Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Growing the Geologic Column
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 425 of 740 (734519)
07-30-2014 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Faith
07-30-2014 8:05 AM


Re: An important admission
quote:
I'm not just claiming something because I believe ni the Bible. I think it's just plain glaringly obvious that the strata and the fossils HAVE to be explained by the worldwide Flood.
Which is only true if you start by unquestionably assuming a Young Earth. The Flood isn't a good or even plausible explanation for either - that's why you have to suppress so much of the evidence. It's just the least bad explanation given your dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:16 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 427 of 740 (734521)
07-30-2014 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Faith
07-30-2014 8:16 AM


Re: An important admission
quote:
The Young Earth does have to be assumed because I see no way to get anything else out of the Bible without doing violence to it.
Oh, you don't have to do any violence to the Bible at all, just understand it differently. Your unBiblical assumptions about the Bible have far more to do with your attitude than the a Bible itself.
quote:
But the strata and the fossils apart from everything else HAVE to be explained by the Flood, the other explanations are ridiculous.
Mainstream explanations are far less ridiculous than the Flood, that's why they are mainstream - and the Flood isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 8:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 457 of 740 (734563)
07-30-2014 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Faith
07-30-2014 5:28 PM


Re: Flood debunkery revisited
quote:
I'm sorry you don't see the obvious
Oh we do see that what you are saying is often obviously distorted, exaggerated, untrue or even dishonest. We just don't see that those as reasons to believe you.
quote:
Old Earthers have had more time to accumulate your web of interpretations but that's all it is, a web of interpretations, plausibilities, suppositions, assumptions and hypotheses.
Yes, I know that you have to try to pretend that everyone is at the same level. But the fact is that the science of geology has a good deal more evidence than you do, and a lot more understanding.
quote:
Oh sure there are lots of such facts, and they're available to me just as to you. But the theory that any particular observation in the present applies to the past is just a supposition that can't be proved, which may be plausible or not.
Sure, the laws of physics might have indetectably changed so that the Flood just happens to produce results that look like hundreds of millions of years of geological processes. But if you have to appeal to that sort of thinking you have left rationality a long way behind you.
quote:
In order to come to that conclusion you have to ignore the fact that you are comparing hilly piles of loose sand to a gigantic square hunk of lithified rock.
And in order to make that objection you have to ignore the fact that you believe that lithification happens even more readily than Percy does.
quote:
"Now?" Since when? My reasoning is based on the facts available.
Too often it seems that isn't true.
quote:
You start with the Biblical fact that there WAS a worldwide Flood, you follow with the calculations based on the Biblical time indicators so you know roughly when it occurred. This comes from God Himself so anything science says that contradicts it has to be excluded. But that much doesn't even have to be stated in a science discussion unless forced...
You mean that you try to deny that your argument starts with dogmatic religious belief, even though it is the truth.
quote:
...because there are scientific facts that don't challenge God and do support such an event, such as the huge strata and the huge number of fossils.
In other words you are reduced to desperately pretending to have evidence.
quote:
Explaining all that on Old Earth assumptions is the weird fictional stuff. And boy are those explanations weird.
If you really think that it's weird to believe sensible ideas instead of crazy nonsense that explains a lot. Simple accumulation over time explains a lot. And given the time - which we really do have very good evidence for - it's pretty much inevitable.
New thread coming for the fossil record, since it is off topic here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Faith, posted 07-30-2014 5:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 465 of 740 (734578)
07-31-2014 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Faith
07-31-2014 1:38 AM


Re: The interlayered depositions, Alaska etc
quote:
If science contradicts God, so much for science. That means radiometric dating can't be accepted as true. Besides, tadiometric dating can't be verified any more than any other guess about the past can be. You have no way of knowing if those dates are really accurate. There could be a systematic error that can't be detected. You'd never know it because you can't go back into the past to see when the rocks formed.
So what you are saying is that for you, your religious beliefs trump science. Well that's fine for you, but it is hardly an argument that your beliefs are true. Indeed, the fact that you have to appeal to it is pretty good evidence that your beliefs aren't true.
Why not consider the possibility that your view of the Bible might be wrong ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 1:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 485 of 740 (734608)
07-31-2014 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Faith
07-31-2014 2:16 PM


