Hello everyone

It was a Wikipedia article I linked to, jar, not exactly a bastion of Protestantism. And I just now happened to go back to find the post I had in mind and here it isI do apologize since I thought I said more there than I actually said, but I suppose I expected you to read the Wikipedia article where it was quite clear that the Huguenots were the persecuted ones and that Admiral de Coligny was murdered at the beginning of the B Day Massacre.And again, having a military or being a military man is no evidence of not being peaceful, although that seems to be the sum total of your evidence against Coligny and the Huguenots as NONpeaceable. I doubt you will find anything in the Wikipedia article or any other of their articles on related matters that suggests that the Huguenots were anything but peaceable.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The French Wars of Religion were, as the title itself suggests, between Catholics and Protestants, as even the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article says: Read further and you will see it said that the wars began with the Massacre of Vassy which was a persecution of the Huguenots by the Catholics, which you can find out by following the link to that Massacre, and that at least one phase of the wars was ended by the Edict of Nantes which granted rights to the Huguenots, that is, the Protestants, since they were the ones being persecuted: It appears that you'd much prefer that the Huguenots or any Protestants not have had any societal standing or military ability to defend themselves and just be perpetually persecuted as they had been before the Protestant Reformation.

Again I would like to say to scienceishonesty that I'm sorry for hogging this thread but as you can see, if I attempt to leave it I am accused of trying to evade the arguments which is far from my motive.Perhaps it will eventually reach a point where I can quietly bow out.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Clearly the aristocratic houses are given to represent the Protestant and Catholic sides of the wars. As the text says the wars were "primarily fought between French Catholics and Protestants" and when it goes on to name the artistocratic houses of France it is clearly with the point of identifying them as Protestant versus Catholic houses.As I said, you would prefer that the Protestants had NO societal standing, which is represented by their HOUSE OF BOURBON in the above context. Their having social standing does not change the fact that the Religious Wars WERE religious wars and that the Huguenots were over and over persecuted by the Catholics which was the cause of all of it. Having social standing and a military as well obviously did not protect the Protestants from the Catholics anyway, and even the Edicts given to grant them religious freedoms didn't completely protect them. You are Protestant in name only, jar, and I don't know what you hope to gain by perpetuating that confusing fiction. In discussions like these you are always on the side of the Catholics against the Protestants, ignoring and twisting facts right and left.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Denial must be your middle name. You're denying things you've actually said and done on this very thread. Funny how the facts keep bearing it out in that case, even facts as presented by Wikipedia. But I've never said Protestants are always guiltless. Let's make it 95-5 then, because in the historical contexts we've been discussing they've been the persecuted and not the offenders at least that percentage of the time. The direct influence of the RCC is often not apparent in historical events, but the fact that Catholics were always -- oh excuse me, make that 95% -- the perpetrators of conflicts with the Protestants certainly shows the influence of Catholic doctrine behind their actions, attitudes they got from their priests and from papal directives and so on.Again, there was nothing "revolutionary" about the Huguenot military, that's just your typical anti-Protestant spin, just like your insistence that the role of the aristocratic HOUSES somehow implies that the wars were not primarily religious or primarily Catholic against Protestant.Doesn't matter what you post in such discussions, jar, you always spin things against the Protestant side of the argument. I even noticed that on the Mandela thread you pretty much say that whatever evils Mandela may have committed (and I have no opinion myself) Andrew Jackson was worse. Typical of you, jar, to imply that an American general was worse than a terrorist (and I'm not saying that's what Mandela was, I don't know, but that is the context in which you said what you said).Same when you characterize "Protestants" as committing "genocide" and saying they were worse than the RCC, which is a blatant lie; either that or you simply don't know history. And you are bending over backwards in this thread to pretend that the French Religious Wars weren't about Catholic persecution of Protestants although even the Wikipedia articles make it plain how wrong you are.Yet you want to be called a Protestant.

Catholics are just people, and American Catholics are generally completely ignorant of the evils committed by the Vatican and the papacy and the Jesuits over the centuries, as are most people, and me too until quite recently, and most European and other Catholics are too, but where there have been Catholic uprisings against the Protestants, that is due to official Catholic teaching against the heretics which the people had learned and took to be God's truth, and often there is direct influence by priests. There are cases like this all over the twentieth century, the massacre of the Jews in Jedwabne was a Catholic thing. The massacre of the Tutsis by the Hutus was a Catholic thing, whipped up by Catholic propaganda against the Tutsis, calling them "cockroaches." The Catholic Croat persecutions of the Serbs are another incident. Today in South America there are uprisings all the time by the Catholics against the Protestants. They are just following the teachings of the priesthood, the papacy and the Inquisition.The French Wars were fomented by Catholics persecuting Protestants, like all those other incidents, as opposed to your insistence it was just a political thing. It was religious, and being religious you have the choice of saying that Catholics are naturally evil, or doesn't it seem more likely that they got their incentive from Catholic doctrine through priests down from the Vatican?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I keep arguing, your "evidence" concerning the ancient past, the unwitnessed past, is interpreted through sheer imaginative speculations from the standpoint of the present, which is a very iffy and fallible perspective that no true science would ever countenance because there is no way to test it. And I can keep saying this if necessary. I get my evidence from witness testimony, not a lack of evidence, but very good evidence indeed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We've been here a bazillion times before and I'm already arguing other topics on this thread.Witness evidence of the Flood IS evidence, a lot better evidence than pure speculation which is all you have though you delude yourself that your interpretations are facts.The strata are also evidence of the Flood since nothing else but waves and currents of water could have laid them down all over the earth in such flat horizontality, or produced the strangely familial groupings of the fossils therein, including some catastrophically tossed and tumbled dinosaur burial sites, and so on.No point in repeating all that, there are half a dozen or more threads that have already covered it.

Thank you for your concern but this has just become tedious for me rather than any kind of threat. I'd like to take a break and give the thread back to SIH but it wouldn't be right to abandon the arguments.But I can say it again, the evidence you have is really just interpretation that feeds on other interpretations from a present-tense perspective. Your view of the past can only remain a mental construct since the past as such, unless there are witnesses, is not testable, not verifiable, etc etc. Sigh. It's SO obvious. Doesn't matter how fancy your theories get, how many actual facts you can cram into them, they remain theories, i.e., purely mental constructs, without testability. Science requires testability, replicability, and the past isn't replicable so you need witnesses, which you don't have if you're talking about prehistory. Sigh.I'm truly glad if my posts on the RCC have been informative.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I meant "in front of witnesses," I'm glad that got cleared up. A miscommunication like that can skew a discussion for days.Yes I know you think of the Bible, as so many do, as if it were just one person talking to himself rather than a collection of testimonies by independent witnesses over fifteen centuries. "Using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true" etc etc etc. Funny how people will accept Mohammed's single-person report of the supposed revelations of the "angel Gabriel" plus weirdly distorted passages of the Old Testament, but will talk about the Bible with its multiple writers over 1500 years as if it were on the same level and yet somehow inferior.It's a history, it is a history that covers all those 1500 years and more, back to the Creation.As a history it reports on events that took place that were witnessed by many besides the writers of the texts. NORMALLY such a collection of eyewitness reports would be recognized as EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION, even good enough for the exceptional claims it aims to document, that is, the amazing miracles used to prove the existence and character of God. And that is in fact what we believers find it in, extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.But some kind of bias blinds people so that they cannot see this basic characteristic of the Bible and you blur it all into one book as if it was on a par with Norse mythology, the Book of Mormon and the vaporings of Mohammed. There is no fair comparison here at all. You aren't thinking. I'm sorry about that.

The Bible reports that God requires two or three witnesses BECAUSE witnesses are unreliable, and the Bible itself provides hundreds, thousands of witnesses to the events that prove the existence of God for that reason.One witness certainly wouldn't do it for your scientific theories about the past, you need lots of witnesses. But witnesses who live in the present and have only human speculation and imagination to go by in interpreting the evidence that comes to hand about the ancient past, is a true case of the unreliability of witnesses. Your dating methods are the same thing, as I've already said. These are witnesses who have witnessed nothing whatever, but just let their imaginations reconstruct the unknowable past, even calling their theory "fact," and you call that science and have no feeling for how absurd that is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

See, here we go. You will not think about what I said, you will only change the subject to focus on something else. OK. You are INTERPRETING a collection of sand and other contents of a particular rock as "desert deposits" as if they were once actual environments that occurred where they have been found, which oddly enough happen to be in a flattened hardened originally horizontal slab of sandstone, which all by itself ought to cause you to doubt your bizarre idea of its representing a former landscape. You don't seem to know you are INTERPRETING, and that your interpretation is really really strange as applied to such a rock formation. But you're all so used to it you just never stand back and actually LOOK at that rock you are calling a landscape. With a sharply demarcated flat horizontal interface with an entirely different kind of rock above and below. It's a weird blindness you all have, induced by your theory. I don't know how to break through it, it's some kind of delusion that's as hard as the rocks you are so strangely misinterpreting. Hey, is our current earth surface conveniently arranging itself into flat single-sediment horizontality in which only a certain collection of living things are conveniently lying down and dying in groups, huh? Never mind, I'm sure you'll find some way to rationalize that away too. Except, as I say above, it isn't "desert" strata, it's a lot of sand that was transported on waves or currents of water and deposited as a layer among the layers. Yeah, all that cross-bedding too, you wanna talk about that next? It was either already shaped so as to lie in the familiar cross-bedded patterns before the water transported it, or the tumbling in the water itself shaped the grains. Sigh. You're new here. This has been gone over ad nauseam. I'm not a newcomer to these arguments myself. At the moment I'm tired because of all the arguing I've already done on this thread, so that's probably what you are "sensing," my great desire NOT to have to go over this again. I mean that most fossils are found with others of their kind, is that not so? They are often found in "familial groupings" in other words. It's after all what leads evolutionists to arrange them in terms of evolution from one form to another up the strata. They tend to be found in only certain strata, in fairly homogeneous groupings. While there are arguments against water having the capacity to arrange them in this way, it's even more absurd to think of these arrangements in terms of the natural burial grounds from past eras of time. So conveniently buried in era after era where they could get fossilized. Conditions for fossilization are really not that easy to come by. And then why buried together in family groups? I mean more or less of course. Like the nautiloids in the Grand Canyon, all those nautiloids in one humongous layer that stretches for miles in all directions. That makes no sense on the theory of long eras of time over which the creatures just died normally. I'm sure I've said this much better with more detail elsewhere but I'm getting very tired and may have to take a long break. Have it your way. You guys always do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which is exactly what I answered. The comparison is idiotic in the extreme. If you had an ounce of integrity you'd see that it must, that its many independent witnesses and many independent authors support and build upon each other. That is not what I said but of course as you've already done you will continue to mischaracterize what I've said to suit yourself. And I certainly see no point in discussing anything further with the likes of YOU either. Gosh, I have no idea why since you wouldn't give it a moment's fair consideration anyway.Sorry, I'm getting beyond my tolerance here. Must take a break.