Summations Only

quote:

---

This site needs more Creationists.

---

Yes please! This site would be no fun without you.

quote:

---

Anyone know why no Creationists stick around here?

---

My favourite reason that I have seen and have some documentary evidence for (Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC) is that they realise that everything they were taught about creation has no basis in observable fact and is actually contraindicated. They stop being creationists.

quote:

---

It's unfortunate that Creationists aren't allowed to argue/debate their positions here the way they want to. There would be much more debate.

---

If putting forward well argued points backed up by documented evidence is not the way to do this, what have you got in mind? We could all stand in a room and throw rocks at each other but I doubt that this would be helpful in advancing the debate.Tell me Chuck, how should we be debating? I honestly want to know what you think the rules should be.

quote:

---

I would have gotten around to presenting the evidence Creations have but it can't ever get there because of the complete and utter bias this site has.

---

Are you saying that you have been censored? I sincerely hope not.Are you saying that you were interrupted while you were typing your well argued and fully researched position? Are we making too much noise for you to concentrate?Ok, everyone shut up so Chuck can compose his thoughts and get around to presenting the evidence.

quote:

---

None of your marine scientists have an interest in falsifying the evidence so abundantly cited via observable photography supported by the numerous cited corroborative evidences by me

---

Link?As a marine biologist by training (a long time ago) who works in a related field, I'd be really interested.Don't forget, I'm still waiting for other links from the Buzsaw archive.

quote:

---

Two more unsupported assertions.

---

This thread was stared with ten (count 'em) unsupported assertions.

quote:

---

There are more hateful bigots on your side of the isle than the creationist side. The terminology of many of you describing creationists, such as yours above depict that hateful bigotry.

---

bigot
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
(from Bigot Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)The way I read the definition, a bigot would be completely unmoved by mountains of evidence against their point of view.Let's see who the bigots are and show us your mountain. We (well, they) have shown you theirs...

quote:

---

Too much of your alleged evidence is based on abstract manipulative quantum and relativistic arguments. As an artist can paint an abstract modern art painting into just about any form of image that he desires, so with abstract means of claiming evidence.

---

Such as?Which part to you have a problem with? Genetics? Chemistry? Geology? Physics? Mathematics? Archaeology? Biology? (I'm sure I've missed some)Which parts of these interlocking and mutually supportive fields of study are abstract manipulative quantum and relativistic arguments? The fact that they all support each other suggests that all of them are?

quote:

---

On the contrary, again, you and your relativistic forum majority simply waive off the physically observable cited evidences, such as fulfilled prophecies, archeology and complexity that is supportive of the existence of the Biblical supernatural, etc.

---

Fulfilled prophecies. still waiting for your guide to the Buzsaw archives for more on this one.Archaeology. As I understand it after you helpfully suggested I go and do my own research - there is more evidence contradicting details than supporting the biblical account. The great majority is neither directly disproven or has any evidence to support it.If you're worried about the relativistic forum majority, please - invite your friends. I'd love to hear from them as well. Debate is no fun without an opposing viewpoint.

Thanks PaulK. Found it. Took a while but I found it. The Buzsaw Archive links aren't here yet, so that was a great help. Google was quicker but I wanted to be sure I had the right info.Apologies in advance - this is probably completely off topic but the challenge was set... Couldn't resist.Yup. Great evidence.I have seen images of what look like typical growth forms of small a polyp stony coral - probably acropora. e.g. 1 and e.g. 2 I may be wrong about the genus as the images are atrocious.Only four spoked wheels are shown. My newly discovered fondness for looking it up myself (thanks for the tip Buz) suggests that the Hittites used four spoked wheels, not the Egyptians.One of the wheels is spotless because, apparently coral won't grow on gold. I'm not sure this is true but I do know what other metals can actually encourage coral growth, especially with a current. A quick search didn't find anything useful, so I'll have to try that myself I guess.Then there's what looks like a six spoke axle and hub. Strangely, there's no coral growth at all. even though axles weren't gold. I also have wonder how it has survived standing on end for 4000 years.As far as growth rates are concerned, have a look at this. Bear in mind that this is under optimal conditions but acropora is a fast growing reef building genus. Anything it grows on would be well and truly covered and effectively invisible after 4000 years. This says little about reef growth though - don't let 'em suck you in with that one.My favourite part of this fable is that nobody knows where the one wheel that was apparently recovered is. Nobody else has documented this site - at least nobody I have found.Of course my favourite part of this is that the Pharaoh had cannons mounted on his chariots too. No wonder the poor Israelites needed god on their side - it's only fair.

quote:

---

Contrary to the impression Buz tries to give here, he doesn't like his claims being investigated because they often turn out to be false. In fact that seems to be one of his complaints about the thread. Which - in my opinion is the reason that he won't give you the link

---

Well, I have just investigated this one, at least as presented here.Am I being unfair, Buz? Do you accept that I have falsified your claim or do you wish to counter my point of view?

quote:

---

The "gold" wheel may be a small brass valve wheel off of a steamship - I've seen a picture of a pile of them and one looked very similar. It would also be the right colour - and I've never seen a picture of it with a scale or anything else that would give us the size (something that seems to be pretty basic to real archaeology).