Re: Good for evil and evil for good, black for white and white for black, bitter fr swt..
I don't believe that your theology is on topic here. Although it's very sad that you don't realise how much of your theology is not Biblical at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 2:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 2:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 488 of 740 (734611)
07-31-2014 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by Faith
07-31-2014 2:35 PM


Re: Good for evil and evil for good, black for white and white for black, bitter fr swt..
Your theology is not on topic in this thread. I'm not gunning for another suspension. Start a new thread if you want to discuss it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 2:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 505 of 740 (734649)
08-01-2014 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
07-31-2014 9:43 PM


Re: whatever
The theology is, of course, off topic.
quote:
And then there is the constant refrain that I provide no evidence for my assertions. But my assertions are just a way of saying "Look!" Just "look for yourself," the evidence is right there, on the cross sections etc. I point something out, but instead of looking you point something else out.
And you make a lot of claims without diagrams. Nor do you respect the limits of the diagrams you do produce. But even worse here you are complaining that people actually look at parts of the diagrams you don't want them to look at and see evidence you don't want them to see.
Look, expecting people who disagree with you to be biased in favour of your beliefs is ridiculous. But here you are complaining because that expectation isn't met.
quote:
I have allowed myself to hope that maybe somebody here, just one person, one of the posters or a lurker, doesn't matter, would just recognize the truth in what I'm saying, just "get it" but that isn't going to happen is it? Good thing I can laugh at it at least some of the time.
Given the confused and vague nature of many of your arguments, it's hard to believe that you want anyone to "get it".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 9:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 2:15 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 509 of 740 (734654)
08-01-2014 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 507 by Faith
08-01-2014 2:15 AM


Re: whatever
Your hate for honesty and truth are noted.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 2:15 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 577 of 740 (734879)
08-03-2014 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 576 by Faith
08-03-2014 1:41 AM


Following an argument
quote:
No you didn't follow it, you were only interested in your own view of the deformation increasing with depth.
Faith, following an argument - at least by the usual definition - does not preclude looking at other features of the evidence you provide. If you don't want people to look at things you need to provide a good reason. Which would generally include an explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 1:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 589 of 740 (734897)
08-03-2014 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:54 AM


Re: An important admission
quote:
It's obvious, take it or leave it.
It's obvious that YEC has no viable explanation for the geological and fossil records. That's why you need to insist that the Flood did it, against all reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 671 of 740 (735049)
08-05-2014 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 664 by Faith
08-05-2014 8:52 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
If we look at this diagram:
It is absolutely obvious that on the left of the diagram the Base Tertiary layer does NOT follow the contours of the underlying strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 8:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:06 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 674 of 740 (735054)
08-05-2014 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 673 by Faith
08-05-2014 9:06 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
No, it definitely doesn't in the leftmost quarter or so of the diagram. And there's quite a big step up from a fault in that portion. So that fault definitely predates the deposition of the Base Tertiary stratum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:28 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 676 of 740 (735057)
08-05-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 675 by Faith
08-05-2014 9:28 AM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
All of which is irrelevant to my point, that the Base Tertiary was not there - certainly not as rock - when that fault occurred. That really is obvious because if it were we'd see the same step up there - and we don't. Indeed I'd say that the rising salt is the major contributor to the surface contours of the Base Tertiary, more so than any of the faults - it's obviously responsible for the "bump" in the middle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 690 of 740 (735080)
08-05-2014 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by Faith
08-05-2014 12:02 PM


Re: Order of events as shown on cross sections
quote:
The Base Tertiary and all the others have been there only 4300 years, and that being the case all the faulting has occurred since then, and if some didn't go all the way up through some of the layers, big deal.
So you're essentially claiming that you're right and if th evidence shows that you are wrong, "big deal". You do realise that that attitude - and the way it affects your behaviour - is one of the biggest problems you have here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:02 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