From NCSE

Many Christians do not believe that Scripture supports the Young Earth Creationist position. This moderated forum is for good natured scholarly debate.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: From NCSE

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:21 pm

PS Now there's a God-free Bible available too, apparently written or at least conceived by A C Grayling.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8682
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: From NCSE

Postby Michael » Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:30 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:PS Now there's a God-free Bible available too, apparently written or at least conceived by A C Grayling.


Nah, prefer the old one. More fun. What's Grayling's answer to the Song of Solomon?
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: From NCSE

Postby cathy » Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:30 pm

Ashley wrote: At this point I feel that I should perhaps hold my hand up and confirm that I have never read any of the Koran (I did once - about 30 years ago - read the whole Bible from 'front' to 'back', over the course of around a year).
I have to say I haven't read either though am trying now to read the bible after an atheist friend managed it (it took him a year). I can only go on what muslim friends tell me and they obviously interpret things differently to the fundies or point out that things that are clearly bad aren't really part of the Koran or are unimportant. It is interesting. For example they point out the koran does not require the burkha that is a saudi cultural thing. As for Jihad apparently it has several meanings from internal struggle with your own faith right up to killing non believers. They claim the internal struggle bit is the important bit now, fundies obviously disagree. And of course they point to the almsgiving and charity as a major feature. They also re-interpret the dressing moderately bit-obviously not the burkha thing, more the hijab or trousers rather than skirts. They reckon it's a way of ensuring they are judged by what they say rather than how they look and it's men have re-interpreted it. However, like most catholics they do rail against what happens, particularly to women, because to Islam.

Like the bible they agree their are vile bits. Apparently mohammed married six year olds and had lots of wives. So I guess like the bible it's good and bad and open to interpretation. It does recognise the same prophets, including Jesus as a prophet. I don't understand religion any more
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: From NCSE

Postby marcsurtees » Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:16 pm

jon_12091 wrote:
Michael wrote:I hav e a comprehensive collection of Torridonian fossils


*Raises eyebrow in arch manner*


I too was wondering what a comprehensive collection of Torridonian fossils looks like. Would you care to tell us what they are and how they disprove the hypothesis of deposition underwater?

And to return to one particular point of disagreement ie the torridonian sandstone. I have now had the opportunity to check and it seems that I am not the only person who is ignorant of the fact that they are terrestrial deposits.
See
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~oesis/nws/nws-strat.html
This site suggests that they were deposited by water.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: From NCSE

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:08 pm

Interesting. This site suggests laid down by rivers, rather than by some sort of abnormal flood. Marc originally suggested that most Torridonian fossils are aquatic anyway (though Michael suggested that many may have been terrestrial). Now he seems to be suggesting - from this non-creationist website - that they were not 'terrestrial deposits' (some sandstone forms in deserts I believe).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8682
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: From NCSE

Postby cathy » Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:36 pm

As far as I can see it says laid down mainly (but not exclusively) by rivers 1000 million years ago-not by a tsunamic style flood less than 6000 years ago. So not clear what Marcs point is.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: From NCSE

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:42 pm

What I want to know is whether Michael is thinking of having his collection valued on the 'Antiques Roadshow'!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8682
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: From NCSE

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Apr 06, 2011 5:09 pm

marcsurtees wrote:I am the first to admit that as a biologist my strength is not in geology, however I would suggest that the finer points of the flora and fauna of old red torridonian sandstone is not basic geology.



Paleontology is a central core discipline within geology. Apart from their obvious use id dating strata, they are key elements in establishing environmental conditions and major past events such as the Chixulub event at the end of the Upper Cretaceous and plate tectonics. They are key issues in mineral exploration/extraction and civil engineering. Indeed, the town where I live is built on little but fossils.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: From NCSE

Postby marcsurtees » Thu Apr 07, 2011 7:54 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Interesting. This site suggests laid down by rivers, rather than by some sort of abnormal flood. Marc originally suggested that most Torridonian fossils are aquatic anyway (though Michael suggested that many may have been terrestrial).


No, I suggested that pre-cambrian fossils are aquatic.
To which Michael responded with torridonian sandstones... with the implication that there are terrestrial creatures there).
Which is why I referred you to the web site with refers to deposition by water.

