Comparitive delusions

quote:

---

I still shy away from "difficult" texts, but I read more than the average...(I think!)

---

That is fine but I don't think you would (or I would for that matter) classify you as a fundamentalist. In fact, in your response to boolean you indicate that you are not a fundie and feel better in your faith because of it. So what I wrote about fundamentalists would not apply to you since you clearly are able to think for yourself not to mention have an interest in the topics you debate.

Faith,Sorry for the slow reply, I was ignoring the web for the weekend in order to spend time with my son before he left for Iraq this morning. I view this "reason" as a conclusion or judgement of their scenarios. It is a reason but it raises a follow-on question that you have been asked before.1. What evidence leads you to conclude that these scenarios are "imaginative speculation" (which, from your past posting, seems to be a derogatory modifier) and your interpretation of scripture is not? I am assuming you do not have a degree in Electrical Engineering yet you accept that I am capable of providing you with accurate information from the satellites that are tracked with the Antenna system I helped design.You don't have a medical degree yet you accept the conclusions of your doctor (or at least several doctors after second opinions) concerning the treatment you must undergo.You don't have any training in architecture, construction, or the Building Safety codes, yet you live under your roof, turn on your lights, and sleep at night without questioning the conclusions of the people who put your house together.You drive a car....You ride a train....You drink the water....What makes you think the people involved in these fields are more reliable than geologists?

How on earth can you all go on comparing the testable verifiable falsifiable useful products of science in the present to the purely invented fantasies of the OE and ToE about the distant past which cannot be tested and have no practical repercussions on the present whatever? I've made the distinction numerous times though it goes unnoticed.P.S. You DON'T need to know the age of anything to find oil, all you need is to be able to predict where certain kinds of rock formations may be found.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-27-2006 09:28 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-27-2006 09:28 AM

How on earth can you call the these scientists' conclusions "purely invented fantasies" and then in the same breath say you are not calling them deceitful or stupid? Seems rather disingenuous to me.How on earth can you call these scientists' conclusions "purely invented fantasies" and provide not one blasted piece of evidence to support your bare assertion. In fact, when confronted about your judgement, you say "I didn't say that!"I thought that Christians were not supposed to lie.

And you have never provided any support for your continued assertion that things in the past cannot be tested or that there are any purely invented fantasies of the OE and ToE about the distant past.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What sort of evidence could possibly be provided other than what has already been said? You keep bleating about this lack of support, but the support is OBVIOUS in the comparison itself. Good grief.

OBVIOUS???? In what way?If you are saying that conclusions are presented as if they were fact, given the examples you showed, then I agree that this is a reasonable point of view.But that was not what I was questioning you on.I questioned you on your characterization of those conclusions as "purely invented fantasies". You said it...I asked you to support your judgement. You have yet to do so.

Faith, I have challenged the consistency of your position as to not being able to determine anything in the past whilst at the same time stating that you have experimental evidence of something that happened in the past.I have described, & repeatedly drawn your attention to this in post 88, post 94, post 116, post 168, post 168 & post 180.As Mammuthus said, you would check what an extinct sloth had for breakfast in exactly the same way you could check what Mammuthus had. It would take too long to compile a list in this thread of posts that actually deal specifically with the "distinction" that you laughably claim has gone unnoticed.What is wrong with you?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-27-2006 12:21 PM

---

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

Yes you can find out what an extinct sloth had for breakfast. There is no problem with that sort of thing.I'm talking about the grand scenarios of the ToE and OE, the "depositional environments" and their supposed inhabitants and those inhabitants' supposed ancestry, not this kind of stuff. You guys keep changing the subject. What you cannot prove is that that sloth lived some particular number of years ago, or that that sloth supposedly descended from some other kind of creature, or that it lived among only certain kinds of animals and not others (all conjectures based on the fossil record) -- but these kinds of scenarios are nevertheless described as fact.

Faith, So you can infer the past from data, then? Yes, we can. We don't have to block inferences from data because they contradict our favourite fairy tale.Mark

---

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

You have the evidence of the sloth's breakfast. All you have is inferences and interpretations for the Grand Stories of the ToE and OE, based on the fossil record and the geologic column and that's it. It's ALL interpretation of very vague clues.

Faith, No you don't, all you have is a pile of something you think is poop. That it came from a sloth & was it's first meal of the day is mere conjecture. A Grand Story, interpretation of a very vague class."There is no way to PROVE anything at all that is in the past, EXCEPT BY witness evidence."MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-28-2006 03:28 AM

---

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

I believe you missed my last post. I will repeat the majority of it here.If you are saying that conclusions are presented as if they were fact, given the examples you showed, then I agree that this is a reasonable point of view.But that was not what I was questioning you on.I questioned you on your characterization of those conclusions as "purely invented fantasies". You said it...I asked you to support your judgement. You have yet to do so.Maybe you did not respond because I did not ask a direct question. How about:What evidence do you have to support your characterization of Mainstream Geologists' conclusions as "purely invented fantasies"?

You have no problem with 'that sort of thing'? Would 'that sort of thing' be using evidence we find today to get an accurate depiction of the past when there was NO witness (something you say is the only reliable source)? How can you not have a problem with 'that sort of thing' when you've been saying it's completely fabricated guess work for this entirety of this thread?I think all this stems from the fact that you write off how we date fossils simply because you are not aware of the process. It's the same reason people who think the moon landing was a hoax are the VERY same people who know the LEAST out of everyone how the moon and space actually works, even though they think they are experts. It's no coincidence.As others have suggested many times, read up on how fossils are dated. If you have, then point out which areas in particular you have a problem with, rather than just saying 'BAH! It's guess work cause I said so!'. Suggested link[edit - added link]This message has been edited by boolean, 03-27-2006 07:47 PM

I think you guys are probably wasting your time. Any science that doesn't contradict the Bible is by definition fact in Faith's warped intellectual world; anything that supports evolution must, by definition, be nothing more than conjecture or speculation no matter how much evidence you can put forth. This is how it must be, to her - any fact that contradicts the Bible must simply not exist, to her.