Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

I appreciate your point of view on this thread, purpledawn.

Of course it was Faith. It's always Faith. And I agree in this case. I shouldn't have posted one word on your follow-up thread.

You are right, and I knew it at the beginning, but I sometimes fool myself into thinking Well maybe if I say it again... Doesn't happen. The pressure is pretty fierce too, not that I can't ignore it. Just see NosyNed's post 52 above yours, where he refuses to give me the slightest benefit of the doubt about anything, claims I decided later I shouldn't have posted there, claims it was because I couldn't deal with the evidence later presented. No, it's because I'd said my piece and there was nothing more to say, as you have understood. And I've been on this same merry-go-round a million times already, even conceded the same old points Percy brought up, out of politeness, that I've conceded many other times.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 01:37 PM

I'll say it again, and I could have said the same thing again to a dozen other posts on this thread already so I'm sure it's hopeless, but the existence of the humongous abundance of fossils worldwide really is SPECIFICALLY TERRIFIC evidence for a worldwide FLood. Just because there are other explanations for various particular fossil collections does not make those other explanations right. ALL of it is speculative. ALL OF IT. There is no PROOF possible with questions about these ancient events. There is ONLY conjecture. And the evo science explanations are less elegant than the explanation of a one-time flood event to explain ALL the fossils. Fossilization is beautifully supported by this explanation, and otherwise you need umteen hundred ad hoc explanations for specific fossil collections.And again, just because there AREN'T obvious explanations for some formations within the Flood scenario, such as roxrkools carbonate and the white cliffs of dover and all the gazillion other specific examples people bring up, does not prove there was no worldwide flood. Again, ANY explanation is conjectural.But I understand that nobody is listening. As Percy himself said in his opening post. YOu just KNOW there was no flood and you don't have to think about anything offered in argument for it. Sure does explain what actually happens around here.

The bolded part explains the madness that prevails here.I think Purpledawn has recognized something about this madness, although I don't expect anyone else to get the point, which seems to be amply borne out by the posts on the thread.It's nice to see you have taken note of this at least, but I think in the end you don't have to worry about being insensitive to creationists losing you adherents. Those with truly tough hides and truly strong faith will always weather the bullying, but undergrads are easily bullied and you will always win support in each new generation through the usual methods of evidence-giving.

OK, maybe I misread you. Sorry. But I think the fossils ARE fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood. BEAUTIFUL fit.

I stated exactly what you are saying under "evolutionist." Weird. Of course that's how it happened. But the fact that they are in mountains EVERYWHERE remains excellent evidence for a one time flood.Edit to add link:
http://EvC Forum: Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some -->EvC Forum: Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present SomeWhy should ALL mountains contain this abundance of marine fossils, and ALL deserts? Clearly a worldwide flood is the most parsimonious explanation.The mountains were once the soggy sedimented layers full of dead life that the flood caused all over the world. Tectonic activity released in the flood raised mountains here and there full of marine stuff.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 02:03 PM

Basically because the "whole story" is nothing but conjecture that cannot be tested or proved, and requires specific ad hoc explanations for each little bit of phenomena and the Flood remains the #1 most parsimonious elegant explanation. I just explained all this. It remains my position and I don't have any interest in pursuing it beyond what I've already said. I've been down that path and enough is enough.And if you're going to characterize me in the insulting terms you do elsewhere, why bother being polite to my face?This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 02:16 PM

How is it an "answer" to creationists if creationists already agree with it?

#!This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 06:38 PM

I think what people are failing to grasp about this is how there is no reason whatever to expect there to be fossils all over the world in the abundance they actually exist. There is little reason to expect them to occur much at all except here and there under unusual circumstances, if the standard geo view is correct. This attitude that Well yeah there they are so what else is new, and our explanations are better than the flood explanation simply reflects the fact that everybody's USED to the idea that they are everywhere. But logically they shouldn't be everywhere if the OE view is correct. You're just used to accepting this actually very bizarre fact of life and rationalizing it however you can with whatever you've got. But the Flood explains it all wonderfully. Elegantly. Parsimoniously.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 03:17 PM

"Remains" don't survive most earthly conditions very long, so most living things should simply have died and become compost, not fossils. Fossils need special circumstances to occur. The damp mud the Flood would have left behind all over the world, and the compression from the weight of its settling, account for the abundance rather nicely. Otherwise the circumstances for fossilization to occur have to be dreamed up ad hoc for every instance.

Pardon me if I claim that my assertions didn't NEED backing up, they OUGHT to be obvious to anyone with a pea-sized brain in his head. That is my view.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 03:44 PM

Yes my view is that my opponents are brainless simpletons on these questions, and bullies and rude louts as well. That is my view. And I lose my temper because of the stupidity that passes for intelligence, of which this thread contains excellent specimens, and because of how I am treated, but never fear, there isn't a shred of objectivity from your side of this so I don't expect it to be recognized.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 03:56 PM

Your conjecture that there were too many fossils is amusing. Typical "scientific" thinking. How would you know? How would anyone know? It's just amazing how you guys will do your calculations and think you can say based on your own jottings what REALLY REALLY happened in the distant past when there isn't any way to test/verify/falsify any of it.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 06:45 PM