Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 7:52 AM
43 online now:
PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (3 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Creation as Science
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 83 (575433)
08-20-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dr Adequate
08-19-2010 7:07 PM


Re: "Observations"
I have in fact refuted you so conclusively that you haven't even tried to answer most of my points.

no you haven't refuted one thing. i have ignored ost of your posts and comments because they are all ad hominem or sans real evidence and so on.

i can point to Ann Gibbons' book, The First Human and let you read her records of how anthropologists build huge theories out of a tiny toe bone, and then claim they discovered a new species. it is ridiculous.

also, these same anthropolgists find their bones near the surface and claim the bones are millions of years old, while further down the road, and digging in the same dirt, the archaeological finds are dated a mere few thousand years old.

sorry but i do not play your game.

Only I can hardly describe every observation made in support of evolution --- I should die before the task was completed.

yet you cannot produce 5 credible and legitimate ones.

That since there are widespread myths that presumably you will admit to be false, we have no reason to suppose that creation myths are true just because they are widespread.

this is why the creative act and the Bible will never fit the secular scientific model and you will always be deceiving yourselves. the model is designed to exclude facts and data that render it useless and to keep the truth from reaching the right ears.

i really do not care what secular science is designed to do or how it operates for it is in the 'wrong' category and does not produce what it should. it is a place for those who want alternatives to go to and hide so they can feel good about living their sinful life.

let me briefly point out what you omitted --- that the fact that Piltdown Man was a hoax was, of course, discovered by scientists. You depend for this knowledge on scientists, and when you assert that Piltdown Man was a hoax you are implicitly putting your trust in them.

i didn't omit anything. i do not need scientists nor science to tell me that it was a hoax nor did i get it from a scientist, if i recall. i do not put my trust in them for my information. one just has to look with their own eyes and use their God-given intelligence to tell them that evolutionists are blowing smoke.

i mean the recent dwarf species debacle is enough to turn anyone off of evolutionary scientists and science. and the egg debacle of the 80's is another incident that turns people off from secular science.

you all cannot provide any answers, just opinion then you think you can determine origins. ha ha ha ha. that is better than a robin williams joke. the world needs answers, not hypothesis, theories, maybes. we think, possibly, could be's et al.

you all fail the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-19-2010 7:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 3:19 AM archaeologist has responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2010 6:44 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 17 of 83 (575435)
08-20-2010 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 1:29 AM


archaeologist writes:

Taq writes:

Before we dig too deep into the evo v. creo debate perhaps we should first agree on how science is done, don't you agree?


no. because how secular science does it methods, omits data and pursues a false conclusion. just because something does not meat the secular science methodology doesn't mean it did not take place.

Well, in your intro in Message 1, you write:

archaeologist writes:

This work will not be used to explore those options rather it will use the current secular principles and rules to show that act of creation can and should be considered science.


So, what is it, will you use the secular science, or won't you? You can't have it both ways. Either you're using it now, and we have to agree on what it says, or you're not using it, making your entire article pointless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 1:29 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 83 (575447)
08-20-2010 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 1:50 AM


Re: "Observations"
also, these same anthropolgists find their bones near the surface and claim the bones are millions of years old, while further down the road, and digging in the same dirt, the archaeological finds are dated a mere few thousand years old.

Another of your absurd slights against scientists that you've just made up on the spot.

I mean, I don't get it. Do you think we're going to take your word for stuff? Do you think your bulwark of invincible ignorance is convincing?

Do you think that it makes any sense at all to ask us for evidence, and then proudly tell us how no evidence could ever convince you?

I mean, why are you even here? What are you here to do? Do you think you're going to insult us all into believing in creationism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 1:50 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:05 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 21 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 5:32 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 83 (575456)
08-20-2010 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
08-20-2010 3:19 AM


Re: "Observations"
Another of your absurd slights against scientists that you've just made up on the spot.

you can cease with the false accusations as i gave you a reference with Ann Gibbons' book and she recorded a lot of activity with none of the digging going very deep. BUT that is just one source {by the way archaeologists go up to 100 feet down}

Do you think we're going to take your word for stuff

you all think i am taking your word for everything as you all fail to supply any evidence to support your so-called rebuttals, then you all put me to sleep repeating science 101 everytime you do not like what you hear.

Do you think your bulwark of invincible ignorance is convincing?

i am not the ignorant one her. you all forget that i have studied secular science and the secular scientific method, it is you who lack in education as you refuse to study alternatives to your holy grail.

Do you think that it makes any sense at all to ask us for evidence, and then proudly tell us how no evidence could ever convince you?

you all do what you accuse me of doing, so you really have nothing to complain about.

but see, this is another good reason why christians cannot have discussions with unbelievers--you keep going off topic and trying to make issues out of minute things that aren't germane to the subject matter, proving that you cannot refute what i wrote in that article.

Do you think you're going to insult us all into believing in creationism?

the only people doing the insulting is your side, i have yet to insult even though you may think i have insulted you, i have not and i should know, i am the one typing the words..

now why don't you try to refute what i wrote with actual evidence?

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 3:19 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-20-2010 4:41 AM archaeologist has responded
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 08-20-2010 5:40 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 3018 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 20 of 83 (575460)
08-20-2010 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:05 AM


Re: "Observations"
{by the way archaeologists go up 100 feet down}

Is that a bumper sticker on your car?

I've got bad news for you: Divers Do It Deeper.

Seriously, why are archeologists limited to 100 feet (up or down, whichever you mean)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:05 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 5:34 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded
 Message 23 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 5:37 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 83 (575472)
08-20-2010 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by crashfrog
08-20-2010 3:19 AM


Re: "Observations"
I mean, why are you even here? What are you here to do

these are funny questions given that the home page of this forum states it wants to discuss with christians and one of the admin. stated the same idea. but from the reaction, comments and such questions quoted above, you:

1. do not want discussion- you want to prostelytize; brow beat, insult and so on
2. do not want to hear the other side of the issue--you only want discussion done your way and that won't happen.
3.do bot want to be honest in presenting your side-- this is quite evident by the mis-represented quotes, the taking out of context, the distortions, the distractions from the topic and so much more/

i amhere because God wants me here and the forum claimed to want discussion but that latter part seems to be a fraud because you want to make all the rules in order to make the playing field lopsided in your favor in order to ensure you get to justify your unbelief and sibnful lifestyle and remain 'superior' to christians and creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 08-20-2010 3:19 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by hotjer, posted 08-20-2010 6:01 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 08-20-2010 9:12 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 83 (575473)
08-20-2010 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-20-2010 4:41 AM


Re: "Observations"
thanks for pointing out the typo.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-20-2010 4:41 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 83 (575474)
08-20-2010 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-20-2010 4:41 AM


Re: "Observations"
Seriously, why are archeologists limited to 100 feet (up or down, whichever you mean)?

never said they were limited, it was a ball park figure as each dig is different.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-20-2010 4:41 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 371 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 24 of 83 (575475)
08-20-2010 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 4:05 AM


Re: "Observations"
archaeologist writes:

the only people doing the insulting is your side, i have yet to insult even though you may think i have insulted you, i have not and i should know, i am the one typing the words..


No, you see, you have. Remember when you got so pissed off at me that you told me you weren't going to respond to me anymore. I merely mimicked your posting style.

As for insults, in this thread alone we get:

In Message 8:

the predictions made are constructed in a manner to bring the desired conclusion, and cannot be considered honest.

Insulting in that it calls your opponents dishonest.

Later in that same message:

such claims are all speculation, conjecture, assumption, etc., based upon subjective determination of long dead incomplete (for the most part and for a majority a single bone) skeleton.

Same thing again, you are calling us dishonest.

Still the same message:

this then is ultimate evidence that the theory of evolutionis false and the process does not exist except in the imaginations of those reject the Biblical account and want alternatives to it.

Here you are calling us delusional.

In Message 14:

no. because how secular science does it methods, omits data and pursues a false conclusion.

Calling us dishonest once more.

Same message:

we do not need to 'create' a hyptohesis for origins because we already know what it is and those who reject that explanation scramble to replace it with some fictional account they cannot prove and leave people without any answers.

Accusing us of lying.

In Message 15:

you want to put God's creative act under your microscope and then declare it valid or not WHILE knowing that you cannot replicate anything to do with the theory of evolution, nor show the original conditions for its beginnings (or replicate that) and initial interaction with life.

Calling us liars again.

Later on:

evolutionists and atheists are all the same, thy will demand one thing from their opponents while distorting their own work to make sure it fits their ideas.

Calling us dishones once more.

And finally in Message 16:

i can point to Ann Gibbons' book, The First Human and let you read her records of how anthropologists build huge theories out of a tiny toe bone, and then claim they discovered a new species. it is ridiculous.

More accusations of lying and dishonesty.

sorry but i do not play your game.

Blatantly admitting you will never accept anything we tell you, basically calling yourself superior to us.

yet you cannot produce 5 credible and legitimate ones.

Accusing us of lying again.

i do not put my trust in them for my information.

You do not trust us.

ha ha ha ha.

Laughing at us.

And that's it for now.

So, you see, Archie, you have in fact been very insulting. You didn't like it when I did it to you, so one wonders why you do it to others.

Please stop it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 4:05 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
hotjer
Member (Idle past 2621 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 25 of 83 (575484)
08-20-2010 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 5:32 AM


Re: "Observations"
Do you really believe that God want you to represent his Words in such manners? Do really think this help people to be saved? This is not the right way to do it....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 5:32 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 26 of 83 (575490)
08-20-2010 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 1:50 AM


Re: "Observations"
I note that your post contains neither any further supposed "observations" in support of creationism, nor a rebuttal to my critique of your original meager handful of "observations".

It does however provide us with an insight into your character which the squeamish and fastidious might have wished to avoid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 1:50 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 83 (575506)
08-20-2010 8:21 AM


well,i am not going to play your game. if ou cannot legitiaely refute my work then i will consider that i have refuted your arguments against creation as science andhave shown that evolution does not qualify for such status.

you have done nothing but avoid the issue which shows you do not have any rebuttals nor evidence onhand or anywhere to support your arguments against creation, which are nothing more than a hatred fo Christ and the Bible.

as for the poster who talks about my saving people, if you wanted to be saved, you would be acting and talking a lot differently than you are andi would be seeing you show up at my forum, with a boatload of questions.

i presented that article to show you that you cannot make rules to disqualify what God has done but as i have said, creation does not fit the secular mode because it is a one time supernaural act and the real rules of science are truth/error & right/wrong anything else is a weak attempt to obtain justification for one's bad choices.

it will also not be repeated but then neither can your theory of evolution be repeated either.

Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-20-2010 8:41 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 29 by hotjer, posted 08-20-2010 8:47 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 08-20-2010 11:06 AM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-20-2010 11:57 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 28 of 83 (575508)
08-20-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 8:21 AM


It seems that to the list of your less appealing qualities we must add the fact that you're a sore loser.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 8:21 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
hotjer
Member (Idle past 2621 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 29 of 83 (575510)
08-20-2010 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 8:21 AM


Of course, it is my faul that your preaching does not get through to me. My bad; I should regonise that a long time ago. All people that do not believe in the creation are hateful infidel creatures. No, not insulting at all.

Good luck...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 8:21 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 30 of 83 (575515)
08-20-2010 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by archaeologist
08-20-2010 5:32 AM


Re: "Observations"
in order to ensure you get to justify your unbelief and sibnful lifestyle and remain 'superior' to christians and creationists.

Can you give me any details of my "sinful lifestyle," archaeologist? How do you know whether or not I eat Christian infants for breakfast?

Prediction: we will get the "I'll pray for you hellbound infidels" post from Archie within the next four days.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by archaeologist, posted 08-20-2010 5:32 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by hotjer, posted 08-20-2010 10:03 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019