Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
88 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, jar (3 members, 85 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,313 Year: 22,349/19,786 Month: 912/1,834 Week: 412/500 Day: 45/66 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Creation Website For Children
Wheely
Junior Member (Idle past 3884 days)
Posts: 7
From: Canada
Joined: 01-25-2009


Message 1 of 41 (496005)
01-25-2009 6:38 PM


Hi,

I'm Wheely and I hope this is the right place to place my website. This website if for all to view and enjoy. Also please feel free to check out my blogs. Here is my website; and thanks for letting me post it here.

http://www.creationkid.org/

Enjoy,

Wheely


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Rahvin, posted 01-25-2009 6:59 PM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-25-2009 7:05 PM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Stagamancer, posted 01-25-2009 7:08 PM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2009 9:04 PM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Granny Magda, posted 01-25-2009 9:24 PM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2009 1:38 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Dr Jack, posted 01-26-2009 8:45 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Admin, posted 01-26-2009 9:12 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 01-26-2009 11:08 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 01-27-2009 1:39 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 2 of 41 (496008)
01-25-2009 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wheely
01-25-2009 6:38 PM


Even a brief purview of your site reveals multiple inaccuracies about everything from evolution to Atheism. You might want to try fact-checking what you're telling children.

oh, wait. You're a Creationist. "Accuracy" and "truth" don't mean much to you, do they?

If you'd like to debate the topics on your site, by all means make a thread here and we can hash it out.

Edited by Rahvin, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 6:38 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3911
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 41 (496009)
01-25-2009 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wheely
01-25-2009 6:38 PM


Declaring this "Not Spam"
As the "Links and Information" forum is not a debate forum, I'm going to move this to "Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution".

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 6:38 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3911
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 41 (496012)
01-25-2009 7:05 PM


Thread moved here from the Links and Information forum.

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 5 of 41 (496013)
01-25-2009 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wheely
01-25-2009 6:38 PM


Thank you for taking the time to create yet another source that completely misrepresents the theory of evolution, and the rest of science using lies and false logic. I'm sorry, but evolution is "To [sic] Much Work" is not a valid argument. In response to this website, I would like everyone who visits it to also read Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne. It was just recently published, and is a ~230 page book that neatly lays out all of the evidence for the theory of evolution, properly explaining what the theory is all about.


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 6:38 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 6 of 41 (496031)
01-25-2009 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wheely
01-25-2009 6:38 PM


Here's another one for the frauds and hoax files ...
Hi Wheely, welcome to the fray,

Wheely's garbled garbage in garbled garbage out website article on Nicolas Steno

quote:
Moreover, even if it was possible that the wildlife & natural elements did not effect the sharks skeletal remains, (impossible but lets pretend that it is possible), entropy would destroy the sharks remains.

WOW. imean WOW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Steno

quote:
Nicolas Steno (Danish: Niels Stensen; latinized to Nicolaus Stenonis) (11 January 1638 - 25 November 1686) was a pioneer in both anatomy and geology. Already in 1659 he decided not to accept anything simply written in a book, instead resolving to do research himself.[2] He is considered the father of geology and stratigraphy.[1]

In October 1666 two fishermen caught a huge female shark near the town of Livorno, and Ferdinando II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, ordered its head to be sent to Steno. Steno dissected the head and published his findings in 1667. He noted that the shark's teeth bore a striking resemblance to certain stony objects, found embedded within rock formations, that his learned contemporaries were calling glossopetrae or "tongue stones". ... Fabio Colonna, however, had already shown in a convincing way that glossopetrae are shark teeth[5], in his treaty De glossopetris dissertatio published in 1616[6]. Steno added to Colonna's theory a discussion on the differences in composition between glossopetrae and living sharks' teeth, arguing that the chemical composition of fossils could be altered without changing their form, using the contemporary corpuscular theory of matter.

