Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 719 of 877 (835191)
06-19-2018 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 717 by Faith
06-19-2018 12:46 PM


subjective interpretation
Is a poor substitute for detailed study. Modern geology is the produce of centuries of detailed work, and subjective interpretations are not an inadequate response. Better than fabrication and innuendo and misrepresentation, I will admit but still hardly adequate.
Indeed the idea of massive erosion as evidence of a destroyed world sits poorly with your own ideas. According to you all that was ruined to form those features was featureless horizontal sediment full of dead things. Hardly perfect. According to you it was not the Flood but the run-off from it that carved these features, even when it makes no sense at all. The Grand Canyon with its sinuous form being a prime example.
So, your subjective impressions don’t even agree with your own ideas. How then can you think that they have any value as evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 12:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 721 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 1:45 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 726 of 877 (835201)
06-19-2018 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 721 by Faith
06-19-2018 1:45 PM


Re: subjective interpretation
quote:
Weird. All I'm talking about is what the world looks like now, and it looks ruined to me almost everywhere I look.
There’s nothing weird in pointing out that your subjective impressions are misleading.
quote:
The strata full of dead things are just one facet of what the Flood did; why would you think I consider that "perfect" anyway? THAT makes no sense
It it is implicit in what YOU said. The features you take as evidence of ruin were - in your view - carved from those strata, not from features of the pre-Flood world.
So when you say:
All of it speaks to me of something that was formerly perfect now ruined
You must bear in mind that the thing ruined by the erosive forces that created the Monuments and all the other things you list was the strata full of dead things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 1:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 3:32 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 785 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 12:47 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 731 of 877 (835206)
06-19-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 729 by Faith
06-19-2018 3:32 PM


Re: subjective interpretation
quote:
Communication here is so absurdly impossible even the Twilight Zone doesn't express it.
I realise that your problems understanding opposing viewpoints and your revisionism get in the way of communication. Maybe you should do something about that.
quote:
Nobody has a clue what the preFlood world actually was like so I can't possibly be saying exactly WHAT was ruined, all I know is that this world looks like a gigantic wreck. That's all I'm saying.
But the features you point to AREN’T ruined perfection. All you have is a subjective impression divorced even from your own ideas of what actually happened. That is not evidence. Yet you claim that it is. That is the point that you are failing to get.
quote:
The strata are a clue to the Flood that did it,
The strata are proof that the Flood didn’t do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 3:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 3:50 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 734 of 877 (835209)
06-19-2018 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by Faith
06-19-2018 3:50 PM


Re: subjective interpretation
quote:
There is no evidence left of the perfection of the original Creation, I'm assuming it. What I actually see is wreckage, period.
You call it wreckage but according to your own views the prior condition was hardly superior. You might as well call it sculpture as wreckage. Not to mention that there is quite a lot of the planet that doesn’t looked wrecked, and parts that are mainly wrecked through human activity.
quote:
And the strata certainly are evidence of the Flood.
That’s been shown to be false. That is why you have to deny most of the erosion between the strata, make up nonsense to try to explain angular unconformities, claim that strata are paralell when they are close to orthogonal, reject all scientific dating methods, call the order in the fossil record an illusion and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 06-19-2018 3:50 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 747 of 877 (835227)
06-20-2018 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 745 by Pollux
06-20-2018 1:40 AM


Re: Tectonic bashing and crashing
That’s before we deal with the fact that the Cardenas lava erupted through the surface while the sediments of the Dox formation were still being deposited.
The Grand Canyon Supergroup just keeps on contradicting Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 745 by Pollux, posted 06-20-2018 1:40 AM Pollux has not replied

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


Message 753 of 877 (835237)
06-20-2018 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 752 by Faith
06-20-2018 7:36 AM


Re: Strata eroded or deformed in blocks proves Geo Column / Time Scale over and done withIf
You should have read on
In general, the older layer was exposed to erosion for an interval of time before deposition of the younger
Or more sensibly you should have realised that the definition is consistent with erosion being present at every example Percy mentioned, and so doesn’t help your case at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 7:36 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 780 of 877 (835287)
06-21-2018 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 773 by Faith
06-20-2018 7:58 PM


Re: wrecked planet
As i’ve pointed out before according to your ideas the things that give you the impression of a wrecked planet didn’t even come from wrecking the planet.
To call them evidence thst the planet was wrecked, then, is simply false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 773 by Faith, posted 06-20-2018 7:58 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 782 of 877 (835289)
06-21-2018 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 779 by Faith
06-21-2018 12:12 AM


