Comparitive delusions

And of course, if a small part of the accusations were true you would expect AIG and ICR to jump on it. When a few mistakes are made they do but, of course, it is never they who catch them.When creationist organizations and "researchers" actually show that ALL of geology, physics and biology is wrong then there will be some interesting times. Meanwhile, the fact that they can't tells many people something but not Faith who doesn't follow that to a logical conclusion.

I promise Phat that almost all of us do. We are not all Dawkinists. In fact, my Christian friends are probably the harder on the "crazy, fringe cultist" that make up the minority of Christians than I am. Exactly!! This is the reason why many (the majority of) Christians are worried about the extremists. It is hard to remember that the fundies are a minority when they are so vocal.My daughter was somewhat interested in religion a few years ago and went to Sunday school for awhile of her own volition. Unfortunately for the Christians her exposure to fundies on the web turned the whole thing into a laughing matter to her. Now I have to regularly remind her that they don't really represent the majority. (They are "no true Christians". )This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-17-2006 10:22 AM

Could you give a reference to which post you are talking about, please?

From mMessage 4Fact! Apparently your God choose to write a clock into the rocks. These measurements are as much fact as reading a clock. You lost the privilege of critising this when you dropped out of dating discussions. (bolding yours). Fact! The available evidences does, in fact, indicate what is suggested. This is an example of the kind of language that is used in scientific publications. Even when something is has a high degree of likelyhood of being true we get words like "indicate". Your own bolded quote is a direct contra indication to your accusations. Which are you arguing with? Do you suggest that the original rock was laid down in folds etc.? Do you suggest that shist is an unmetomorphosized rock? If so suggest another explanation. I suspect that you argree that a "sea" transgressed the original material. Or are you actually suggesting that limestone etc. can be laid down without water (flood sea or transgressing sea). If you think that it is unreasonable to state this as "fact" (very, very reasonable conclusion) perhaps you can offer your own interpretation that is not contradicted by the facts. You left the bold off the "points to". This is another example of a FACT. The evidence does indeed "point to" the conclusion. Once again your own quote disproves your idea that things are stated as hard fact . Again, "generally considered" NOT presented as totally hard fact. Yes, presented as fact. Guilty as charged. However even here the evidence that points to such a conclusion is given. In fact, "appear to suggest" is not "stating as fact".The rest is given as fact. Of course, this is a summary and not the original source. Well, even in these threads, with people who are spending a small amount of time on it we do have "plenty of evidence". On the other hand, you side declares there are problems for the flood and decides not to discuss the evidence any furhter. In fact, in one major area of evidence after another the only answer that is forth coming (and this is a LOT more intellectually honest than many posters here) is an admission that the evidence is a problem for the flood.Given the lack of explanation for the evidence from those who disagree with the geological conclusions I think that expressing the current explanations as "fact" (and only doing that sometimes) is pretty reasonable. Some may think you need to do this but I suggest that the amount of work you have to do to "protect yourself" varies with the degree of "protection" you want. I find it reasonably easy to read the presented evidence and consider the reasons that the conclusions have been arrived at. I see them as being convincing enough. But them my immortal soul isn't at stake if I get it wrong. Certainly, when I try to have a look at the evidence and reasoning of the YEC side the weaknesses jump out in an obvious fashion. The weaknesses have been shown up very clearly in all the areas that you have engaged in discussion. One flag is you leaving another is you putting it aside as a "problem" for the flood. A third clue is that wehn one goes to ICR (e.g.,) the specific issues aren't touched on but rather ignored.It doesn't require a degree to compare and contrast the two sides.

I, perhaps, should have worded that in simpler language. You misinterpreted it . The fact being refered to is that the evidence indicates the conclusion that is being suggested. That "indicate" is used is a direct contradiction of your claims of something being claimed as fact without qualification. I suggest you slow down and read much more carefully.Your comments on the Mountain building are technically correct. The statement is an interpretation of the evidence found. However, it gets utterly silly to keep being wishy washy about such interpretations when no one, least of all you, have offered any reasonable alternative explanation. You've been asked for them and when difficulties are pointed out you give up. You see, Faith, it is very difficult to sort through all the evidence available and actually construct a coherent, comprehensive interrpretation. The creation "scientists" have had decades and simply can't do it. Once again, read more carefully! I offered both transgressing sea AND a flood for an explantation of the evidence. Your suggesting of such sediments being transported (as IRH points out) is as utterly rediculous as grasses running for higher ground. You are not doing your views any favours by insisting on making them look as foolish as possible. Yes, but you miss the point. The language used in what you choose to quote makes the interpretive natue very clear. It belies the point you are trying to make. What you used to support you idea exactly contradicts it. How did you miss that?

Your examples were full of refutations of your ideas. This has been pointed out to you but there has been no response to that.The paper you can't read has refutations of your ideas. Stuffed with them in the abstract in fact. But then you can't read it so you still make claims that are, for the most part (but not totally), WRONG.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-20-2006 01:28 PM

How very odd indeed. Have you never said that the quotes you gave were in support of your idea that scientists were giving conjectures or interpretive conclusions as hard facts?I had the distinct impression that you did. And yet the very quotes you gave are, in some cases, NOT doing what you say they are.