Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 226 of 304 (292978)
03-07-2006 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by roxrkool
03-07-2006 1:08 PM


Again I point you to post 190. I HAS been thought through.
I didn't read your post 190 and I have no intention of doing so. Your attitude is not something I have any interest in dealing with. Go play with your rocks.
However, I have a few thoughts about this post.
{abe: I mean, how NICE of Father Time to do such a neat job of dividing the eras and periods with such particular sedimentary deposits and such precise fossil contents that stay put in their designated desposit.}
Faith, think about it.
Those nice little dividing lines are there for a reason. They are there either because of an extinction event or significant changes in lithology or fossil variety.
Again, how nice of Father Time to arrange it so that nothing spills over from one side of these lines to the other, and for keeping it SO neat, those lines despite a humongous extinction event that surely must have disturbed the surface far beyond what is actually observed, or other "significant" changes that somehow weren't "significant" enough to affect its remarkably neat presentation. I have no idea what you mean by "changes in lithology" but the idea that there could have been such sudden total changes from one totally specific kind of sediment containing a specific fossil content to a totally different kind in teeny weeny increments over millions of years takes more imagination than I have. AND keep those neat demarcation lines too. It is YOU who are not thinking.
Geologists didn't just blindly think up these divisions one day at the lab and then head out to the field to prove themselves right.
No, they didn't, but they have been working under the handicap of the ASSUMPTIONS already laid down in the field and cannot think outside that box, which means that all their thinking has gone into finding an explanation that fits those preconceptions. And it seems to me that as a matter of sheer empirical fact the fit is just some kind of theoretical exercise that ignores the main problem I'm talking about.
{abe: AND HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE given that these are smart people? BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TESTABLE ABOUT ANY OF THIS. IT IS NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, BUT AN EXERCISE IN IMAGINATION.}
Besides, you've already stated that fossils are a problem for Flood theory. Why are you contradicting yourself now?
Pay attention. All I said was that the APPARENT ORDERING of the fossils is a problem, but the enormous abundance of fossils is great evidence for a worldwide flood.
And I don't think there's any point in addressing any further posts to me.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-07-2006 01:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by roxrkool, posted 03-07-2006 1:08 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by mark24, posted 03-07-2006 1:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 228 by jar, posted 03-07-2006 1:37 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 229 by ringo, posted 03-07-2006 1:41 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 232 by roxrkool, posted 03-07-2006 1:59 PM Faith has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5278 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 227 of 304 (292980)
03-07-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
03-07-2006 1:25 PM


Faith,
I didn't read your post 190 and I have no intention of doing so. Your attitude is not something I have any interest in dealing with. Go play with your rocks.
Rox is getting my treatment, you get to talk nonsense & then refuse to defend it.
It's a shame you haven't read Rox's posts, he has addressed most of your stuff already, but then if you refuse to read...
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 03-07-2006 01:31 PM

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 1:25 PM Faith has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34058
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 228 of 304 (292984)
03-07-2006 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
03-07-2006 1:25 PM


still waiting for you to address the questions raised
in Message 119.
Here is something that IS testable. If what is outlined in Message 119 is not correct, you have the opportunity to propose corrections.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 1:25 PM Faith has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 229 of 304 (292987)
03-07-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
03-07-2006 1:25 PM


Do the experiment
Faith writes:
THERE IS NOTHING TESTABLE ABOUT ANY OF THIS.
Of course it's testable.
Remember when we were kids? We'd put a couple of handfuls of dirt into a jar, fill it with water and shake it up. The layers would separate: pebbles on the bottom, then sand, then clay, etc. The heavier materials were on the botton - we understood that when we were eight years old.
But that is not what we see in the strata. We sometimes see sandstone on top of limestone, for example. That is not possible in a single event, as our backyard experiment proved.
Half a century ago, in our own back yards, we tested your hypothesis and falsified it.
This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-03-07 11:43 AM