Re: subjective interpretation
quote:
I've argued the evidence on many threads, including this one
By your own admission your main evidence doesn’t favour your views over the mainstream view. There is much evidence that you ignore or invent crazy bullshit to explain away. And then there’s the lying and calling people crazy when they dare to disagree with you.
You’ve made it very obvious that your ideas are a ridiculous fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 779 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 12:12 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 786 of 877 (835294)
06-21-2018 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 785 by Faith
06-21-2018 12:47 AM


Re: subjective interpretation
quote:
too absurd, why do you keep saying this? It's so absurd it proves your thinking is not to be trusted on any subject, which is what I was already thinking might be the case.
Yes we know. You don’t trust people who tell the truth.
quote:
No the strata full of dead things are major wreckage.
That isn’t what you are calling wreckage though. You’re calling the things that happened to those strata - the erosion and the deformation - wreckage. That’s my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 785 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 12:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 787 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 1:06 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 788 of 877 (835296)
06-21-2018 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 787 by Faith
06-21-2018 1:06 AM


Re: subjective interpretation
quote:
But I'm not objecting to the wreckage of the strata, I'm objecting to eh general appearance of wreckage and desolation.
But the Monuments - one of your biggest examples - are the product of erosion. The geological sins that are supposedly hidden beneath unwrecked landscapes would be the result of deformation and maybe erosion, too. I’m at a loss to find an example that looks wrecked and isn’t the result of erosion or deformation - or human activity.
quote:
...God has allowed a great deal of recovery there can never be anything again remotely like the original Creation with its extravagant fertility and beauty and order.
I don’t think that differences with your imagined pre-Flood world can possibly count. They aren’t an appearance for a start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 787 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 1:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 789 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 1:17 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 790 of 877 (835298)
06-21-2018 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 789 by Faith
06-21-2018 1:17 AM


Re: subjective interpretation
quote:
Erosion makes it possible to see the wreckage more clearly
That doesn’t really make a lot of sense. What wreckage is seen by erosion ? When you say that the Monuments look like wreckage why would anyone think you were talking about anything but the eroded forms of the Monuments themselves ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 789 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 1:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 791 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 1:31 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 792 of 877 (835300)
06-21-2018 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 791 by Faith
06-21-2018 1:31 AM


Re: subjective interpretation
quote:
Golly maybe they would pay attention when I say I didn't mean that instead of insisting that I do.
Where did you say you didn’t mean that ? (Whatever that is)
quote:
If there hadn't been erosion there would be flat surface on top of all the strata. Tectonic deformation and erosion expose the strata. But it's ALL wreckage, strata plus deformation
I have to say that smooth flat strata aren’t really my idea of wreckage. The rest, as I have pointed out is all things that happened to the strata.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by Faith, posted 06-21-2018 1:31 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 851 of 877 (835501)
06-24-2018 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 846 by Faith
06-23-2018 11:10 PM


Re: Floodists problems
quote:
There are problems with that long time in lots of other ways though, and you guys who so blithely conjure all those millions of years don't bother with trying to understand it all from the point of view of the God who made you and made it all.
It’s a bit hard to consider something that we have no way of knowing. We can’t even know if there is a God to have an opinion.
But I’m pretty sure that if there is He’d prefer us to honestly investigate the evidence instead of inventing lies to support false dogma. But if you feel differently please make the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 846 by Faith, posted 06-23-2018 11:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 857 by Faith, posted 06-24-2018 8:31 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 852 of 877 (835502)
06-24-2018 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 848 by Faith
06-23-2018 11:26 PM


Re: Floodists problems
quote:
You don't need the millions of years ascribed to evolution, and even a lot less than that would have led to extinction of all life on the planet by now..
So much for sticking to things you can prove. Need is irrelevant although long-term evolution - and even short term evolution require longer than you assume. And since the evidence tells us that it has been that long your uninformed theoretical speculations can and should be rejected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 848 by Faith, posted 06-23-2018 11:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 859 by Faith, posted 06-24-2018 8:45 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 858 of 877 (835513)
06-24-2018 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 857 by Faith
06-24-2018 8:31 AM


Re: Floodists problems
quote:
Inventing hypotheses is not inventing lies
I was thinking of inventing evidence, such as the assertion that there is no sign of disturbance before all the strata were deposited.
quote:
...and if the Bible is correctly understood as to the timing of the Flood -- it's possible that it's not but I have no reason to doubt it at present -- then any evidence that contradicts it is not something we could "honestly investigate"
Of course we could. Even you could honestly investigate evidence if supported your claims. Well, perhaps not in your case.
The problem for you is that honest investigation of the evidence shows no Flood and an old Earth. And that gives rational people plenty of reason to doubt a literal reading of the Flood story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 857 by Faith, posted 06-24-2018 8:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 860 by Faith, posted 06-24-2018 8:50 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 862 by Faith, posted 06-24-2018 8:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024