I shared this comic earlier and wanted to see your response.
Is that similar to what you do? See something obvious and then attempt to build facts to support it? I concluded as such because of your quotes over at the topic of presuppositionalism.
faith writes:
I'm against the specific sciences of the past, Old Earth Geology and evolution from species to species. I consider these bogus sciences, but all other sciences are legitimate and valuable because they are testable. EvC won't let anyone be a presuppositionalist, they demand we prove everything.
Also what you said in reply to one of my other questions:
Faith writes:
I've been honing this particular argument for a long long time by now, sometimes I get a new lead and incorporate it, or drop something else that doesn't work as well, but I'm totally devoted to it (...)It's a complete model unto itself and it works.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
Perhaps the issue is that there is a conflation of belief and science.
Faith writes:
It's a complete model unto itself and it works. When Percy says it violates physical laws that's because he's the one with the deficiency in that area, which goes back years here, not I, and having to tolerate that level of ignorance when I'm the only one defending my position is very hard to take. I know prayer would at least calm me down but when people say stupid things and accuse me falsely I can practically feel my blood pressure rise and I impulsively react. He has the power, he does not have the understanding.
In your defense, Percy...I could imagine you having a deficiency in Belief were I qualified to judge...but never a deficiency in science.
My theory is that Faith assumes that because the Bible is true that there must be an alternative hypothesis within science...whereas you come at it from the angle that there is basically but one way to do science.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
Even when you're off-topic you can't muster a decent evidence-based response. In Message 855 Aussie says:
Aussie in Message 855 writes:
The Koran gives evidence galore throughout, historical accounts of Allah's doings in the world, as witnessed by many people who are named, and much of the Koran describes Allah's miraculous doings to verify His deity; but the Bible just assumes the existence of Yahweh and doesn't give one iota of evidence.
And you respond with another content-free one-liner:
Faith writes:
No, that is not true of the Koran, as I said.
I'm not trying to discuss the Bible versus the Koran, that's not the topic, but I do want to strongly register my disapproval of your continued incredibly poor contributions. Responses of value do not merely assert or repeat positions but add something new. You know this already, it shouldn't have to be said. You often remind me of an oppositional child who does things simply because they know they shouldn't.
the number of times you have violated the rule against arguing the person is getting pretty high. And then you actually deny it in at least one place. I'd already answered Aussie, he was just aping me and repeating himself.
Message 829 noting that changing from one unevidenced story to another doesn't help you.
Message 828 responding to your complaint about a personal attack, despite that all I did was accurately describe your behavior.
Message 827 responding to your complaint about Dr A (apparently you're allowed to protest other people's behavior, but when other people protest yours then they're getting personal).
Message 781 asking you rhetorical questions about your incredibly poor conduct.
Message 779 about the sediments in the Temple Butte stream bed.
Message 778 describing how the geological evidence lends no support whatsoever for the Flood.
Message 773 about the same stream bed not having been filled with "limestone dissolution".
Message 768 noting yet another content-free one-liner post from you.
There wasn't a single response to a host of my other messages to you, nor to messages from many others in this thread. You seem to be trying to debate by pretending the rebuttals don't exist.
Faith writes:
The number of times you have violated the rule against arguing the person is getting pretty high.
You're like the person who when told they're being rude says, "How rude of you to tell me I'm rude."
I'm not arguing the person. I'm noting your many violations of the Forum Guidelines, specifically these:
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
You've been especially bad about #4.
And then you actually deny it in at least one place.
You mean I pointed out how I was merely accurately describing your bad behavior. If you don't like your bad behavior being called to your attention then stop behaving badly.
I'd already answered Aussie, he was just aping me and repeating himself.
Well now you're just misrepresenting and lying again. Aussie was pointing out that the same claim you make for God and Bible can be made for Allah and the Koran. And then he backed it up in Message 855 when he said this:
Aussie in Message 855 writes:
The Koran gives evidence galore throughout, historical accounts of Allah's doings in the world, as witnessed by many people who are named, and much of the Koran describes Allah's miraculous doings to verify His deity; but the Bible just assumes the existence of Yahweh and doesn't give one iota of evidence.
Which you dismissed with a content-free one-liner, which I then brought to your attention that you were debating in bad faith yet again.
You can yet redeem yourself by actually participating in the discussion, or you can continue turning this thread into a travesty of a discussion with your one-liner messages and all-caps and constant repetitions of arguments rebutted many times and avoidance of messages containing rebuttals and personal attacks on people who have done nothing more than disagree with you.
Re: Again, the Geo Column shows the absurdity of the OE/ToE
The question is Which others? A gaggle of biased anticreationists? Ha ha de ha.
OK I'll make an effort to review your posts but the rebuttals do tend to be the same old same old so what's the point? I state my case, you state yours. That's the best that ever happens here.
Nice Faith. Up to two lines here. Your rebuttals are the definition of the same old same old. Your arrogance is astounding. You keep restating your position after being shown it is wrong... it is beyond apparent even to us non-scientists that you are wrong. The concepts are put down clearly and consisely, usually with great patience...in a way that should be easy to grasp. And then you hand wave away that effort in a single mocking line, stating to the effect that your lack of expertise is somehow equal to a genuine expert's expertise in a debate. This is not at all equal; this is actual, professional expertise versus your actual ignorance of science. This is not a fair fight, and you are not doing well.
You are being used as a mop in this debate, and floor is getting very clean. I'm cringing while reading you posts, because it is evident you don't have a single clue. Not one.
Such astounding arrogance for such little knowledge. At least have the humility to pretend to try to learn something here?
quote:The Tension of FaithMessage 6, Faith: I haven't the slightest cognitive dissonance about the Flood or the inerrancy of the Bible. There's no point in "entertaining" a contradiction of either notion when I know it is false. It has nothing to do with being "threatened," or even to do with anything I WANT to be true, it's just that I know what I know.
