The only way the conflict about our premise could conceivably be resolved is if we are permitted to argue from it freely to show that we have good alternative explanations to evolutionist explanations of biology and OE explanations of geology.
The key point is to have good alternative explanations. If YECs could present any such explanations, then they would be listened to. But as hard as people have tried, and they really did try, the reality of the universe is such that every explanation so far has failed.
And yes, I may very well give up on EvC altogether as a result, but first it needs to be clearly seen by the science side here exactly how they are stacking the deck against the very people they claim they want to debate with.
This site deerbreh posted also gives the OE interpretation that the Appalachians were formed by the collision of the continents, implying many driftings to and fro I guess (?), but the creationist explanation that occurs to me is that they formed in the initial breaking apart of the continents, no collision, and this would be because of the pushing-apart force at the continental ridge that separated them.
I've asked this of you before and just as with every other specific question you have simply never responded.
Perhaps this time it will be different.
Please explain the pulling apart mechanism that will produce what we see in the Appalachians.
There were two in that area in the last hour. Looks like a 3 and a 2 between Carson City and South Lake Tahoe.
Magnitude 3.8 - local magnitude (ML) Time Friday, September 16, 2005 at 8:09:44 AM (PDT) Friday, September 16, 2005 at 15:09:44 (UTC) Distance from Johnson Lane, NV - 15 km (9 miles) E (92 degrees) Gardnerville, NV - 19 km (12 miles) ENE (57 degrees) Minden, NV - 20 km (12 miles) ENE (64 degrees) South Lake Tahoe, CA - 38 km (24 miles) ENE (72 degrees) Sacramento, CA - 174 km (108 miles) ENE (72 degrees) Coordinates 39 deg. 2.0 min. N (39.033N), 119 deg. 33.7 min. W (119.562W) Depth 5 km (3.1 miles) Location Quality unknown Location Quality Parameters Nst= 62, Nph= 62, Dmin=0 km, Rmss=0 sec, Erho=0 km, Erzz=0 km, Gp=0 degrees Event ID# nn00162500
Magnitude 2.6 - local magnitude (ML) Time Friday, September 16, 2005 at 8:06:26 AM (PDT) Friday, September 16, 2005 at 15:06:26 (UTC) Distance from Dayton, NV - 14 km (9 miles) S (180 degrees) Carson City, NV - 17 km (11 miles) ESE (104 degrees) Johnson Lane, NV - 17 km (11 miles) NE (56 degrees) South Lake Tahoe, CA - 42 km (26 miles) ENE (59 degrees) Sacramento, CA - 177 km (110 miles) ENE (68 degrees) Coordinates 39 deg. 7.5 min. N (39.125N), 119 deg. 33.8 min. W (119.563W) Depth 0 km (0.0 miles) Location Quality unknown Location Quality Parameters Nst= 42, Nph= 42, Dmin=0 km, Rmss=0 sec, Erho=0 km, Erzz=0 km, Gp=0 degrees Event ID# nn00162499
This message has been edited by jar, 09-16-2005 10:23 AM
My position on this thread and the previous one opened by IRH titled "Attention Faith..." was that for debate to be possible at all, the YEC premise that there WAS a worldwide Flood is not to be challenged on threads designated for the debate about the interpretation of the data.
False premises must always be challenged. Two plus two does NOT equal five.
I would like to expand on this because your message is the classic example or willfull ignorance.
You say "for debate to be possible at all, the YEC premise that there WAS a worldwide Flood is not to be challenged ".
I can not think of any statement that might show the total backruptcy of the YEC position. While there is absolutely no reason that you cannot try to use suppositions such as a flood as a basis of your discussion, to then say that it should not be challenged simply shows how weak that position is.
There is no position in science, no theory, no hypothesis or even piece of evidence that is not open to challenge. All must be questioned. All must be independantly replicated.
This is why the YEC position will NEVER be science, or even good theology. It can only be the weak rantings that will drive anyone capable of rational thought away from Christianity.
This message has been edited by jar, 11-15-2005 07:41 PM
You are free to try to support your assertion that a world-wide flood occured. But you must be able to support that. You must be able to show that not only does the idea of some great flood explain ALL of the evidence, you must show that it explains it better than the existing theories.
You don't have to believe God said it, and you may argue it on threads dedicated to that purpose, but to argue the scientific questions fairly with YECs who do believe God said it, you have to grant the assumption or there is no meaningful debate.
Your basic premise must also stand up to being challenged. To say that it is somehow exempt from challenge is absurd. It is a sign of exactly how totally broken, irrational and quite frankly, insane the YEC position is.
As I'd been pointing out for some time to the usual deaf and biased ears, you simply insist that your premise prevail and that's stacking the deck.
Once again you misrepresent what others say. No one has insisted that there position is sacrosanct except the YECs. You are free to challenge any position held be any Evolutionist, and have even been encouraged to do so. The fact is that the YEC position has failed miserably and so is falling back on the idea that their imaginings must be accepted before discussion can take place.