|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
Chief among the things Faith doesn't understand when she says things like...
...demanding that believers in the worldwide Flood be able to explain every single geological event that ever happened on the planet or else trash the whole Flood idea... ...is the concept that it only takes one exception to falsify an hypothesis. No one expects creationists to explain every event in history, just to address the observations that falsify their claims. It would be helpful if creationists, like real scientists, outlined in advance the findings that they agree would falsify those claims. Edited by Capt Stormfield, : syntax
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
And there are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of this flat out assertive way of presenting both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution, which has been driving me crazy since before I became a Christian or knew anything about creationism. I hope to get to providing some examples of this. I don't buy the explanation that you can't treat the public with the respect of giving some explanation instead of acting like you know it all and they just have to submit. It is reassuring to know that your resentment of science antedates your belief in religion. It really does explain a great deal about your refusal to learn and your apparent antagonism toward those who have..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
...this flat out assertive way of presenting both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution... Would it be impolite to inquire why, of all the sciences, you picked these two as examples? In my experience, the discourse around all of science is roughly equivalent in terms of presenting nuanced discussion in some rough proportion to the sophistication of the audience. If you make an inquiry of a software engineer regarding how to get the recycle bin off your desktop, would you expect a complex discussion of interface design and end-user behavior, or just an "assertive" answer that reflects the endpoint of a long conceptual journey? And if you did demand a complex answer, would it not be a bit, oh, let's call it assholeish, to then complain about the fact that you don't understand the answer? Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
I wonder what YEC creationists think about the current volcanism in Hawaii? Why does all the action these days seem to be on the south-eastern end of the chain? It seems to be a nice combination of historical science explaining the location and relative weathering of the existing islands (and the Hawaiian-Emporer seamount chain), and also offering a prediction of Loihi, now under construction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
...questions to be answered in the new context that assumes the Flood occurred, rather than as evidence for its occurrence." You mean just like the good creationists of the late 1700's? The ones whose honesty, after evaluating the available and growing body of evidence, forced them to conclude that their a priori assumptions had been wrong? The ones that founded the modern geology you reject? Is that the context you mean? Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
...the Geological Column is over and done with and that whatever sedimentary layers are forming anywhere now have nothing to do with it. Kind of like when there's a couple feet of snow in the yard that has been there for a few weeks and suddenly there are these white flakes coming out of the sky and they're landing on the snow and it's getting deeper....but winter is over. We're all done with winter. The white flakes landing on the snow now are entirely different. They're not part of the "snow in the yard" they're just snow. Totally different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
For "depositional environments" to be the basis of the strata requires that you ignore all the far more common environments that AREN'T flat and choose only those that are. Wow.Just wow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
...all the efforts here to find the flattest possible natural landscape as their idea of how the strata would have formed. Salt flats, beaches, fields, plains and so on. Yeah, it's weird how normal people think flat strata form from flat geological features. As opposed, I suppose, to thinking they would form from the pointy parts that are being eroded down into those flat places...Oh, wait....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
...the strata extend across great areas of land where today there are hills and valleys and mountains and so on. It's almost as if the ground had moved around underneath them, rising up and such.
Where did the mountains go? I'd think they got eroded down to the bottom and made the flat strata. Don't worry though, fresh ones popped up in other places. They're in the process of eroding down into the new flat areas that some gormless creationist will be puzzled about in a billion years or so.
So now everybody is focused on the separated flat areas that cover small areas by comparison. You realize they're not done yet, right? Kind of by definition, if you can see them. Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
Sedimentation didn't stop, the column stopped, the "time scale" stopped. Sedimentation that is going on today has nothing to do with that. So when we look at a layer of sediment being deposited on top of existing layers, we can't tell if it's newer than the layers it's being deposited on? What with the "time scale" no longer working and all? You are batshit crazy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
The only problem is that you don't understand the implications of your own idiotic babbling. Your words are unconnected to reality. As I pointed out a few posts ago, saying that the column has stopped forming is like going outside in a snowstorm and declaring that the has snow stopped accumulating as of five minutes previously, and that the snow falling now, piling up on the existing snow, has nothing to do with that.
You are completely fucking nuts.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024