RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < ... 304 305 306 307 308 [309] 310 311 312 313 314 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,17:07   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 21 2008,11:26)
can't we come together and just agree that FTK is a comedy hysteric who to all practical intents and purposes is incapable of learning for some mythical reason?*

I think most of us understood this months or years ago.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,17:45   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 21 2008,17:07)
 
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 21 2008,11:26)
can't we come together and just agree that FTK is a comedy hysteric who to all practical intents and purposes is incapable of learning for some mythical reason?*

I think most of us understood this months or years ago.

This is all true, but part of me admires the Charlie Browns of this board who continue to make the effort to educate FTK/kick that football.  We all know she's going to pull it away again, but maybe next time she won't.*

*She will.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,17:50   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 21 2008,23:07)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 21 2008,11:26)
can't we come together and just agree that FTK is a comedy hysteric who to all practical intents and purposes is incapable of learning for some mythical reason?*

I think most of us understood this months or years ago.

{ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip}

^Sound of Bill Hicks reference zooming over people's heads.

;-)

I KNOW we all know this. I've never not known we all know this nor have I ever not known this. Oooh getting Rumsfeldian....

BUT! (and it is a key but) FTK is still a human being, and dammit that alone makes it not worth giving up some tiny scintilla of hope for her. Profoundly deep fundies have broken out from the depths of magical thinking, and to be honest, they chucked a hysterical hissy fit once in awhile in the process. I seem to remember this applies to many of the people (all though by no means all) posting on this board (well maybe not the hissy fit part!). I'm not willing to cut FTK any slack on her dishonesty and general bad faith drivelling, but I am willing to cut her a huge amount of slack on the making the occasional fuck up stakes.

Also, there is the small matter of her being incredibly funny. After all this flounce in, call all scientists liars, pretend that the past never happened, flirt with RTH (now absent), cry "Persecution!" a few times, accuse various people of a wide variety of utter bollocks, have a hissy fit, flounce out, rinse, repeat bullshit is a hoot. Who needs soap operas when you have FTK Drama Moron?

I know, I know, 99% of this makes me a bad person.

Louis

Editted because I can

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,17:52   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 21 2008,23:45)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 21 2008,17:07)
 
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 21 2008,11:26)
can't we come together and just agree that FTK is a comedy hysteric who to all practical intents and purposes is incapable of learning for some mythical reason?*

I think most of us understood this months or years ago.

This is all true, but part of me admires the Charlie Browns of this board who continue to make the effort to educate FTK/kick that football.  We all know she's going to pull it away again, but maybe next time she won't.*

*She will.

Ohhhh she will.

But one day, she might not.*

Louis

*Fucking unlikely.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,18:09   

Blipey and Bystander,

Forgive me, I'm going to go out on a limb and reiterate something I've just said. I have no idea of the stats or demographics on this, but aren't the majority of American atheists former believers? I'm not saying there is some conversion effort or what have you on anyone's part here, just that people who are now non-believers were in many cases (not all) once believers. Not that that is even important, but I thought I'd get it out the way.

I remember what it was like to be utterly clueless about science (steady, there are jokes available there!). I remember looking in a chemistry dictionary and seeing a carboxylic acid group represented as R-COOH and thinking to myself "Hey, that must be wrong" for a variety of stupid reasons based on my tiny knowledge of chemistry at that time. The FTKs of this world are basically scientifically illiterate, that doesn't excuse their shitty behaviour and general bad faith actions, but it goes some way to explaining them.

It's not quite like Charlie Brown, it's also not entirely unlike Charlie Brown, but I think Dan Savage said it best with respect to relationships and marriage: "Every relationship you're ever going to have will fail. Until one doesn't". It might sound daft but it's a trivial truism. Every attempt to deal with FTK as a rational human being will fail. Until one doesn't. I won't be betting huge money on it (in fact I'd bet against it), nor will I be holding my breath, but I also refuse to deny the possibility that it might happen. I'd be going against the demonstrable data from every scientific, rational and Enlightenment derived idea I have were I to do so. The possibility that I am wrong about FTK's woeful chances of understanding even basic science must exist.

So I reckon we should keep offering the FTKs of this world the chance to learn, even if we have a little fun mocking their excesses in the process.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,18:24   

Quote
As usual, wrong. Where do you get this carp?


Maybe she went fishing for it?

Henry

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,18:28   

I mostly agree with Louis. But my experiences are different. I've logged probably 2000 hours tutoring math to high school and college students. And the students fell into two categories:

1 didn't know but wanted to
2 didn't know and didn't care

The first was easy to teach, the second was hard to teach. But FtK falls into a lower category, "3: doesn't know and refuses to believe" and that's more or less impossible to teach. You're talking about somebody who believes in Walt Brown's nonsense years after being exposed to it. She might, one day, wake up and learn something, but the odds are slim to none, and slim just left town.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,18:31   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 22 2008,00:28)
I mostly agree with Louis.
[SNIP]

{Faints}

Quote
She might, one day, wake up and learn something, but the odds are slim to none, and slim just left town.


Slim was in town?

Like I said, I'd bet against her ever managing it. Heavily. Really, really heavily. Maybe I just over did the "nice" this evening.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,20:46   

Quote
I have no idea of the stats or demographics on this, but aren't the majority of American atheists former believers? I'm not saying there is some conversion effort or what have you on anyone's part here, just that people who are now non-believers were in many cases (not all) once believers. Not that that is even important, but I thought I'd get it out the way.


I was sort of kind of maybe raised in a religious tradition (Episcopal in a small town); don't know if I ever believed it.  

Certainly didn't after age 14 or so.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,22:08   

I was never a believer. Sure my parents dragged me to church when I was young. Fairly normal Baptist churches, but something about the people therein creeped me out so I never bought into the whole god/Jeebus died for your sins (added to the creepy factor) spiel and could never really understand why others did. It seemed, somehow, ridiculous, but then I was a kid at the time so who was I to judge.

At any rate, I think FTK can learn, we just have to keep presenting scientifically accurate information. I say that in full knowledge of her ducking, dodging, weaving, evasive, flounce out behavior - which doesn't start till she gets backed into a corner by a careful and thorough debunking of what she is saying. She runs when the wholes in her argument are so exposed that even she can see it. It's a defensive mechanism to keep her world view intact and safe from harm. Sooner or later the cracks and wholes will be to big for her to repair, then she will be open to learning.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,22:56   

Louis,

I agree with everything you said and have been furiously drinking 21 year old Balvenie for the past 2 hours trying to justify that.

I too am of the opinion that one day a person, any person, may just learn something.  I don't hold out a lot of hope, but what the hell?  What's the worst thing that can happen by trying to help someone?

I long ago decided that everyone was ignorant until they proved otherwise.  That way I'm never severely disappointed and there's always the possibility of being pleasantly surprised.  The only difficulty I still have with this is treating ignorance as ignorance instead of stupidity.  Maybe I'll learn to be a better person some day.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,23:16   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 21 2008,20:56)
Maybe I'll learn to be a better person some day.

That's all well and good, but Louis is the person who needs to learn it really urgently.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2008,23:22   

Quote (JonF @ Sep. 21 2008,21:39)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 19 2008,23:44)
Bear in mind that the geologic column was also originally devised by creationists before 1860 who believed more so in catastrophism rather uniformitarianism. The so-called "periods" and "eras" were later added to fit the evolutionary theory.  

As usual, wrong. Where do you get this carp?

   
Quote
The first serious attempts to formulate a geological time scale that could be applied anywhere on Earth took place in the late 18th century. The most influential of those early attempts (championed by Abraham Werner,among others) divided the rocks of the Earth's crust into four types: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary. Each type of rock, according to the theory, formed during a specific period in Earth history. It was thus possible to speak of a "Tertiary Period" as well as of "Tertiary Rocks." Indeed, "Tertiary" (now Paleocene-Pliocene) and "Quaternary" (now Pleistocene-Holocene) remained in use as names of geological periods well into the 20th century.

...

The identification of strata by the fossils they contained, pioneered by William Smith, Georges Cuvier, Jean d'Omalius d'Halloy and Alexandre Brogniart in the early 19th century, enabled geologists to divide Earth history more precisely. It also enabled them to correlate strata across national (or even continental) boundaries. If two strata (however distant in space or different in composition) contained the same fossils, chances were good that they had been laid down at the same time. Detailed studies between 1820 and 1850 of the strata and fossils of Europe produced the sequence of geological periods still used today.

The process was dominated by British geologists, and the names of the periods reflect that dominance. The "Cambrian," (the Roman name for Wales) and the "Ordovician," and "Silurian", named after ancient Welsh tribes, were periods defined using stratigraphic sequences from Wales.[7] The "Devonian" was named for the English county of Devon, and the name "Carboniferous" was simply an adaptation of "the Coal Measures," the old British geologists' term for the same set of strata. The "Permian" was named after Perm, Russia, because it was defined using strata in that region by a Scottish geologist Roderick Murchison. However, some periods were defined by geologists from other countries. The "Triassic" was named in 1834 by a German geologist Friedrich Von Alberti from the three distinct layers (Latin trias meaning triad) —red beds, capped by chalk, followed by black shales— that are found throughout Germany and Northwest Europe, called the 'Trias'. The "Jurassic" was named by a French geologist Alexandre Brogniart for the extensive marine limestone exposures of the Jura Mountains. The "Cretaceous" (from Latin creta meaning 'chalk') as a separate period was first defined by a Belgian geologist Jean d'Omalius d'Halloy in 1822, using strata in the Paris basin[8] and named for the extensive beds of chalk (calcium carbonate deposited by the shells of marine invertebrates).

British geologists were also responsible for the grouping of periods into Eras and the subdivision of the Tertiary and Quaternary periods into epochs.

{emphasis added}

Geologic time scale: History

Pretty much everybody was a creationist in those days. It is like saying that it was done by Homo Sapiens. Silly argument but plays well in church.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,04:44   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 22 2008,04:56)
Louis,

I agree with everything you said and have been furiously drinking 21 year old Balvenie for the past 2 hours trying to justify that.

Shit! Two in one thread.

{Looks out window}

Ahhhh yes, the squadron of aerial pork. 21 year old? Nice choice, usually agreeing with me doesn't have such nice consequences. I have it on good authority that Steve's been sucking the kerosene out of crop dusting planes to cope with the shame.

Quote
I too am of the opinion that one day a person, any person, may just learn something.  I don't hold out a lot of hope, but what the hell?  What's the worst thing that can happen by trying to help someone?

I long ago decided that everyone was ignorant until they proved otherwise.  That way I'm never severely disappointed and there's always the possibility of being pleasantly surprised.  The only difficulty I still have with this is treating ignorance as ignorance instead of stupidity.  Maybe I'll learn to be a better person some day.


Pffffff you don't need to learn to be a better person. We all need to smoke the weed of joy and forgiveness and engage in the partying of joy.

Even I'm not sure what any of that means.

Anyway, all I wanted to do was remind FTK that, mockery and general annoyance at her mendacity aside, we all still know she's a person. I think she forgets that every now and again, and uses that as an excuse (in the manner mentioned above by that Afarensis chappie).

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,04:51   

Quote (afarensis @ Sep. 22 2008,04:08)
I was never a believer. Sure my parents dragged me to church when I was young. Fairly normal Baptist churches, but something about the people therein creeped me out so I never bought into the whole god/Jeebus died for your sins (added to the creepy factor) spiel and could never really understand why others did. It seemed, somehow, ridiculous, but then I was a kid at the time so who was I to judge.

At any rate, I think FTK can learn, we just have to keep presenting scientifically accurate information. I say that in full knowledge of her ducking, dodging, weaving, evasive, flounce out behavior - which doesn't start till she gets backed into a corner by a careful and thorough debunking of what she is saying. She runs when the wholes in her argument are so exposed that even she can see it. It's a defensive mechanism to keep her world view intact and safe from harm. Sooner or later the cracks and wholes will be to big for her to repair, then she will be open to learning.

Neither was I, although I had a different experience to you.

My point was the "deconversion experience" is quite probably a common experience to most here. FTK, if she is on that road at all (which is doubtful in either a scientific or religious sense), is going through a hard time, so a little empathy never hurts. Not that I'm in any position to talk! ;-)

Your tactics: I approves of them and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. I can still has mockery when flounces occur?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,04:53   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 22 2008,05:16)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 21 2008,20:56)
Maybe I'll learn to be a better person some day.

That's all well and good, but Louis is the person who needs to learn it really urgently.

Not what your mum said.

Just thought I'd get that in there.*

Louis

* Much more like what I said.

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,06:43   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 22 2008,05:51)
My point was the "deconversion experience" is quite probably a common experience to most here. FTK, if she is on that road at all (which is doubtful in either a scientific or religious sense), is going through a hard time, so a little empathy never hurts. Not that I'm in any position to talk!

