Evidence of the flood

I believe that she sees the pattern, Aussie---she just chooses to ignore the argument that her opponents attempt to frame. She likely believes that God knows more than secular science and certainly more than any atheist or leftist. She likely knows that her knowledge is limited, though growing and that it comes from a belief paradigm versus secular scientific methods. She is only attempting to frame Gods master plan and method and feels(she would say knows)...that the majority of secular science is deceived and even clueless of her assumptions.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

She definitely does not know that.

Then she speaks for God?It is curious how this god does as YEC wishes.

Phat says: I understand you are trying hard to see the best in your fellow believer Phat, but I am more cynical in my view toward her. Faith brings to my mind a picture of a little bat hanging in the damp darkness from the ceiling of a tiny cave, telling all the other animals running around in the sunshine outside that they have everything upside down, and that they absolutely all needed to come live in the cave with her.She will not be convinced there is sunlight outside. Despite empassioned pleadings from other well-meaning and beautiful humans, she harbors no quarter for those with differing viewpoints to her own. God Himself must conform to the way SHE thinks He needs to be. Everything Faith says about God must be true, and it is hard for her to let differences of opinion, however subtle, slide by gracefully and with honor. There is no expertise; no life dedicated to the aquisition of a specific knowlegde area; not in physics, astronomy, biology, geology, paleontology, that she will not dismiss with a single haughty guffaw, proclaiming her knowledge, her insight, her perch on her comfy armchair to be superior to their years of hard work and field research.Her's is the pride of Lucifer. She will simply not allow herself to submit to any authority, in any field, in any way, unless it reaffirms her rightness at any cost.There is more I could say but she is already going to accuse me of assassinating her character, although she likely did that herself years ago. I mean, she defended the killing of children and babies in the name of her religion to me personally, and in ALL CAPS, last year here in this forum. why should we expect her to listen to a mere geologist?ADMIN: I will retract this with an apology if you feel it crosses forum guidelines, although I can't see that it is possibly off topic at this point. Edited by Aussie, : grammar

quote:

---

She likely believes that God knows more than secular science and certainly more than any atheist or leftist

---

Which is an utter irrelevance. God is not taking part in the discussions.

quote:

---

She likely knows that her knowledge is limited, though growing and that it comes from a belief paradigm versus secular scientific methods.

---

She doesn't seem to care about that. Remember that she assumed that she couldn't be wrong about a map she couldn't read properly. Despite the fact that any rational person would have realised that she almost certainly was wrong.

quote:

---

She is only attempting to frame Gods master plan and method and feels(she would say knows)...that the majority of secular science is deceived and even clueless of her assumptions.

---

In other words she feels that her fantasies are on a level with God's Word. That's a pretty damning accusation of hubris right there.

I doubt I felt I "couldn't be wrong" about the map, I simply read it the way I read it as anyone would do, until I became aware of lines I hadn't been able to see before.

In that case, were I you, I'd take it as a sign that I should dial back my certainty a few notches. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I don't recall any certainty, just interpreting the map according to what I saw. And for the record I'm not certain about a lot of my interpretations, but when I get back the usual slap in the face for anything I say before I've had a chance to work on it a while and see how far I can take it I'm sure I go on defending it anyway, I have to until I've worked it through. I suppose a debate forum isn't the best place for working out one's thoughts, but it has been very helpful for me for that purpose: I do adjust my theories according to what I get back. At the moment I'm on a strike against some really offensive personal comments. Even though this is treated as my modus operandi, it isn't, it's a new thing. Oh sure I do it myself, and you all can point that out too, but I'm not taking the really egregious stuff that's been thrown at me recently, if I miss whole posts for that reason they are no loss to me.

Actually, you do not have "theories" in the way scientists use that term.A theory in science is the single best explanation for a given set of facts, it is not contradicted by any relevant facts, and it makes successful predictions. Normally it has also withstood the test of time.Your "theories" do not explain all relevant facts and are contradicted by a number of relevant facts.It might be more appropriate to use the term "model." But a model is normally adjusted to account for contrary facts, or discarded if it can't account for them. A model is more of a thought experiment in many ways.

I'm not talking about just the map, I mean practically every post that you write. For instance does this statement project any certainty? Or this statement: Or this one: I'd say that they were submitted by someone with little knowledge, less tolarance and a huge dose of certainty.

Yes I AM certain about those things, that's quite true.

quote:

---

I doubt I felt I "couldn't be wrong" about the map, I simply read it the way I read it as anyone would do, until I became aware of lines I hadn't been able to see before.

---

You expressed a lot of certainty in spite of very strong reasons to doubt your conclusion. You certainly accused me of being unable to read a map when I corrected you Message 93. And I don't think I would have read the map as you did without a lot more checks - I made at least two after the fact that falsified your idea.And if I remember correctly you admitted to being able to see some of the line outlining the present-day continent. Message 108Edited by PaulK, : Added supporting links to posts

In the name of understanding how others think, please explain this

quote:

---

I'm not certain about a lot of my interpretations, but when I get back the usual slap in the face for anything I say before I've had a chance to work on it a while and see how far I can take it I'm sure I go on defending it anyway, I have to until I've worked it through

---

If you present a half-baked idea on a debate site - especially if yo do so,without making it clear that it is preliminary and speculative - then surely it will come in for heavy criticism. But to call that a "slap in the face" seems extreme, to say the least.

quote:

---

At the moment I'm on a strike against some really offensive personal comments. Even though this is treated as my modus operandi, it isn't, it's a new thing. Oh sure I do it myself, and you all can point that out too, but I'm not taking the really egregious stuff that's been thrown at me recently, if I miss whole posts for that reason they are no loss to me.

---

I very much doubt that you have had anything that is any worse than you dish out. Even before we take the question of justification into account.

You don't recall any certainty? Either you've got a very bad memory or you're lying. Just look at Message 93 - it's full of certainty. Then there's your statement in Message 101 where you make your errors explicit: You never did admit error. You're engaged in dissembling again. You never present your ideas as works in progress. For you they are facts until in rare instances the lightbulb goes on and you realize you're wrong. You only "adjust your theories" when forced to. For the most part you ignore almost all feedback. You don't respond to most messages, most of your messages are repetitions of prior declarations of what you believe, and many of your messages are one-liners, dismissive or completely free of content. Who can forget the series of, "Sorry, I disagree," messages? Yes, that's what you do, behave badly and when called on it deem them "offensive personal comments" which in your mind somehow justifies ignoring the messages and the information they contain. It's how you maintain your ignorance. This is a lie, too. If you go back to your earliest threads in 2005 when you began participation in earnest you'll see that you were ignoring most messages then, too. In Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata you replied to about 50% of messages. In Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified? you again responded to about 50% of messages. In Who to believe , Ham or Ross? it was again about 50%. Need I go on? Most of the posts that you ignore contain a great deal of information. The more information and explanation a post contains, the more likely it is you'll ignore it. The more detailed or complicated a post is, the more likely it is you'll ignore it. The more "white" a post contains, the more likely it is you'll ignore it. I'm including your one-liner replies as ignoring messages.There was little point in you posting this self-serving self-justifying message with its concoctions out of whole cloth. The facts are there for anyone to check. You haven't participated in good faith from your very beginning here, and it's only gotten worse as time goes on.Why don't you go back through this thread and begin replying to all the messages you've ignored? And don't forget the messages where you replied with one-liners that basically said nothing - you should post new replies to those messages.--Percy

You couldn't possibly be wrong?When did you realize that you are infallible?