Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

Yes of course it's a misrepresentation. The one insisting on ten pizzas being more than enough is the evo in my experience, despite the fact that you are trying to emphasize repetitiveness. (Actually evos are repetitive too. Wonder how many times the same supposed evidence against the flood has been brought up.)Anyway, I will think about it later.

No, the germ theory of disease is quite testable because it is replicable. You have endless opportunities to check for microbes in relation to particular symptom patterns. Not so with the ToE. You have one prediction and if it works you assume you've proved the ToE. Alternative explanations for what worked can't be checked. This is false. I believe RR gave an example of an actual prediction that has borne out. Something replicable. I don't undersatnd the ToR well enough to dream up a test but I'm sure there are endless opportunities to test it as anything in physics or chemistry can be tested. If you want to test the existence of gravity you have endless opportunities and ways to test it. Not so the ToE. Obviously you haven't Clue One about what this is all about.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 01:48 PM

The complete ignorance about what creationists believe about what God would have created that is being shown on this thread at least must illustrate how evos don't pay the slightest attention to creos.There is no way God would have just PUT fossils there. They have nothing to do with creation. Genesis makes it clear that LIVING THINGS were originally created, and as far as I know, there is not ONE claim by anybody that He created anything after the first six days of creation. He RESTED on the seventh day, His Creation being complete and perfect.The fossils occurred according to physical and chemical principles that have been in place from the beginning.

I answered you adequately Jar and there is no other answer and your repeating your question is a perfect example of your usual tactics of harassment and bullying.

Robinrohan may not know the Biblical basis for what he is saying but he is correct and I've said the same thing in Message 209.I propose this little exchange about what God might have done as an Exhibit for the problem that this thread is about.

What creationists Frog? You mean those back before Darwin? No current creationist has such a belief that I have ever seen and this is a sad case of misrepresentation that obfuscates the argument.

My Message 215 tags this particular side wrangle as a perfect case of evolutionist misbehavior in the conduct of debate with creationists, as their misrepresentation of the creationist view of God's work means no communication is possible.It helps that a noncreationist is the one who got targeted by it, showing that this is a genuine problem and not a subjective creationist gripe.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 02:14 PM

This is a misrepresentation because although I do repeat my point to what has appeared to be a gallery of intentionally deaf ears, I do also usually expand on my point, reason for my point, try to bring in aspects of the situation that further the point. I didn't do much of this on mark24's thread because I didn't want to debate anything at all in the first place, and shouldn't have taken the bait. But I did a lot of it on the old Sedimentation Great Debate thread and many others since then. Mostly I don't bother arguing science much at all because of the closed minds of the evos.Also, despite the constant assurances that my point has been understood and has become irritatingly repetitive, I remain unconvinced that it has been understood in many cases. I still don't think anybody has honestly thought through my endlessly reiterated points about the strata, and the evidence in this current side issue that evolutionists are willing to play fast and loose with what creationists believe about how fossils could have gotten there is an example of how evolutionists just don't care what creationists think.Oh and while I'm here, allow me to agree with RR that for the most part you have been fairminded on this thread, and my complaints have not been directed at you but at the whole evo mentality.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 02:25 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 02:33 PM

1) Because Creation was finished in the sixth day.2) It is out of keeping with the character of God in the Bible. And please don't ask me to prove his character as it is based on the entire Bible and would be a huge undertaking.

The idea that God "caused" the Flood appears to be confused with Creation. I expect to discuss this on brennakimi's thread when it finally gets promoted. Nothing about the Flood happened in any way other than perfectly naturally, in accord with the laws of nature. Same with all other events after the Creation. The only ways God intervened were with miracles, all one-time events that left no evidence.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 08:27 PM

I'm normally pretty clear. But aside from that, what can I recommend but retracting the rule against repetition, or at least reducing it to a recommendation with some discussion of the whys and hows.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-09-2006 09:13 PM

It's half a joke.

You really don't? I guess some early creationists thought the same thing but they are now so clearly known to be lithified life forms {abe: the fossils I mean, not the early creationists}, I can't see how there is any question. But then I can't see God as anything but reasonable. I usually try to avoid threads like that, yes.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 11:46 AM

Apparently many here have some such idea but believers don't have this idea. God is reasonable and the Bible has spelled out his character well enough that someone who knows it well can say what he would and wouldn't do. "ineffable" and "mysterious" don't mean whimsical or arbitary, simply that he is far above us. But what he has told us of his character in his revelation is completely trustworthy.

If fossils are REAL, there is no God?????Please explain.They are surely real.They prove the Flood.