Ftk's fantasies run in quite the opposite direction:
 
Quote
Figures that Reciprocating Bill is the only one who predicted the outcome...he’s one of the *very* few over at AtBC who is *borderline* sane. Perhaps one day he’ll cross over the bridge and follow the light...certainly not holding my breath on that hope.

(Found in the comments.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,07:56   

While we're in mid-flounce-out, it's probably a good time to remind everyone that Ftk is simply out to lunch when she asserts that "intelligent design" creationism (IDC) has nothing to do with religion. In fact, IDC is simply the subset of religious antievolution arguments they think will slide by the courts in the USA. Those arguments' provenance  in pursuit of religious antievolution goes back decades or centuries. The four main IDC mainstays, "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", a version of the anthropic argument, and the "privileged planet" argument, all have clear precursors in the arguments of the Rev. William Paley made in his book, "Natural Theology", published in 1802. All that stuff has been scientifically unproductive and uninteresting for over two centuries.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,09:04   

Quote (bystander @ Sep. 21 2008,23:22)
 
Quote (JonF @ Sep. 21 2008,21:39)
 
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 19 2008,23:44)
Bear in mind that the geologic column was also originally devised by creationists before 1860 who believed more so in catastrophism rather uniformitarianism. The so-called "periods" and "eras" were later added to fit the evolutionary theory.  

As usual, wrong. Where do you get this carp?

     
Quote
The first serious attempts to formulate a geological time scale that could be applied anywhere on Earth took place in the late 18th century. The most influential of those early attempts (championed by Abraham Werner,among others) divided the rocks of the Earth's crust into four types: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary. Each type of rock, according to the theory, formed during a specific period in Earth history. It was thus possible to speak of a "Tertiary Period" as well as of "Tertiary Rocks." Indeed, "Tertiary" (now Paleocene-Pliocene) and "Quaternary" (now Pleistocene-Holocene) remained in use as names of geological periods well into the 20th century.

...

The identification of strata by the fossils they contained, pioneered by William Smith, Georges Cuvier, Jean d'Omalius d'Halloy and Alexandre Brogniart in the early 19th century, enabled geologists to divide Earth history more precisely. It also enabled them to correlate strata across national (or even continental) boundaries. If two strata (however distant in space or different in composition) contained the same fossils, chances were good that they had been laid down at the same time. Detailed studies between 1820 and 1850 of the strata and fossils of Europe produced the sequence of geological periods still used today.

The process was dominated by British geologists, and the names of the periods reflect that dominance. The "Cambrian," (the Roman name for Wales) and the "Ordovician," and "Silurian", named after ancient Welsh tribes, were periods defined using stratigraphic sequences from Wales.[7] The "Devonian" was named for the English county of Devon, and the name "Carboniferous" was simply an adaptation of "the Coal Measures," the old British geologists' term for the same set of strata. The "Permian" was named after Perm, Russia, because it was defined using strata in that region by a Scottish geologist Roderick Murchison. However, some periods were defined by geologists from other countries. The "Triassic" was named in 1834 by a German geologist Friedrich Von Alberti from the three distinct layers (Latin trias meaning triad) —red beds, capped by chalk, followed by black shales— that are found throughout Germany and Northwest Europe, called the 'Trias'. The "Jurassic" was named by a French geologist Alexandre Brogniart for the extensive marine limestone exposures of the Jura Mountains. The "Cretaceous" (from Latin creta meaning 'chalk') as a separate period was first defined by a Belgian geologist Jean d'Omalius d'Halloy in 1822, using strata in the Paris basin[8] and named for the extensive beds of chalk (calcium carbonate deposited by the shells of marine invertebrates).

British geologists were also responsible for the grouping of periods into Eras and the subdivision of the Tertiary and Quaternary periods into epochs.

{emphasis added}

Geologic time scale: History

Pretty much everybody was a creationist in those days. It is like saying that it was done by Homo Sapiens. Silly argument but plays well in church.

I just thought I'd share this article that I thought was pretty interesting.  No point to be made here. I just thought some people might enjoy reading it if they are interested in geology.

Carry on...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,09:23   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 22 2008,02:53)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 22 2008,05:16)
 
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 21 2008,20:56)
Maybe I'll learn to be a better person some day.

