Why flood geology doesn't work, oil exploration as the example

A lie is a falsehood, but not all falsehoods are lies. As you say, for a falsehood to be a lie, the person telling that falsehood must know that it is false.One of the problems in dealing with creationists is that it can be difficult to tell when they are lying or when they simply do not understand their own claims. Certainly, most of the rank-and-file do not understand what they are saying, but rather are just repeating what they had been told.It's even difficult to tell when a professional creationist is lying. There is one case in which I am certain that Walter Brown was lying, that being with his rattlesnake protein claim (http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/bullfrog.html#RATTLESNAKE) which, last I checked, still exists as a footnote in his on-line book. Many creationists' evasive behavior when asked for specifics about their claims is another give-away.However, what is the effect of telling a falsehood? More to the point, what is the difference in the consequences of lying or of telling a falsehood that one believes to be true? Absolutely no difference whatsoever. Both do the same damage.

Hi Dwise1,Just replying to the chain of messages, yours is the last.I didn't call Faith a liar for being wrong about any scientific issue. Anyone can be wrong. Anyone here who's honest will admit they've been wrong plenty of times.No, I called Faith a liar for misrepresenting me as setting up a strawman to make it appear as if she had said things she hadn't, and for misrepresenting Wikipedia as having gotten something wrong it hadn't. I'm not going to blame Faith for getting things wrong because, like I said, we all get things wrong. I blame her for getting things wrong and then casting the blame for it at everyone except herself.--Percy

I disagree about the damage. All humans err, and an error is not evidence that the speaker is wrong on every issue. Deliberate lies damage suggest that the speaker has no case at all, because he could have made an alternative argument.

I use a slightly weaker standard. Given a false claim it's enough that the claimant doesn't care if it is true or false.It's a more practical standard, because it's much easier to assess it - easier to work out if they SHOULD know, than if they do know.

Re: when is a false statement a lie?My answer: When the alternative is that the person is so rock stupid (intended) that using that as an excuse is just too difficult to believe. In this case, I can see where someone who does not read very well could make the mistake Faith made with the Wikipedia article. Totally understandable. But at some point, you have to lift your foot off of a person's neck after they are down. Of course, I am not the one Faith called a liar. You are. So it was your call, not mine.I think Faith came as close as she felt comfortable with backing down when she admitted to RAZD that she had no response, and when she talked about underestimating 'YEC creativity'. I suspect that her dissembling after that was an attempt to save some face. As was the change of subject to lack of tectonic activity.

I just endured an entire thread of, "I never said any such thing, I'm a victim of your misrepresentation," over at Why the Flood Never Happened. That's enough of that for a while.--Percy

Wow, I just read the thread and saw quite a few logical fallacies thrown around.Argument form Incredulity: "I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false."Argumentum ad hominem: Attacking the poster. (veiled insults about each others intelligence being thrown around.)Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) — submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (respond to this massive thread before I'll take you seriously)False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) — two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more. (salt formations can only happen this one way.)Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) — someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. (lots of stuff on both sides.)and more...In any debate that seeks out the truth, using logical fallacies only muddies the search.Edit: The salt could have formed by underground heat evaporating the moisture which escaped in near microscopic vents (which are quite common). That's my unresearched response just off the top of my head.Edited by lokiare, : Preventing a double post.

Good luck with that. (1) What is the source of heat and the evidence for it?(2) How do you explain geysers and the low salinity of that water? But lots of mineral deposits around the surface pools ...Edited by RAZD, : .

Why flood geology doesn't work, oil exploration as the example is still open.--Percy

The Adventures of Fallacy Man - Existential Comics

This would produce salt crystals that are dispersed in other sediments. That is not what we see. Instead, we see deposits that are nearly 100% salt, like in this photo: This is consistent with surface evaporation, not removal of water from clay.

Or, if an underground lake were heated, it would leave vast caverns above the salt, many times larger than the salt deposits.

Maybe not quite the right thread, but it's close: The quote is from a book published in 1911; I have no idea who Samuel Sharp was.

Lots of silly creationist ideas about geology and biology were promoted on the basis of false unbiblical ideas of God, it's what set up the world for evolution and it's tragic, and the one you quote is just another.Darwin had the job of answering some of the silly ideas in biology, unbiblical ideas, such as that God separately created living things to fit their environment at different times in history. The Bible says clearly that God created all things in the first six days of creation, so there is no excuse for such an unbiblical claim. Darwin was set up by such unbiblical silliness to give a plausible scientific interpretation, sometimes something as simple and obvious as that a particular species of bird populated a particular island because it originally flew there, rather than that it was brought into existence there. If any of those creationists really believed the Bible such mistakes couldn't have been made. Of course Darwin went on to continue the errors in another direction.Some still think the Flood would show up at a particular level, or even a single layer in the strata, which is seriously inadequate thinking. We're talking a Flood that the Bible says covered the entire earth, all of it, even all the (then much lower) mountains, for a period of months. It had to have turned the works into mud, all of it that could turn into mud. Locating THAT Flood in a single layer is extremely inadequate thinking.So of course you love examples of this nonsense. But your loving it doesn't in any way support the nonsense of evolution. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Trying to read the history of real science as a history of the development of creationism is like trying to read American history as the story of how the U.S. is progressing towards the restoration of rule by King George III.