Steno, in his Dissertationis prodromus of 1669 is credited with three of the defining principles of the science of stratigraphy: the law of superposition: "...at the time when any given stratum was being formed, all the matter resting upon it was fluid, and, therefore, at the time when the lower stratum was being formed, none of the upper strata existed"; the principle of original horizontality: "Strata either perpendicular to the horizon or inclined to the horizon were at one time parallel to the horizon"; the principle of lateral continuity: "Material forming any stratum were continuous over the surface of the Earth unless some other solid bodies stood in the way"; and the principle of cross-cutting discontinuities: "If a body or discontinuity cuts across a stratum, it must have formed after that stratum."[7] These principles were applied and extended in 1772 by Jean-Baptiste L. Romé de l'Isle. Steno's landmark theory that the fossil record was a chronology of different living creatures in different eras was a sine qua non for Darwin's theory of natural selectionhttp://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Messages.cgi.


Gosh, you might have learned something of VALUE if your actually read a 340 year old book ....

I hope this is the right place to place my website.

A better place is: http://www.fstdt.com/

If you want a good place for it on this forum, can I suggest we cut to the chase and post it at Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes ?

The question is whether you have the guts to stick around and try to defend your use of falsehoods and misinformation to delude children, especially as just a LITTLE study would show you that what you post was worthless gibberish.

Your website is a fraud.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : sausage

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 6:38 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 7 of 41 (496033)
01-25-2009 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wheely
01-25-2009 6:38 PM


Whoops!
Hi Wheely,

Here is an entertaining contradiction;

Creationkid.com writes:

The death pose is the feature that shows the necks of many of the deceased animals stretched back as far as they will go. What is going on here?

The evolutionists suggest that the reason is because the tendons in the animal's necks dried out, which stretched the animal's necks back.


Source

Yet here...

Creationkid.com writes:

Now an evolutionist may suggest that they were trying to breathe because the giant meteorite hit the earth and it kicked up massive amounts of dust & sediments which resulted in the dinosaurs trying to take in a breath of fresh air.


Source

So... What do the evolutionists say? Is it the tendons, or the ridiculously funny claim about a last gulp of air? I challenge you to show me a single example of serious scientist claiming this latter one.

Creaionkid.com writes:

Clams are found with Meat-Eating dinosaurs, for one example.

Such as...

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 6:38 PM Wheely has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2009 9:31 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 8 of 41 (496034)
01-25-2009 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Granny Magda
01-25-2009 9:24 PM


Re: Whoops!
Hey Granny Magda

So... What do the evolutionists say? Is it the tendons, or the ridiculously funny claim about a last gulp of air? I challenge you to show me a single example of serious scientist claiming this latter one.

How can you tell when information is posted from a creationist website?

....... When it is profoundly wrong.

How can you tell when a person talking about evolution is a creationist?

....... When they make silly claims.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Granny Magda, posted 01-25-2009 9:24 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Wheely
Junior Member (Idle past 3884 days)
Posts: 7
From: Canada
Joined: 01-25-2009


Message 9 of 41 (496040)
01-25-2009 10:32 PM


Reply to the current posts
Hello everyone,

I unfortunately am busy so this will be my only and last reply to your comments, but I felt it prudent to reply to the posts now.

Instead of rebutting your arguments, I just thought I’d just give you my resources instead and let you preview them and argue with my friend who is the professional lecturer presented in my resources. He travels around Canada and the USA speaking on this very subject. Creation vs. Evoltuion and the evidence that supports God’s word and debunks Darwin’s theory. As he lectures he puts them on DVD to fund his ministry, (as many people do) but he also posts them on Youtube for free. Here are 19 of his 22 part series.

Enjoy!

COMPLETE CREATION 2nd.

1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atXl6XTwNPA
2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN4YR_1kwL0
3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzmM9K6jw6c
4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84w36xUE0JI
5 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJEkR5UCioM
6 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LudznX7t1CM
7 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfs3G2y9Gww
8 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiTNXT8sjfo
9 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwD3slharHU
10 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l13--ai9dKk
11 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSa16wVS3h8
12 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBnaNDKNeT0
13 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APjXqpZw-ho
14 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVlkvcGdy9E
15 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC3-PovtZE8
16 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf5JII6sIQ
17 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4cACDw8lS4
18 - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=E8_bh5U_oFI
19 - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcMklGRdeBQ

However, I would like to respond to RAZD.

