Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

ALSO KNOW that those who permit the publication of the best evolutioarny science (Levin, Lewontin etc) allow from the press things that do not contradict the idea of life from nonlife while THOSE SAME EDITORS think that what we discuss here on evc is "too" philosophical (if I might make a comparison from personal experience)!

For the first time that I can remember, I actually think I understood everything in your post except...

what did it have to do with anything?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ok loudmouth unlike others you have thrown some strong assertions.YES YES YES We insist as is our right and history in America that revealed religion is a legitamate way to get truth.
Prove our revealations wrong. Fine.
BUT you can not disqualify us from the race before it starts. This is what your doing when you say we must show evidence for the claims in Genesis BEFORE we can contend with opponents. We don't.
All we have to do is show our opponents have not proven thier case by evidence. Before resonable men.
We don't need positive points to back up our positive assertions and all that.
And indeed the origins debate is not about the Bible.but rather creationists attacking evolution which is the dominate position in the establishment though not the hearts of the American people especially the founder peoples.You bring up a lot of points which I have answered elsewhere. If there are "evidences" you find difficult to square with the Bible well bring it on. I'm very confident. Indeed all things can be answered because we are dealing with speculation. Evolutionary biology,geology,cosmology, are studies of history. Not Scientific studies.

You say: But you have been told and know that is simply not the case. Evolution is going on today and you havebeen shown examples of it.Biology goes on today and you can see examples of it everytime you cut the grass.Geology is going on today and can be experienced every time you are in an earthquake.These are very much sciences and you know it.Quit trying to claim they are not.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Evolutionary biology,geology,cosmology, are studies of history. Not Scientific studies.

---

Well Robert,
Try telling a fellow Christian that who is doing research in Cosmology into Black Holes. Her name is Christine Done and very much a Holy Spirit filled one at that! She wll find that very interesting to be labelled as a historian! Here is a recent paper she did on black holes. My wife used to belong to the same church as hers before she left Durham to live with me after our marriage. No webpage found at provided URL: http://universe.nasa.gov/press/2003/030331a.htmlI also think she is a little more intelligent than your average North American!

In message 314, Robert Byers wrote:"YES YES YES We insist as is our right and history in
America that revealed religion is a legitamate way to get
truth. Prove our revealations wrong. Fine."I think we have gotten way off the topic from the original discussion of fossil sorting. It has become quite apparent that Byers has no interest in trying to explain the way fossils are "sorted" within the sedimentary record either in terms of a Noachian Flood or demonstrating this sorting simply doesn't exist. He apparently doesn't want to discuss either topic. Rather, Mr. Byer seems more interested in a nebulous, know-nothing, arm-waving denunciation of evolution from his personal evangelical point-of-view, of which he is incapable of supporting with anything approaching either independently verifiable scientific evidence or logical detailed arguments.For example above he talks about people having to prove his "revelations" (from God??) false. However, he completely failed to present any evidence at all that the so-called "revelations" that he is giving are anything but his personal interpretations. I question this because having gone with people to their churches and mosques, other than the one I attend, I find that some people make the mistake of confusing their personal interpretation of scripture and religious opinions with either the "truth" or "revelations" from God. During these visits, I found that if these were real revelations or the "truth", than God (Allah) has given different people extremely contradictory revelations and versions of the "truth". All I can conclude is that all of these different revelations and versions of the "truth", which Byers and others have claimed as such, are too contradictory to all be real. Thus, Byers, as anyone else, who told me they know what the "truth" is, needs to provide some proof that their revelation / "truth" is actually what they claim it to be and not just their personal opinion confused with them.Thus, before Byers can challenge us to "Prove our revealations wrong", he needs to prove, using concrete, independently verifiable evidence, that his revelations / "truth" are actually real (and from God?) and not simply the fallible interpretations / opinions of a fellow fallible human being.Robert Byers wrote:"BUT you can not disqualify us from the race before it starts.
This is what your doing when you say we must show evidence
for the claims in Genesis BEFORE we can contend with
opponents. We don't."Well, Mr Byer disqualifies himself from the discussion. If a person doen't want to discuss the either data or observations about whether the Noachian Flood can account for the observed distribution of fossils in the sedimentary record, they shouldn't be here in the first place. If all a person can do is dismiss anything that contradicts his personal interpretations of the Bible, which he mistakenly confuses as being "revelations", as not being science, even though it is science, that person ends up disqualifying himself from the discussion as he obviously has no interest in discussing the topic of this thread in a scientific manner.An important part of science is having to defend one's ideas by showing objective and verifiable evidence and using logical arguments based on scientific principles. Personal interpretations, mislabeled as revelations, and religious texts, whether they be either the Bible, the Koran, or any other religious text, are neither of these. In science a person can't simply say that it is true because either the Bible, Koran, or some other religious text says it is true. (Of course, I have yet to come across a Bible that actually spoke to me and told me how to interpret it. Like all mere mortals, I have to read it and interpret it as to what it means.) A person must show hard evidence that can be interpreted using logical arguments, for their interpretations. Otherwise, they disqualify themselves from scientific discussions because they aren't doing science. They are just pounding everyone else on the head with a Bible insisting that we blindly accept their personal religious beliefs to be true....additional incoherent ranting and mumble jumble deleted...In Dinosaurs 4500 years ago, message 69, Byers wrote:" Creationists accept, as is the history of the English-speaking
people, the most intelligent people, ..."I now understand why Quebec wants to leave Canada and become a separate country. :-)Yours,BillThis message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 07-24-2004 11:51 PM

