|
Post by fan101 on Mar 22, 2007 17:52:17 GMT -5
wheres the thread? anybody know??? I dont particulary mind a fresh start though just thought that it was strange to see it missing.
I have a proposition for you Carnage. I do (believe it or not) want to read and respond to your arguments and have my points heard and understood. So I thought this option would appeal to both of us, How about this...
One of us presents a single point /argument that we feel supports our position(God exists or doesnt exist). The other will respond w/ a rebuttal, criticism, basically any type of acknowledgment of the others point. The next paragraph would be an original point/argument that we believe supports our view about God's existence. It would go like this:
1st post: one argument supporting a position
2nd post: paragraph 1-response to others argument, paragraph 2-present our own original argument
3rd post: paragraph 1-response/rebuttal, paragraph 2-orignal argument, paragraph 3-response to criticism of previous argument
then the cycle could repeat, sorry for the repitition but I wanted to make this as clear as possible, I thought since we were both frustrated and wanted more structure this could be a win-win situation, so what do you say?
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Mar 22, 2007 20:16:59 GMT -5
wheres the thread? anybody know??? I dont particulary mind a fresh start though just thought that it was strange to see it missing. It was probably deleted by one of the mods (likely Tony, since he logged in yesterday). Why was it deleted? Who knows. Threads get oddly deleted around here, often when someone brings up a point or something that someone else doesn't like. There's not usually any rhyme or reason to it. Hell, you may be banned for "re-starting" the thread, or I may be banned for this post. Wait, wait, wait... I was frustrated? When did this happen?
|
|
|
Post by cjc on Mar 22, 2007 20:26:51 GMT -5
censorship? gotta love that. WTF!!!!
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on Mar 22, 2007 21:46:44 GMT -5
I meant that you were frustrated because you felt that I was twisting your arguments/ignoring your points. Maybe indignant is a word you would prefer, but I dont think it really matters. My point is that a little change in structure might be helpful. What do you think about my proposition?
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on Mar 22, 2007 21:48:11 GMT -5
hmmm...maybe i should have resurrected it with a different name cuz that would suck to get shut down in the middle of something...oh well
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Mar 31, 2007 20:15:16 GMT -5
Since you seem so intent on starting an argument, I'll bait you a little bit. Baiting bears is fun and dangerous!
1) Many, many types of evidence from a myriad of fields supports a universe older than the bible predicts. Such evidence includes radiometric dating, molecular methods, red-shift analysis, and residual background radiation analysis.
2) There is zero evidence for a worldwide flood as described in the book of genesis. If this story is a metaphor (which some/most christians now claim), then what prevents the rest of the bible from being the same thing?
3) The overwhelming evidence in support of evolution. Need I say more?
4) The "infinite or nearly so" universe theory, which is generally accepted among scholars, predicts the rise of humanity on an earth at some point in time. Thus no "miraculous event" or "creator" is required.
5) Dinosaurs.
6) The Night of the Lepus.
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on Apr 2, 2007 16:24:55 GMT -5
since you so emphatically insist that I ignore your points I asked you to limit your post to one primary argument so I could respond to what you wrote
also, I want you to show me why your arguments prove that God doesnt exist or Christianity is a lie(i.e. even IF evolution did occur turning molecules into man how does this prove that there is no God?)
I honestly want to have a str8 forward, fair debate, I think the format I proposed is a reasonable way to accomplish this, simply throwing out multiple claims is detrimental to parsimony and both of us are going to get some of our points ignored
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Apr 2, 2007 19:49:55 GMT -5
You ignore my points anyway, so what does it matter? Furthermore, you haven't said or done anything on here to make me even remotely question my position. You've only increased my pity of the hopelessly lost religious folk.
The existence or non-existence of a god/higher being does have no affect on reality. I and everyone else in the world comes and goes and does their thing because we choose to do so. Your statement of "Myself and billions of others say that God has an enormous effect on reality" just supports my point. You made your choice of beliefs without having evidence of the existence of a god; hence, the actual existence of said god is irrelevant to your life. You believe he exists; so for you, he does. This whole concept is a little deep; I hope I've explained it enough.