That's all well and good, but Louis is the person who needs to learn it really urgently.

Not what your mum said.

Just thought I'd get that in there.*

Louis

* Much more like what I said.

Louis, Louis, Louis.

Despite all your fancypants edumacation, you're just mailing it in nowadays. :(

Please. Try harder. If for no other reason, for the kids.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,09:25   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 22 2008,04:43)
Ftk's fantasies run in quite the opposite direction:
   
Quote
Figures that Reciprocating Bill is the only one who predicted the outcome...he’s one of the *very* few over at AtBC who is *borderline* sane. Perhaps one day he’ll cross over the bridge and follow the light...certainly not holding my breath on that hope.

(Found in the comments.)

Uh oh. Sounds like with Richard gone, FTK is moving on to a new beau.

"FTK and Bill sitting in a tree...
kay-eye-ess-ess-eye-en-gee!!!!!"


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,09:46   

If one bothers to read the article by Ritland, one finds that he contrasts the catastrophism of those involved in developing the concept of the geological column and its epochs with the later "flood geology" of modern creationists. In other words, not all catastrophism is alike. The earlier people saw evidence of multiple catastrophes long separated in time; the "flood geology" advocates see just one that took one year.

 
Quote

Most of the geologists included in this section described and named series of fossil-bearing strata which were accepted as the basis for divisions of the geologic column as understood today — periods, epochs, etc. (see Table 1). Most were catastrophists. All accepted multiple creations, a concept Murchison as well as Buckland had been active in developing, and which was quite generally adopted by catastrophists of the 1820s to 1850s. All opposed transmutation of species (evolution) (1).

[...]

Those among the founders of geology who were flood geologists generally followed Cuvier and Buckland in assigning to the flood only the superficial Pleistocene deposits. The great thickness of older strata was assigned to earlier episodes in earth history. The "Scriptural geologists" and flood geologists of recent decades (e.g., Price 1923; Whitcomb and Morris 1961; Rehwinkel 1951; Coffin 1969; Clark 1946) generally assign almost all of the earlier deposits to the flood and the Pleistocene (Buckland's Diluvial) to either the flood or to postflood times.



In other words, Walt Brown, for example, disagrees with the founders of geology. Anybody who insists on a single creation event does, too.

Ftk:

Quote

Bear in mind that the geologic column was also originally devised by creationists before 1860 who believed more so in catastrophism rather uniformitarianism. The so-called "periods" and "eras" were later added to fit the evolutionary theory.  


Ritland:

Quote

MULTIPLE CREATION HYPOTHESES

   It has been shown that during the decades when the geologic column was being formulated, the founders had nearly all come to have certain beliefs and working hypotheses, including among others the following:
   1. The history of life on the earth involved extended periods of time vastly longer than six thousand years.
   2. Some organisms had a much longer history on the earth (fossil record) than others.
   3. "Transmutation of species" (organic evolution) could not account for the later appearance of forms restricted to the more recent strata (belief based on both their understanding of evidence as well as their philosophical and religious views).
   Although the geologists of this period were indebted to Cuvier for the theory of catastrophes, he seemed to prefer to explain the increasing proportion of extinct and unfamiliar forms he encountered in progressively older formations as a consequence of migration from distant areas, such as Australia, where a very different fauna exists, rather than from new creations. "I do not pretend that a new creation was required for calling our present races of animals into existence, I only urge that they did not anciently occupy the same places" (1812, trans. 1817:125-126). But elsewhere in the same essay he made statements that would lend support to the idea that he may have entertained the possibility of later creations of some fauna such as mammals and man. "... we are also led to conclude that the oviparous quadrupeds [reptiles] began to exist along with the fishes, and at the commencement of the period which produced the secondary formations; while the land-quadrupeds [mammals] did not appear upon the earth till long afterwards ..." (1817:107-108, translation of 1812 essay; compare pp. 171, 181 on recent appearance of man).
   A theory of creative additions of new and different forms of life in response to needs of a changing physical environment was a concept that was expressed by a number of its leading exponents. Generally a view of directional but discontinuous change resulting in a gradual ascent towards a higher type of being was also expressed, hence the common designation "progressive creation."


The whole essay concerned which of the catastrophist geologists were responsible for naming the periods still in use today (in most cases). The bit above reinforces that they conceived of geology showing far more time represented than fit into Ussher's chronology. It also reinforces that "catastrophism" is not a unitary concept with a monolithic base.

Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot, though.

Oh, and that GRISDA website hosting the Ritland essay? Elsewhere, they say this:

 
Quote

Although not all the conflicts between scientific interpretations and the Bible have been resolved, the staff finds sufficient evidence from its research and from the scientific literature to reinforce faith in the biblical account of origins.


--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,09:52   

FtK what is it about that article that you find pretty interesting?

 
Quote
CONCLUSION

   It has been demonstrated that the basic framework of the geologic column was founded by men with respect for Scripture, who, although not holding to conservative interpretations, opposed organic evolution. Anyone who reads the original literature will soon recognize that there was no conscious conspiracy on the part of these scientists to undermine the moral and religious authority of Scripture as sometimes has been charged. Completely apart from any merits or weaknesses, the geologic column is the result of an attempt by conscientious scientists to construct to the best of their ability a classification of rock strata that would account for the phenomena encountered in the crust of the earth.


this?

Or this?

 
Quote
But as to the modern "Theory" of Geology, in all its essential properties ... [it] is not more contradictory to the plain meaning of Scripture, than it is to every known operation of nature, and every dictate of rational understanding (Bugg, Vol. 1, 1826:xv-xvi).

" — BIBLE THEREFORE STANDS PERFECTLY UNAFFECTED.

" — AND GEOLOGY FALLS TO THE GROUND" (Bugg, Vol. 2, 1827:348).


We know you think it is a distinct non-zero possibility that Walt Brown is correct and GEOLOGY FALLS TO THE GROUND.  So why the conspiracy theories?  He should be able to demonstrate his assertions in the white literature instead of the internet, if he is correct?  Are you faltering a bit here?

ETA fix tags and note that great minds think alike, perhaps greater minds more quickly.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,09:54   

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,09:04)
 No point to be made here. I just thought some people might enjoy reading it if they are interested in geology.

Carry on...

Do you agree with the conclusion on that webpage?
     
Quote
CONCLUSION

   It has been demonstrated that the basic framework of the geologic column was founded by men with respect for Scripture, who, although not holding to conservative interpretations, opposed organic evolution. Anyone who reads the original literature will soon recognize that there was no conscious conspiracy on the part of these scientists to undermine the moral and religious authority of Scripture as sometimes has been charged. Completely apart from any merits or weaknesses, the geologic column is the result of an attempt by conscientious scientists to construct to the best of their ability a classification of rock strata that would account for the phenomena encountered in the crust of the earth.

FTK, just a simple question. Do you ever read sources that are unbiased?
http://www.grisda.org/about.htm
   
Quote
The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication.

They have made their position clear. The study of origins requires the bible.  
FTK, what non-scientific methods do you think they use to study the question of origins? How? Can you describe it?

EDIT: Beaten to the punch by 2 minutes!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,09:58   

I suspect FTK thinks that the fact that Geology was given it's big kickstart by god fearing creationists is somehow news....

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,10:18   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 22 2008,10:25)
"FTK and Bill sitting in a tree...
kay-eye-ess-ess-eye-en-gee!!!!!"

It was the tree of life...

(We fell out arguing whether it was a tree, or a pile of manufactured lumber.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,10:23   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 22 2008,15:58)
I suspect FTK thinks that the fact that Geology was given it's big kickstart by god fearing creationists is somehow news....

I understand some of them had moustaches also....

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,10:24   

AND THEY ONLY HAD ONE WIFE APIECE1111111!!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,10:25   

Wes, I said I wasn't trying to make a point...meaning I wasn't trying to support either side of the debate.  I read the article and thought that the issues being discussed early in history were interesting.  I don't care who benefits from the article.  Sheesh....

I also found it interesting that creationists had such a big part in charting the beginning outlines of the geologic table.  From what is said here, you'd think that creationists have no interest in understanding the world around them at all.  "God did it" and all that...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2008,10:26   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 22 2008,08:23)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 22 2008,15:58)
I suspect FTK thinks that the fact that Geology was given it's big kickstart by god fearing creationists is somehow news....

I understand some of them had moustaches also....

Louis

Uh oh. None of them were science professors, were they?  :O

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
  10202 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < ... 304 305 306 307 308 [309] 310 311 312 313 314 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]