Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   3 Ways to Leave Your Flooder
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 5 (34085)
03-10-2003 8:53 PM


Paul Simon hasn't written anything along the lines of "3 Ways to Leave Your Lover" but this is what we have to pretend.
Here are three reasons why the flood story holds no water:
A. The Poor Reliability of the Bible Itself
B. The Poor Logic of the Genesis Flood Story
C. The Flood-Wall of Evidence Against a flood:
1 - The poorly conceived ark
2 - The lack of flood water
3 - The inability of so few survivors
to engender what we see today
4 - The inability of the planet to
recover from global inundation
5 - The denial of the flood by the fossil record
6 - The denial of the flood by geology
If you want detail or references for any of the above reasons, please see the closed "50 Ways to Leave Your Flooder" thread on this board.
Budikka

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-10-2003 9:46 PM Budikka has replied
 Message 5 by Budikka, posted 04-02-2003 10:35 PM Budikka has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 5 (34090)
03-10-2003 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Budikka
03-10-2003 8:53 PM


Thank you, Budikka - much appreciated.
Since we're in the geology forum, I would appreciate it if no one would address A or B in this thread. Please open another thread in The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum, or join an already open thread, if you'd like to discuss these topics.
Point C has 6 subpoints, more than enough material for a single thread. Respondents, please follow the forum guidelines. In particular, please stay focused on the evidence. The fact that a given position or interpretation of evidence doesn't make sense to you personally is of no value unless you can successfully make the case to others through the use of counter-evidence and/or logical argument.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Budikka, posted 03-10-2003 8:53 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Budikka, posted 03-13-2003 7:24 PM Admin has replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 5 (34319)
03-13-2003 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
03-10-2003 9:46 PM


I'd like to register a minor gripe.
Restricting topics (first to three and now effectively to one) actually favors the creationist camp because they love nothing more than to slice, dice, and Julienne what they call evolution, and having reduced some segment to its lowest common denominator, they then feel they can dismiss the item and claim a victory.
Evolution (especially under the all-encompassing creationist umbrella), is not a list of isolated and separated items, it is a whole, and it does an injustice to the whole, and to science to restrict the topic.
I read the header to this division as: "geology related to the great flood, and the great flood itself", not as: "geology as it relates to the great flood", which is what it apparently is intended to be. If there is a better division header under which this particular thread can go, and which would preserve my original intent, I would prefer to move it there.
The issue again is that slicing and dicing this topic plays into the hands of the creationists. When they make their case (such as it is) they do not separate it out, but include everything - from God right down to the mud at the bottom of the flood. They do not make a solely scientific case (or any scientific case at all, for that matter), but a "creation science" case which includes God and the Bible.
It was on these grounds - the creationist home turf, if you will, that I wanted to tackle this topic.
Is there a better location that the thread could be moved to, in which I could preserve my original intent?
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 03-10-2003 9:46 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 03-14-2003 8:30 AM Budikka has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 5 (34346)
03-14-2003 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Budikka
03-13-2003 7:24 PM


I'd wish I could accomodate you. Perhaps you could occasionally note how any discussion that develops fits into a broader context by referencing the introductory post of the "50 ways" thread.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Budikka, posted 03-13-2003 7:24 PM Budikka has not replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 5 (36145)
04-02-2003 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Budikka
03-10-2003 8:53 PM


This thread began life as "50 Ways to Leave Your Flooder", offering 50 solid reasons why there was no global flood. No one seems able to refute any of those.
The questions were reduced 3 generic propsitions, thereby making it far easier for creationists to answer, and these 3 were further whittled down to only one challenge. Unsurprisingly, and despite these "spring sale" concessions, not a single creationist has been able to step up and put their finger in the leaking dike of the global flood myth.
I therefore move that this thread be declared closed.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Budikka, posted 03-10-2003 8:53 PM Budikka 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