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 1:25 PM Faith has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5042 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 230 of 304 (292988)
03-07-2006 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
03-06-2006 10:07 AM


No Mountians?
The mountains were raised after the flood, as I already said.
Are you saying there were no mountains at all before the Flood?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 10:07 AM Faith has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 231 of 304 (292995)
03-07-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Faith
03-07-2006 10:09 AM


Re: Good evidence
Faith is not interested in discussing the basis of her claims that her points represent good evidence for the Flood because she has none.
This is illustrated by the issue of fossils on mountains. Somce creationists claim that fossils on mountains are evidence of the Flood - because they beleive that the mountains were already there, and that the fossils were deposited on them. This argument is wrong because the fossils were deposited before the mountains were formed, but if this were not the case then it would certainly be good evidence that the mountain had been submerged.
However Faith rejects that and thus she rejects the very basis of her assertion that these particular fossils are evidence of the Flood. She has adopted the views of those creationists who insist that there were no mountains before the Flood to minimise the amount of water required - however they have no plausible explanations for mountain formation, thus the very existence of mountains is evidence against their views.
Faith's attitude appears to be that her assertions should be unquestionaly accepted and that it is inherently wrong to question her - let alone show her claims to be false. If so then she should start her own forum where she can enforce such a rule - rather than attempt to participate here where such an attitude is against the rules.o

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 10:09 AM Faith has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1072 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 232 of 304 (292999)
03-07-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
03-07-2006 1:25 PM


Faith writes:
I didn't read your post 190 and I have no intention of doing so. Your attitude is not something I have any interest in dealing with. Go play with your rocks.
Guess what Faith? My attitude is a direct result of how you treat EVERYONE on this board with the exception of those who agree with you.
If you want people to treat you with respect, then you need to do the same. You have insulted me continuously since you first started posting. You just happen to be more subtle about it. I don't have time to waste any subtleness on you.
Again, how nice of Father Time to arrange it so that nothing spills over from one side of these lines to the other, and for keeping it SO neat, those lines despite a humongous extinction event that surely must have disturbed the surface far beyond what is actually observed, or other "significant" changes that somehow weren't "significant" enough to affect its remarkably neat presentation.
You keep proving how much you don't know about geology or that you don't bother to read and understand the replies.
I and others have pointed out to you numerous times that the geologic record in not neat and precise so that nothing spills over. Lithologic contacts are occasionally sharp, but often gradational. Limestone grades into calcareous sandstone which grades into sandstone. The fossils do the same thing.
Due to the nature of geologic processes, not everything happens at the same time. With rising sea levels, land closest to the sea and lowest in elevation will be flooded first, organisms move there first. As the waters rise over centuries, millenia, or millions of years, the fossils change overtime.
So that 100 miles inland from where the land was first flooded and 10,000 years later, the sediments are the same, just older and stratigraphically higher than the early phase of trangression. Fossils have continued to exist in the newly flooded environment but their appearance has changed over time. These transgressive (moving landward) depositional settings are called time-transgressive (diachronous) because while they are the same continuous unit, they are different ages in different areas (Colorado vs. New Mexico).
The fact that sea levels have risen and fallen many, many times tells us there are abundant unconformities in the geologic record. So just because the layers look nice and neat in a book or in pictures on the computer, does not mean they are nice and neat to someone with a trained eye who actually looks at rocks.
I have no idea what you mean by "changes in lithology" but the idea that there could have been such sudden total changes from one totally specific kind of sediment containing a specific fossil content to a totally different kind in teeny weeny increments over millions of years takes more imagination than I have. AND keep those neat demarcation lines too. It is YOU who are not thinking.
Changes in lithology means changes in rock types. And you are arguing from incredulity. Can you not see how illogical that is?
Pay attention. All I said was that the APPARENT ORDERING of the fossils is a problem, but the enormous abundance of fossils is great evidence for a worldwide flood.
Apparent??? lol There is nothing apparent about how the fossils are ordered, Faith. You can go look for yourself. You're just equivocating now because you realize your position is tenuous.
And I don't think there's any point in addressing any further posts to me.
I will continue to reply to your insanely and utterly illogical posts as long as you keep posting in this forum. Hopefully others will benefit from your inability to present a cohesive and scientific case for the Flood.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-07-2006 02:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 1:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 2:57 PM roxrkool has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1072 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 233 of 304 (293018)
03-07-2006 2:56 PM


depositional environments videos
Educational videos showing how changing sea levels affect sedimentation:
Clastic depositional system movie
LINK explaining what is happening in the clastic depositional movie (above).
.
.
.
Carbonate and clastic depositional system movie
LINK explaining what is happening in the carbonate + clastic depositional movie (above).

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 234 of 304 (293019)
03-07-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by roxrkool
03-07-2006 1:59 PM


You are a rude ignorant lout of a woman. Go play with your rocks.
Picking on the word "apparent." What an idiot you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by roxrkool, posted 03-07-2006 1:59 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by AdminNosy, posted 03-07-2006 3:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 239 by nator, posted 03-07-2006 3:30 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 240 by roxrkool, posted 03-07-2006 4:16 PM Faith has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 235 of 304 (293022)
03-07-2006 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
03-07-2006 2:57 PM


You are a suspended woman.
Back in a few hours perhaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 2:57 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Mallon, posted 03-07-2006 3:10 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Mallon
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 304 (293024)
03-07-2006 3:10 PM


Ugh!
Any chance we can have Faith banned from these science forums again? If not for the reason that she is obviously uninterested in science, then because as a Christian, I find her ad hoc attacks on just about everyone highly insulting and disrespective of the faith. I don't want hers being the single loudest 'Christian' voice in these threads.
Or we can just keep things going the way they are...

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by nator, posted 03-07-2006 3:26 PM Mallon has not replied

Mallon
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 304 (293025)
03-07-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by AdminNosy
03-07-2006 3:06 PM


Re: You are a suspended woman.
Hey! My prayer was just answered! There's your strongest evidence for God right there, folks.
This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-07-2006 03:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by AdminNosy, posted 03-07-2006 3:06 PM AdminNosy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2253 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 238 of 304 (293030)
03-07-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Mallon
03-07-2006 3:10 PM


Re: Ugh!
quote:
Any chance we can have Faith banned from these science forums again? If not for the reason that she is obviously uninterested in science, then because as a Christian, I find her ad hoc attacks on just about everyone highly insulting and disrespective of the faith. I don't want hers being the single loudest 'Christian' voice in these threads.
Or we can just keep things going the way they are...
I'm with jar.
If you are a Chraitian and you object to the way Faith acts in the science fora, then speak up in the science fora and oppose her, as a Christian!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Mallon, posted 03-07-2006 3:10 PM Mallon has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2253 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 239 of 304 (293031)
03-07-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
03-07-2006 2:57 PM


Faith were you trying to be a hypocrite?
Your assesment of rox:
quote:
You are a rude ignorant lout of a woman.
...which is, in and of itself, rude.
quote:
Go play with your rocks.
...also a rude attempt to belittle rox, and...
quote:
Picking on the word "apparent." What an idiot you are.
An out and out insult.
Yet another lovely example of Christian charity and love as demonstrated by Faith.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 03-07-2006 03:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 2:57 PM Faith has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 1072 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 240 of 304 (293055)
03-07-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Faith
03-07-2006 2:57 PM


You are a rude ignorant lout of a woman. Go play with your rocks.
Picking on the word "apparent." What an idiot you are.
I'll take that as a compliment coming from you, Faith.
However, if I misunderstood your use of the word 'apparent,' then I apologize. I took it to mean 'illusory,' and it's possible you did not intend to impart that meaning.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-07-2006 04:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 03-07-2006 2:57 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