Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Points Of View
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 5 of 45 (484317)
09-27-2008 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
09-26-2008 2:56 PM


The evidence is always the same. It is the interpretations that differ.
While I can not join with most Creationist in labeling evilution as a religion it is most certainly a belief system and no more valid than mine. Creationists choose not to put their faith in the decades of research of men but in a single volume that has yet to require correction (because it is written by God).
Careful scrutiny of the evidence indicated to me that it was not noble objective seekers of truth that established evilution. The "evidence" in nearly every case if discovered today would have to be rejected. This is particularly true of human evilution. On a broader scale recent repeatable experiments in stratigraphy and sedimentology overturn at least the first three principals used to date rock layers. Radiometric dating has proven hugely unreliable and is based on uninformataian assumptions that are not in the least scientific. In as much as the debate seems to center on time, the evidence evilution is standing on is rapidly eroding and yet another correction will have to be made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2008 2:56 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 09-27-2008 7:54 PM b0ilingfrog has replied
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 8:14 PM b0ilingfrog has replied
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2008 9:19 PM b0ilingfrog has replied
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2008 9:41 PM b0ilingfrog has replied
 Message 36 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2008 7:28 AM b0ilingfrog has replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 13 of 45 (484335)
09-27-2008 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coyote
09-27-2008 8:14 PM


Re: And the award for the best use of AiG talking points goes to...
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 thread
Thanx for replying to my posting.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the blank lines between paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 8:14 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 9:54 PM b0ilingfrog has replied
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 9:58 PM b0ilingfrog has replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 14 of 45 (484336)
09-27-2008 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 9:48 PM


Re: And the award for the best use of AiG talking points goes to...
Hey part of my message was missing.
Please look up the Colorado thing, I think I caught it on YouTube a few months back and read forbidden archeology.
Thanx again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 9:48 PM b0ilingfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 9:57 PM b0ilingfrog has not replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 15 of 45 (484337)
09-27-2008 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 9:54 PM


Re: And the award for the best use of AiG talking points goes to...
I am such a newb!
I just got that award thing!!! That was funny. I was sitting here thinking Hey I just got an award on my first day. LOL
I mean my arm was getting sore from patting myself on the back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 9:54 PM b0ilingfrog has not replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 17 of 45 (484340)
09-27-2008 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
09-27-2008 9:19 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2008 9:19 PM anglagard has not replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 18 of 45 (484341)
09-27-2008 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
09-27-2008 9:19 PM


Re: This Point of View

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2008 9:19 PM anglagard has not replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 19 of 45 (484348)
09-27-2008 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
09-27-2008 9:19 PM


Re: This Point of View
I have tried to
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1#

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2008 9:19 PM anglagard has not replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 20 of 45 (484351)
09-27-2008 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
09-27-2008 9:41 PM


Re: It must be the new school year eh
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2008 9:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2008 11:06 PM b0ilingfrog has replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 21 of 45 (484355)
09-27-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
09-27-2008 9:19 PM


Re: This Point of View

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2008 9:19 PM anglagard has not replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 22 of 45 (484356)
09-27-2008 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Coyote
09-27-2008 8:14 PM


Re: And the award for the best use of AiG talking points goes to...
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 thread
Thanx for replying to my posting.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 8:14 PM Coyote has not replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 23 of 45 (484360)
09-27-2008 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coyote
09-27-2008 9:58 PM


Re: And the award for the best use of AiG talking points goes to...
In case you haven't noticed every reply I try to send ends up on your page. I am sorry about that .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 9:58 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by lyx2no, posted 09-27-2008 11:04 PM b0ilingfrog has replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 27 of 45 (484368)
09-27-2008 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
09-27-2008 7:54 PM


Re: Discovery
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 typos
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 09-27-2008 7:54 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 09-28-2008 10:28 AM b0ilingfrog has not replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 28 of 45 (484370)
09-27-2008 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
09-27-2008 10:57 PM


Re: More AiG talking points ...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2008 10:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 29 of 45 (484372)
09-27-2008 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
09-27-2008 11:06 PM


Re: It must be the new school year eh
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2008 11:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
b0ilingfrog
Junior Member (Idle past 5655 days)
Posts: 27
From: Seattle
Joined: 09-27-2008


Message 30 of 45 (484383)
09-28-2008 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
09-27-2008 9:19 PM


Re: This Point of View
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 09-27-2008 9:19 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by anglagard, posted 09-28-2008 5:59 AM b0ilingfrog has not replied
 Message 34 by anglagard, posted 09-28-2008 6:20 AM b0ilingfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024