Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 4:58 PM
30 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, jar, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, Taq, Theodoric (9 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,835 Year: 9,871/19,786 Month: 2,293/2,119 Week: 329/724 Day: 54/114 Hour: 5/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Implied by YEC? Most science is faulty?
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 36 (6328)
03-08-2002 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by edge
03-08-2002 2:11 PM


Let me quote from your post just to make sure I didn't read it wrong.

"Why do you ignore the fact that coral reefs take thousands of years to form?"

That is certainly not the same thing as "I said that a coral reef would take thousands of years to form."

Maybe you should read your own posts more carefully.

You implied that it is fact that coral takes thousands of years to form; I merely replied that you cannot know that and it is possible that it only takes hundreds. My 'have a good idea' response was directed at JM. Sorry for the confusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by edge, posted 03-08-2002 2:11 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by edge, posted 03-08-2002 2:52 PM Punisher has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 32 of 36 (6329)
03-08-2002 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Punisher
03-08-2002 2:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
Let me quote from your post just to make sure I didn't read it wrong.

"Why do you ignore the fact that coral reefs take thousands of years to form?"

That is certainly not the same thing as "I said that a coral reef would take thousands of years to form."


Wrong again. At least you are consistent. Here is exactly what you said:

[QUOTE][i]"Both of your replies still require speculation. Please do not use phrases like "the fact that coral takes thousands of years", when in fact, we don't know for sure. "[/QUOTE]

[/i](emphasis added)

Doesn't sound the same to me.

quote:
Maybe you should read your own posts more carefully.

LOL!

quote:
You implied that it is fact that coral takes thousands of years to form; ...

Actually, I didn't. I said that a coral reef would take thousands of years to form. (Get it yet?)

quote:
...I merely replied that you cannot know that and it is possible that it only takes hundreds.

And I replied that we have measured the rate of coral growth. To form the Great Barrier Reef was NOT a catastrophic event!

Why do you not address this issue? Will you admit that some geological events are not catastrophic?

quote:
My 'have a good idea' response was directed at JM. Sorry for the confusion.

Thank you for admitting your carelessness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Punisher, posted 03-08-2002 2:26 PM Punisher has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Punisher, posted 03-08-2002 3:15 PM edge has responded

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 36 (6330)
03-08-2002 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by edge
03-08-2002 2:52 PM


quote:
And I replied that we have measured the rate of coral growth. To form the Great Barrier Reef was NOT a catastrophic event!

Please provide data supporting your 'we have measured' assertion.

quote:
why do you not address this issue? Will you admit that some geological events are not catastrophic?

absolutely, not all geological events are castastrophic. And not all geological events take long periods of time.

quote:

Thank you for admitting your carelessness.

I wasn't careless; my post read 'both of your replies' indicating that I was replying to more that one response. I thought you would pick up on that; you didn't.

Although exhausting, its been fun splitting hairs with you. I'm off for the weekend; ttyl.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by edge, posted 03-08-2002 2:52 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by edge, posted 03-08-2002 7:22 PM Punisher has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 34 of 36 (6334)
03-08-2002 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Punisher
03-08-2002 9:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
I'm sorry Que; lets start over. Civility will get us much further.

Layers of strata once thought to require millions of years to form only took days. Coal formation and fossil forests once thought to require long periods of time, given the right conditions, do not need millions of years. Once again, my reference to MSH was to explain that creationists do not need to abandon modern geology to form a hypothesis about the past as implied in the original post.

http://pws.prserv.net/creation/Articles/CRYOUNG3.HTM (skip down to rapid formation)

Bottom line is this, and I think it applies for all posts on this board. The two sides of this debate start with different presuppositions. Mine are as non-negotioable as yours. We will always arrive at different conclusions.


What do you think the presuppositions of science are?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Punisher, posted 03-08-2002 9:32 AM Punisher has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 342 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 36 (6335)
03-08-2002 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Punisher
03-08-2002 1:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
[b]Both of your replies still require speculation. Please do not use phrases like "the fact that coral takes thousands of years", when in fact, we don't know for sure. I speculate that it doesn't grow overnight but may not take thousands of years. Maybe hundreds.[/QUOTE]

If it only took hundreds of years then the growth of a coral reef would have been observed by humans.

[QUOTE]Please tell me evolutionists have stronger arguments than to pass off "we have a pretty good idea" as fact.[/b]


Right.

Nobody, anywhere, has ever seen an electron. We only know of their existence through their effects (inference).

Are you now going to say that we should not consider the existence of electrons as a fact?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Punisher, posted 03-08-2002 1:48 PM Punisher has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 36 of 36 (6336)
03-08-2002 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Punisher
03-08-2002 3:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
e: why do you not address this issue? Will you admit that some geological events are not catastrophic?

P: absolutely, not all geological events are castastrophic. And not all geological events take long periods of time.


I assume by this that you agree some geologic events DO take a long period of time, and that by "not catastrophic" that you mean that some MIGHT have taken a long period of time. Okay, let's see what you said earlier:

quote:
Previous post: Since that discipline of science depends fundamentally on long periods of time to form much of the rock formations we see to day(emphasis added)

P: "Mt. St. Helens has debunked (sp?) this school of thought."


Since long periods of time have been "debunked" (according to this earlier post) this means that they are not necessary. Correct? That means that all formations were formed rapidly, according to your previous post. However, if long periods are sometimes necessary then the idea of long periods would not have been debunked.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you are coming around and agree that long periods of time are necessary for some formations. I mean, even hundreds of years is not quite a biblical flood framework.

quote:
I wasn't careless; my post read 'both of your replies' indicating that I was replying to more that one response. I thought you would pick up on that; you didn't.

Well, I did have several replies on this thread.

quote:
Although exhausting, its been fun splitting hairs with you. I'm off for the weekend; ttyl.

Well, if it permits you to understand that sweeping statements such as "long periods of time for geological formations has been debunked, (paraphrasing here)" are erroneous, the hair splitting has been worth it.

Someone has posted this information before, perhaps they can repost it. In the meantime I will do some checking on my own.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Punisher, posted 03-08-2002 3:15 PM Punisher has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019