Creation Evidence Museums...

Your kinda avoiding the issue i think. Are you panicking?...Creation magazine is real science. They are using there 5 senses. They have every kind of scientists. All fields. It shows a scientist doesnt need to believe in Evolution like so many people here think. Its laughable? We are basing it on a very very very credible source and its science . Lets see Evolution is also science but based on what? Evolutionists opinions? The ideas of fallible men? A theory thats based heavily on presupposition?. Ideas and theories that keep changing,Not because they advance but because they invent a new theory which also cant be proven. But nevertheless they call it science and they call it fact. Evolution has barely made a few advancements since its inception!..This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 08:48 AMThis message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 08:49 AM

What you are doing is called "projection": "The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others". You are avoiding all the issues by not supporting your claims, and you are trying to distract us by intorducing new claims. A typical creationist tactic called the "Gish Gallop" or the "Hovind Hustle". For example, a few messages back: You said "AiG have extensively covered it", and Crashfrong asked you to support that claim. Give us links to the AIG coverage or admit that you just assumed that AIG has covered it and presented your unwarranted assumption as fact.

Did Plants Evolve? | Answers in Genesis Ive never studied this plant topic. So if you disagree theres no point arguing with me cause i dont have nothing to add.

That's a book review. It has absolutely no mention of any explanation of how AIG thinks that the fossil record of plants came to be as it is, or of anything that is remotely related to Crashfrog's question:

quote:

---

As you go up in the geologic record, starting from the lower sediments, there's a pattern of increasing complexity - simple plants on the bottom, more complex plants on top.

​

What's the creationist "interpretation" of this pattern?

---

Then your answer to Crashfrog's question should have been "I don't know". You actual answer, "in relation to your last challenge im completely lost ive never studied that but AiG have extensively covered it" was a lie; AIG has not covered it at all.

Actually, AiG, does mention it - they imply there is no such fossil record. In other words, they lie (again).

redundant?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Kingdom of the Plants: Defying Evolution | Answers in Genesis This may be what your looking for on fossil plants and plant evolution. Bible | Answers in Genesis I also found some more information on the Bible if anyones interested.This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 11:16 AMThis message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 11:18 AM

Almeyda, please read the Forum Guidelines again. Posting bare links without adding discussion of your own is against forum rules. I understand that you were asked for a link but you really should write in your own words what you think this link shows concerning your claims. edited to change author to Admin mode - The Queen This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 05-06-2004 11:04 AM

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Nope. The question was:

quote:

---

As you go up in the geologic record, starting from the lower sediments, there's a pattern of increasing complexity - simple plants on the bottom, more complex plants on top.

​

What's the creationist "interpretation" of this pattern?

---

What you posted is a bunch of claims that plants appear fully formed without clear ancestry (which is, of course, false for many plants) .... but it says nothing about the pattern of plant fossils in the fossil record. This is, of course, because the pattern contradicts creationsist ideas; AIG has nothing to say..

Well, not to start a discussion that you don't want to have, but the article doesn't answer the question. It simply says "there's no plant evolution" without actually explaining the sorting of the fossil plant record.You don't find that maybe a little... dishonest? That AiG just leaves that out? I guess I do.

You guys act like Evolution is so flawless. There theories change constantly. Not because of advancements but because its just another theory they invented. Another that cant be proven.

Uh, no. We've never said that it was flawless, or acted that way. Once again your projecting your own shortcomings on us.Not everybody's like you, Almeyda. Right, just like gravity, just like physics, just like medicine. All theories in change - because the change is for the better. Evolution changes because each change represents an increase in accuracy.

Your getting confused with Operational & Historical science again. Remember Operational is done in the present while Historical is based on assumptions about the past. We can always jump of a building to test gravity. Because we are working in the present using our 5 senses. Historical science is about the past. Scientist cant examine it because they only have the present. When scientist ascribe millions of yrs to the various layers in the ground ,This is not only an assumption about the past but it is based on people that werent there. People think Evolutionists can prove dinasaurs lived 80million yrs ago. But all they have dug up is dead bones. Dating methods are based on invalid assumptions. Many creationists write about the flaws of modern dating methods. If the earth could be proved how old it really was then Evolutionists would not change the age of the earth never. As ive said many many times Historical science just does not come with the same proof and authority as the scientists of the present who give us so many wonderful,every day,practical advancements and technology.

You continue to make assertions. You make assertions on topics which you about which you know very little. You make too many assertions at once.I strongly suggest that you restrict the amount of material you post and the places you post until you have learned how to handle it all. If you find it difficult to be self-policing you will have to be restricted to fewer of the fora (forums?).You may stay in the Faith and Belief forum if you want. If you wish to discuss the sciences involved you would do well to take on one or two at most. If you really think you can back up the assertion quoted above then Dates and Dating would be the appropriate forum.(Now a little advice, which you may have problem believing isn't hiding some ulterior motives. You have not researched any of this yourself. You are being fed material by people who frequently distort things and will also lie. Stand back a bit, consider that you might have been lied to and try to start with a fresh view. Good luck.)

Understood..(My information comes from my own research,Yes sometimes i use AiG when im not sure myself..I will cut down of this).This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-07-2004 04:10 AM