Summations Only

quote:

---

No I've done more than reassert, I've given the evidence.

---

You mean that you are still trying to pass off things that the Flood couldn’t have done as evidence of the Flood.Just because you decide that the Flood must have done something - an that only because you csn’t accept that YEC is a ridiculous falsehood - doesn’t make it evidence of the Flood.

quote:

---

Long as you keep on refusing to acknowledge anything of my point of view why should I pay any attention to you?

---

You mean you’ll stop posting ridiculous falsehoods because we aren’t crazy enough to believe them. Please! I wish you would.

You have presented no evidence. Assertions are not evidence. But assertions are all you got.What evidence leads you to reject our examples of sedimentary layers being laid down today?You can't name any. Because there is no evidence pointing toward that assertion.

It is interesting that Faith has never explained what mechanism of the Fantasy Flood deposited her strata only on continents and none in the ocean basins, so not all over the planet.

Fountains of the deep churning it all up probably interfered. What insanity explains the worldwide extent of the geological column on the Old Earth model? You must realize how absurd it is to explain it on a piecemeal local basis.

No, you haven't given any evidence. By your own admission all your evidence comes from mainstream geology. You've been reduced to arguing that geologists are misinterpreting their own evidence while you offer only interpretations of the evidence that make little sense and are often impossible. Right now you're not exerting yourself at all. You've posted another content-free message. You didn't address any of the issues surrounding the evidence that I described in my own message. As long as you continue promoting views that do not comport with and are often contradicted by the evidence, and as long as you continue making no effort to resolve these issues, your views will have no influence. Repeating "straight and flat, straight and flat" over and over again just makes it obvious how little you know or understand. The plain truth is that when people start describing the evidence that you quickly find something else to talk about.For example, and not meaning to imply that others haven't experienced exactly the same at you hands, you posted no reply to my lengthy Message 2039 explaining Edge's answers from his Message 1884.For another example, when Edge responded to your Message 2141 in his Message 2143 and Message 2144 you responded with an evidence-free redeclaration of your position in your Message 2145.If you don't want your claims of discussing the evidence to be called for the misrepresentations that they are then you can turn them into the truth by simply discussing the evidence.--Percy

quote:

---

What insanity explains the worldwide extent of the geological column on the Old Earth model

---

You see, you haven’t learned enough geology. There is no worldwide the geological column. We’ve covered that.The strata covering large areas have various causes. Large scale transgressions slowly covering the land. Epeiric seas. Large deserts.But what have you got? The strata aren’t anything we would expect a Flood to deposit. There’s plenty of evidence in them against the idea. Your sole response is that we can’t know what the Flood would do - when you are even willing to acknowledge that the evidence exists. But that response rules out any sound basis for expecting the Flood to do anything in particular. You can’t have it both ways. And if you really cared about the quality of your arguments you wouldn’t try.

Right, they spat the sediments up on the continents. Insanity? So you still have nothing but insults. The stratiographic columns around the world are clearly the results of billions of years of erosion, sedimentation, volcanism and tectonics. I guess you don't think that sedimentary deposition occurring beyond the mouths of major rivers around the world as local. Or erosion occurring in mountains around the world as local.Scientific explanations of these processes include all the little details that your fantasy flood cannot. Insanity would be spending more than a decade and a half arguing for processes that even a child can see are not physically possible.

I said I figure neat layers wouldn't have occurred on the sea bottom because of the disturbance by the fountains of the deep. There isn't any question how they got onto the continents since the water covered the land.I believe the geological column is a clear entity that is found around the world and not at the bottom of the sea, ever. I believe that's clear from the facts. All the current sedimentation has nothing in common with it and the attempts to make it fit are ludicrous. That any of the strata of the geo column were formed as river deltas or erosion from mountains is ludicrous in the extreme, and what is your evidence for such an idea? Nothing. The column shows continuous rapid deposition over very large areas to a depth of miles, and not a shred of a hint of any length of time beyond hours between layers.And yes I insult the current theory, it's ridiculous. You insult my views and I insult yours. Get over it. Sometimes science makes a fool of itself, and gets away with it for centuries. And they are LU-DI-CROUS. I mean really. Imagination run amok. By which you should mean the current geological explanations of the geological column but unfortunately you don't. The denial I encounter shows a strange self-delusion, such as when I point out such obvious things as that the extent of a layer of sediment such as is seen in the geological column would prevent anything from living in the area it covers; it explains how it is a mass graveyard but the notion that any of those fossils ever lived during the time of its laying down is bizarre. It doesn't deserve the name "science" at all, not these days anyway, maybe a couple centuries ago.I'm just answering absurdities now, as I said, I have no reason to try to defend my position beyond that at this point, did that many times in the past. Just tired of this nonsense. I know you can't help yourselves, you really do believe all this unprovable unscientific carrying on, somehow it got to be accepted, and it goes on being elaborated, all because there is no way to test anything in the distant past, so all you have is theory, imagination, uncheckable mental conjurings. I know it will all eventually collapse but it's too bad that in the meantime it holds you all captive.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I believe the geological column is a clear entity that is found around the world

