Points Of View

I am not going to take the time to reply to all of your talking points. It would take too much time and you wouldn't believe a word of what I said anyway.Here is a link to a site which refutes the common creationist claims. Some of these have been seen, and refuted, so often they are even numbered!It would help if you checked that site before you posted a claim, just to see what the evidence to the contrary actually is.Here is the link:

Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1#
It is a video. Tell if it is some kind of a prank.

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1#

I have tried to
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1#

Yup I am reely new.
Listen I keep trying to reply to Anglagard and keep seeing it in Coyotes page. What Am I doing wrong?
I followed your instructions

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1#

If Answers in Genesis sees it that way they can have the credit. I was on that site briefly last night for the first time, no apology.The evidence, be it the strata or the canyon carved into it is the same to either of us. I say the strata was laid down in a catastrophic flood in about a year and the canyon was carves in a few weeks or so. That is interpreting the evidence. You might look at the same evidence and say it all took millions of years. Again an interpretation.Evilution is something I thought I made up for a Halo Clan but you can credit whoever you like,(it was already in use on Halo). My beliefs are based on the bible and I guess you figured out the meaning on your own just fine. While I also admit being in the minority that in no way invalidates my belief system. I would be worried about being an elitist but I am not saying "I am right" but God is right.I believe the global flood and the "evidence" against it ia all based on uninformatarianism which I rejected even before I became a God clod.As for the theory getting stronger I can't say. I gave up on it when "punctuated equilibrium" was starting to get ink.On genetics there is evidence that goes both ways. I admit that.Radiometric dating is a farce and has never returned an accurate date on samples which the age is known. Carbon 14 being an exception but even that relies on uniformity (sea levels being just one of many required constants). But aside from c-14 how can you rely on methods that can't come close to accurate dating on samples of known ages to determine samples of unknown ages? Mount St. Hellens and Hawaii both had fresh samples turn out to be hundreds of thousand to millions of years old from lava flows that were decades or less in age.As for human evolution, it was built on evidence that a few decades later would have been rejected by any self respecting scientist. Unstratified or even surface finds by paid peasants and such.Stratigraphy and sedimentology research in the labs at Colorado State or the University of Colorado (can't remember which). Sorry I am too new to link or provide you with threads. If I ever get any good at this I will try.On "educated" I never let school interfere with my education. I have known quite a few "educated" people that believe that 2+2 does not necessarily equal 4. That may even be true but 4 years of college for that?Lastly, Answers in Genesis may have covered all this or maybe not.It is nice to know I am not alone.In place of this threadThanx for replying to my posting.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

In case you haven't noticed every reply I try to send ends up on your page. I am sorry about that .

Here is another one, but not as well organized: Arguments we think creationists should NOT useEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

It's ending up exactly where it is supossed to. You're letting an erroneous world view get in your way of seeing the proper pattern. slow down and reexamine the evidence. All the evidence.

---

KindlyWhen I was young I loved everything about cigarettes: the smell, the taste, the feel . everything. Now that I’m older I’ve had a change of heart. Want to see the scar?

This is a forum with threads, you are posting on a thread, so all responses are posted to that thread in chronological order.However, if you look at the top right you will see a message that says that this is a reply to messsage 20 by bOilingfrom.You will also see this at the bottom left of a message, as well as a listing of what messages by whom are replies to your messageTake some time and try to post a message that is more than an off the cuff reply, but one with supporting information.Try NOT to use videos or websites as arguments, they can be your substantiation, but we like YOU to summarize what you think is so compelling about them.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hey Straggler.Thanx for the welcome.Quick question, how do you isolate a phrase from a posting in the light blue box?Anyhow I see the same stars and Hubble images as you. That is the evidence. The principal of uniformity is an assumption that precludes any interpretation that excludes millions of years. Sediment accumulating at the rate currently observable would take millions of years to make all the layers we see as evidence. Evolutionists prefer to believe that the current rate is a constant. Creationists at least those of my ilk prefer to think the current rates of geologic change are not a constant.What successful predictions has uniformity made? I know of none but then again I admit my bias. Uniformity has only produced theories or modifications to old theories and even then when it must accommodate new facts which it failed to predict.Big bang failed to predict the accelerating expansion of the universe.While ID/Creation does not claim any such successes the bible did predict the discovery that the earth hangs on nothing.It also informed readers that God stretches the heavens long before Edwin Hubble did the redshift thing. The cause of redshift and distance calculations are still theory that requires a bit of assumption. Consensus does not equal fact. Ask Galileo and the Wright Brothers.Relativity has the speed of light as the constant. Pretty good bet that it is not a constant let alone the universal one although the equation still works well enough to make nuclear bombs and reactors (so the value of c must be in the ball park of the speed of light squared) Myself I go with the inverse square law of gravity having a great deal to do with it but that is getting close to off topic.I will say I am wrong all the time but the bible is right.I will also say I am bias but I go way out of my way to try to be objective. I do read about and love science. I just don't always like what is being done with it.Look I spent all day scratching my head wondering where my replies and postings were going. Maybe my focus will be a bit tighter when I get the hang of this crap. One last question.Is this blogging?Thanx again for the warm welcome.JD Edited by b0ilingfrog, : Spelling and typosEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

Hey Razd,
I went to the site. AiG LOL and they do what many accuse all of us of doing.
The lean on the same crappy science and "expurts" for their information as they turn around and deny later. thanx anyway

Great advice but you will all have to forgive me for the groundwork I gotta put in. I mean even a summary is gonna get pretty long winded.
Thanx in advance and for all your previous patience.
JD

Keeping this short. You wanna flesh it out do your own research
I am not the one with the “education” in here
Without formal proof some guy named Steno in 1669 assumed and published
Principles of Stratigraphy.Principle of superposition-basically older strata are lower with progressively newer ones upward.Original Horizontality-Basically all layers formed horizontally and were deformed later.Continuity- layer can be assumed to have originally continued laterally far from where they now end.There is a fourth one inferred later but I forget now. Forget all of that now it was all proven wrong anyway but has been assumed to be correct up until fairly recently.Now I found all this on a video and to give proper credit:
Fundamental Experiments On Stratification by
Pierre Julien and Guy Berthault published by
The Geological Society of France 1993
French Academy of Science 1986 1988
French National Congress of Sedimentolgy 1993
Russian Academy of Sciences Journal “lithological and mineral resources” 2002
Stratification experiments presented to:
French National Congress of Sedimentology 1993
International Congress of Sedimentology 1994
European Congress of Sedimentology 1995
Powders and Grains Conference USA 1997
European Geoscience Union Nice 2004
Video produced by “Sarong (Jersey) LTD.”Now Julien is or at least was a PhD at CSU with Department of Civil Engineering
CSU provided facilities for the large-scale experiments.Berthault looking into work done by a guy named Walter inspired by results from research on the Glomar Explorer (or was it Challenger?) never mind. He wanted to see what kind of experiments had been done on sedimntology and stratigraphy before doing his own. Guess what? No prior art. It would seem these principles were so intuitively correct that no one ever challenged or confirmed them with any kind of repeatable experiment. We have a name for that . .it’ll come to me later.
I, like every one else, pretty much agreed with all these principles of stratigraphy. I never saw them in order or even on a single page. Again being so simple and reasonable who would question them?
Once the experiments were done the first three of these along with one associated with fossils were proven to not be principles as defined (a general law exemplified in numerous cases). In fact they applied only in rare instances if at all.
This is what was used to establish the geologic column and it is all wrong. Sediments many many layers higher can be much older. The foundation of the fossil record is mud. This "proof" of evolution was based on three major assumptions which led to a fourth. Like fossils found on opposite sides of oceans identify layers they are found in as the same age.
Oh I remember now, we call repeatable experiments science. I dropped out too. Edited by b0ilingfrog, : I remembered what we call it