Which of coarse IS cognitive dissonance. Insulting people is part of cognitive dissonance, refusal to accept objective empirical evidence that contradicts strongly held beliefs is cognitive dissonance, yelling in ALL CAPS is cognitive dissonance, bemoaning that nobody accepts your arguments is cognitive dissonance, repeating falsified arguments as if the refutations never existed is cognitive dissonance, claiming you have presented evidence when none has been presented is cognitive dissonance ... I could go on, but it is quite evident that cognitive dissonance plays a large role in the manner of her posts.
Sorry, but I just could not let this go without comment. The evidence is in this thread, and that's why I am posting it here.
The earth is very, very, very old, and has existed billions of years without even a half vast world-wide flood.
To believe the sun will rise tomorrow takes faith.
Good grief. Orbital mechanics does not require faith. There is a vast body of evidence going back centuries, all pointing to the virtual certainty that
1) the sun will rise tomorrow morning. 2) In the East. 3) At an exact time published in an Almanac.
You can find for yourself that exact minute of sunrise online with a 10 second google search. You can verify for yourself through a few mornings' worth of experimentation, that we know through accumulated centuries of evidence gathering, that the sun will rise in the morning. Scripture says that faith is "The substance of things not seen...." and the sunrise has been seen by every believer, and every non-believer in every religion that has ever existed.
Astronomers didn't have faith the solar eclipse was going to occur last month; they knew it as a FACT, and thousands of people spent millions of dollars to be in the exact, predicted path of the shadow at the exact predicted moment. Not faith. Fact. Reality. How much sillier to call a simple sunrise an act of faith?
Can we please stop pretending what faith is? Things UNSEEN... belief in things with NO supporting evidence.
Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
THE STRATA ALL SAG INTO THE BASIN AS A UNIT.
Typing in ALL CAPS does not make your position more reasonable Faith. Yelling an absurdity does not lend it credibility. Can you please just talk normally?
Re: A charming fat fish proves radiometic dating is false cuz the varves aren't annual
Faith writes: I COULD NOT CARE LESS.
YOUR ATTITUDE IS OFFENSIVE.
Percy writes:
Maybe you need to take a break.
I know I'm only a career lurker here, but I've lurked around enough to recognize that I think this is exactly what Faith wants. She yells and screams at the top of her lungs until you tell her to take a break. Then she can secretly chalk up her short suspension on "Persecution of Christians", without actually having to go through real persecution, and then come back later and hope we don't notice that she is recycling her worn-out ideas all over again.
I can almost hear her in a ladys' Bible study group asking for prayers for strength and wisdom in the face of her battle with the "Atheistic Scientists." She probably has them eating out of her hand.
I also found an article claiming to prove that the varves are indeed annual. Well, the fish fossils prove they aren't. ...
Can you explain to me why the fish fossils prove the layers are not annual?
But as I started reading up on it, reading about these very very fine alternating layers of sediments with different amounts of organic matter in them. I encountered a discussion of the fossils preserved in them. Fossils of big fat fish for instance, much bigger than any supposedly annual pair of varves could cover up to their knees as it were. I pondered this for half a second and laughed out loud. These fish all by themselves prove that the varve pairs are not annual because the fish would have rotted away or been eaten within days, weeks or months of being "buried" by this minuscule amount of sediment. It would take at least ten years to cover them to a depth sufficient to provide the environment for fossilization, which of course is way too late.
Unless the bottom was anoxic, a not unusual situation:
quote:Anoxic waters are areas of sea water, fresh water, or groundwater that are depleted of dissolved oxygen and are a more severe condition of hypoxia. The US Geological Survey defines anoxic groundwater as those with dissolved oxygen concentration of less than 0.5 milligrams per litre.[1] This condition is generally found in areas that have restricted water exchange.
In most cases, oxygen is prevented from reaching the deeper levels by a physical barrier[2] as well as by a pronounced density stratification, in which, for instance, heavier hypersaline waters rest at the bottom of a basin. Anoxic conditions will occur if the rate of oxidation of organic matter by bacteria is greater than the supply of dissolved oxygen.
Anoxic waters are a natural phenomenon,[3] and have occurred throughout geological history. In fact, some postulate that the Permian–Triassic extinction event, a mass extinction of species from world's oceans, resulted from widespread anoxic conditions. At present anoxic basins exist, for example, in the Baltic Sea,[4] and elsewhere (see below). Recently, there have been some indications that eutrophication has increased the extent of the anoxic zones in areas including the Baltic Sea, the Gulf of Mexico,[5] and Hood Canal in Washington State.[6]
... In fact that would make fossilization more likely than oxygenated lakes. Large flat lakes with minimal outlet flow would concentrate salts in the depth (Salt Lake anyone?).
So I can easily explain the existence of fossils that extend through several layers of sediment, with science, with known processes that we can see in the world today, with objective empirical evidence ... without making anything up.
Meanwhile you still have no explanation for the formation of the varve couplets ... which, curiously, is the evidence you need to deal with ... 6 million of them.
Claiming that the magical mystery tour flying carpet flood somehow managed to do this by an unknown, unobserved, unevidenced, scientifically impossible process ... is in fact invoking a miracle, not science. It's the definition of a miracle isn't it? Something that science can't explain?
Are you really the only one who can't see this sad pattern, Faith? These are all from the same six sentence post!
You have built an inpenetrable wall of ignorance around your faith. A HUUUUUUGE wall, that Mexico is not going to pay for. It is truly a sad sight to behold, and you are the only one that has to pay for it. Please find the humility to learn something from someone who knows more than you.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
