Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

quote:

---

Why evidence? You asked how something could be and I answered?

---

No. You made assertions. You have not provided evidence to support them. In fact, your scenarios simply do not make sense. Why should one sediment deposited by some 'fluid pressure' have different fossils from another deposit having the same 'fluid pressure.' Really, it sounds like you are just making this up as you go.

quote:

---

You guys are the ones who claim to be the only authority on these matters.

---

Well, perhaps relatively. But if we are, why do you automatically reject what we say?

quote:

---

RATHER
You show the evidence that led you to your conclusions.

---

There are thousands and thousands of mainstream references on each topic. It is not our job to educate you. We can only direct you to your nearest college campus which has many resources you can take advantage of.

quote:

---

You just relate data and insist on one interpretation.

---

No. We insist on an interpretation that makes sense.

quote:

---

We,like Sherlocke Holmes,say aha there is another interpretation. But regardless you don't show evidence only data/interpretation.

---

Ummm, isn't it possible that data is evidence? Perhaps if you have a very specific question we could address it.

quote:

---

I don't follow why ice dams are a problem for us. I'm sure it's the best news yet in geology.

---

News? Whatever are you talking about?

quote:

---

Why evidence? You asked how something could be and I answered?

---

Without evidence your claims mean nothing. For instance, I could claim that intergalactic aliens used gravity rays to rearrange the fossils after they were lain down by a flood caused when the polar ice caps were melted with alien lasers. The results of alien interference caused the earth to look old when in fact it was created by the aliens 10,000 years ago as a science experiment. This could explain all of the strata being laid down at once and fossil sorting after the fact as well as a young earth. Would you accept this explanation, yes or no? If not, could you explain why?

quote:

---

You show the evidence that led you to your conclusions.

---

Flood waters have never sorted fossils. When sediments are formed quickly in flood conditions the result does not resemble what we see in the geologic column. A flood has never sorted grass pollen away from reptiles, or sorted fossils to represent evolutionary predictions. This is my evidence. Where is yours?

quote:

---

We,like Sherlocke Holmes,say aha there is another interpretation.

---

And yet Sherlocke Holmes never depended on supernatural mechanisms or deities while solving a case. He always looked for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Perhaps you should take a lesson from this. Also, allowing any interpretation possible falsifies the biblical creation story since other creation stories from other religions should also be weighed equally (including my alien interpretation).This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-30-2004 11:58 AM

We're off thought. Evolution etc is in the dominent position. As A creationist I am attacking its credibility. Also along the way we bring up alternatives. Yet I do not claim to be engaged in Science.Yes knowledge of subject but not the scientific method. You'all do claim authority of science. I protest having to document my evidence. Your position is that you having evidence behind your claim,s and in no way could our ideas be true. This is what I deal with it. Only along the way do I offer answers to criticisms of our ideas.
I question your ideas and only answer how our ideas are not impossible. However i don't attempt to prove our ideas are right. This is a important difference of intent and I've always done in this way on these forums.
Rob

So, Robert you don't intend to support your absurd claims?You, aren't "engaged in science"?Just why should anyone talk to you about anything then? You are, of course, entitled to your religious beliefs. Most of us don't care what you choose to believe. However, you were the one that wanted some of this stuff to be taught in a classroom. You have now opted out of that. The above is an admission that you don't belong in any kind of classroom at all.Yet, you carry on in other threads as if you wish to carry on honest debate on the facts, logic and evidence. BS! Fine, then there is no reason for anyone to listen to anything you say. Unfounded assertions are worth exactly nothing.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-03-2004 06:11 PM

Nosyned you misunderstand the equation of what I said. I am dealing at a closer atomic explanation of intent.
Not grade thre math but high school math. Your not carrying the 2.The forum offers to the public discussion on these matters. I respond.
Evolutionists are the leaders and dominent voices. I respond.
You guys say evolution is true and unquestionable. I respond.
I hit at all assertions that catch my fancy.
Along the way I introduce creationist thought.
BUT
I don't attempt to prove my creationist thoughts. They are only a answer to when its required to have an alternative.
Like in a army I have a strict object and weapon. Yes I'm firing but the weapons I use are selective.
Rob

Robert Byers Unforunately you are firing blanks which has been known to nullify the point of trying for the kill.

quote:

---

BUT
I don't attempt to prove my creationist thoughts. They are only a answer to when its required to have an alternative.

---

Do you have ANY idea how much it would help your position to support your viewpoint with some evidence? If nothing else, you might gain some credibililty.

quote:

---

Like in a army I have a strict object and weapon. Yes I'm firing but the weapons I use are selective.

---

Well, then, there's your problem. You are at war, when the rest of us are having a science discussion.

quote:

---

We're off thought. Evolution etc is in the dominent position. As A creationist I am attacking its credibility.

---

And to question evolution's credibility you have to offer evidence that is contrary to what the theory predicts.

quote:

---

I protest having to document my evidence.

---

So therefore, without evidence you can't attack the credibility of evolution.

quote:

---

I question your ideas and only answer how our ideas are not impossible. However i don't attempt to prove our ideas are right.

---

And you don't attempt to prove that evolution is false by using evidence. So you fail on both fronts.

quote:

---

This is a important difference of intent and I've always done in this way on these forums.

---

Yes, we have noticed your intent. Your intent is to throw mud at a theory that you can't disprove by referring to other theories that you can't support. They have names for people like you, crackpots.

Here is one problem for your flood hypothosis.There seems to be no reasonable explanation for the fossil order.

We're over 400 posts already. A link to this would also help.{Well, the other two didn't, so I will - Topic closed - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-05-2004 01:31 AM

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum