David Paszkiewicz Letter to Editor

[Bryan]

Bryan said: “I'm suggesting that a global flood is possible, and that trusting to a constant height for mountains is a faith-based assumption (particularly in light of the findings of plate tectonics) Try to pay attention."

Plate tectonics?  PLATE TECTONICS?  You are either absymally ignorant or delusional.  No reputable geologist in the world would support that lunacy.

You don't think that adherents of plate tectonics believe that mountain heights change over time?

"The Andes Mountain Range spans the entire length of South America, along the western coast. This close-up shows that coast, which represents the western terrestrial edge of the South American Plate. The leading edge of the Nazca Plate is subducting below the South American Plate at a plate boundary known as a subduction zone. During this subduction some Nazca crust is scraped off along base of the Andes, adding height to the entire range."

http://www.platetectonics.com/oceanfloors/andes.asp

Given this level of scientific understanding, it's no wonder you confuse faith and science.  Magical thinking tends to make for poor comprehension.

So, you don't know what plate tectonics implies about the the constancy of the heights of mountain ranges, so you launch a personal attack on my knowledge of science based on your own ignorance.

That's cute!

Come on over to Beliefnet/Origins of Life discussion.  I'd like to see some of my geologist friends beat up on you for a while.

Is he/she accomplished at name-calling, then? Or is he/she an outcast among his peers?

By the way, I'm a woman.  And I've signed my full name to every post I've ever made in this forum.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You still look like "an American in Texas" up at the top.

[Guest Guest]

The Answer Lies here a click away

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

and your point is...........

[Guest DingoDave]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

“You offered that acceptance of the inspiration of the Bible was a requirement for avoiding the flames of hell, o ye of limited memory.

Note that the idea is missing from your summary above.

("That doubting the divine inspiration of the Bible, or the divinity of Jesus the Nazarene, means that you’ll be condemned to God’s Gulag for all eternity?")

You provided revisionist history.

Once you recover your memory, maybe we can have a conversation.

Until then, you are a waste of time.”

Tell me Bryan, do you ever get eye strain from splitting all those hairs?

That statement was only one of several points I made with reference to Mr. P’s preaching his Protestant Baptist version of Christianity (recall that he said that he didn’t believe in purgatory) in his history class, along with undermining the school’s science curriculum, and inventing his own facts in order to do so.

Mr. P. is a Baptist minister. He is therefore by definition an orthodox mainstream Christian.

Therefore the version of Christianity which he was promoting includes holding to the divine inspiration of the Bible and believing in the divinity of Jesus. If you don’t believe me, just try asking Mr. P. what he believes and see what response you get from him.

He was not promoting some ‘universalist’ version of Christianity; he was promoting a mainstream protestant version.

For some reason you have latched onto this one narrow point, and have been flogging it to death, while attempting to downplay the larger context of Mr. P’s ‘sins’.

I’m getting very bored with your anally retentive nitpicking.

I’m done talking to for now.

Have a nice life.

[Bryan]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

“You offered that acceptance of the inspiration of the Bible was a requirement for avoiding the flames of hell, o ye of limited memory.

Note that the idea is missing from your summary above.

("That doubting the divine inspiration of the Bible, or the divinity of Jesus the Nazarene, means that you’ll be condemned to God’s Gulag for all eternity?")

You provided revisionist history.

Once you recover your memory, maybe we can have a conversation.

Until then, you are a waste of time.”

Tell me Bryan, do you ever get eye strain from splitting all those hairs?

That statement was only one of several points I made with reference to Mr. P’s preaching his Protestant Baptist version of Christianity (recall that he said that he didn’t believe in purgatory) in his history class, along with undermining the school’s science curriculum, and inventing his own facts in order to do so.

Oh, sorry. Since it was only one, then just go ahead and foment the lie.

Mr. P. is a Baptist minister. He is therefore by definition an orthodox mainstream Christian.

And as such, you should be able to make up facts about him and his faith, such as the idea that he told his class that doubting the inspiration of the Bible will send people to hell.

Therefore the version of Christianity which he was promoting includes holding to the divine inspiration of the Bible and believing in the divinity of Jesus. If you don’t believe me, just try asking Mr. P. what he believes and see what response you get from him.

He was not promoting some ‘universalist’ version of Christianity; he was promoting a mainstream protestant version.