Razd, if I may suggest when you rebut someone by using their arguments, respond to their argument. My argument with regards to the Nicholas Steno page was that entropy would have destroyed the sharks teeth long before evolution had the chance to grow the mountains over the course of millions and billions of years.

Your response consisted of quoting me a segment from Wikipedia, which by ended up proving my point, so thanks.

QUOTE:

***

“Steno dissected the head and published his findings in 1667. He noted that the shark's teeth bore a striking resemblance to certain stony objects, found embedded within rock formations, that his learned contemporaries were calling glossopetrae or "tongue stones". ... Fabio Colonna, however, had already shown in a convincing way that glossopetrae are shark teeth[5], in his treaty De glossopetris dissertatio published in 1616 [6]. Steno added to Colonna's theory a discussion on the differences in composition between glossopetrae and living sharks' teeth, arguing that the chemical composition of fossils could be altered without changing their form, using the contemporary corpuscular theory of matter.”

***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Steno

The ‘tongue stones’ were actually discovered to be sharks teeth, not stones. So…how did a shark get buried in rock layers on mountains near Steno’s homeland? The argument that I have heard from an evolutionist is that they died and over the course of millions of years the sharks skeletons took a ride up, as the mountain grew via many tectonic plate activity. However entropy, scavengers and the natural elements would have destroyed the skeletons right down to the last tooth long before ‘millions of years’ can become a reality.

Furthermore, what are sharks doing in rock layers? The biblical World Wide Flood would put them there quite easily but according to you, an evolutionist, who thinks the bible is false probably wouldn’t agree with that. So…how would a shark get buried in rock layers?

Now one more comment:

Granny Magda:

I am not contradicting myself. The argument put forth to explain the ‘death pose’ is that the tendons in the necks dried out and stretched the necks back, preview my resources stated above. I have heard, (however it has been a very long time since I heard this hypothesis, so I will humble myself and admit that maybe I am not up on the latest pack of lies) but anyways, one argument that I heard to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs is via a big meteorite hitting the earth. Furthermore, if you read what I wrote, word for word, you would have read:

“…an evolutionist MAY suggest…” I have to admit that is a hypothesis of mine; a speculation if you will. It is based on the kind of answers I get from those who hold to the evolution theory. I had never heard the story that they died of suffociation via polluted air. That is why I said that “…an evolutionist MAY suggest…”, 'not evolutionists suggest'. There is a big difference in those to phrases.

Okay well that is it and one last response to Razd: This long post should be evident that I do have the guts to stand my ground.

This will be my last post, so please don’t expect any more rebuttals from me. I am much to busy.

Wheely


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2009 11:02 PM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Granny Magda, posted 01-25-2009 11:20 PM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Blue Jay, posted 01-25-2009 11:37 PM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2009 11:48 PM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-26-2009 7:08 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2009 10:14 PM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 40 by dwise1, posted 01-27-2009 1:00 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 10 of 41 (496044)
01-25-2009 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wheely
01-25-2009 10:32 PM


Obviously you do NOT have the guts to stick around and defend your garbage
Hello Wheely,

Okay well that is it and one last response to Razd: This long post should be evident that I do have the guts to stand my ground.

This will be my last post, so please don’t expect any more rebuttals from me. I am much to busy.

Curiously, saying that you are running away after posting another bunch of gibberish and more links make you

(a) spammer, and
(b) NOT someone with the guts to defend your GARBAGE.

Razd, if I may suggest when you rebut someone by using their arguments, respond to their argument. My argument with regards to the Nicholas Steno page was that entropy would have destroyed the sharks teeth long before evolution had the chance to grow the mountains over the course of millions and billions of years.

Your response consisted of quoting me a segment from Wikipedia, which by ended up proving my point, so thanks.

No, child, the wiki article shows that your picture is a lie, you say on the picture that the fossil tooth was from the sharks head in the picture, which is actually the diagram from the one he dissected and then used to show that the tooth from that head was similar to the fossil found in the rock.

You also said that he found a skeleton. This to is a lie, he found a tooth.

You also said several other things that are false. Every page I read had false information and silly ignorant arguments.

Your argument mentions entropy and conflates it with some silly concept about destroying evidence, but you give no evidence for how this occurs. All you have is an argument from ignorance.

If you don't stick around I am going to suggest that admin treat your posts as spam trying to divert traffic to your website.

That you think the wiki article proves your point then you do not understand it. There is a section of it that is pertinent:

QUOTE:

***

“Steno dissected the head and published his findings in 1667. He noted that the shark's teeth bore a striking resemblance to certain stony objects, found embedded within rock formations, that his learned contemporaries were calling glossopetrae or "tongue stones". ... Fabio Colonna, however, had already shown in a convincing way that glossopetrae are shark teeth[5], in his treaty De glossopetris dissertatio published in 1616 [6]. Steno added to Colonna's theory a discussion on the differences in composition between glossopetrae and living sharks' teeth, arguing that the chemical composition of fossils could be altered without changing their form, using the contemporary corpuscular theory of matter.”

***

What the highlighted section shows is that there was mineral replacement of the molecules in the fossil. Of course he wouldn't know about that, as he wrote the article in 1660, but you should ... if you knew what you were talking about. You don't.

The arrogance you have to think you should teach this kind of ignorance to children is despicable.

Enjoy.

ps - your website is still a fraud.

Edited by RAZD, : still


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 10:32 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 11 of 41 (496048)
01-25-2009 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wheely
01-25-2009 10:32 PM


Re: Reply to the current posts
Thanks for your reply Wheely, I'll restrict myself to answering the section addressed to me, but I would like to mention one thing first.

We don't debate strings of bare links on this site. The admin's frown upon it, since it is against the forum's rules. Your friend's videos may be very interesting, but no-one is going to debate Youtube links.


quote:
I am not contradicting myself. The argument put forth to explain the ‘death pose’ is that the tendons in the necks dried out and stretched the necks back, preview my resources stated above.

That is one potential explanation that has been put forward yes.

quote:
one argument that I heard to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs is via a big meteorite hitting the earth.

So you from that you arrived at the idea that scientists must use it to explain the death pose? Is that what you are saying? How on Earth does that follow?

By the way, the name "Earth" should be capitalised. I wouldn't normally criticise you on this type of thing, but, since you have set yourself up as an educator of children, you really shouldn't be making such basic mistakes.

quote:
Furthermore, if you read what I wrote, word for word, you would have read:

“…an evolutionist MAY suggest…”


And they may suggest that magic pixies posed them like that whilst out on a pixie booze-up. They might say anything, but unless you can point to point to an actual example of someone saying this, I have to assume that you simply pulled it out of your ass.

quote:
I have to admit that is a hypothesis of mine; a speculation if you will.

Or fib, if you will.

quote:
It is based on the kind of answers I get from those who hold to the evolution theory.

Example?

quote:
I had never heard the story that they died of suffociation via polluted air. That is why I said that “…an evolutionist MAY suggest…”, 'not evolutionists suggest'. There is a big difference in those to phrases.

Okay, let's see how you like it.

Creationists may suggest that the moon is made of cheese. They may suggest that Hitler was a really swell guy. They may suggest that motor cars are powered by tiny leprechauns.

They might, but they don't, and so long as they don't, insinuating that they would say that is a totally dishonest smear tactic. The gasping-for-air hypothesis that you attempt to place in the mouths of "evolutionists" is so foolish, so utterly stupid, that your use of it represents an attempt to smear scientists by associating them with a transparently silly idea. It's dishonest. It's lying in fact, especially when, if you wanted to make clear that you were proposing a hypothetical scenario, the more usual form would be "evolutionists might say...".

Unless you can point to a reputable scientist proposing such a theory, you have no more reason to mention gasping-for-air than you do my pixie hypothesis.

Why don't you show me a reputable scientist, preferably from the last few decades, making the gasping-for-air claim? Whilst you're at it, why don't you show me some of those dinosaur+clam fossils that you claim are so commonplace?

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 10:32 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1042 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 12 of 41 (496050)
01-25-2009 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wheely
01-25-2009 10:32 PM


Re: Reply to the current posts
Hi, Wheely.

I know you're a busy man with lots of important things to do, but I hope you'll take the time to read this (rather old) thread on EvC, discussing indoctrination, and perhaps comment on it. It’s not very long, and concerns you directly.

Particularly, pay attention to this post, this post, and the last paragraph of this post.

And, while you’re at it, carefully read what’s being said by the idiot with a bird for his avatar (sometimes, they call him “Bluejay”; other times, “Mantis”; and other times, “Thylacosmilus”; but I hear he always answers to “Jackass”; this is a particularly humorous one): because that is how the kids you’re teaching will end up.

Please, don't perpetuate the cycle: the world has seen enough Jackass Bluejays to last it through eternity. Hell, one is too much for me.


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 10:32 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 13 of 41 (496051)
01-25-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wheely
01-25-2009 10:32 PM


Just to be clear - you have not defended your silly argument at all
Wheely, Wheely, Wheely.

Instead of rebutting your arguments, I just thought I’d just give you my resources instead and let you preview them and argue with my friend.

Curiously (a) we can't argue with them here, (b) they are not YOUR arguments and (c) your task is to defend your arguments here or be treated as a hit and run spammer.

As he lectures he puts them on DVD to fund his ministry, (as many people do) but he also posts them on Youtube for free. Here are 19 of his 22 part series.

But this still doesn't explain why you think you need to lie to kids about evolution. You are telling lies.

You also betray a sever lack of judgment in being able to tell truth from fiction, whether it is a friend or not, and it appears that you have not ground-truthed your website against reality. That makes your site unreliable at best.

Furthermore, what are sharks doing in rock layers? The biblical World Wide Flood would put them there quite easily but according to you, an evolutionist, who thinks the bible is false probably wouldn’t agree with that. So…how would a shark get buried in rock layers?

If you really want to know the truth, which from all appearances you don't, I suggest you try reading up on it. You can start here: Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?

You will note that the geological explanation covers all the evidence, not just individual fossils, but the layers on top of layers of marine deposits on mountains.

You will note that brachiopods and other similar organisms have a larval stage where the are free swimming before settling down. You will note that the shells of these animals show many years of growth rings.

A flood of less than one year does NOT explain this evidence of marine life on mountaintops.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 10:32 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Wheely
Junior Member (Idle past 3884 days)
Posts: 7
From: Canada
Joined: 01-25-2009


Message 14 of 41 (496054)
01-26-2009 12:20 AM


Wheely's Response
Hey Razd

I believe in giving credit where credit is due. You said:

"say on the picture that the fossil tooth was from the sharks head in the picture,..."

I checked out your claim and you were right. That is the implication I gave via the picture. That is not what I intended to portray, but that is seemingly the impression it gave you and when I looked at it from your perspective I got that same conclusion. So, thanks for bringing that to my attention. What I wanted to imply what that the 'tooth' was from that type of shark, not 'that shark'. I corrected it.

As for me ‘running away’ because I don’t have a backbone and using the claim that I am busy as an excuse, is false. I could see how you could have derived that conclusion though. I am busy and debating on forums does take up a lot of time, time that I don’t have. I used to be on Facebook and I closed down my account because I was spending too much time in the Creation vs. Evolution group, debating people. I wasn’t getting any school work done, lol. (I'm in University) So, even though that my ‘busy’ argument can be construed as an excuse is understandable, it is not the case with me. Moreover, that is why I gave you my resources. So you can see for yourself where I got my information. I actually have more resources than my friend's Youtube videos but they are in book form and I can’t send that through the internet, lol. So you’ll have to settle with my Youtube resrouces.

You said:

“You also said that he found a skeleton”

No I didn’t. I know he found just teeth, but teeth are attached to a jawbone, which is attached to a skull which is attached to a body: a skeleton. I know he didn’t find a skeleton, but if shark’s teeth were on a mountain, then so was the rest of it at some point in time. So, therefore how did it get there, on the mountain embedded into rock layers?

You said:

“Your argument mentions entropy and conflates it with some silly concept about destroying evidence…”

Entropy deteriorates, ie. destroys.

You also alluded to the Wiki article again. You highlighted a section then commented that Steno wouldn’t have known about the ‘chemical composition of fossils’. If he didn’t know about it in 1660 then how was he able to comment on it?

QUOTE

***

“Steno added to Colonna's theory a discussion on the differences in composition between glossopetrae and living sharks' teeth, arguing that the chemical composition of fossils could be altered without changing their form”

***

It states that “Steno added to Colonna’s theory…” by arguing the chemical composition. How could he argue something that he didn’t know about?

Hello Granny Magda

First off I am sorry for posting my friends Youtube links. They are my resources so that is how I viewed them. Perhaps the moderator would like to transfer them to the LINKS section of this forum. Perhaps I should have put them there, but as I said I didn’t view them as ‘LINKS’ I viewed them as ‘resources’ to present in this discussion, my apologies. I didn’t think doing that would be a violation of the forum rules.

You asked:

“So you from that you arrived at the idea that scientists must use it to explain the death pose?”

No. You are putting words in my mouth again. I am not saying that idea is what scientists come up with. I am saying based on my experience with discussing evolutionists that is the kind of argument that I have been given. I have never been given that as an actual argument; as I said in my previous post, that was just a hypothesis, I speculation.

As for your ‘moon made of cheese’ argument, I have never heard Creationists or Evolutionists claim the moon is made of cheese or any other silly argument like that. However I did here one evolutionist say that if the waters filled the entire Earth as the scriptures indicate the earth would be touching Pluto. That is as close as I have gotten so ‘crack-pot’ answers like that. My speculation is based on real arguments that I have received from evolutionists. Those are the kinds of things that I have heard from evolutionists; but that specific argument is not one that I had heard, so it is just an example of the kinds of arguments that I heard.

Hi there Bluejay

Thanks for the links. I can’t preview them now, but I bookmarked them and I’ll get to them when I can. Thanks for the resources.

To sign off, I want to reiterate to everyone that I am busy and so I really can’t stick around. I may pop my head in once in a while, (metephyiscally speaking, lol) but don’t expect to much from me. So I won’t be responding to anymore posts, and it is not because I don’t have a backbone or anything of the sort, I just am busy. Sorry folks. However, Razd I am not sure how to take this, but you said:

“No, child, the wiki article shows…”

I don’t know how to take the word ‘Child’. Are you calling me a ‘child’? If that is the case, I believe that was uncalled for. I didn’t call anyone in this forum any names, and as such I don’t believe I deserved to be called names. I am not offended or anything, I just thought that I’d bring that to your attention, because another person may not respond to your comments or answer your questions if you are condescending or insulting about it. Although to everyone else, I want to thank you for your politeness.

Wheely


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Stagamancer, posted 01-26-2009 12:47 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Granny Magda, posted 01-26-2009 6:37 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Meddle, posted 01-26-2009 6:47 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 15 of 41 (496055)
01-26-2009 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Wheely
01-26-2009 12:20 AM


Re: Wheely's Response
Just a quick note here. You said in a previous post:
However entropy, scavengers and the natural elements would have destroyed the skeletons right down to the last tooth long before ‘millions of years’ can become a reality.
And more recently:
Entropy deteriorates, ie. destroys.
Which is, in a sense, true. However, you've just assumed that entropy, scavengers, and the natural elements work to destroy shark teeth before " 'millions of years' can become a reality". But where is your evidence for this? Do you have the deterioration rate for shark teeth, or more importantly fossilized shark teeth since that's what we're actually dealing with? Just because you can't imagine that something could last for millions of years doesn't mean that it can't.
As for giant floods leaving the sharks teeth on mountains, there is absolutely no evidence for this. Was it raining simultaneously all over the world? If so, where did all this new water come from, and where did it go? Why is it that there's no evidence for this? Surely a huge influx of rain water into the oceans would've have left obvious tell-tale signs especially in coral.


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Wheely, posted 01-26-2009 12:20 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019