Summations Only

Let's tie this bow up completely. When you say, "oldest", and use other relative timings like "appear first", we mean to use time as reflected not subjectively, but using any and all of the scientific means for establishing dates.Now those times and dates may be disputed based on one or more creationist arguments, but that does not make the objective dates or the observations illusions. If, in fact, the dates are wrong, the correlations with fossils and the observed order still require an explanation of how the dates can be wrong but the correlations are still present. Creationists cannot do that. In fact, the most plausible explanation is that the dates are not wrong.Viewed in that way, anyone can see that Faith's denials are beside the point. Unfortunately, we don't have "scientific creationists" that visit this place anymore. We just have Faith.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What else did you expect? Blood from a turnip? More than a decade worth of debates about geology, biology, and a host of non-Creationist topics, with 99 percent of her participation in those debates reading much as her posts do here.Faith is the least introspective Christian I have ever encountered. (Read about Peter or Paul if you want examples of what kind of self examination Christians should be doing). In this thread, not only does Faith reject science out of hand, Faith also runs a big yellow bus back and forth over the bodies of fellow Creationists who have looked at the evidence over the past two hundred years up until now, and who have made attempts to explain that evidence as being consistent with the Bible. Essentially nobody on earth is right about this stuff except Faith, if you let her tell the tale. Because this a debate site and such arguments are the subject matter of this thread? Because this particular thread is in the science forums and not the theological discussion forums? Because ignorance is not bliss? Because it is uncomfortable to continually demonstrate yourself as the hind end of every discussion?I've noticed that non-Creationist don't take the position that Creation Science is not worth expending effort. At least the ones participating here do take time out to explore what Creationists think about astronomy, biology, paleontology, and geology. Many of them probably know more about what Creationist say on those subject than they know about real geology. That is because knowing the arguments and evidence from the other side is the minimum necessary for meaningful discussion.

This exchange in the conversation between you and Faith grabbed my attention: What I quoted above is something that folks have made dozens of posts trying to explain to Faith, only to have her stick to her belief.Faith's position is, of course, ridiculous on its face. The geological column is a construct of scientists, and as such is whatever scientists say that it is. It is literally impossible for them to be wrong about what the geological column is.Now, one might question whether the geological column represents anything real on earth. That would be a challenge and possibly worthy of entertaining a debate on. But the position that scientists are wrong about their own idealizations is an absolute simply asinine stance. Yet I can find posts going back years with Faith insisting on this stupidity.I don't know who was the first person to use the phrase, "you've become a caricature of yourself" at EvC, but that certainly fits here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What that means, dumb ass, is that "The Geological Column" actually is reflected in the real world.Consider this, when you say that "The Geological Column" is not under the oceans, what could that possibly mean in view of your definition? Seriously, this is why I no longer get into arguments with you. The entire premise of your arguments is hogwash.And with that, I will leave the polite arguing to dwise and the rest of the folks here.

A fine attempt at reason. Please take better care of your pearls.

"Given your claims that there is no "geological column" under the ocean, I'd suggest that the question of what is under there is highly relevant. And, wow, what a hilarious answer you gave ...

Since you introduced the term into the discussion, you get to explain how it is used when you say it.You don't get to tell other folks which meaning of believe to use when they use the term. And it is fair to distinguish what folks do regarding accepting scientific evidence as factual and the type of belief you have that what is under the ocean is mainly magma or your belief that there was a world wide flood about 4500 years ago. For some of your beliefs, there is no factual underpinning.

Right. But again, interpretting the words of others differently than intend is dishonest. We all know that words and phrases have more than one meaning.You would, of course like to pretend that we are all equally as stupid and evidence free as you show yourself to be. But such is not the case.

No, he did not misuse the term. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss both my belief that a total solar eclipse last August was visible in Newberry, South Carolina, and your belief that there is mostly magma under the ocean. Such a discussion won't evaluate the patterns of thinking involved in those two statements of belief as being remotely similar, despite your inane contrary statements.It is in that light that I point out that your statement of belief, as expressed in response to Coyote is just more of your denial about evidence. When you say, for example, that the fossil evidence supports the Flood, it is only because you accept superficial portions of the evidence (Well, the Flood killed lots of animals, and there are lot of fossils) while ignoring the details and calling the illusion. In fact, there is zero physical evidence of the Flood. When I say that, I mean that there is no evidence which is consistent with the Flood and at the same time rebuts alternatives including the scientific conclusions on the subject. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You don't have to repeat it. Just point to it. Tell us which posts contain that evidence.

You may have to meet him halfway. No matter what number he provides, and no matter the order of magnitude of Joules, calories, electron volts, etc., ultimately you have to make some sense out of them which will require some attempt to grasp scientific concepts. If you are not going to do that, because of either lack of ability, or lack of interest, don't ask people to waste their time. The fact that you don't understand something does not make it wrong. That would be stupid.

Wrong. It is entirely possible that you are incapable of grasping the science. And of course, they should still bring it up regardless of your lack. Otherwise, we end up with the idea that the most ignorant folks win every time. How convenient would that be?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is an old Buzsaw tactic. Claiming that your own ignorance protects you from being deceived by Science. It is no more charming a ploy when you use it.

Where did you mention the genetics? Nobody else would have done that based on the fact that they don't have that information.Is that really what you call brilliant? What you actually did in your discussion was dismiss the pictures that were presented so that you could talk about a picture of some other samples. We can all see the features that were not present in your offering, but were present in the ones Percy offered. Nope. What we can see here is you glossing over the differences.

In fact, that is exactly the same thing as what I said you do. You don't even know what a joule is, or what it means, or have the least idea how such numbers constitute evidence. That ignorance allows you to spout BS without feeling stupid.What you call brilliance is what objective people would call ignorance. And you bask in it constantly.Here is another example of what I am talking about: Bask, baby, bask.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box by adding second closing "[/qs]".