Because most protestants think that doubting the inspiration of the Bible will get you sent to hell?

For some reason you have latched onto this one narrow point, and have been flogging it to death, while attempting to downplay the larger context of Mr. P’s ‘sins’.

I’m getting very bored with your anally retentive nitpicking.

I’m done talking to for now.

Have a nice life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh. You're done talking without admitting that you got it wrong.

You're all class.

[an American in Texas]

Bryan, your debating style is moronic. Plate tectonics does NOT provide any support for the nonsensical idea of a global flood. You seize on one point (plate tectonics implies changes in mountain height) and extend the correctness of that one point to cover your entire argument. Sorry, doll, that fig leaf ain't covering everything!

My geologist friends make a very nice living doing their thing, BTW (they're in the oil bidness).

You're ducking and weaving, but still punching the air. I've only posted because I didn't like the idea that nobody was calling you on the hand-waving and hair-splitting. But like Dingo Dave, I'm bored with you, so I'm also saying sayonara, and thanks for all the fish.

Leigh

[Strife767]

The Answer Lies here a click away

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Broken link.

[God Save Us From Christians]

Maybe Bryan is Mr. P's ****** ********** *****. All the fundamentalists have one - they are all ****** ***********. Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Jerry Falwell.

Maybe that's why Bryan is defending him so vociferously and ignoring all the facts.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Guest Guest]

Dear Bryan,

You wrote:

“You offered that acceptance of the inspiration of the Bible was a requirement for avoiding the flames of hell, o ye of limited memory.

Note that the idea is missing from your summary above.

("That doubting the divine inspiration of the Bible, or the divinity of Jesus the Nazarene, means that you’ll be condemned to God’s Gulag for all eternity?")

You provided revisionist history.

Once you recover your memory, maybe we can have a conversation.

Until then, you are a waste of time.”

Tell me Bryan, do you ever get eye strain from splitting all those hairs?

That statement was only one of several points I made with reference to Mr. P’s preaching his Protestant Baptist version of Christianity (recall that he said that he didn’t believe in purgatory) in his history class, along with undermining the school’s science curriculum, and inventing his own facts in order to do so.

Mr. P. is a Baptist minister. He is therefore by definition an orthodox mainstream Christian.

Therefore the version of Christianity which he was promoting includes holding to the divine inspiration of the Bible and believing in the divinity of Jesus. If you don’t believe me, just try asking Mr. P. what he believes and see what response you get from him.

He was not promoting some ‘universalist’ version of Christianity; he was promoting a mainstream protestant version.

For some reason you have latched onto this one narrow point, and have been flogging it to death, while attempting to downplay the larger context of Mr. P’s ‘sins’.

I’m getting very bored with your anally retentive nitpicking.

I’m done talking to for now.

Have a nice life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dingo Dave ?? Are you some sort of hybred dog ?? That's a dumb name.

[Strife767]

Dingo Dave  ??  Are you some sort of hybred dog ??  That's a dumb name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This pretty much sums up the strength of the 'arguments' against Dave, Leigh, etc.--a firm statement of "I can't refute anything, but damned if I can't take little kiddy jabs at you personally, while also displaying that my grammar is ironically inferior to that of the average high school graduate."

Hell, my brother can do better than this--way better. And he's in 7th grade. He knows how to spell "hybrid." He knows that there are zero spaces between the end of a sentence and its final punctuation. He knows question marks come in ones, not twos. And he could also tell you're less mature than he is.

And you have the hilarious audacity to use the word "dumb" on any aspect of anyone else.

[Bryan]

Bryan, your debating style is moronic.  Plate tectonics does NOT provide any support for the nonsensical idea of a global flood.

That's a straw man version of my argument.

I used plate tectonics to argue against the assumption that mountain ranges remain at a static height, which is one of the keys to delaring a global flood "impossible."

My debating style is moronic because of your logical fallacies?

Great start there, Leigh.

You seize on one point (plate tectonics implies changes in mountain height) and extend the correctness of that one point to cover your entire argument.

Where did I supposedly extend that correctness to cover my entire argument, other than in your vivid imagination?

Sorry, doll, that fig leaf ain't covering everything!

My geologist friends make a very nice living doing their thing, BTW (they're in the oil bidness). 

