Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Avery · 04-27-2007, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

Only you can determine the "manner and time" of your participation. However, the rest of us have the right to draw conclusions about your "rules" and timing.

Fine by me.
'Conclude' and conjecture away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

As to vulgarity, if you can't stand the heat ... . This is not an intellectual daycare center.

Just to be clear, I have a general rule that I will not dialog with those using obscenity in the discussion. (And you have not been a problem to that degree, in fact it has not been a major problem in IIDB in the discussions that I have participated.) The vulgarity issue I bring up publicly, privately or to moderators when I feel it is appropriate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

Questioning my sincerity is a pretty crude way of ducking the question.

I've given a couple of the reasons for questioning your sincerity. However posts 71 & 84 cover the timing of response to your question, not the sincerity concern.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin · 04-27-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

You might take the time to actually read posts 71 & 84 before posting.
Only takes a minute to find, it's not such a long thread.

Then, why posting the same questions a couple of times each
day is consequent (rather than simply posturing) becomes the
real question.

A couple of weeks is up.

Your response time has nothing to do with the time you have available to post on ii, as you post on numerous threads. If you have enough time to post on all those threads, why don't you have enough time to look at the verses which help construct a date for the flood and report back? Why the refusal to answer a relatively straightforward question that should take you a couple of minutes to check? What more do you need?

spin

Dave Reed · 04-27-2007, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

1) What is your date for the Flood (i.e. the one that you accept for purposes of arguement)?

2) If it's approximate (and there's no reason why it shouldn't be), what are the outside limits?

RED DAVE

Red, only you know your exact motive for
bringing up the original question. So let's
say that Steven comes up with a flood date,
or range. I'm assuming at this point you
would simply dismiss his view, with the
many scientific reasons, and the thread
would become as (I'm assuming), other flood
debates. If on the other hand you are not
firmly established in the flood controversy,
and you are open minded, then forgive my
assumption. As I've mentioned before, I,
myself cannot see any world wide flood
happening after 4 or 5 thousand BC. The
sheer logistics of water 6 miles in depth
is hard to explain rationally. Personally,
I think the biggest single problem in this
whole scennario is the idea that you can
give exact dates of things from studying the
first couple chapters of Genesis. The book
itself demonstrates that you CAN'T calculate
the passage of time at that point. Another
verse which also comes into play comes from

2PET 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of
this one thing, that one day is with the
Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day.

If we take this verse literally, you can see
the ramifications. If you just want to debate
the flood, why don't you offer the challenge?

spin · 04-27-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Another
verse which also comes into play comes from

2PET 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of
this one thing, that one day is with the
Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day.

If we take this verse literally, you can see
the ramifications. If you just want to debate
the flood, why don't you offer the challenge?

This is the bum-flap in the breeches. :banghead:

spin

Paul2 · 04-27-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Red, only you know your exact motive for
bringing up the original question. So let's
say that Steven comes up with a flood date,
or range. I'm assuming at this point you
would simply dismiss his view, with the
many scientific reasons, and the thread
would become as (I'm assuming), other flood
debates. If on the other hand you are not
firmly established in the flood controversy,
and you are open minded, then forgive my
assumption. ...

It's a trick question, because no matter what date he gives, as long as it's more recent as 10,000 years ago, it will be proven untrue, as we have unbroken records from both egypt and china, neither of which mention any such events. Praxeus is wrong no matter what answer he gives, as if he thinks the flood happened earlier than 10k years ago, then he can't "prove it biblically" nor can he prove it scientifically.

unless of course, he learns a few things and sees his error.

RED DAVE · 04-28-2007, 12:09 PM

So, still waiting praxeus.

Quote:

1) What is your date for the Flood (i.e. the one that you accept for purposes of argument)?

2) If it's approximate (and there's no reason why it shouldn't be), what are the outside limits?

RED DAVE

RED DAVE · 04-30-2007, 11:59 AM

Still waiting praxeus. You're hanging out in the thread about archeology and the Exodus and several other threads, but nothing here.

Oh, well.

Quote:

1) What is your date for the Flood (i.e. the one that you accept for purposes of argument)?

2) If it's approximate (and there's no reason why it shouldn't be), what are the outside limits?

RED DAVE

Hex · 04-30-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

..."Tectonics apologetics"? Never heard of this before. Plate tectonics is a fact of nature, confirmed by direct observation and measurement (it's an ongoing process), it doesn't require "apologetics" of any sort. And it was deduced primarily from matching the shapes of the continents (and, in more detail, the rock strata on opposite sides of oceans and so forth).

..."Secular chronologies"?

Yes, there are indeed cave paintings that are tens of thousands of years old. But what has this got to do with evolution?

I believe the term you're groping for here is non-crackpot. You need to research non-crackpot geology, non-crackpot chronologies, and non-crackpot dating mechanisms. You don't need to dress this up in bizarre alternative terminology such as "tectonics apologetics", "secular chronologies" or "evolutionism". I'm reminded of the habit among naturists (nudists) of referring to the other 99.99% of the population as "textiles": minority groups seem to enjoy slapping a label on everyone else (but creationists take it further than most: I've never heard of "textile apologetics", or any sort of "textile science" that doesn't relate directly to fabrics).

But information on mainstream science, history etc is readily available: so what's the delay?

Actually, I'm amazed at the lengths that some people will take a misunderstanding or denial of plate tectonics to in order to further their theories. On a Archaeological E-list I'm on, there's a fellow who denies plate tectonics, yet has wonderful explainations of earthquakes as being electrical in nature.

By having an alternate method for geologic processes to function, one in essence undermines Lyell's uniformitarianism, and thus dating the earth to be billions of years old. Young Earth creation fans seem to like this sort of stuff ...

BTW, praxeus, if you won't do it for Red Dave, do it for me. Pony up the info so I can see more fun stuff on the board ... :Cheeky:

Hex · 04-30-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hi Jack,

Are you saying that it is a simple "fact" that plate tectonics accounts
for moving masses of marine-fossil rocks in neat layered beds up 3-4-5
miles from some earlier conjectured layered fossil beds? Please share
with us the components that make this a "fact" rather than a theory.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Can you point me to such a geologic formation? And, can you clarify the "3-4-5 miles"? Is that in stratigraphic depth, or in horizontal space?

Hex · 04-30-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Again.

Please share with us the components that make this a
"fact" rather than a theory.

e.g. how much movement upward has actually been observed? And what the indications and evidences that such movement would retain layered beds of fossils. And why such beds would predominate with marine fossils.

And, perhaps most importantly, an analysis of the physical forces involved in pushing up millions of tons of earth miles.

And a bit more.

What is the best model for when continents 'collide' ?
Can continents dance and move like bumper cars and
collide this way and that ?

And -

What continental collisions are predicted for the future ?

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Example the first: The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is an interface between two plates. You want to see how much upward movement you can get? Formation of the Himalayas good enough? Check here.

Example the second: Pangea splitting. Neat animation here.

Example the third: Nice projection of Pangea Ultima here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.