---

Yeah, I can see that. They do seem a little too clean though. The lack of scale and reference is always an alarm signal, especially for such an important find.But this isn't real archaeology.

quote:

---

the story is that he used a dowsing device

---

Gets better and better. He used the occult to find biblical evidence. I don't know about the wheels but this is gold.

quote:

---

To be fair, this isn't a clean axl, this is a computer genrated picture of an axl, superimposed upon a cora

---

Yeah, I know - I was trying to avoid claiming that any of the images were doctored. Others are suspicious too. I was happy to dismember the 'evidence' as presented.Why call them cheaters when you can demonstrate that they're just wrong, I say.

quote:

---

I don't know if "doctored" is the right word to use here either. i think it's perfectly reasonable to use this kind of imagery to prove a point,

---

It is - doc-tor v.tr. 3. a. To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself: doctored the evidence.

quote:

---

however, I would say that you just can't project an image onto something, and then claim this proves it is exactly what you claim it is

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

To be fair, this isn't a clean axl, this is a computer genrated picture of an axl, superimposed upon a coral, I outlined the coral to make it more clear (roughly, it's of very poor quality):

---

I would say that doctoring is exactly the right word according to the definition above. The context of the image as presented is as photographic evidence of a scientific or archaeological claim. There is no mention of any alterations of the image on any site that uses it as evidence of the story. It qualifies as doctored evidence.also definition c. To alter or modify for a specific endThe image as an object was modified i.e doctored. Local(?) usage of the term often refers specifically to images also. This is the context I was really using it in - the rest was me being pedantic Other words I might use to describe what was done are misrepresented, falsified and fraudulent.

quote:

---

Of course, there needs to be said only one thing however: "any evidence these coral forms actually are chariot wheels?" Nothing more would be required.

---

Haven't heard about any real evidence yet. I believe I've (briefly) shown that what we've seen so far doesn't hold up. I don't expect (but do hope) that someone will step up and show me why I'm wrong - I only spent about ten minutes on it so far (once I actually found it), so it should be easy if the claims are true.

quote:

---

I would however be interested in the "coral does not grow on gold" claim. I am suspicious of it, but knowing hardly anything about coral, can't dismiss it outright. Any light you could shine on that? Thanks in advance.

---

I am interested and suspicious too. I haven't found any reference to it other than creationist sites linking to chariots. Rings alarm bells the size of elephants.In reality, I don't know yet so I want to try the experiment. If I can graft a piece of acropora to a lump of gold, then we know. All I need is a piece of gold...

That was great to read. It shows me that drawing people into dialogue can actually lead to the truth. Makes me hate the world a little less.

quote:

---

I looked down at my hands again, and studied them for a few moments longer...

​

"This is it..." I spoke to myself softly, "Welcome to the real world."

---

That is beautifully put. I'll bet that everyone who was brought up in even a moderately religious environment and broken free of the dogma has had this moment.

quote:

---

I've been waiting for Buz or the other Wyatt supporters to produce evidence that there actually are chariot wheels in the coral for years - literally.

---

Yeah, figured that. But we can live in hope, right? Posted that because I'd never heard of this one and just enjoyed dissecting it. Was prepared to shut up after that but got into a conversation.I do have to admit to hoping someone, anyone would step up and at least try after all of the complaints I'm reading about bias. Especially since I have been told that all the evidence here, somewhere. Message 68 Sadly, I expect to be disappointed.what all of this does do is to help explain why...

quote:

---

4. You accuse fundamental Christians of being intolerant, judgmental and hateful, while you foam at the mouth calling them freaking lunatics, ignorant, weak-minded, stupid fundies, and hateful bigots.

---

Doesn't make moral judgements about it but it does explain why.It's all very scientific, don't you think? The real irony is that the sea bed is littered with things which have no business being in the water. Even if there was proof of the wheels, it wouldn't automatically demonstrate the accuracy of the exodus.

Also applicable to this is ...

quote:

---

3. You ignore scientific concepts like cause and effect, and you don't realize that a closed system can be defined however the observer wants, so you throw out technological phrases to try to ignore the implications of thermodynamics by saying the laws of physics are not set in stone.

---

Atheists ignore scientific concepts? Really? A closed system can be defined however the observer wants? Does that mean that I can ignore the universe by declaring myself a 'closed system'? Hard to add to that aside from the point that it is creationists ignoring the mathematics and principles of statistics here. It is creationists throwing out technological sounding statistics with no substance.It's like an ad telling you that a shampoo uses quasi-teflon nanoflex to make your hair look 85% healthier. It's just bullshit marketing to the masses - not science.Edited by Warthog, : No reason given.