You're ducking and weaving, but still punching the air.  I've only posted because I didn't like the idea that nobody was calling you on the hand-waving and hair-splitting.  But like Dingo Dave, I'm bored with you, so I'm also saying sayonara, and thanks for all the fish.

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're a dolphin?

Maybe that explains your vivid imagination?

[Bryan]

...okay. Now, tell me in no uncertain terms what the difference is between "belief without evidence" and "trusting in the truth of...without absolute proof."

In one case there is evidence, in the other case there is not.

You want an explanation of that, too?

You've got to be kidding me, man. That is not equivocation--that's paraphrasing at best. Same meaning, different words.

If it's the same meaning with different words, then thousands of accused criminals have been convicted without evidence (as jurors came to believe on faith--without evidence--that the accused was guilty).

Your attempt to wriggle off the hook is incoherent.

Clearly not, since he believes in lots of stuff that has no evidence supporting it. At best he is contradicting himself.

You just proposed tossing Paszkiewicz's real argument in the trash in favor of the straw man version because of your assertion (without evidence) that Paszkiewicz has beliefs that have no evidence behind them.

Even ignoring the fact that you probably have no reasonable evidence that Paszkiewicz has no evidence behind his beliefs (good luck proving that negative), you're just had to admit that you (apparently knowingly) used the term other than Paszkiewicz used it--thus confirming that your argument is a straw man version of Paszkiewicz's argument (that's incoherent on your part, hence my earlier comment).

Just because he says it doesn't mean it's true.

He provided an example; all that is required is a logical step from fulfilled prophecy to increased trust in the Bible and his position is supported.

It's somewhat dishonest of you to intimate that Paszkiewicz tried to present it as true simply because he said it, BTW (another straw man).

Also, the stuff he believes in according to his faith directly contradicts any idea of faith with "evidential basis."

You're not entitled to make that judgment in the context of the classroom instruction; moreover, it's a fallacy to attack the argument based on the alleged inconsistency of the person advancing the argument (ad hominem).

No, I used the correct definition of "faith" and ignored Paszkiewicz's delusion that any of his "faith" as described during the class is supported by any kind of real evidence.

You're not entitled to change his definition, regardless of your position regarding Paszkiewicz personal beliefs. There is no "correct" definition of a word, BTW. Paszkiewicz used one dictionary definition; you used a different one.

That's the fallacy of equivocation. You're guilty of utilizing that fallacy, and now you're trying to justify it (by using other logical fallacies).

And that is exactly the fallacy of equivocation.  Changing the meaning of the key term in mid-argument.

You can't address Paszkiewicz's argument concerning faith without using his definition.

Neither can he!

That doesn't make any sense. Paszkiewicz can define any word however he chooses to make his argument, so long as he stays consistent.

You haven't suggested any inconsistency in his argument (going to his personal beliefs does work, even if you actually had some evidence that he doesn't have any evidence to support his beliefs).

For example: In the following argument, "black"="white"

All white objects are balloons

Object X is black

(black=white)

(therefore)

Object X is a balloon.

All you have to do is look at the context (something you like claiming that people don't do, ironically enough) to see what faith is to him.

He defined it in the context of his argument.

You can't go to a different context and argue that therefore he must mean the term in his argument as he meant it elsewhere. That's just another fallacy of equivocation.

But no, you'll split semantic hairs all day while ignoring something that obvious. He himself contradicts the definition you are assigning him. Nice job there, Bryan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's pathetic that you and DingoDave so readily excuse your inaccuracies based on the countercharge of "hairsplitting."

Your fallacy of equivocation is not hairsplitting. Your commission of a logical fallacy invalidates your argument. That's serious. It's too bad you refuse to admit it.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Bryan, your debating style is moronic.  Plate tectonics does NOT provide any support for the nonsensical idea of a global flood.  You seize on one point (plate tectonics implies changes in mountain height) and extend the correctness of that one point to cover your entire argument.  Sorry, doll, that fig leaf ain't covering everything!

My geologist friends make a very nice living doing their thing, BTW (they're in the oil bidness). 

You're ducking and weaving, but still punching the air.  I've only posted because I didn't like the idea that nobody was calling you on the hand-waving and hair-splitting.  But like Dingo Dave, I'm bored with you, so I'm also saying sayonara, and thanks for all the fish.