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good GRIEF. LOOK at say the Coconino Sandstone. It is FLAT on the top and the bottom with the crossbedding evident on the exposed vertical surfaces. Good GRIEF.Yes, I'm GONE GONE GONE. Good GRIEF.No, I'm not gone, idiot that I am, glutton for punishment that I am, optimist that I am that somebody might sometime actually THINK about what I'm saying. NO I AM NOT SAYING THE SANDSTONE WAS PICKED UP AS A UNIT, I"M TALKING ABOUT THE INDIVIDUALLY SHAPED SAND GRAINS. They lie in the cross bedded pattern when heaped together because of their individual shape which was caused by either wind or water tumbling them together either in their original location or in the water. Or didn't you know that?Dinosaur on nest, gosh you just keep em comin don't you, just like all the sophomoric debaters here. You haven't answered anything I've said but you know how to throw em out. Along with the gratuitous insults of course. I guess you're trying to impress the other idiot evolutionists here. Mustn't ever talk respectfully to a creationist.I don't care if the sand was formed in wind or water, it was certainly no desert landscape and you have managed, as all you idiot evolutionists do, not to address the fact that it is pure idiocy to claim to see a landscape in a slab of rock with living things embedded in it at all levels yet. Aw GEE, you would compare an occasional mass death in a river to the bazillions of dead things in the strata that got FOSSILIZED too. I bet your caribou just rotted away, didn't they? You aren't thinking but that's OK you sure know how to accuse a creationist and that's all that matters around here. Which you would not be able to consider if these creatures didn't so frequently get fossilized in bunches so that you could classify them as belonging to separate eras of time, the evidence would be too singular and too random. However, you miss the implication of the familial groupings, of course, which is that they could not possibly have died normal deaths over huge spans of time and been fossilized in such huge numbers over huge spans of time, individuals of all sizes and ages too, which your idiotic theory requires; they HAD to be buried en masse in a one-time catastrophe, and if you think multiple drownings of caribou in multiple rivers could possibly account for the huge numbers of fossils in the huge depths and breadths of strata that are seen all over the world, then you've lost your mind. But that's OK, all you know is what you've been told and it gives you license to be nasty, which is what you all really thrive on. Gosh, getting to beat up a creationist must be a real thrill. What a bunch of self-aggrandizing idiots you all are. What I object to is your stupid answers to what I've already said, such as about the cross bedding, and thinking the death of some caribou is an answer, and your refusing to take anything I've said seriously: there is no way a slab of rock, sandstone or any other, could be the record of a former landscape with its supposed flora and fauna. If you just LOOKED at the rock, really looked at it, instead of imposing your idiotic theory on it, that should be immediately apparent. Dr. A says geologists look at rocks. No, in these cases they are looking right through them to their idiotic theory. The actual formation of the strata STRONGLY SUGGESTS DEPOSITION IN WATER ALL AT ONE TIME. Water DOES layer sediments. Long time spans are not going to layer sediments to such prodigious length and breadth as we actually see. An enormous quantity of water COULD do this and COULD bury bazillions of living things in such a way as to promote fossilization, whereas long time spans, even if you imagine periodic water inundations and risings and fallings of land, which is just a Rube Goldberg attempt to accommodate your idiotic theory, couldn't possibly accomplish what is actually seen. ACTUALLY SEEN, REAL EVIDENCE.But hey, I know how the game is played here. I'm a creationist and you don't have to think about anything I say, you can give even more idiotic answers because any idiotic answer is sufficient to answer a creationist.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I did not claim to know everything, Mister, kindly pay attention. I claimed to have been through this argument before. The difference you are harping on is irrelevant to my point, which is that in either case the grains were transported and deposited in their present location where they lithified, they could not possibly have been formed there.I guess you simply have the usual learned inability to see what's wrong with the idea of a landscape being encased in solid rock, a whole stack of them yet, all different kinds of rock too. No problem for the evolutionist mind of course, reality is never a challenge.But golly, how you do go on about irrelevancies concerning the formation of sand grains.If you recognized the fact that the actual presentation of the strata absolutely destroys your theory, the question about dinosaurs on nests would be irrelevant, something to consider later.I do believe the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the presentation of the strata, the evolutionist explanation is ridiculous as I have shown.Again your disquisition on Aeolian deposits is irrelevant since there is no way they could have formed in situ. And I expect this to be recognizable if you just consider the appearance of the rock itself, it doesn't require references.