Hi Robert,You've just repeated your original assertion. I already understand that you believe that science fixed on abiogenesis and evolution as the explanations for the origin of life and for the origin of species by a means different from that for other fields of science, but you're wrong. Abiogenesis and evolution are theories accepted within the scientific community based upon the same hypothetico-deductive method used by other branches of science.If you think abiogenesis and evolution do not use the hypothetico-deductive method, then you'll have to explain why you think this, and tell us what method you think was used instead.--Percy

Bill is right Percy, Back to fossil sorting. What is and isn't science can be taken to the appropriate thread.

quote:

---

The public believes experts. The experts present to the public they are sure of what they say by methods of fact finding and testing.
Yet in evolution this was changed.
Evolutionists said they proved wrong something and proved right something else based on thier expertism.
But actually they changed the rules (the scientific method) about how truth was to be found on these matters.

---

All science is being investigated through the same Scientific Method. As such, your claim sounds rather silly. I am sure that you wouldn't make it without proof, though, so please document where the Scientific Method has been "altered" for the scientific exploration of Evolution.Because, otherwise you are actually attacking ALL science as being deceptive and political.{Fixed quote box - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-26-2004 12:47 AM

quote:

---

We have ways of coming to conclusions.
We had and have the practice of assesing the evidence and drawing conclusions.
Yet on the matter of origins suddenly it is insisted there will be a new way of finding conclusions. And this way is not just for the field of science but all society is to accept this new way on the issue of origins.

---

And I say that you are outright lying about this. The same Scientific Method is applied to all science and have not been altered for biological sciences. Your false claim is pathetic.

I disagree, Steen. We have only a few liars who drop in here. Rob is more typical. He has been lied to a lot. He is almost totally ignorant and hasn't a chance of knowing when he is being lied to.Since he likes the answers he's given he repeats the lies but isn't himself lying.

quote:

---

YES YES YES We insist as is our right and history in America that revealed religion is a legitamate way to get truth.
Prove our revealations wrong. Fine.

---

That has been done, yes.

quote:

---

BUT you can not disqualify us from the race before it starts. This is what your doing when you say we must show evidence for the claims in Genesis BEFORE we can contend with opponents.

---

Which we are not doing. We are saying that trying to disprove the Scientific Theory of Evolution is not evidence for the Bible. We are ALSO saying that the creationist arguments against scientific findings have been disproven in the past, but your kind still dishonestly repeat them. And we are saying that the actual process of evolution is an outright fact, and that the only legitimate attack could be on the Scientific Theory of Evolution, the explanation 9of the mechanisms. But evolution itself has been outright observed and documented, and only dishonest fundie creationists are trying to deny that.

quote:

---

All we have to do is show our opponents have not proven thier case by evidence. Before resonable men.

---

That would be the Scientific Method, then, as is the case for all science, your lies none withstanding. And guess what, the Scientific Method HAS been apllied to the Scientific Theory (Since that is how it became a Scientific Theory) and found valid.

quote:

---

We don't need positive points to back up our positive assertions and all that.

---

Yes, you do, as the Scientific Theory already have been established. It is the best explanation that fits all the evidence. If you claim some other model, then the burden is on you to prove it so.

quote:

---

And indeed the origins debate is not about the Bible.but rather creationists attacking evolution which is the dominate position in the establishment though not the hearts of the American people especially the founder peoples.

---

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are still talking about abiogenesis after having been told that this is not part of the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then you are either dishonest or of lesser intellectual capacity.

quote:

---

Evolutionary biology,geology,cosmology, are studies of history. Not Scientific studies.

---

Amazing accusation. Undocumented, and contradicted by the scientific works in those fields, but that never stopped a creationist from lying before, and obviously is not stopping you now either.

I really can't agree. When somebody multiple times have had explained IN DETAIL the errors of their argument, makes no attempt at responding to this, merely repeating the original argument, then yes they are lying, they are deliberately spreading misinformation. At least in my opinion, that's the case.I see no real reason why Robert should not be held to task for deliberate misrepresentations?

People - Look at the topic title. Are you posting messages that have something to do with it?Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Sorry I contributed to that too. Let's get back to sorting.