Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains? (2)

[createdtoworship]

Why the flood? By J Vernon Mcgee

The present widely accepted system of uniformitarianism in historical
geology, with its evo-lutionary basis and bias, has been shown to be
utterly inadequate to explain most of the important geologic
phenomena. Present rates and processes simply cannot account for the
great bulk of geological data. Some form of catastrophism is clearly
indicated by the vast evidences of volcanism, diastrophism,
glaciation, coal and oil and mineral deposits, fossilization, vast
beds of sediments, and most of the other dominant features of the
earth’s crust. When this fact is once recognized, it can then be seen
that even the supposed evidences of great geologic age can be
reinterpreted to correlate well with the much more impelling evidences
of violent and rapid activity and formation.

There is a move back to the old position, and men of real intellectual
stature and scientific background are taking that position. This is
important.

above from:
http://articles.ochristian.com/article15641.shtml

 

[TLK Valentine]

the truth is that language changed the scientific definition.

so both changed.

and that proves his point even moreso.

Where exactly did the science change? What is different about Pluto?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where exactly did the science change?

You mean "when" did it change?

In 2006.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You mean "when" did it change?

In 2006.

I asked where it changed -- "how," if you prefer.

Pluto is still Pluto -- and the only reason anyone would even know it was there in the first place is because of the scientists, not the parasites.

 

[AV1611VET]

I asked where it changed --

I don't know "where" science changed.

... "how," if you prefer.

In the case of Pluto, it was done by a rigged vote.

Pluto is still Pluto --

No kidding.

-- and the only reason anyone would even know it was there in the first place is because of the scientists,

No kidding.

not the parasites.

Interesting dichotomy.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't know "where" science changed.

In the case of Pluto, it was done by a rigged vote.

And how is science determined by vote?

Oh, right, it's not. Only definitions are.

Interesting dichotomy.

Actually, it's not a dichotomy -- there are more people in the world than scientists and parasites.

 

[CabVet]

You mean "when" did it change?

In 2006.

Wrong AV, science is not doctrine. It changes every day.

 

[Split Rock]

Why the flood? By J Vernon Mcgee

The present widely accepted system of uniformitarianism in historical
geology, with its evo-lutionary basis and bias,

Wrong. Uniformitarianism is older than evolution, and is not based on it. Therefore, there can be no "evolutionary bais."

has been shown to be
utterly inadequate to explain most of the important geologic
phenomena.

Show me which "important geologic phenomena" That modern geology cannot explain.

Present rates and processes simply cannot account for the
great bulk of geological data.

Inaccurate and blanket ssertion provided with no evidence or example.

Some form of catastrophism is clearly
indicated by the vast evidences of volcanism, diastrophism,
glaciation, coal and oil and mineral deposits, fossilization, vast
beds of sediments, and most of the other dominant features of the
earth’s crust. When this fact is once recognized, it can then be seen
that even the supposed evidences of great geologic age can be
reinterpreted to correlate well with the much more impelling evidences
of violent and rapid activity and formation.

I like how this guy dumps such varied geological activities into one basket of "catastrophism." Then pretends that modern geology does not accept "violent and rapid activity." of any type. Finally, he implies (but does not come out and say) that The Flood explains all this better. This despite the fact that glacial movement and vulcanism have little to do with each other and neither are explained by any flood.

There is a move back to the old position, and men of real intellectual stature and scientific background are taking that position. This is
important.

That is an outright lie. There is no "move back to the old position," because the old position was falsified back in the mid 1800s.

Total rubbish. Why you pay any attention to someone who had no training in geology on matters of geology is beyond me.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Why the flood? By J Vernon Mcgee

The present widely accepted system of uniformitarianism in historical
geology, with its evo-lutionary basis and bias, has been shown to be
utterly inadequate to explain most of the important geologic
phenomena. Present rates and processes simply cannot account for the
great bulk of geological data. Some form of catastrophism is clearly
indicated by the vast evidences of volcanism, diastrophism,
glaciation, coal and oil and mineral deposits, fossilization, vast
beds of sediments, and most of the other dominant features of the
earth’s crust.

Not very correct. While catastrophism is known ti explain somethings, things like coal, oil and mineral deposits do not necessitate catastrophic events.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

are you saying he made no statements?

not sure what you are recommending regarding this definition of ad hominem.

I merely wanted to correct you on classifying what I said as an "ad hominem fallacy". It wasn't.

BUT, my point was in direct response to his position on the Pluto Classification point.

usually an ad hominem involves statements yes, but so does a personal jab or whatever you call it.

Correct. My point was not an ad hominem because my point was in response to his Pluto Gambit and leveraged his own position against him.

unless you are just being rude and jabbing them out of thin air with no conversations going.

Which I am not really doing here. AV1611VET can defend his own points.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

that would be a confession of science changing.

which was his original point.

And, of course, that is precisely why I brought up (and others brought up other examples) of terms in the Bible apparently changing.

Whether it was a translation issue or a change in classification. AV1611VET is "KJV Only" which means only the language of 17th century England as it was used in the Bible is considered.

In his defense he ends up having to make up entirely new types of animals ("fowled bats" as he calls them) in order to maintain his KJV Only literalism. It isn't even a good defense, it is a strange excursion for a literalist to take.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

the truth is that language changed the scientific definition.

WRONG! There was not technical definition for "Planet" prior to 2006 (info)

Science decided to codify the definition more strictly and in light of what we know about the Kuyper Belt Objects and stuff out there Pluto fell into a new category of "Dwarf Planet".

and that proves his point even moreso.

No. No it doesn't. His point is a word game. It says nothing about science other than people hadn't developed a strict technical definition for Planet until 2006.

If that is an indictment of science then I think that it misses the point altogether!

So before there was a genus and species for, say, a certain dinosaur, are we to assume that that dinosaur never existed????

 

[createdtoworship]

WRONG! There was not technical definition for "Planet" prior to 2006 (info)

Science decided to codify the definition more strictly and in light of what we know about the Kuyper Belt Objects and stuff out there Pluto fell into a new category of "Dwarf Planet".

funny I see in the first google search a scientific definition from back in the 1600's
"modern scientific sense of "world that orbits a star" is from 1630s."

Online Etymology Dictionary

No. No it doesn't. His point is a word game. It says nothing about science other than people hadn't developed a strict technical definition for Planet until 2006.

it sounds like yours is a word game by trying to say there was no "scientific" definition. However language stears science terminology. Not the other way around. IT's a cart before the horse thing.

If that is an indictment of science then I think that it misses the point altogether!
So before there was a genus and species for, say, a certain dinosaur, are we to assume that that dinosaur never existed????

thats saying that he never believed pluto existed, which is not the case

 

[Lucy Stulz]

funny I see in the first google search a scientific definition from back in the 1600's
"modern scientific sense of "world that orbits a star" is from 1630s."

Online Etymology Dictionary

Ahhh, so I see your possible problem. You have no idea what I mean by the term "technical definition"! You appear to assume that common definition is the same thing.

Sorry, I thought you were following the debate. No, there was no technical definition of a planet prior to 2006. The word Planet is much older but the technical definition is not.

If you wish to define all "worlds" orbiting a star, be my guest. You will run into the exact same problems as the IAU did. Will you count the larger KBO's as planets? You will have to.

This is kind of why they decided to define more strictly.

I would hope you would have a better understanding of science and technical defintions before you launch into a scientific discussion.

it sounds like yours is a word game by trying to say there was no "scientific" definition. However language stears science terminology. Not the other way around. IT's a cart before the horse thing.

You could possibly be more wrong but I would be hard pressed to figure out how that would be.

thats saying that he never believed pluto existed, which is not the case

Not even close.

 

[Joshua0035]

Bible apparently changing.

The Bible does not change. You need to read and study the Bible in the original language. Of course Moses had ALL of God's plan of salvation. Nothing was added after Moses. Only everyone after Moses better explains what God first reveils to us though Moses. Also Moses uses a lot of shadows and types. Later on God speaks more direct with us.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

The Bible does not change. You need to read and study the Bible in the original language. Of course Moses had ALL of God's plan of salvation. Nothing was added after Moses. Only everyone after Moses better explains what God first reveils to us though Moses. Also Moses uses a lot of shadows and types. Later on God speaks more direct with us.

You need to meet the poster named AV1611VET. I bet he would help you with the original languages thing. You ARE aware of what KJV Only is, aren't you?

Try taking you original languages up with him sometime.

 

[pgp_protector]

You need to meet the poster named AV1611VET. I bet he would help you with the original languages thing. You ARE aware of what KJV Only is, aren't you?

Try taking you original languages up with him sometime.

Don't you just love it

If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right.

 

[Joshua0035]

You need to meet the poster named AV1611VET. I bet he would help you with the original languages thing. You ARE aware of what KJV Only is, aren't you?

Yes, I know what he says about it. I just do not know what they has to do with seashells on mountain tops. I though that has more to do with plate tectonics.

 

[Joshua0035]

Where exactly did the science change? What is different about Pluto?

It changed when Neil Tyson learned he could make money off of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You need to meet the poster named AV1611VET.

We've talked before.