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"My geologist friends" ??? What a laugh ! The only friends you have hang out at the local watering hole and are most likely cow manure technicians, like yourself.

[Guest Guest]

Broken link.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try this one http://www.kearnycrew.net/coachs_corner.htm

or This one

[God Save Us From Christians]

To Leigh:

You can see how Bryan devolved into a name-calling moron after faced with intelligent discussion.

This is what Kearny really is. A backwater Christian Taliban stronghold.

Fret not, maybe God will send one his plagues and wipe out this idiocracy.

[Stixx3969]

"My geologist friends"  ???  What a laugh ! The only friends  you have hang out at the local watering hole and are most likely cow manure technicians, like yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What and ignorant, childish response. What are you 13 yrs old?

[an American in Texas]

Oooh, 2dumb2live, what a blow! Actually, I'm happily married, have 4 kids (oldest 2 Texas A&M grads, 13-yr-old twins), a master's degree in Computer Science, and am working on my Master Naturalist's certification. My husband, Mr. Science, and I and run our own consulting firm. We stay really busy with Boy and Girl Scouts for the twins.

I'm very active at our church, where I serve on several committees and used to teach Sunday School and Disciples Bible class (had to give that up because I'm traveling on business a lot now). I also served as president of the twins' school PTA for a couple of years.

In other words, solid citizen and all-around-nice person.

So, you're pretty much batting zero on the insult-o-meter, bud. I have on the full armor of God, anyway, so you didn't have much chance to start with. No chinks, you see . . .

Leigh

[God Save Us From Christians]

"My geologist friends"  ???  What a laugh ! The only friends  you have hang out at the local watering hole and are most likely cow manure technicians, like yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Congratulations moron, you've won.

You've successfully silenced all rational thought.

How typically Christian of you.

Jesus would be proud by your actions and your childish name calling.

You make a fine testimony of your religion and an excellent ambassador for the citizens of Kearny.

Sleep well.

[Guest Steve_C]

I think Bryan is arguing that because of plate tectonics the mountians were possibly LOWER than they are now and could of been covered by a global flood.

Doesn't make any sense but that might be his argument.

Some mountains are formed by glaciers, some by volcanic activity and some by plate tectonics...

But... essentially all of the mountains on the planet have changed little in the past 100,000 years.

SO the flood would of had to cover all the current mountains...

also... Meteorogically speaking... it's just not POSSIBLE! And there is no evidence... none zero zip for it to have happened. If anything the biodiversity of the planet is evidence that it did not happened.

Unless your Mr. P... and you can overlook all of that and believe that Dinosaurs were on a fictional ark and they were docile animals that man had tamed. It makes me giggle.

[Guest Guest]

Oooh, 2dumb2live, what a blow!  Actually, I'm happily married, have 4 kids (oldest 2 Texas A&M grads, 13-yr-old twins), a master's degree in Computer Science, and am working on my Master Naturalist's certification.  My husband, Mr. Science, and I and run our own consulting firm.  We stay really busy with Boy and Girl Scouts for the twins.

I'm very active at our church, where I serve on several committees and used to teach Sunday School and Disciples Bible class (had to give that up because I'm traveling on business a lot now).  I also served as president of the twins' school PTA for a couple of years.

In other words, solid citizen and all-around-nice person.

So, you're pretty much batting zero on the insult-o-meter, bud.  I have on the full armor of God, anyway, so you didn't have much chance to start with.  No chinks, you see . . .

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do we care?

What is the topic again?

[Bryan]

To Leigh:

You can see how Bryan devolved into a name-calling moron after faced with intelligent discussion.

Really.

Where is Leigh supposed to see that, exactly?

This is what Kearny really is.  A backwater Christian Taliban stronghold.

Fret not, maybe God will send one his plagues and wipe out this idiocracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And there we have it. Tolerance.

[Bryan]

I think Bryan is arguing that because of plate tectonics the mountians were possibly LOWER than they are now and could of been covered by a global flood.

Doesn't make any sense but that might be his argument.

If you look at my argument instead of the Leigh version of my argument, I simply argued against the presumption that mountains maintained a constant height, as supported by the ideas of plate tectonics.

Considering the malleability of the earth's surface and the sheer amount of water on the surface of the earth, an global flood cannot be ruled out on the basis of a claim that it is "impossible."

Talkorigins even admits the possibility in principle.

