Comments on: And the Floodgates Opened http://kami.falseblue.com/2006/03/17/and-the-floodgates-opened-2/ Religion, Rethought, Redefined, Restored Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:30:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: tw http://kami.falseblue.com/2006/03/17/and-the-floodgates-opened-2/#comment-22 Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:37:51 +0000 http://kami.falseblue.com/2006/03/17/and-the-floodgates-opened-2/#comment-22 Well, after a bit of searching, these are the best links I could come up with... First, in support of creationist theories: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i1n.htm The problem with this argument, is it tries only to find flaws in evolutionist arguments without clearly laying out the details of its own theories. As usual, given that it is a "religious sciences" piece, none of it is supported by empirical evidence. I hate to say it, but if you intend to convince people who don't believe your point of view, you must speak in their terms and follow their societal rules (at least when dealing with them). http://www.ldolphin.org/grandcanyon.html This more clearly states his theories in terms evolutionary scientists can understand. Unfortunately for him, it appears evolutionary scientists are not the intended audience of the piece in that it seems to diverge from contemporary creationist theories by assuming multiple floods. This is further underscored by his non-effort to refute any evolutionary arguments against his theory, which is just bad policy when trying to make arguments. It would seem that most evolutionists feel it is appropriate to fault the book Grand Canyon: Monument to Disaster by Austin, et.al. by providing arguments that are in line with their own theories and addressing logical flaws within Austin's work. As I have not read the aforementioned book, I can't judge the context for their arguments, though they are well formed and supported by evidence. Unfortunately, they don't attempt to take any sort of biblical stance on the topic, which makes it difficult for them to convince those who believe otherwise. Here are a few sites that try to analyze this book: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bibliolatry_revisited_elders.htm http://www.jwoolfden.com/gc_rocks.html http://www.usd.edu/esci/creation/grandcyn.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html In short, if you believe the bible is infallible and written in the most literal sense, you'll attempt to use arguments that you know from what you've been told and read. Which just don't work for people who don't believe. Further, if you don't believe the bible as above, you won't attempt to make arguments from it, which makes it difficult for the two groups to assume a common ground for discussion. As for my opinion on the matter, I think it's funny to watch people scream at each other while I go get a turkey sandwich. I believe what I believe, and I don't much care what you decide you prefer. We exist. I think that's enough. How anti-philosophical of me. Well, after a bit of searching, these are the best links I could come up with… First, in support of creationist theories:
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i1n.htm
The problem with this argument, is it tries only to find flaws in evolutionist arguments without clearly laying out the details of its own theories. As usual, given that it is a “religious sciences” piece, none of it is supported by empirical evidence. I hate to say it, but if you intend to convince people who don’t believe your point of view, you must speak in their terms and follow their societal rules (at least when dealing with them).

http://www.ldolphin.org/grandcanyon.html
This more clearly states his theories in terms evolutionary scientists can understand. Unfortunately for him, it appears evolutionary scientists are not the intended audience of the piece in that it seems to diverge from contemporary creationist theories by assuming multiple floods. This is further underscored by his non-effort to refute any evolutionary arguments against his theory, which is just bad policy when trying to make arguments.

It would seem that most evolutionists feel it is appropriate to fault the book Grand Canyon: Monument to Disaster by Austin, et.al. by providing arguments that are in line with their own theories and addressing logical flaws within Austin’s work. As I have not read the aforementioned book, I can’t judge the context for their arguments, though they are well formed and supported by evidence. Unfortunately, they don’t attempt to take any sort of biblical stance on the topic, which makes it difficult for them to convince those who believe otherwise.
Here are a few sites that try to analyze this book:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bibliolatry_revisited_elders.htm
http://www.jwoolfden.com/gc_rocks.html
http://www.usd.edu/esci/creation/grandcyn.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581.html

In short, if you believe the bible is infallible and written in the most literal sense, you’ll attempt to use arguments that you know from what you’ve been told and read. Which just don’t work for people who don’t believe. Further, if you don’t believe the bible as above, you won’t attempt to make arguments from it, which makes it difficult for the two groups to assume a common ground for discussion.

As for my opinion on the matter, I think it’s funny to watch people scream at each other while I go get a turkey sandwich. I believe what I believe, and I don’t much care what you decide you prefer. We exist. I think that’s enough. How anti-philosophical of me.

]]> by: Noni http://kami.falseblue.com/2006/03/17/and-the-floodgates-opened-2/#comment-21 Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:01:14 +0000 http://kami.falseblue.com/2006/03/17/and-the-floodgates-opened-2/#comment-21 Of course the creationist argument stays the same. Truth will always be true. What "new evidence to the contrary" are you refering to? Of course the creationist argument stays the same. Truth will always be true. What “new evidence to the contrary” are you refering to?

]]> by: Tsunami.No.Ai http://kami.falseblue.com/2006/03/17/and-the-floodgates-opened-2/#comment-20 Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:12:42 +0000 http://kami.falseblue.com/2006/03/17/and-the-floodgates-opened-2/#comment-20 Just because an argument has been used before does not make it any less credible. Scientific arguments are constantly updated. Creationist arguments remain the same. If you want to talk about a "same song" look at the creationist argument that hasnt been updated despite new evidence to the contrary. You seem to think that the argument i present is wrong regardless. If so, please back up your assertion with some evidence. Saying its old does not qualify. Just because an argument has been used before does not make it any less credible. Scientific arguments are constantly updated. Creationist arguments remain the same. If you want to talk about a “same song” look at the creationist argument that hasnt been updated despite new evidence to the contrary. You seem to think that the argument i present is wrong regardless. If so, please back up your assertion with some evidence. Saying its old does not qualify.

]]> by: Noni http://kami.falseblue.com/2006/03/17/and-the-floodgates-opened-2/#comment-18 Tue, 21 Mar 2006 02:50:01 +0000 http://kami.falseblue.com/2006/03/17/and-the-floodgates-opened-2/#comment-18 Old news. This same argument was presented about 20 years ago and only a few bought into it then. From what I can remember your numbers are slightly different but it is still the same song. Old news. This same argument was presented about 20 years ago and only a few bought into it then. From what I can remember your numbers are slightly different but it is still the same song.

]]>