Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,249 Year: 5,506/9,624 Month: 531/323 Week: 28/143 Day: 1/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Creationist Sues the Grand Canyon for Religious Discrimination
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 4 of 99 (809309)
05-17-2017 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coyote
05-17-2017 6:46 PM


Re: Flood disproved
Coyote writes:
That flood nonsense was studied and disproved over 200 years ago.
"To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood...."
(Adam Sedgwick, 1831)
That was in 1831, 20 years before Darwin wrote his book on evolution. Even before the theory of evolution, geologists had already figured out that the geologic record was not consistent with a recent global flood.
I find it quite hilarious when creationists think the Noachian flood was rejected because of the theory of evolution. It only demonstrates a complete ignorance of the history of geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coyote, posted 05-17-2017 6:46 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 25 of 99 (809407)
05-18-2017 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
05-17-2017 7:09 PM


Re: Flood disproved
Faith writes:
You say the Flood was disproved over 200 years ago. I think you owe it to us to show us how it was disproved.
Going back to Adam Sedgwick, Talkorigins has a nice description on one of their pages:
"The answer is simple: empirical evidence. Because the 'diluvial' strata which had been cited as evidence for a global flood were composed of gravel and other unconsolidated sediments, they were harder to investigate than the older, consolidated sedimentary rock. However, after a great deal of study, some geologists had been able to map portions of the 'diluvium' and demonstrate conclusively that they were the result of different events, clearly separated in time. Once this was firmly established, it became clear to Sedgwick and others that if the deposits were clearly the result of a series of distinct events, they could not have been the result of a single global flood. Therefore, as a conscientious scientist, Sedgwick rejected his previous hypothesis."
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2002

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 05-17-2017 7:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 11:23 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 26 of 99 (809409)
05-18-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Davidjay
05-17-2017 7:32 PM


Re: Flood disproved
Davidjay writes:
Geology is a science until it gets into evolution backing, and the everything took a billion year s theory and dementia.
A recent global flood and a young Earth were disproven well before Darwin ever wrote about evolution, or before he had even contemplated evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Davidjay, posted 05-17-2017 7:32 PM Davidjay has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 27 of 99 (809410)
05-18-2017 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Phat
05-18-2017 4:57 AM


Re: Topic Synopsis ala Phat
Phat writes:
Thats an interesting bit of information! I respect your perspective. I personally am a cosmological ceationist in that I think God exists and is the source for everything, but not necessarily the Creator of all things directly. Natural processes seem logical. After all, take our individual thoughts. Does God "create" the thoughts of everyone? Perhaps only the Elect? Or...more likely...God allows us to think and reason and learn. The final answer is not simply some code in the Bible that only the elect can decipher. That being said, I am not in favor of eliminating the Bible as a source of learning. The question is what the book is supposed to teach us. Think about it. (Hint: Jesus Christ)
I also respect your point of view, even if I don't agree with it.
The problem I see is that you approach the problem backwards. You don't start out accepting something is true without any evidence, and then try to find reasons not to think it is true. Instead, you look at all claims skeptically and only accept them on the weight of evidence.
Therefore, it isn't about eliminating the Bible from consideration. Instead, it is about producing evidence that it is true before accepting it. That is where theism falls short.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 05-18-2017 4:57 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 28 of 99 (809411)
05-18-2017 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
05-18-2017 10:26 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Faith writes:
Yes, your dating doesn't work. And since there weren't yet enough people around to be disturbed by the jostling of mountain building as the tectonic plates moved apart, that's the best theory that fits with the biblical account.
You don't fit theories to stories in books. You fit theories to empirical evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 10:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 11:27 AM Taq has replied
 Message 93 by Dredge, posted 05-19-2017 8:43 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 31 of 99 (809419)
05-18-2017 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
05-18-2017 11:27 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Faith writes:
If the book is known to be the word of the Creator God who made it all,
It isn't known. That is a faith based religious belief. You don't fit theories to religious beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 11:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 35 of 99 (809430)
05-18-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
05-18-2017 11:45 AM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Faith writes:
I'll say it again: known facts have to be reconciled with the Bible,
No, they don't. We no more have to reconcile facts to the Bible than we have to reconcile facts to the Iliad or the Harry Potter books.
If there really was a recent global flood then the facts will lead us to that conclusion independent of the Bible. The very fact that you have to start with the Bible being true in order to conclude that the Bible is true only demonstrates that the facts don't support the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 11:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 12:01 PM Taq has replied
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2017 4:23 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 45 of 99 (809450)
05-18-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
05-18-2017 12:01 PM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Faith writes:
I said the Bible is God's word.
Do you think things become true by simply pronouncing them to be true?
What you believe is irrelevant. I'm talking about what is required of a Bible believer.
What is required of a Christian is irrelevant to what is true. You could say that a Christian is required to believe that the Moon is made of green cheese. This wouldn't cause the Moon to turn into green cheese.
The facts of the strata and the fossils that occur on a scale commensurate with the Flood --, and the fossils also point to mass death -- ought to have led you to it already, but the ponderings of scientists reported on this thread manage to ignore these glaring evidences and rationalize them away.
Those are just claims. You need to produce evidence to back these claims.
I knew the Bible was true before I knew anything about creationism. Knowing its true is what got me involved in creationism.
Your beliefs are irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 12:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 47 of 99 (809460)
05-18-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
05-18-2017 12:35 PM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Faith writes:
God is the God of science as well as everything else, like it or not.
Your beliefs are irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 12:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 12:58 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 51 of 99 (809472)
05-18-2017 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
05-18-2017 12:58 PM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Faith writes:
I'm talking about how a Bible believer has to go about this, and knowing that the Bible is God's own revelation is prior to all else, so this mindless refrain about having to start from some other evidence is totally absolutely irrelevant.
What a Bible believer has to do is irrelevant to how reality really is. If a Bible believer has to believe the Moon is made of green cheese, that doesn't force the Moon to suddenly turn into green cheese. What a believer has to do has nothing to do with what the facts are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 12:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 1:03 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 55 of 99 (809481)
05-18-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
05-18-2017 1:03 PM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Faith writes:
Can't even follow the logic I see.
Can't demonstrate the logic of your argument, I see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 1:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(4)
Message 61 of 99 (809506)
05-18-2017 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ICANT
05-18-2017 4:23 PM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
What do you base that belief on?
It is based on the observation that floods leave specific evidence in the geologic record. Belief has nothing to do with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2017 4:23 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2017 5:37 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 68 of 99 (809522)
05-18-2017 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
05-18-2017 5:51 PM


Faith writes:
As I understand it I'm allowed to start from my biblical premises in this debate.
You are also allowed to be wrong, and we are allowed to point it out.
I have a book that says the Moon is made of Philly Cream Cheese. I go to the Moon, dig a shovel in, and find that it is made of rock.
Which is wrong? The book, or the Moon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 5:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 69 of 99 (809523)
05-18-2017 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
05-18-2017 5:52 PM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
Faith writes:
The mere existence of such a depth of strata and such an abundance of dead things is what I'm talking about, that alone is the evidence for the Flood, there is no other explanation needed.
There is an explanation needed for why these strata are separated by millions or even billions of years.
There is an explanation needed why organic fossils do not have the same 14C content throughout the fossil record.
There is an explanation needed for chalk layers that are hundreds of feet thick.
There is an explanation for deposits thousands of feet thick that contain nearly 100% crinoid plates.
None of those explanations is a flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 5:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 05-18-2017 6:39 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10197
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 85 of 99 (809588)
05-19-2017 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
05-18-2017 5:37 PM


Re: Leonardo inadvertently proves the Flood
ICANT writes:
It is actually based on your assumption of what the Bible flood would have been. What the land mass was like, and the location of the land mass.
Not at all. We can directly observe that floods deposit coarse grained sediments. They don't deposit hundreds of feet of microorganisms like those found in the massive chalk deposits in Europe. Floods don't produce alternating layers of finely grained clay and diatoms, in which leaf and insect debris is sorted in those layers by their 14C content. Floods don't produce massive thick layers of extremely small particle size, like those found in shales.
Again, this is all based on observation, not assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2017 5:37 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024