And when is Michael going to answer my question?
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: From NCSE

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:18 am

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Interesting. This site suggests laid down by rivers, rather than by some sort of abnormal flood. Marc originally suggested that most Torridonian fossils are aquatic anyway (though Michael suggested that many may have been terrestrial).


No, I suggested that pre-cambrian fossils are aquatic.
To which Michael responded with torridonian sandstones... with the implication that there are terrestrial creatures there).
Which is why I referred you to the web site with refers to deposition by water.

And when is Michael going to answer my question?


Probably when you start to answer everybody else's questions. You are in no position to demand anything here and everyone can see through your hypocracy. You simply haven't "caught" Michael out. You're here to preach Christian fundamentalist apologetics.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: From NCSE

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:00 am

cathy wrote:As far as I can see it says laid down mainly (but not exclusively) by rivers 1000 million years ago-not by a tsunamic style flood less than 6000 years ago. So not clear what Marcs point is.


And, of course, as it was laid down no more than 6,000 years ago there would have been both marine and terrestrial flaura and fauna around at the time so Marc has, again, shot himself in the head. Quelle surprise.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: From NCSE

Postby marcsurtees » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:13 am

Roger Stanyard wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Interesting. This site suggests laid down by rivers, rather than by some sort of abnormal flood. Marc originally suggested that most Torridonian fossils are aquatic anyway (though Michael suggested that many may have been terrestrial).


No, I suggested that pre-cambrian fossils are aquatic.
To which Michael responded with torridonian sandstones... with the implication that there are terrestrial creatures there).
Which is why I referred you to the web site with refers to deposition by water.

And when is Michael going to answer my question?


Probably when you start to answer everybody else's questions. You are in no position to demand anything here and everyone can see through your hypocracy. You simply haven't "caught" Michael out. You're here to preach Christian fundamentalist apologetics.


I thought this was a discussion forum!
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: From NCSE

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:17 am

marcsurtees wrote:I thought this was a discussion forum!


Bait and switch and evasion of questions seems to be your stock in trade, not discussion.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: From NCSE

Postby marcsurtees » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:38 am

marcsurtees wrote:
jon_12091 wrote:
Michael wrote:I hav e a comprehensive collection of Torridonian fossils


*Raises eyebrow in arch manner*


I too was wondering what a comprehensive collection of Torridonian fossils looks like. Would you care to tell us what they are and how they disprove the hypothesis of deposition underwater?

And to return to one particular point of disagreement ie the torridonian sandstone. I have now had the opportunity to check and it seems that I am not the only person who is ignorant of the fact that they are terrestrial deposits.
See
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~oesis/nws/nws-strat.html
This site suggests that they were deposited by water.


Hi Michael,
In the hope of by-passing the attempt to close down debate on this thread, I thought I should at least ask the question one more time.
Would you care to tell us why you think the fossils from the Torridonian sandstone or any other Torridonian fossils, show that the rock could not have deposited by water?
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: From NCSE

Postby Michael » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:24 am

[quote="marcsurtees I too was wondering what a comprehensive collection of Torridonian fossils looks like. Would you care to tell us what they are and how they disprove the hypothesis of deposition underwater?

And to return to one particular point of disagreement ie the torridonian sandstone. I have now had the opportunity to check and it seems that I am not the only person who is ignorant of the fact that they are terrestrial deposits.
See
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~oesis/nws/nws-strat.html
This site suggests that they were deposited by water.[/quote]

Hi Michael,
In the hope of by-passing the attempt to close down debate on this thread, I thought I should at least ask the question one more time.
Would you care to tell us why you think the fossils from the Torridonian sandstone or any other Torridonian fossils, show that the rock could not have deposited by water?[/quote]

Marc

If you knew just a little geology you would not ask that question. You have made it crystal clear that you know nothing about Precambrian geology.

Yet you have the gall to speak about the fossil record and your nonsense/dishonest view of it as you seek to con deluded Christians by appealing to youyr doctorate in some aspect of biology.

I suggest you go and learn some geology
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

PreviousNext

Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron