Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand

quote:

---

Originally posted by NimLore:
well I have faith that they are there...

​

similar to the naturalists faith of a transitional fossil...

​

I will let your own sarcasms against me be your judge.
I forgive you allready.

---

Nimlore,I really don't care whether the transitional fossils are there or not, I need no faith that they are in order to bolster my faith. That predicted transitionals & intermediates are being found with annoying regularity should speak for itself. Regardless, there are enough fossils as it stands today, or a hundred years ago to infer evolution from. They are simply unexplainable from a from a creationist flood scenarios perspective.I haven't even started on rooted fossilised trees rooted in fossil soils, complete with animal tracks & burrows found from devonian times onward. Or why the seed ferns, that is, a group of trees are not found after Jurassic times. Trees float, right?All you are telling me when you say "well I have faith that they are there..." is that you will reject any evidence contrary to your position, & blindly accept anything that supports it. Not a strong intellectual starting point.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

nimlore-Please do not take this as sarcasm. I honestly didn't understand what you meant by "well I have faith that they are there."did you mean:"faith that discrepencies in the fossil record are there which will overturn evolutionary theory when they are found",or simply:"faith that the fossils are where they are due to the flood despite the fact that their placement seems counterintuitive given that explanation"?Also, I have a nagging question for anyone willing to answer it, especially from the creationist-flood camp.Even if one accepts various "settling" theories for the specified sorting of fossil beds--- including theories based on the ability of creatures to escape the flood for longer periods of time--- how does that explain the "Age of Fish" at all?Why would fish have died out en masse during a flood? This includes if earthquakes or hurricanes were going on in addition to a flood.It's not like you can drown them or blow them away.So wouldn't "fish" (as in the many fish species seen in the "Age of Fish" beds) have survived the longest of all living things and been at the top of the sediment pile (if any were going to die), instead of stuck somewhere between eukaryotes and reptiles?I'd like to enhance my question a bit with a nod to biblical literature itself.Didn't Noah only take on board two of every terrestrial specie? As it stands I'm not sure they would have had the technology to make fishtanks, much less saltwater fishtanks... imagine how big the boat would have been just to save the sharks and whales!In fact, a catastrophic "flood" tends to suggest in and of itself that only land animals were at risk unless precautions were taken... hence the ark.Thus by any logic, including bible logic, it doesn't make sense that huge numbers of fish species would have died out at all, much less dying out before terrestrial creatures.thanks+holmes

hey evolutionists I can get you a good deal on the brookyln bridge. lol I hear the circus is hiring.

quote:

---

hey evolutionists I can get you a good deal on the brookyln bridge. lol I hear the circus is hiring.

---

Hmm, is this considered a meaningful post? Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion?

Fred -These issues were addressed in our debate on your web site and also in a topic on these boards dedicatedly dealing with the many lies on your web site. Not a single person offered any intelligent refutation in that thread and it was closed, effectively unopposed. This ought to tell you that creationists need to get their own house in order before they pretend any more that they can point out problems with evolution.Budikka

Fred has not been active on this site for many months. He did reappear for a brief time but when asked to continue with certain issues addressed to him he quickly disappeared.Don't hold your breath in anticipation of a response from Fred.

I don't think Fred dare respond to me!He banned me from his web site because he could not answer the questions I was posting in his guest book - like being excluded from his creationist web of lies was some sort of punishment!He refused to have a second debate with me on his site, on the topic of the global flood, and he didn't even show up at his own crucifixion in the topic of lies in his web site that I ran on these boards, which addressed his supposed "sleight of hand".Fred cannot even spell the title of his own thread properly! Some may think this means he is dumb, but he is actually very smart - as evidenced by his absence from these boards. He knows his blind faith in a bankrupt belief system will be painfully exposed if he sets foot in here again!Budikka

You're going to run into difficulty here also if don't express yourself more neutrally. This site isn't for people whose greater interest lies in demonizations of the other side and declarations of victory.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

I realize that everyone is certainly entitle to his ot her opinion; but the exploding giraffe head on Fred's site is quite possibly the most comical misunderstanding of evolution I have ever seen. Why is it that instead of healthy and intellectually stimulating debate, some Creationists resort to destroying evolution; is it because if they suceed in defeating someone in a debate (like that proves anything) that their beliefs win by default?

Pogo:Seems more a matter (to me) that evolutionists can dish it out
but they can't take it. Evolutionists have been very nasty towards
Creationists. I feel that any Creationist that gets a laugh at the
expense of an evolutionist is a hero.

Listen, the reason while evolutionist (i.e. scientists) get in a bit of a snit with creationists that deride evolution, is that evolution is science and creation myths aren't. Whenever creationist come up with a science backed version of their mythology, then scientists will take them seriously.

kisimons:Evolution is based on a myth that GOD doesn't exist or it at least
is presumptuous, in that GOD had nothing to do but watch. I have
read and heard Creationists back up their reasoning for a young
earth and for the event of the Flood. The fact that the data that
evolutionists use can be seen through enlightened eyes and be reinterpreted, seems only to offend those that have placed all their
eggs in one basket...

Quite the contrary, Creationists seem to have placed all their eggs in one Basket. Genesis.Evolution dosn't presume anything, it is mearly an observable, testable, reproducable, ongoing phenomena that anyone learned cannot deny.Creationisim has nothing to do with enlightenment, or interpretation of facts. It has to do with blind belife, and a reliance on a 3000 year old text that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with an ancient peoples creation mythology.Genesis belings in an ancient literature, or world religion cource, not in science.How is it that you belive any of that creation science nonsense about the flood when real science has disproven all of their assertions over and over? Mear logic disproves it! Can you comprehend the logistics of Noahs ark for Gods sake???Why on earth do you belive hundreds of scientists are deluded? They see evolution with their very eyes every day they work in the field or in the lab, and no eveidence for a world wide flood or a six day creation has ever surfaced.As I said, throwing out all science, can you logicaly, using common sense, explain how the flood was possible? How the world was made in 6 days?[This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-07-2003]

Wrong-o Mr A Christian! Evolution is scientifically based on mounds of evidence, non-falsified theories, and bourne out predictions of said theories. No gods of any sort are even mentioned. It is you and other creationists that keep insisting that the theory of evolution equals no god. All science ignores the question of the supernatural, so that meaningful progress can be made. Reinterpreted with errors so gross that the result is at best laughable, at worst, bald face lies. This is why science doesn't take creationists seriously.

kisimons:Evolution is theoretically based on mounds of presumptions and
boistered by educational indoctrination and matter-of-fact pseudo
"scientific" television programs, leading the general public
in the false notion that evolutionists know what they are talking
about. The retoric is only surpassed by the notion that pretictions
cannot be manipulated through an educationally trained bias.