Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 121 of 183 (241764)
09-09-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by iano
09-09-2005 5:35 AM


Re: Humble chutzpah maybe?
When you KNOW Godidit, it is relatively easy to find holes to pick in the 'oppositions' case.
We'd love to poke holes in the "Godidit" case, but you guys haven't presented it yet.
Instead of trying to disprove us, how about trying to prove what your suggesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 5:35 AM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 122 of 183 (241783)
09-09-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Nuggin
09-09-2005 10:07 AM


Re: World wide
Nuggin writes:
I disagree Paul. She doesn't need to REthink her idea. That would imply that there was thought involved in the first place
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (and for once I can provide the reference where that is cited)
The Jurassic Age is gone, as is the Cambrian Age. As is the Neolithic Age (all alleged of course). So too, it would appear...The Age of Chivalry...
What a pity...I rather thought it was kinda nice.

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 10:07 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 11:50 AM iano has not replied
 Message 124 by deerbreh, posted 09-09-2005 11:53 AM iano has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 123 of 183 (241790)
09-09-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by iano
09-09-2005 11:40 AM


Re: World wide
Maybe, but I'm through pulling punches. I'm through with having my theories called ridiculous by people proposing "Magic Wand" theories.
By the way, the Bible may say, may he who is without sin throw the first stone, but in this case I'm just returning fire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 11:40 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by deerbreh, posted 09-09-2005 11:59 AM Nuggin has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 124 of 183 (241792)
09-09-2005 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by iano
09-09-2005 11:40 AM


Re: World wide
Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."
Hey! You left out the part that says "and believes in YEC and Noah's flood." Oh, it doesn't say that, does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 11:40 AM iano has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 125 of 183 (241795)
09-09-2005 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Ben!
09-09-2005 9:28 AM


waste of time
This is a total waste of time - I had a very similar conversation with faith about the use of scientific terminology. As far as I could work out, Faith's position was that people should just be able to define words as they best feel fit. Therefore if Faith feels that she is "doing" science - she is - as she defines the word and it's usage depending on the context.
(This all kicked off when Faith decided that science used a number of words incorrectly and that she would use common usage of words even when the scientific def were explained to her).
I really don't know why most of you bother engaging with her - her total lack of knowledge on any given subject never stops her declaring that any given expert is wrong and that people who have studied a field for years and have an advanced degree in that area "are wrong". Even more baffling, her posts even seem to suggest that is actually unable to grasp at the most basic level why have no knowledge about a subject is a problem. That seems to suggest that the gulf between faith and the majority of the posters on here is frankly so wide that common ground can be reached.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 9:28 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Ben!, posted 09-09-2005 12:20 PM CK has not replied
 Message 131 by AdminNosy, posted 09-09-2005 2:20 PM CK has not replied
 Message 134 by roxrkool, posted 09-09-2005 2:45 PM CK has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 126 of 183 (241796)
09-09-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Nuggin
09-09-2005 11:50 AM


Re: World wide
Maybe, but I'm through pulling punches. I'm through with having my theories called ridiculous by people proposing "Magic Wand" theories.
I am starting to get there too so maybe it is time for me to vacate these threads for a while. What is discouraging is when one finds oneself having to make the same argument over and over again for stuff that is quite well explained in any high school earth science text. (for example, see all of the discussion of unconformities)
On edit: - even worse example of that - time needed for repeated cycles of erosion, sedimentation, lithification and deformation.
This message has been edited by deerbreh, 09-09-2005 12:04 PM
This message has been edited by deerbreh, 09-09-2005 12:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 11:50 AM Nuggin has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 127 of 183 (241802)
09-09-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by CK
09-09-2005 11:57 AM


Re: waste of time
Charles,
I appreciate your sentiment, and as I mentioned to RR in post 93, I realize this stuff has been discussed ad nauseum. I'd like to engage Faith in general, but I feel doing so requires us to establish some level of understanding of each other's positions, and agreement to some basic terms and knowledge about our own positions.
I'm willing to listen to her thoughts, to discuss my thoughts, and to try some common ground. Maybe it won't work, maybe it will... I can only know by giving Faith exactly what I'm asking of her--consideration of the words we write.
I'm willing to take the time to do so. Hopefully Faith will be too. And if it doesn't work out in the end, feel free to send along a "told you so." This endeavor's worth that risk to me.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by CK, posted 09-09-2005 11:57 AM CK has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 128 of 183 (241805)
09-09-2005 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
09-09-2005 4:15 AM


Where you lose the argument.
Since there was a flood, how did it happen, is there physical evidence for it, what is it and if it's the geological column, how are evolutionist geology's explanations for the geological column wrong?
When you make that statement you show your willful ignorance. You have already assumed the answer so your cause is lost from the very beginning.
That statement is exactly why you are unable to address or even understand anything related to logic or science.
QED.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:15 AM Faith has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 129 of 183 (241822)
09-09-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Faith
09-09-2005 4:15 AM


Re: science wa?
Since there was a flood, how did it happen, is there physical evidence for it, what is it and if it's the geological column, how are evolutionist geology's explanations for the geological column wrong?
The flaw in your logic, as others have pointed out, is that you are beginning at the end.
Your methodology would only be valid if the Flood had been an observation, and you were there to witness it. Since the only thing pointing to a Flood is the Bible, there is no observation made - just the account of an old book. Just because the Greeks wrote about a magic river that flowed into the underworld doesn't mean it exists - books are not observations.
How do you justify using such backwards logic? If science followed your methodology, we could simply decide on whatever we wanted, pulling "theories" out of our collective asses, and then look for evidence to support it, and assume that conflicting evidence is simply wrong. That doesn't work very well.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:15 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 130 of 183 (241832)
09-09-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by iano
09-09-2005 5:35 AM