---

It isn’t. The geological column is an abstraction, it isn’t found anywhere.

quote:

---

...and not at the bottom of the sea, ever. I believe that's clear from the facts

---

The fact that there are - even now - regions of sea that once were land (and thanks to global warming there will be more) rather rules out any strict distinction between land and sea.

quote:

---

All the current sedimentation has nothing in common with it and the attempts to make it fit are ludicrous

---

And yet you have run away from backing up similar claims very recently. I doubt that you will even try this time.

quote:

---

That any of the strata of the geo column were formed as river deltas or erosion from mountains is ludicrous in the extreme, and what is your evidence for such an idea? Nothing.

---

In fact we do have the structure and composition of the rocks for a start. But then you never bothered to learn enough geology to know that. An example in the first article. And note that recognising these particular former deltas is useful in oil and gas exploration.

quote:

---

And yes I insult the current theory, it's ridiculous. You insult my views and I insult yours. Get over it. Sometimes science makes a fool of itself, and gets away with it for centuries

---

You say that but you can’t back it up. We can. That is why you are the one who has to ignore real evidence while offering fake evidence.

quote:

---

The denial I encounter shows a strange self-delusion, such as when I point out such obvious things as that the extent of a layer of sediment such as is seen in the geological column would prevent anything from living in the area it covers

---

Perhaps you would - finally - like to explain why you believe that life is impossible in areas of net deposition. Given that there is life in present day regions of deposition - even deserts. River deltas are even known for the amount of life they can support.Given this you shouldn’t be surprised that nobody believes you. Really, I find it hard to imagine that even you believe it. You certainly haven’t given any real reason.And that shows up your last paragraph as the travesty it is,Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

You're just answering in absurdities now as always.It's interesting to note that it's just empty assertions with no factual content or evidence to support your beliefs.If you actually had a shred of evidence it would be surprising that you cannot even convince beginning geology students who would go on and develop your fantasies into coherent hypotheses that would over-turn contemporary geology.That is the dream of every science student, to make your mark by overthrowing parts of an existing scientific theory. It's sad you can't convince anyone of anything, but that you are delusional. Your delusions will never impact science and when you're gone they will not even be remembered.

My emphasis added (ie, bold not in the original): On my site (long over-due for a rewrite which won't come until late summer at the earliest), I quote from Sun Tsu's Art of War:

quote:

---

Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
    ​
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
    ​
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

---

My point on my site is that the vast majority of creationists are indeed ignorant both of their enemy and of themselves.Their gross misunderstanding of evolution and the other sciences causes them to identify false targets that they concentrate their attacks against, all the while never coming anywhere close to engaging any real targets. I once used the analogy of a boxer claiming victory in the ring when all he ever did was shadow-box, never ever landing a glove on an actual opponent.They do not know themselves in that they do not know their own history nor the history of the claims that they use uncritically, even when those claims have been proven to their faces as being false. Most of their claims date back to around 1980 and before, yet extremely few creationists know that. They are told that no "evolutionist" has ever been able to respond to those claims when in fact all those claims were refuted decisively within a few years of having been created (we have to have heard the claims before we could respond to them, after all), hence by the early 1980's, yet extremely few creationists know that.Creationists who engage in street and peer proselytizing go to creationism classes and presentations in order to "gather ammo" with which to fight evolution. They have no clue that they're being given blanks. As former creationist Scott Rauch stated:

quote:

---

I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.

---

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis also used a boxing analogy to describe this situation of creationists using false claims (AiG Negative Feedback, 02 December 2002):

quote:

---

As said in the original Don’t Use page, the harm is in using something which is not true, because the cause of the one who is ‘the truth’ cannot be helped thereby. And your own recent experience reinforces something else we saidthat using discredited arguments can backfire on the user. So our aim was to help Christians to avoid arguments that are likely to backfire, and return their focus to the Word of God not ‘evidence’.

​

...

​

But more and more over the last few years, we have noticed tens of thousands of Christians excitedly using arguments over the Web, for instance, that are a plain embarrassment to those with scientific training. It was like watching your brother enter the ring thinking he had a killer punch, and watching him get cut to ribbons. Further, and most importantly, it had escalated to the point where it was a hindrance to soul winning, since it gave the hearers a ‘legitimate’ excuse to reject Christ. And all we did at that point was to publish an ‘advice’ article. The only time it became relevant to a specific creationist was when Kent [Hovind] himself decided to align himself publicly with a justification of false arguments. If it had been one or two minor points of disagreement, OK, but when it reinforces some of the most blatant fallacies, and even defends fraud, at what point does one NOT face one's responsibilities to the innocents being ‘slaughtered’ in the belief that they are getting sound ammunition?

​

...

​

... , we actually do know people who say they almost gave the faith away when they found out that a particular argument was fallacious, and who say that finding Christians with the integrity to avoid falsehood, no matter what the cost, helped restore it. Also, in the last day or so, a leading atheistic anti-creationist organization said that while they disagreed with almost everything we stand for, they said we were ‘admirable’ and ‘showed integrity’ in trying to persuade other creationists not to use bad arguments. Who knows what sort of witness this could be? We know of many people, outside and inside of the church, who will no longer even look at or consider the authority of the Bible in Genesis, in its history, cosmology, etc. because of bad experiences with blatant pseudo-arguments applied by enthusiasts who had been fed creationist non-arguments.

---

Anyone who has ever taken the trouble to listen to my position will know that I want creationists to be truthful and honest in their opposition to evolution and to stop all the lying, deception, and falsification that they choose to do instead. If you truly want to oppose evolution, then oppose evolution, not some stupid strawman caricature of it. And be sure to do so honestly and truthfully!But they cannot do that in large part because they do not know their enemy nor do they know themselves. They cannot possibly win. At best, all they can do is destroy their own faith and the faith of others.And certainly Faith is the poster-child of those problems.

In the course of an argument I get sloppy on side issues and details, but as for the overall arguments I defend I stand by them. There are only two and I've thought them through on my own, not defending them secondhand, and it does sincerely look to me like it's my opponents who are misrepresenting the argument and refusing to see obvious facts. The straw man arguments and misrepresentations from the other side here are wearisome and depressing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

...it does sincerely look to me like it's my opponents who are misrepresenting the argument and refusing to see obvious facts.

---

It does seem obvious to me that if there are creatures currently living in an environment, then it is possible that creatures in the past lived in similar environments. I don’t see anything controversial in that.It also seems to me that someone with a poor understanding of trilobite diversity and with no knowledge of the genetics (because nobody really does) is in no position to say how long it should take the observed diversity to appear. And when they cite a figure that would seem to require intentional breeding programs I don’t see why I should take it seriously at all. I don’t see anything controversial in that either.And given that that covers two of your recent arguments - and we know we can extend it to more - I don’t think your accusations hold water at all.

You didn't quote me but I assume you are referring to my statement about how an extensive layer of sediment would prevent anything from living in the area, an argument we've been over a few times in the last couple of years. I think you and others are just refusing to actually think about what I'm saying. There WAS NO "environment" when the sediment was being laid down, it would have killed all the environment and everything living in it at the time, or actually, all the waves of sedimentary deposits already laid down would have. And there is certainly nothing living "there" now, in the area covered by the slab of rock, because, well, it's not an "environment," it's a slab of rock. Now there ARE creatures living on top of the whole stack or on whatever part of the stack is currently exposed, of course, because that's now the surface of the Earth. But the "time periods" never were surface, that's a monumental delusion. I'm sure you won't get it because you don't want to get it, but maybe someone else will. You are right that nobody has any knowledge of trilobite genetics because nobody has ever seen a living trilobite. And since current genetics labors under evolutionist assumptions as does every other science related to biology, you get the wrong answer in all of them. Breeding programs are just an example to make the point that you can get dramatic new varieties of any living thing in a very short time, and since Darwin himself used breeding programs to argue for natural selection as the mechanism of evolution it ought to be fair to use them as I use them.Some form of selection goes on all the time in nature, though not always or even all that frequently the form of natural selection that requires the death of the unfit, far more often the simple isolation of a portion of a population that leaves the rest of the population intact somewhere else. This accomplishes the same thing for the isolated population that natural selection does, meaning the isolation itself: that is THE mechanism that brings about change, variety, microevolution.And although I've many times proposed that this could be studied in a laboratory, it really ought to be easy enough to recognize that it wouldn't take more than whatever number of generations are needed to sexually combine all the genetic material in the total population, the time having to do with the number of individuals you start with and the degree of reproductive isolation.You know that the lizards on Pod Mrcaru only needed thirty years to become an entirely different species/subspecies from the original parent stock of ten individuals, and that wasn't a breeding program, just the isolation of a few individuals which must happen in nature very frequently. This ought to be obvious.The problem of course is that evolutionists insist that a mutation had to be the cause, and I argue instead that no mutation is needed, all that you need is generations of sexual recombination of the existing genetic material. In any case it takes hardly any time at all. I refuse to read what Percy has written on the subject of the Jutland cattle I raised a while back but I'll make my point again: the reproductive isolation of a few individuals of the parent herd was all it took to get a whole new species/subspecies in whatever time it took to mix the genetic material in the isolated population.This is the REAL evolution and it takes very little time, anywhere from a hundred to a few hundred years to get a whole new population. Reproductive isolation is the mechanism. It's a form of selection, just not classical Natural Selection.And since there would have been quite a bit more genetic variety in any population before the Flood than afterward, the degree of change from one subspecies of trilobite to another is obviously microevolution to the degree I'm talking about, within the Kind. Sure you can multiply your wrong arguments in many ways, happens all the time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"Obvious facts" means "no evidence or argument". You only declare what you believe. Over and over and over and over again.