The purpose of my "either all or none" statement was that each religion claims to be the only way, yet none of them can actually prove this. They all have their own little "proofs" in the way of experiences, miracles, and other subjective things. Hence, each one is just as real as any of the others. So, it follows that either they're all right or they're all wrong.
The things I pointed out either call into question the validity of your holy book (the only thing that actually "gives evidence" [as shoddy as it may be] to your religion) or call into question the necessity of god. Except for #6; that one should be self-explanatory.
I'm honestly just wondering if you've got the cojones to challenge any of the physical evidence contradicting your religion. So far, most of the endless debates have been in the theoretical area - the only area where religion has at least some kind of slim hope.
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on Apr 3, 2007 10:53:57 GMT -5
im surprised you do not want to adhere to the structure I presented because you were so adamant that I was systematically ignoring/twisting your points
I will respond to physical evidence that you believe contradicts the Bible, but history and experience are also physical evidence bcuz they happen in the real world to real people so I dont accept limiting this conversation to scientific terms bcuz modern science begs the question of a higher power, it starts with the assumption that there is no God and then explains the world from that assumption so even if God's thumbprints were found everywhere it still wouldnt acknowledge a designer
Finally Im not going to debate unless you structure your arguments, Im not going to waste my time responding to 7 claims in each post, also if you think my position is so pathetic you should want me to present arguments so I will illustrate the inferiority of my beliefs, so if you would pick one argument that you feel contradicts the Bible or proves that God doesnt exist I will gladly respond to your physical "evidence"
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Apr 10, 2007 17:14:49 GMT -5
So are you saying you just don't have the balls to pick one of those five and refute it?
And I would love to see how experience is physical evidence. Saying you "feel god's presence" is not even close to even approaching physical evidence.
Modern science does not beg the question of a higher power. That's just something christians tell themselves to help them sleep easier at night.
God's thumbprints are not "found everywhere", so don't even start with that nonsense. I suppose you also believe that the banana is the atheist's worst nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on Apr 11, 2007 11:18:33 GMT -5
ok Ill pick one of the five and respond when I get some time, but you better not say Im ignoring your other points, the whole you ignored/twisted my points bickering is what Im trying to avoid
|
|
|
Post by badopera on Apr 11, 2007 19:20:54 GMT -5
Refuting Night of the Lepus might be tough. I would pick something else.
|
|
|
Post by contentwithlosing on Apr 12, 2007 3:23:15 GMT -5
Refuting Night of the Lepus might be tough. I would pick something else. Yeah. :/
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Apr 13, 2007 19:04:41 GMT -5
Refuting Night of the Lepus might be tough. I would pick something else. Yeah, that's why I put it on there. That and the fact that it happened to be sitting next to my computer when I typed that post.
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on Apr 14, 2007 17:40:11 GMT -5
I pick #2!!!!
Carnage wrote "There is zero evidence for a worldwide flood as described in the book of genesis. If this story is a metaphor (which some/most christians now claim), then what prevents the rest of the bible from being the same thing?"
It is important to start out this debate with the point that events in the past are inacessible to the scientific method and cannot be empirically proven. Neither uniformitarianism(layers put down at similar rates over billions of years) or catastrophism(an event like the Flood falls in this category) can be proven scientifically. So it is unfair to try to make someone prove either one because it simply cannot be done.
That being said there is plenty of evidence for thinking a worldwide Flood did happen, here it is:
All mountains have been underwater at one point in time. This is indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils found near the summits of mountains. The Flood explains this phenomena excellently because it claims that all the mountains of the earth were underwater which would explain the sedimentary rocks and marine fossils. Do you have a better explanation for these facts?
Most of the earth's crust is made of sedimentary beds(sandstone,limestone, shales, etc.). These rocks are originally formed underwater in virtually all cases. So at one time much more of the earth was covered with water otherwise these beds couldnt have formed the way they have. The flood in Genesis says that all the earth was covered with water making all these sedimentary beds possible.
various geologic structures such as fold, faults, thrusts, and gross deformation of sedimentary rocks(which must have occured when these layers were soft) are found in rock layers indiscriminately to the "ages" they represent. That means that the same deformation appears in rock layers that supposedly represent millions of years of gradual layering. This is impossible because for many of these geologic structures the rocks have to be soft(newly deposited) to be deformed in the way that they are. These structures occuring across ages is infinitely better explained by the flood model(which states that rock layers were deposited rapidly through catastrophe) because these layers would be softer/newer and could be twisted/folded into the structures we see today. The rapid layering necessary to explain these facts is explicit in the flood model and contradictory to the uniformitarian/evolutionary model.
