the truth, it trumps all the contradictory dating claims. I see no point in repeating this basic conflict ad nauseam.

The bible being God's word and the truth is the claim, not the evidence. Do you understand the difference between a claim and evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 1:31 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 7:47 PM Taq has responded
 Message 405 by kbertsche, posted 04-21-2017 8:06 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 542 of 1352 (806451)
04-25-2017 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Faith
04-21-2017 7:47 PM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
Faith writes:

If the Bible is the truth . . .

You need to support that if with evidence, not simply assert it is true without evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Faith, posted 04-21-2017 7:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by Faith, posted 04-25-2017 4:18 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 545 of 1352 (806454)
04-25-2017 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 543 by Faith
04-25-2017 4:18 PM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
Faith writes:

Not according to Admin, even on this same thread.

According to reason and logic, yes, you need to support your assertions with evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by Faith, posted 04-25-2017 4:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 578 of 1352 (806701)
04-27-2017 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 570 by CRR
04-27-2017 7:55 AM


Re: Learning
CRR writes:

People learn easier if they are taught rather than abused for being ignorant.

When the facts contradict their religious beliefs, some people refuse to learn.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by CRR, posted 04-27-2017 7:55 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 579 of 1352 (806703)
04-27-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by CRR
04-27-2017 7:57 AM


Re: Let's not keep arguing the same old basics
CRR writes:

In this thread you can't argue that something is true because the Bible is true. You have to supply corroborating real world evidence.
Archeological and historical evidence has consistently confirmed the Bible is true. That is corroborating real world evidence

Then perhaps you should present the corroborating evidence for a recent global flood. Each claim in the Bible must be independently verified. Simply finding one claim that is supported by evidence does not make all of the other claims true by default. For example:

1. The Cubs baseball team plays their home games in Chicago.
2. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of light in the infrared spectrum.
3. Leprechauns make rainbows.

If I can confirm claims 1 and 2, does that mean 3 is also true?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by CRR, posted 04-27-2017 7:57 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 798 of 1352 (808160)
05-08-2017 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 788 by Faith
05-08-2017 2:10 PM


Re: The Evidence is Simple and Indisputable
Faith writes:

. . . and that the stack of lithified sediments is good evidence for a worldwide Flood.

Why would a stack of lithified sediments require a recent flood, or a worldwide flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 788 by Faith, posted 05-08-2017 2:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(2)
Message 841 of 1352 (808432)
05-10-2017 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 831 by Faith
05-10-2017 11:06 AM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Faith writes:

It's just wonderful how good you are at ignoring the obvious fact that a stack of sedimentary rocks is the highly unlikely outcome of time periods in which creatures supposedly lived.

There are places right now that are producing layered sediments. Is all life on the Earth perishing because there is a lake putting down layered sediments?

Also, if I showed you a picture of graveyards from around the world, would you think their worldwide extent is evidence that all of these people died in the same year from the same catastrophic event?

Or would you think, like the rest of us, that they died at different times from different events, even though they are found worldwide?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 831 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 11:06 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 842 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 7:02 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 865 of 1352 (808508)
05-11-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 842 by Faith
05-10-2017 7:02 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Faith writes:

The strata that make up what is traditionally called the Geological Column, that also is the basis of the Geological Time Scale, covers HUGE amounts of territory, huge, some of them whole continents -- such as the layer called St. Peter Sandstone -- climbing two miles in some cases.

But that's not true. The St. Peter Sandstone does not cover the entire NA continent. Why lie about it?

There are no worldwide flood layers. There aren't even flood layers that cover a single landmass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 842 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 7:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 871 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 12:36 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 866 of 1352 (808509)
05-11-2017 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 851 by Faith
05-10-2017 10:04 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Faith writes:

Beecuzz they are buried usually in families within very thick flat sedimentary rocks stacked very very neatly and very deep under ideal conditions for fossilization, and not buried willy nilly.

Where is there any evidence for this claim?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 851 by Faith, posted 05-10-2017 10:04 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(2)
Message 867 of 1352 (808510)
05-11-2017 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 863 by CRR
05-11-2017 7:06 AM


Re: Six "Flood" Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
CRR writes:

Fossils have turned up in the gwrongh place many times and this continues today.

Every time I have seen a creationist try to back this claim with evidence it just falls apart.

Creationists can't explain why there is a correlation between the type of fossils and the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks that surround them. That's because creationists are wrong.

There are several mechanisms that separately and together could provide a Creationist explanation for the sequence in the fossil record.
œ Ecological zonation
œ Differential escape
œ Hydrodynamic sorting
œ Biogeographic provincialism

I have yet to see a single creationist explain how these mechanisms would produce the fossil record that we see. I don't understand how they can even write such things and feel they are being honest.

Do you have any interest in actually showing how these mechanisms would produce the fossil record? Probably not, right? Your only intent is to throw something out into the world to make it look like you have an answer when you know you don't. It is as dishonest as it gets.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 863 by CRR, posted 05-11-2017 7:06 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 875 of 1352 (808545)
05-11-2017 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 871 by Faith
05-11-2017 12:36 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Faith writes:

What, it didn't cover some part of the continent so I can't say "all?"

That's correct. You are claiming that a worldwide flood is evidence by worldwide sedimentary layers. If a sedimentary layer only covers part of the world, THEN YOU CONCLUSION IS FALSIFIED. It's that simple.

It stretches across the entire continent and is also found in the UK.

By that measure, the Mississippi river covers the entire North American continent.

Where did I say there were?

"The strata that make up what is traditionally called the Geological Column, that also is the basis of the Geological Time Scale, covers HUGE amounts of territory, huge, some of them whole continents"

There is not a single sedimentary layer that covers an entire continent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 12:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 4:40 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


(1)
Message 879 of 1352 (808623)
05-11-2017 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 878 by Faith
05-11-2017 4:40 PM


Re: The Flood Explains ... most things geological
Faith writes:

The Flood wouldn't have had to cover every square inch of land with a sediment layer. Surely there would have been gaps in the load carried in the water, suirely there would have been areas eroded away after deposition.

Then The Flood is completely unfalsifiable. No matter what the pattern of sedimentation is, you will claim that it is consistent with a global flood.

Worldwide sedimentary layer? The flood.

Patchy quiltwork of different sedimentary layers? The flood.

A complete mixing of all types of fossils? The flood.

A worldwide correlation of specifically sorted fossils? The flood.

Do you see the problem?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 878 by Faith, posted 05-11-2017 4:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 880 by jar, posted 05-11-2017 5:39 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8262
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 1010 of 1352 (812059)
06-14-2017 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 999 by Faith
06-14-2017 10:10 AM


Re: I've proved it a million times already
Faith writes:

The point is that there is no way to tell if the past was the same as the present,

Wouldn't that also apply to the processes of sedimentation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 999 by Faith, posted 06-14-2017 10:10 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1011 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2017 2:54 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020