[quote]pushharder wrote:
Now here is where I can “appeal to authority” legitimately. Read Dr. Henry Morris’ works.[/quote]
Too bad Morris didn’t live a little longer. Maybe he could have answered every question posed here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Hi thread, I’m back. :)[/quote]
Hi sexy pally.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Isaiah 40:22 (King James Version)
22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
“The Bible teaches a flat earth!!!” squawking is so, so lame and so tiresome. It’s not true.[/quote]
Yes, circle of the Earth. Not sphere of the Earth. There is a nice flat circle in the image I provided, and it’s exactly what the Bible teaches. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
Of course, once the evidence is insurmoutable and easily understood by anyone, creationists will change their story and reverse all their claims.
Flood geology is ridiculous and, well, simply doesn’t hold water in face of all the available evidence. It gets accepted by gullible and uneducated people because the real science, the alternative that actually works and explains the world, is much more vast, and takes more work to understand.
By the way, what breakthrough has flood geology permitted? Other than expending a lot of hot air to fit square pegs in round holes, what applicable knowledge has it given us that has improved the human condition?
[quote]Because someone makes something his life works, it means it’s valid?
You have no fuckin clue if his works are valid or not. You’re not well versed enough in this subject to make a judgment.[/quote]
I don’t need a clue. I know it’s invalid because millions of scientific experts have rejected his conclusions. The only support he has, is from apologists, theologians and other creation scientists, which as a group wouldn’t amount to 1% of the scientific opposition.
Because his “science” is a joke. He works backwards from the conclusion he wishes to support, distoring facts to make them fit; inventing events and phenomena for which their is no evidence or even no possibility and ignoring or demonizing contradictory evidence that can’t be made to fit.
Read his wikipedia profile, you’ll get the idea.
Do you also hold his racists ideas in high esteem?
Morris wrote that the descendants of Ham “possibly” include “all of the earth’s ‘colored’ races”. Morris wrote that they have been “[p]ossessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters” compared to the “Japhethites” who have a comparatively “intellectual and philosophical acumen”.
I’m sure the irony of speaking of “intellectual acumen” while promoting “flood geology” was completely lost on Morris.
Considered jokes by creationists? I bet they’d take that as a compliment. It’s when creationists agree with you that you know you’re in deep shit.
Well, enjoy your flushable snow-globe Earth.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…just finished watching the BBC documentary on ‘Ida’, the 47 million old primate fossil, and conclusive evidence has been found, namely the “thalus” foot bone, that ties this fossil to us, humans. The thalus bone is only found with primates and humans, and because ‘Ida’ has this thalus bone she forms the missing link between the earliest mammals and modern primates. To give you an idea of the timescale; ‘Lucy’ is 8,5 million years old…[/quote]
Oh wow, iPlayer here I come!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Well, you WERE gettin’ all snooty with that high and mighty, high pitched nasally British voice. I’ve heard it before on Monty Python. I know exactly what it sounds like. Sheeesh. I could hear it all the way across the Pond.[/quote]
Actually the Monty Python chaps had English accents of the estuary English/cockney/unmarked or marked RP varieties.
I’ve learned something from you though push; I’m really glad that I had a father that encouraged independent thought and discovery. By the way, he’s an engineer and if there were creationist equivalents in his line of work their value would be very quickly discovered; the satellite dishes wouldn’t work. The towers would fall down.
Haha Pookie, got no answer to your kangaroo question yet, have you?
I haven’t got an answer to my dinosaurs questions either.
To be honest I just sort of glanced over the whole flood geology lesson, but I’d like to ask, does it assume that carbon dating is wrong?
[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
To be honest I just sort of glanced over the whole flood geology lesson, but I’d like to ask, does it assume that carbon dating is wrong? [/quote]
I haven’t checked, but I’m sure that some eminent Flood Geologist has probably invented - er… I mean conclusively demonstrated with reams of evidence, such as one or two Biblical verse - that the super spin cycle the flood put the Earth through did something to the carbon, so that dating is only valid for up to 6,000-10,000 years.
The same excuse - er, sorry “research” - will also be applied to all the other scientific dating methods.
Flood Geologists: This century’s Flat-Earthers.
A guy, John Woodmoron… Woodmorappe, sorry, wrote a book on the feasibility of the Ark.
There’s a review of the book here: Review of John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study"
And Woodmorappe’s response to the review here: Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of God
It’s interesting to compare the tone, attitude and approach of each individual. Of course, being an asshole doesn’t mean you’re wrong - I should know - but I really liked this part: But even then, politeness is no virtue when one is making irresponsible arguments. Remember, this is not a round-table debate on whether vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream are tastier. Morton is attacking the very Word of God.
Yup, every pretense at “science” or looking for truth went out the window for a moment there. Woodmorappe’s true preoccupation is showing how True the Word of God is, because God says so in his Bible (which confirms He is God and speaks Truth, since he says so in his Bible…)
Less amusing is that these people can vote.
[quote]flushharder wrote:
Do you assume it is always right? With no time limit as to its inerrancy?[/quote]
Ah fear not! Flat-footed Flushharder has surfaced to severely school us in matters of Floodily Science!
Anyone who thinks the ark was feasible clearly has absolutely no clear knowledge of the planet whatsoever and should just be laughed out of any academic pretences they possess. Even as a child I was baffled by the thought that Noah could fit 8 million species of Beetle on to the ark (yeah I was always a biology nerd). Or even successfully fill the ark with all the big animals.
It’s wrongheaded thinking to a significant degree.
Anyone who thinks the ark was feasible clearly has absolutely no clear knowledge of the planet whatsoever and should just be laughed out of any academic pretences they possess. Even as a child I was baffled by the thought that Noah could fit 8 million species of Beetle on to the ark (yeah I was always a biology nerd). Or even successfully fill the ark with all the big animals.
It’s wrongheaded thinking to a significant degree.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
One interesting article on dating fossils.[/quote]
Hey, look, a non-loony one: Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia
But check the part titled “Controversy”.
Oops, there isn’t one. Darn, I was sure there was one. It must’ve rolled off the edge of the Earth of something.