Re: Humble chutzpah maybe?
When you KNOW Godidit, it is relatively easy to find holes to pick in the 'oppositions' case. You know it's wrong from the get go. And you know that if you poke around a little you'll inevitably find that at the foundation of all the 'facts' lies mystery and uncertainty.
Very true Iano. I just about never appeal to "Goddidit" in an argument here, though I get accused of it. For one thing the opposition tends to spin it to refer to something miraculous rather than ordinary facts. But your point is true: Knowing they are wrong because the Flood DID happen because He said so IS the certainty any YEC operates from. Thanks again for the support.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 02:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by iano, posted 09-09-2005 5:35 AM iano has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 131 of 183 (241837)
09-09-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by CK
09-09-2005 11:57 AM


Re: waste of time
Agreed and obviously. We do all have this irrestitable urge to pull of the scab though.
The admin question is: Should science topics be allowed at all in a non-science side thread or should it be up to those who chooses to waste time participating or not to worry about what is discussed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by CK, posted 09-09-2005 11:57 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by roxrkool, posted 09-09-2005 2:52 PM AdminNosy has not replied
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 09-09-2005 4:53 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 132 of 183 (241838)
09-09-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by deerbreh
09-08-2005 11:22 PM


It is not contempt to say something is not scientifically interesting. If you can't avoid taking things personally you shouldn't be on a debate board.
I didn't take anything personally, and your thinking so doesn't speak well for your judgment. You are treating the subject with contempt, not me, as I said.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-09-2005 02:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by deerbreh, posted 09-08-2005 11:22 PM deerbreh has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 183 (241842)
09-09-2005 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by NosyNed
09-08-2005 11:25 PM


Re: minds made up?
If you are going to comment, I think you should answer the points being made. Simply dismissing them as old doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. Since when has EvC objected to rehashing old ground anyway?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 09-08-2005 11:25 PM NosyNed has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 134 of 183 (241847)
09-09-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by CK
09-09-2005 11:57 AM


a COMPLETE waste of time
I totally agree with you, CK. I immediately picked up on what a waste of time Faith is when she first showed up and started posting her nonsensical garbage. So have other geos, as you can see from most of them not giving her the time of day. I've been suspended twice and both times because I lost my temper after reading her ignorant assertions.
Since I enjoy the geo-related threads and she ultimately posts in them (when not located in the science fora), I find myself having to read her posts and about blow a gasket each time.
Therefore, I stay away as much as possible from EvC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by CK, posted 09-09-2005 11:57 AM CK has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 183 (241850)
09-09-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Nuggin
09-08-2005 11:49 PM


Explaining the uncomformities on left & right
Look at the Grand Staircase diagram.
I just did. On the far left hand side of the diagram I see a layer of sedament labeled "V", likewise on the right hand side. However, between the two there is a fault line. The layers to the left of the fault are tilted, the layers to the right are not.
However, the V layer has been laid down flat across the top of them.
How is that possible in your Flood theory? If the angled layers changed after the flood, when did the V layer get laid down?
I've answered this already but why not again? V was clearly severed by the fault shifting just as the tilted portion was. Also the right side IS tilted, curved upward toward the fault line and V is also curved right along with the whole stack, which shows that it was not laid down after the faulting occurred as it would have laid down horizontally and not curved like that. Also if it had been laid down after the two sides had shifted why would it look so neatly sheared by the fault line on the left side? How would you get a neat layer on both sides of the fault after the fault occurred?
So, the fault obviously occurred after the entire stack was in place, and probably when there were more layers at the top that are no longer there. The fault caused the tilting on the left and the curve on the right as well as shifting the two sides, and it simply sliced "V" (along with anything that was above it) along with the whole.
How did it stay horizontal? Well I think the same thing probably happened at the bottom of the Grand Canyon too, as I've argued. I think the weight of the upper stack acted as a counterforce that caused sufficient resistance between the lower tilting portion and the upper horizontal layers to allow the tilting without disturbing the upper layers to any great extent.
I also suggested that perhaps the content of the now-lowest layer above and the once-uppermost layer below could explain a greater slippage factor at that point along with the weight factor if the contents were particularly slippery somehow. This I'd have to read up on.
So on the left side I figure the same thing happened, and that there were many more layers above "V" at the time of the faulting than remain now to provide the counterforce weight against the tilting force. I explain the tilting on the left as the result of the faulting, and the upward curve toward the fault line on the right as the result of the faulting. I also think it's obvious just from looking at the diagram that "V" was already there when the fault occurred, and since it is no doubt the force that caused the tilting, voila, you have an uncomformity that was created beneath an existing stack after all was in place.
If you successfully answer that question (by your own standards), then how do you explain the angled strata on the far right hand side of the diagram. They are clearly under ALL the other layers.
This is a great diagram, but one you shouldn't have offered up as support of your theory.
I'd already explained this before you posted this, and explained it again afterward, and now I'm explaining it one more time, above. I hope it is clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Nuggin, posted 09-08-2005 11:49 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by roxrkool, posted 09-09-2005 3:08 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 140 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 3:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 142 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 3:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 163 by Nuggin, posted 09-09-2005 5:17 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024