The prevalence of fossils in sedimentary rocks that comprise most of the earths crust also provides good reason to subscribe to the flood model. As you know, fossils require rapid burial/compaction to be preserved at all. Sedimentary rocks are typically formed slowly through erosion/depostion and would not have many (any?) fossils in them. The amount of fossils speaks to a rapid burial/compaction of organisms as described by the flood but not uniformitarianism.
Hundreds of tribes/nation have traditions/beliefs in a cataclysmic event in their history which correlates with the flood described in Genesis. The conflation of all these various accounts are best described by a real, cataclysmic flood instead of a freak coincidence.
In closing I want to remind anyone reading this that neither the flood/ or absence thereof can be proven in the strictest scientific sense because the scientific method cannot be applied to past events. However, all these facts that point to a worldwide flood as actual are far cry from the "zero evidence" Carnage claims there is for a flood.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Apr 17, 2007 19:36:09 GMT -5
Well, Fan101, you sure made it easy on me.
First, your initial point is based on personal opinion. You also grossly misstate uniformitarianism in that "billions of years" are not required. It is known that lakes deposit cyclical layers of sediment, at approximately the same rate every year. Modern ecologists can study these layers and determine the climate of the recent past. They know this because they've honed their skills comparing lake deposits with years with "official" climatological data. Furthermore, there is no evidence saying that, for some reason, things like lakes suddenly changed the way they deposit their layers. The common religious denial of uniformitarianism is based on ignorance of earth history.
If the flood existed as you said, then the sheer mass of the additional water required to cover the highest mountains would have torn apart the earth. This isn't considering the added stress on the planet due to the gravitational pulls of the sun and the moon.
The mountains themselves didn't necessarily have to be underwater. The rocks that make up the mountains, however, were. Mountains are uplifted by tectonics or volcanics, both of which are caused by interactions between the earth's plates. This is also why we have earthquakes. IF the mountains were covered by water (as Fan101 states), one would expect to find the same degree of erosion on them. However, this is not what one finds, as the Appalachian Mountains are much more heavily eroded than the Rockies (because the App. are much older). Additionally, I'm curious as to how layers of sediment could be deposited on an angle on a mountain. Gravity would tend to pull such soft sediments down. And how exactly did the corals and such have time to grow?
it is true that much of the outer crust is sedimentary. If all said rocks formed during the flood, one would expect them to all be similar in composition, structure, and makeup, since they were all formed by one cataclysmic event. However, this is not what one finds. One finds that sedimentary rocks run a gamut of compositions (both sedimentologically and mineralogically), formed under a wide variety of conditions, including storms, tides, and rivers. If there were a worldwide flood, such deposits would not exist.
Regarding folding, faulting, etc, these can all be formed by tectonics. Sedimentary rocks are "soft", meaning that constant pressure over time can in fact bend them. Which is what happened in your example of structures that persist over many formations. Visit a fault zone, and you can see bending of rocks in action.
Fossils are actually one of the strongest evidences against a worldwide flood. In reality, only a small percentage of organisms are actually fossilized. In the scenario that Fan101 described, one would expect to find almost every living thing fossilized. But this is not the case. Additionally, the organization of the fossil record (simpler organisms near the bottom, more complex ones near the top) also speaks against a flood. A worldwide flood would have organisms of all complexities approximately equally mixed and buried more or less together. Related is the coal beds. A flood should deposit all organisms together, thus making a worldwide coal bed. But, again, this is not what we find. We find that coal exists on multiple layers, at multiple angles to the ground - not one continuous layer at all.
Cataclysmic events in mythologies can be attributed to localized floods, tsunamis, and/or tidal waves. Analysis of sediments have supported this in at least once case that I know of. Additionally, the Babylonian (I believe) flood mythology predates the christian mythology.
There is further evidence against a worldwide flood, including the lack of large drainage canyons (similar to the Grand Canyon) throughout the world, various radiocarbon dating of sediment layers, and the presence of extinction events in earth's history.