It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Some mountains are formed by glaciers, some by volcanic activity and some by plate tectonics...

Because it's impossible for it to be otherwise?

Did you follow the discussion of geocentrism earlier? Considering the role of parsimony in science, that sort of thing?

But... essentially all of the mountains on the planet have changed little in the past 100,000 years.

SO the flood would of had to cover all the current mountains...

Wouldn't that be changing the argument?

Leigh claimed without qualification that a global flood is impossible, not that a global flood with the apparent time line of the Noaic flood could not have occurred--and even if that's what she meant, she cannot rule out miracles as an explanation (see the quotation of talkorigins).

also... Meteorogically speaking... it's just not POSSIBLE! And there is no evidence... none zero zip for it to have happened. If anything the biodiversity of the planet is evidence that it did not happened.

Meteorologically speaking, it's quite possible, especially if you consider that the source of the waters is not limited to rainfall in the scriptural text (Genesis 7:11).

All you really need is sufficient water and no mountain height is sufficient to forestall the global flood.

Unless your Mr. P... and you can overlook all of that and believe that Dinosaurs were on a fictional ark and they were docile animals that man had tamed. It makes me giggle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that the flood of Noah was probably local--but that doesn't mean that I'll let people get away with nonsense such as claiming that a global flood isn't possible when it is.

[Guest Steve_C]

Please show me one nonreligious scientist's theory to explain how a global flood could be possible.

I'm curious.

Yes scientific theories change. But it doesn't make the utter lack of evidence for a global flood any truer.

God did it is not an excuse either. If you believe god can do anything then what's the point in trying to find a scientific explanation?

[Strife767]

If you look at my argument instead of the Leigh version of my argument, I simply argued against the presumption that mountains maintained a constant height, as supported by the ideas of plate tectonics.

Considering the malleability of the earth's surface and the sheer amount of water on the surface of the earth, an global flood cannot be ruled out on the basis of a claim that it is "impossible."

Talkorigins even admits the possibility in principle.

It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it.

Uh, duh, Bryan...this is an unscientific, supernatural explanation. A global flood is as "possible" in this way as much as it is "possible" that the universe and everything in it was created by a god last Thursday, including all of our memories of everything before that.

There is no scientific explanation for the possibility of a global flood--the mere suggestion of a global flood introduces a ton of problems/conflicts that no creationist or scientists has ever been able to explain, as detailed here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

That's the main reason why there is no support for the idea of a global flood in peer-reviewed scientific literature--it simply doesn't fit the facts. Therefore, it's tossed out, along with all other such theories.

[Bryan]

Uh, duh, Bryan...this is an unscientific, supernatural explanation.

Right, and that was my point, which was clearer before you removed the words that followed.

A global flood is as "possible" in this way as much as it is "possible" that the universe and everything in it was created by a god last Thursday, including all of our memories of everything before that.

I'm glad to hear you admit it.

Very sensible of you. Now explain it to Leigh.

There is no scientific explanation for the possibility of a global flood--the mere suggestion of a global flood introduces a ton of problems/conflicts that no creationist or scientists has ever been able to explain, as detailed here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

It would be clearer if you said there is no scientific explanation for an actuality of a relatively recent global flood.

And that still doesn't match up to a claim that such a flood is impossible in principle.

That's the main reason why there is no support for the idea of a global flood in peer-reviewed scientific literature--it simply doesn't fit the facts. Therefore, it's tossed out, along with all other such theories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, the problem is that it can be made to fit any set of facts.

But your implicit admission of a bias against miracles is noted.

[Bryan]

Please show me one nonreligious scientist's theory to explain how a global flood could be possible.

Scientists are more focused on actualities than possibilities, generally speaking.

It's like asking for an example of a tennis player who could play point guard in the NBA. There might well be one, but as long as he's focused on tennis instead of basketball you'll never hear about it.

I'm curious.

Yes scientific theories change. But it doesn't make the utter lack of evidence for a global flood any truer.

It might if you wait long enough.

Steady-state cosmology was all the rage in the early 20th century.

God did it is not an excuse either. If you believe god can do anything then what's the point in trying to find a scientific explanation?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

God did it is a perfect excuse for dismissing claims that it is "impossible" (which should at least encourage some qualification on the use of the term "impossible").

That was the topic, after all.

Did you want to talk about something different?