Each of your "facts pointing to a worldwide flood" are ignorant claims, which I've shown in my post. There are simply no facts that point to a worldwide flood, which is why I said many/most modern christians no longer subscribe to one.
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on Apr 23, 2007 12:28:12 GMT -5
sorry for my extensive absence, the end of the semester does not facilitate message board time
Carnage said"First, your initial point is based on personal opinion...Modern ecologists can study these layers and determine the climate of the recent past. They know this because they've honed their skills comparing lake deposits with years with "official" climatological data. Furthermore, there is no evidence saying that, for some reason, things like lakes suddenly changed the way they deposit their layers."
My assertion that past events cannot be proved via the scientific method is not opinion. Although some recent events might be able to be definitively proved there is no way to prove events thats precede historical and certainly climatological data. Take the hole in the ozone as an example. This affects all sorts of natural phenomenon like length of life, water cycles, nature of light rays, etc, etc. This is a relatively recent phenomena due to pollution. Therefore, the conditions in effect on our planet now are different from even 50 years ago. Extropolating current rates of aging/depostion is not definitive but merely hypothetical. If we dont have historical/climatological data for the alleged billions of years preceding our present age than how can we be sure of what happened in those years? Neither the flood or absence thereof can be proven. The natural facts do not naturally tell us definitively if this occured, and they do not tell that it didnt. Its a matter of interpretation of available facts and more geologists are turning to catastrophism as the best way to explain earth's natural history.
Carnage said "If the flood existed as you said, then the sheer mass of the additional water required to cover the highest mountains would have torn apart the earth. This isn't considering the added stress on the planet due to the gravitational pulls of the sun and the moon."
Really? if this amount of water never existed how do we know the earth couldnt support it? Also, in your next paragraph you said that the mountains with marine fossils and sedimentary layers were more at ground level and more able to be under water. So, which one is it? Tall or short mountains? If the mountains had not been uplifted through plate tectonics then the water necessary to cover them certainly wouldnt have rended apart the Earth. Even if they were at their current heights there is no way be could know if the amount of water would wreck the Earth.
Carnage said "The mountains themselves didn't necessarily have to be underwater. The rocks that make up the mountains, however, were"
I doubt that there was a point at which all mountains were more or less at or below sea level. They could have been uplifted in more recent years but there is no proof for this. They could have been covered by the Flood. For the sake of argument Ill grant that all the world mountains were at one time much shorter, even at sea level. As you said the rock that comprise them were underwater. So, whether elevated or not these rocks still must have been underwater to have sedimentary rocks and marine fossils. Many mountains occur in places nowhere near the ocean. For them to have the necessary fossils they must have been underwater. For all of them to be covered in water means that much more of the globe must have been underwater. This is starting to sound like a flood. How do you know that this doesnt point to a flood? To respond to your question about sediment deposition, gravity would tend to push sediments down but your forgetting these mountainous rock would have been under millions of tons of water. This certainly would have abrogated the traditional affect of gravity in some serious ways and probably would have made this sedimentation possible. And I never said anything about coral but since the flood probably lasted about a year Im sure some corals could have grown in that time period.
Carnage said "IF the mountains were covered by water (as Fan101 states), one would expect to find the same degree of erosion on them. However, this is not what one finds, as the Appalachian Mountains are much more heavily eroded than the Rockies (because the App. are much older). and "If all said rocks formed during the flood, one would expect them to all be similar in composition, structure, and makeup, since they were all formed by one cataclysmic event." and "In the scenario that Fan101 described, one would expect to find almost every living thing fossilized. But this is not the case. Additionally, the organization of the fossil record (simpler organisms near the bottom, more complex ones near the top) also speaks against a flood. A worldwide flood would have organisms of all complexities approximately equally mixed and buried more or less together. Related is the coal beds. A flood should deposit all organisms together, thus making a worldwide coal bed.
All these objections are caused by a huge oversimplification of catastrophism. Why would the same degree of erosion be seen all mountains because they were covered in water? What about the erosion before and after? Even during the flood, water pressure and other factors wouldnt have made erosion uniform on all structures. This objection is superficial at best. Another simplification is that if all the sedimentary rock formed in the flood then it would all be basically the same. First, I never said all sedimentary rock formed during the flood but rather that the prevalence of sedimentary rock points to more of the world being covered with water than it currently is. Also, distinct layers can form from a single event. The eruption of Mt. ST. Helens showed how different layers can be deposited in a matter of days. One event definitely does not mean a single layer of sedimentary rock. If the eruption of one volcano can deposit distinct layers that had it happened in the distant past scientists would have thought they were layed in millions of years not a couple days, how much more could a world wide catastrophic flood lay a multiplicity of layers. The initial deluge would have stirred up much sediment and then the rocks would settle over the months of draining in a diverse manner based on their weight, compostion etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.(etc.) As you are quick to mention the requirements for fossilization are stringent. Not every organism destroyed in the flood would be fossilized because the mud/water would not hit every creature the same way. Only those instantly buried and compacted could be preserved, clearly millions died in other manners. However, the prevalence of fossils in sedimentary rocks points to a Flood. These rock normally form slowly through erosion/depostion etc. which do not meet the needs for fossilization. So once again, saying that everything would be fossilized in a oversimplification. The layering of fossils from less complex to the most can also be explained by the flood. Simple organisms cannot move to evade flood water. They would be the most likely to be fossilized. Other animals could evade better and that is why they might appear higher in the fossil record. The fossilization patterns are better explained as reflecting particular habitats around the world not millions of years of evolutionary development.(wheres the trasitional fossils?) Once again, this is not proof but a viable explanation of the fossils based on a flood model. This is not proof by any means but evolutionary progression from molecules to man cannot be proved either. Concering coal beds, they would not be uniformly spread around the world. Coal comes from dead organisms and different parts of the world have different amounts of organims. If America was flooded would we have the same coal beds in the deserts as the forest? Obviously not and this difference would only be increased by the relative unpopulation of the world compared to the present day. In addition, Im sure coal beds have specific conditions for formation which would have not been met universally through a flood because each area is unique.
|
|
|
Post by theBrokenCarnage on Apr 26, 2007 23:17:01 GMT -5
I don't have much time to respond in-depth at the moment, but after briefly skimming over your responses, it is clear to me that you have a very basic/limited knowledge (I wouldn't call it an understanding) of geologic and hydrologic processes. This isn't an insult to you; it is simply a reflection of what the typical non-geologist knows (or thinks they know). Additionally, your comments seem to reflect those of the typical biblical apologist, which also unfortunately originate with an incomplete understanding of geology and hydrology.
|
|
|
Post by fan101 on Apr 30, 2007 15:07:01 GMT -5
I never claimed to have much knowledge of geology, but that does not mean my points are invalid. Many scientists w/ PhD's in the field hold to catastrophism/flood model. I provided these points to show that there are plenty of reasons for an intelligent and scientifically honest person to think that a flood occured in Earth's history.
|
|
|
Post by tragicmishap on May 1, 2007 23:42:03 GMT -5
I agree fan101. It just tickles me to death sometimes when I read science articles with blatant evidence for creation that is just glossed over like it isn't even there. They feel so safe in their worldview that they aren't even trying to hide it, which is both good and bad I guess. I literally see about one article a week like this. For instance: www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/07/71298This one was especially interesting to me because they found not one, but two common ancestor points for humanity. Creationists long ago identified two such points, Noah and Adam and Eve. Noah they put at about 4400 years ago, and Adam about 6000, which coincides rather conspicously with the dates given in this article. There was an op-ed piece by a journalist I like a lot, George Will, about the state of science in general which included this section: "Science offers no guarantees. Astronomy evicted us from our presumed place at the center of the universe many centuries before we learned that "center" is unintelligible in an expanding universe where space and time are warped. And before 19th-century biology further diminished our sense of grandeur by connecting us with undignified ancestors, 18-century geology indicated that seashells unearthed on mountain tops proved Earth has a longer, more turbulent and unfinished history than most creation stories suggest. The seismic events of Dec. 26, 2004 brought another geological challenge to the biblical notion of an intervening, caring God." LOL!!! "more turbulent...than most creation stories suggest." "seashells on mountaintops." Sorry, it just makes me giggle when I see stuff like that. I used to get angry, now I just laugh.
|
|