Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
582 online now:
dwise1, EWolf, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 574 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,257 Year: 4,369/6,534 Month: 583/900 Week: 107/182 Day: 14/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
candle2
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 166 of 254 (894182)
05-06-2022 11:16 AM


Jar, evolutionists are the dishonest ones. Not only are
my views based on the Bible; they are also based on
real science.
I, like you and all evolutionists, believe in historical
science. The big difference is that I put more trust
in observational science (true science) than
historical science.
OS, for me, stands head and shoulder above HS,
which is open to subjective interpretation.
I could go on and on about how OS proves time
after time that evolutionary concepts are wrong.
Let's take just one example: Polystrata.
Polystrata consists of fossils, mostly trees, but
also animals, that extend upright through multiple
geologic layers. Supposedly with each layer being
millions of years old.
How a dead tree can stand upright for millions of
years without decaying away is not acceptable to
a sane, rational individual. But anyone who believes
the fossil of dinosaurs that still have soft and
flexible tissue after 75,000,000 years will believe
in just about anything.
In any event, the so-called geologic column, which
is/was based on assumption, was blown away by
Mt. St. Helen's (MSH), as was the concept of
uniformitarianism.
In MSH's Spirit Lake there are hundreds of dead
trees that have become saturated with water and
the heavy root end sinks down into the mud, and
settles there. Many of these trees already extends
through multiple layers of strata.
Examples of polystrata fossils are found across the
entire globe. They are the results of a global flood.
I want you to fix this fact (and it is a fact) firmly in
your mind and that what is happening in Spirit Lake
is observable science-real science; not science that
is polluted by presuppositions.
People accept evolution, even when clearly disproved
by real science, because they refuse to accept the
alternative.
Their mindset is "I want it this way-not that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Taq, posted 05-06-2022 6:12 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 173 by dwise1, posted 05-06-2022 6:55 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 176 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-07-2022 1:26 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 185 by dwise1, posted 05-08-2022 5:07 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 167 of 254 (894183)
05-06-2022 11:34 AM


quote: candle2
Not only are my views based on the Bible; they are also based on real science.

Do real scientists ignore the attempts of others to explain that their statements about science are just factually incorrect? Do you now understand that biologists do not say that organisms can give birth to a different species?
So now you change the subject to something else that's been explained many years ago. In fact it was explained by creationists over a hundred years ago. Here it is - not that you'll even read it.
"Polystrate" Tree Fossils

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7316
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 168 of 254 (894184)
05-06-2022 11:38 AM


Dishonest as always
Resorting to the gish gallop now.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


  
jar
Member
Posts: 33904
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 169 of 254 (894185)
05-06-2022 11:44 AM


As expected you have nothing of value to offer and simply repeat all the old lies and ignorance.
You can learn though but I doubt you can ever be honest even with yourself.
You are simply a GOAT.

My Website: My Website

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19530
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 170 of 254 (894187)
05-06-2022 11:51 AM


candle2 writes:
Not only are
my views based on the Bible; they are also based on
real science.
Your views on thermodynamics are not based on real science. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that.
candle2 writes:
The big difference is that I put more trust
in observational science (true science) than
historical science.
No you don't. Have you ever observed water? The existence of water proves that your ideas about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are false. If simple structures - e.g. H2 and O2 could not spontaneously become more complex - e.g. H2O, then water could not exist. Your view is 100% opposite from observational science. Your view is 100% wrong.
But you won't acknowledge that obvious fact, will you? Because you prefer creationist lies to real science.

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 171 of 254 (894191)
05-06-2022 1:12 PM


I need to leave for a medical appointment, but I'll be back.
Polystrate fossil claims are among the worst-documented in all of the creationist literature. I have looked the claim up in many creationist books and I never ever, not even once, seen a single one of those books cite any geological source describing the sites being referred to by creationists. I have also directly demanded that creationists who bring up this claim to provide geological sources (not creationist ones, since they only repeat the lies, though one of their very common lies is to list scientific sources in a bibliography that they have never read because they had stolen that bibliography from other creationists who had stolen theirs unread from yet other creationists).
So provide scientific sources which describe those fossils and the strata in which they are found.
Also, geologist are not even remotely like you creationists. They are not blind brain-dead idiots who never ever bother to go out and look at the evidence (what you call "observational science" and which creationists never practice).
Geologists actually look at the evidence and make actual observations. They can tell whether a layer had been deposited slowly or rapidly -- your lie of layers requiring absolutely uniform slow rate of depositation lasting millions of years is just that, a lie!
And your " ... animals, that extend upright through multiple
geologic layers. Supposedly with each layer being millions of years old." Are you referring to the whale skeleton found near Lompoc, Calif? So tell us all about it. Tell us your creationist source's story about it. So that we can discuss it.
Gotta leave now.

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 172 of 254 (894209)
05-06-2022 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by candle2
05-06-2022 11:16 AM


candle2 writes:
Polystrata consists of fossils, mostly trees, but
also animals, that extend upright through multiple
geologic layers. Supposedly with each layer being
millions of years old.
Can you name even one verified polystrate tree where the layers have been dated? I have yet to meet a creationist who can name a single one.
In any event, the so-called geologic column, which
is/was based on assumption, was blown away by
Mt. St. Helen's (MSH), as was the concept of
uniformitarianism.
Was this the same event that produced polystrate trees without needing a worldwide flood? Mt. St. Helens poses a serious problem for YEC and flood geology because it demonstrates how these formations don't require a worldwide flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by candle2, posted 05-06-2022 11:16 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 173 of 254 (894211)
05-06-2022 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by candle2
05-06-2022 11:16 AM


Polystrata consists of fossils, mostly trees, but
also animals, that extend upright through multiple
geologic layers. Supposedly with each layer being
millions of years old.

How a dead tree can stand upright for millions of
years without decaying away is not acceptable to
a sane, rational individual.
The answer is that nobody says that a dead tree must "stand upright for millions of years without decaying away" -- except for a lying creationist!
Layers are deposited at different rates, some rapid and some slow. Everybody in their first introductory geology course learns that. And yet creationists insist that (ie, LIE THAT) geology teaches otherwise, that all depositation is at a single continuous very slow rate such that a few feet of strata would take "millions of years" to form, thousands of years for each millimeter.
Creationist Dr. Steve Austin, PhD Geology, claimed precisely that as "Stuart Nevins" in one of his creationist geology articles that I personally read. The Institute for Creation Research needed an actual PhD Geology on their staff in a desperate bid for respectability, one with credentials from a real geology department in a real university instead of the typical creationist fake "doctorate" from a diploma mill. So they hired graduate student Steve Austin to earn his PhD, which included paying for all his school expenses and supporting him in school. In return, he would join their staff after graduation and, while working on his degree, would write geology articles for them which appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. He created an anagram of his name to create his pseudonym, "Stuart Nevins", in order to hide his creationist identity from his real university professors.
Bear in mind that when "Stuart Nevins" had written that article, he had already learned far more geology than just the first introduction to geology course. That meant that when he repeated the typical creationist lie of "a formation a hundred feet thick that took millions of years to form did so with each millimeter of rock taking thousands of years to form" (paraphrased slightly, but that was what he claimed) he did so knowing full well that it was a lie. Therefore, Steve Austin deliberately lied!
 
I bring up Steve Austin's propensity for lying for a couple of reasons, one of which was in response to you repeating that creationist lie, which your entire rant about polystrate fossils depends on.
Back on CompuServe on 29-Mar-90, we were discussing polystrate fossil claims. The creationist (a SDAist whose MO was to copy and post entire pages from creationist books so literally that he always included the numbers linking to footnotes (but never the footnotes themselves)), Paul Ekdahl (simply to identify him since his name appears below), had quoted from something that Dr. Steve Austin had written. Austin had included a reference to his "source": Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures: American Jornal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869. When I found that article in the university library, I found that Austin had lied about what it said -- why am I not surprised at yet another creationist lie?
I've referred to that a number of times on this forum, the earliest having been in Message 116 on 05-Sep-2007:
DWise1 writes:
Do you believe that evidence of rapid depositation invalidates modern geology? Could you please explain why you would believe that?
I do hope that you will start that thread on polystrate fossils. That claim is so pervasive in the creationist literature and at the same time is one of their most poorly documented claims. I do hope that you will cite specific polystrate fossils along with their references, including scientific sources that also examine those fossils. That way, we will be able to examine the evidence.
BTW, in 20 years I have only seen one creationist offer an actual citation for a polystrate fossil claim. That creationist cited Steve Austin of the ICR who in his Catastrophes in Earth History quotes from this article: Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal measures, American Journal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869.
When I looked that article up in the library, I found that Austin had selectively pulled out that quotation out of contex such that (as I try to remember back about 18 years) it mentioned the geological evidence of rapid depositation but ignored the article's explanation that that rapid depositation was due to local flooding and it furthermore explained how geologists tell the difference between rapid and slow depositation.
Please note that Austin's misrepresentation of the Broadhurst article is the only creationist citation for a polystrate fossil claim that I have ever been able to find. Well, not counting a reference for the whale skeleton found near Lompoc, Calif, but that was nothing more that a two-inch announcement in an industrial chemical journal about the skeleton having been found and containing no other information.
Now here's a more complete treatment, an email to a creationist (CC'd to an interested third party) in which I posted the entire exchange on CompuServe (email addresses removed for privacy):
quote:
Subj: A Polystrate Claim
Date: 19-Apr-01 13:06:41 Pacific Daylight Time
From: DWise1
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, DWise1
Bill and Mark:
I told you before about the one creationist polystrate fossil claim that I
was able to find that was a specific claim. I had written it up as a library
file for CompuServe, but unfortunately I do not have a copy of it and the
CompuServe fora have been reorganized so that I cannot find it there.
However, I have found other messages which cover most of what my library file
said. Creationist Paul Ekdahl's source was Steven Austin, whose source was a
1964 issue of American Journal of Science. Unfortunately, that issue is
missing from the Cal-State Fullerton library, apparently being bound.
The rest of this email consists of Ekdahl's library file and our subsequent
messages:
[73317,1727]
POLYST 29-Mar-90 1965
Title : POLYSTRATES
Keywords: POLYSTRATE
A RESPONSE TO DAVID WISE ON NO.13 AND 17... OF 'THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR
CREATION EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.' list found in lib.15
Press for next or type CHOICES !read
A response to David Wise [72747,3317]... on no.13 (Polystrate fossils)
[CATASTROPHES IN EARTH HISTORY by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.]
168. Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of
non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal
measures: American Jornal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869.
Not infrequently, large fossils of plants and animals are found to
penetrate several strata. Upright fossil trees known as "kettles" or
"polystrate trees" may extend through tens of feet of strata, requiring
that the sedimentation occurred rapidly before the trees could rot and
fall over. Broadhurst describes trees in Lancashire, England: In 1959
Broadhurst and Magraw described a fossilized tree, in position of growth,
from the Coal Measures at Blackrod near Wigan in Lancashire. This tree
was preserved as a cast, and the evidence available suggested that the
cast was at least 38 feet in height. The original tree must have been
surrounded and buried by sediment which was compacted before the bulk of
the tree decomposed, so that the cavity vacated by the trunk could be
occupied by new sediment which formed the cast. This implies a rapid rate
of sedimentation around the original tree... It is clear that trees in
position of growth are far from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller,
1956, reaches the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen
Coal Measures), and presumably in all cases there must have been a rapid
rate of sedimentation. (p.865-866)
Response to no.16
> And could you expound on those "few people" who "have not let outside
scientist examine their date""that ancient wood exists which will permit
this calibration to be extended"?<
David I no longer have my master copy.. so I can not tell you. I good
place to ask would be SOR [bbs]. I saw your name on the board a couple of
weeks ago. If you post it there... someone might be able to help you.
Press !
[73317,1727]
POLYST 29-Mar-90 1965
#: 28233 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
29-Mar-90 21:40:08
Sb: #28067-RESPONSE TO 13 AND 17
Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
To: Paul Ekdahl 73317,1727 (X)
It's not at all unusual for trees on boggy soil to sink into the bog in
an
upright position. It's a little startling, but the ground in that area is
subject to subsidence. I'd be surprised if some HADN'T been found in the
coal.
BTW, this isn't speculation. I'm from Lancashire.
...Keir
Press for next or type CHOICES !
The Religion Forum Subjects Menu
Subject (# msgs)
#: 41060 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
08-Jun-90 12:40:20
Sb: "Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317
To: Keir Jones 71257,431
> #: 34212 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
> 02-May-90 08:00:59
> Sb: POLYSTRATES
> Fm: Paul Ekdahl 73317,1727
> To: KEIR JONES 71257,431 (X)
>
> > It's not at all unusual for trees on boggy soil to sink into the bog in
> > an upright position.
> I agree situations like that do happen. But, how do you deal with
> polystrate trees that penetrate through millions of years of strata? Do
> remember that this is not uncommon.
>
> Paul
Keir:
Earlier in his library file, POLYST, Paul had given a reference for this
claim: Broadhurst's article from American Journal of Science (1964), "Some
Aspects of the Paleoecology of Non-marine Fauas and Rates of Sedimentation in
the Lancashire Coal Measures." When I looked it up in the library last week,
I
found that not only does Broadhurst NOT say that fossil trees "penetrate
several strata", but he explicitly points out that of the more than fifty
trees
fossilized in position of growth in Lancashire, "[w]here trees occur in the
roof beds of a coal seam the root system is developed in the beds above the
top
of the coal; in no case has a tree been observed to pass from the roof into
the
coal itself." He also points out considerable evidence which contradicts
Flood
Geology.
I have just uploaded into Library 15 a file, POLYST.RSP, which includes
the
entire text of Paul's POLYST and my findings on the matter. So far, I have
found this claim of "poly-strate fossils" to be one of the more common and
worse documented of creationist claims.
I would like to get Paul to justify that "millions of years of strata"
line. So many strawmen, so little time.
Press for next or type CHOICES !
The Religion Forum Subjects Menu
#: 41177 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
09-Jun-90 09:37:26
Sb: #41060-#"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
To: David C. Wise 72747,3317 (X)
That citation matches my own observations (Both grandfathers and several
uncles were Lancashire coal miners) of such trees and the rates of
sedimentation.
...Keir
There is 1 Reply.
Press for next or type CHOICES !
#: 41362 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
10-Jun-90 09:45:32
Sb: #41177-"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317
To: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
This "polystrate fossil" claim seems to be trying to discredit modern
geology by first forcing a ridiculous view upon it (i.e. that all sediment
formed at a constant and strictly uniform rate) and then pointing out some of
the many examples of rapid sedimentation. The creationists seems intent on
erecting an effigy (or voodoo doll) of evolution and science, which they call
their "creation model", and then pronouncing evolution dead because they have
destroyed their effigy.
Anyway, I have informed Paul of what his reference actually says and have
again requested a reference for this claim. Who knows, maybe a miracle will
happen and he will start trying to verify his creationists' claims before he
posts them. But I'm not holding my breath.
Press for next or type CHOICES !
#: 41542 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
10-Jun-90 20:51:00
Sb: #41362-#"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
To: David C. Wise 72747,3317 (X)
Anyone who thinks sedimentation is uniform has a sedimented brain. One
only has to look anywhere in the world where rainfall comes in heavy storms
with sunny weather between to see that. The layers of mud in Santa Monica Bay
are a readily accessible verification of uneven sedimentation. You can even
read out the months by the type of debris.
It's always amazed me that creationists spend so much time trying to
knock
down evolution. Sort of like trying to prove the superiority of Goodyear
tires
by knocking Firestone. Not a practical argument when the next guy rolls up
with
a Michelin.
...Keir
There is 1 Reply.
Press for next or type CHOICES !
#: 41671 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
11-Jun-90 13:11:29
Sb: #41542-"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317
To: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
Keir:
The creationists' dual goal is (1) to kill evolution and (2) to
evangelize
through creationism. Goal #1 is most readily reached by using their
"evolution
model" to discredit or at least raise doubts about evolution and any science
that might possibly support it. The "evolution model" is a very rich source
of
strawmen: misconceptions and distortions of evolutionary ideas and claims
which the general public cannot readily tell from the real thing. This is
one
big reason why they never take their "findings" to the scientific community;
scientists would see the holes in their arguments immediately. Instead, they
target the public and public officials who are not well-schooled in science.
The supposed dependence of modern geology on uniform and constant rates
of
sedimentations is just another of their many strawman arguments.
Santa Monica Bay? You live in the LA area? I'm down here in Orange
County.
Press for next or type CHOICES !
The Religion Forum Subjects Menu
So the only creationist reference to polystrate fossils that I have ever been able to find just simply lies about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by candle2, posted 05-06-2022 11:16 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 174 of 254 (894224)
05-07-2022 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by AnswersInGenitals
05-02-2022 8:10 PM


Re: You're missing the real message
Answers, you must believe in theistic evolution (TE). You
accept that the earth itself is roughly four-and-a-half
billions years old.
I assume that you believe the six days (Yom) of creation
were of an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps up to
750,000,000 million years each. The day-age theory.
It is true that "yom" can refer to a period of time other
than a 24 hour period. However, when a number is used
with yom it always indicate a 24 hour period. Also, when
evening and/or day (light & dark) is used it refers to a
24 hour period.
On day three of creation God made the dry land to
appear. In addition, He created the tree; grass; flowers;
and, herbs on the same day.
The life giving rays of the sun did not reach the earth
until day four, which according to TE would have been
750,000,000 years later. Perhaps you should check
into the necessity of photosynthesis.
On top of that, birds and other organisms responsible
for pollination were not created until day five, which
would have been 1,500,000,000 years later.
On the 7th Day God (Jesus) created the Sabbath Day.
And, in numerous Biblical texts God commands us to
both remember the Sabbath Day and to keep it holy.
In Exodus 20: 8-11, God commands the Israelites to
work sis days and rest on the Sabbath. Do you
honestly believe God was telling us to work for
4,000,000,000 years and then rest 750,000,000 years?
If you really knew God's purpose in creating man you
would know beyond d a shadow of a doubt that God
left nothing to chance.
Before the world was even created Jesus knew that
He would give His life to pay for our sins. Read
1 Peter 1:20; Revelation 13:8; and Acts 3:23.
Humans are not to become angels after death. Our
potential is far greater than that. We are to be born
I to the God family.
God says that we are to become His very sons. Jesus
says that He would call us brethren (brother).
God tells us that we will inherit all that He has. He
also tells us we will become far greater than angels,
that we will rule over them.
This is why character is of the utmost importance.
We can only attain this character by having His
precious Holy Spirit dwelling within us. Through
His Holy Spirit we can attain fellowship with the
Father and Son. Through His Holy Spirit God
imparts His very nature to us. Little by little we
take on His character.
God is not like humans; He leaves nothing to chance.
He has planned this out to the last detail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 05-02-2022 8:10 PM AnswersInGenitals has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2022 11:35 AM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 177 by nwr, posted 05-07-2022 1:51 PM candle2 has replied
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 05-07-2022 4:58 PM candle2 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(4)
Message 175 of 254 (894225)
05-07-2022 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by candle2
05-07-2022 11:29 AM


Re: You're missing the real message
This is why character is of the utmost importance.
We can only attain this character by having His
precious Holy Spirit dwelling within us. Through
His Holy Spirit we can attain fellowship with the
Father and Son. Through His Holy Spirit God
imparts His very nature to us. Little by little we
take on His character.
So why then all the lies? Why do you creationists gorge yourselves on lies, swallowing camel-loads of them whole? Bathing in an ocean of lies? Why?
Is that taking on the character of your god? What does that say about your god?
At the very least, by using Christian Doctrine we can identify your god. The "Lord of Lies", which anybody having any familiarity at all with Christian Doctrine will immediately recognize as Satan. Except of course for those who follow him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by candle2, posted 05-07-2022 11:29 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 176 of 254 (894230)
05-07-2022 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by candle2
05-06-2022 11:16 AM


candy2 writes:
Examples of polystrata fossils are found across the
entire globe. They are the results of a global flood.
No they are not.
Multiple people have predicted that you will not be able to show us a single documented example of a polystrata fossil in sedimentary layers that have been dated correctly.
The scope of your knowledge really sucks. You should be embarrassed. You have been caught, repeatedly lying to cover up your breathtaking ignorance of basic knowledge, yet we can see how proud you are of yourself.
candy2 writes:
They are the results of a global flood.
I want you to fix this fact (and it is a fact) firmly in
your mind and that what is happening in Spirit Lake
is observable science-real science; not science that
is polluted by presuppositions.
Oh gosh, it turns out Spirit Lake is not a global flood and real observable science, that you cited, proves you incorrect about global floods and fossils and geology.
You have no supporting evidence whatsoever and the polluting presuppositions are all yours.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by candle2, posted 05-06-2022 11:16 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5972
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 177 of 254 (894232)
05-07-2022 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by candle2
05-07-2022 11:29 AM


Re: You're missing the real message
Note that I am not AnswersInGenitals. I am answering for myself.
Answers, you must believe in theistic evolution (TE). You
accept that the earth itself is roughly four-and-a-half
billions years old.
That the earth is over 4 billion years old comes from physics. It does not depend on TE or any other form of evolutionary thinking.
I assume that you believe the six days (Yom) of creation
were of an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps up to
750,000,000 million years each. The day-age theory.
I take the creation story to be story telling, myth making -- perhaps poetry.
It is not history. It should be trivially obvious from the writing style (genre) that it is not history.
On day three of creation God made the dry land to
appear. In addition, He created the tree; grass; flowers;
and, herbs on the same day.

The life giving rays of the sun did not reach the earth
until day four, which according to TE would have been
750,000,000 years later. Perhaps you should check
into the necessity of photosynthesis.
Or perhaps you are the one who needs to think about photosynthesis. What you believe is clearly false. The creation story is mythology, not history.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by candle2, posted 05-07-2022 11:29 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by candle2, posted 05-07-2022 5:48 PM nwr has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 178 of 254 (894236)
05-07-2022 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by candle2
05-07-2022 11:29 AM


Re: You're missing the real message
Out of the last 51 replies to you you've replied to only 8. I see that what people have been saying about you is true. I see no point in responding to you since you're unlikely to respond, and the few times you have responded to people you haven't addressed the evidence and arguments they've presented.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by candle2, posted 05-07-2022 11:29 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by candle2, posted 05-07-2022 6:00 PM Percy has replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 179 of 254 (894237)
05-07-2022 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by nwr
05-07-2022 1:51 PM


Re: You're missing the real message
NRW, the God that I worship says that in the beginning
He created everything. It's recorded.
Whenever I open a book written by an evolutionist it
begins with:
Life could have began;
There's a good chance that;
It is likely that;
We're not sure, but life probably;
Long ago and far away;
This kind of reasoning doesn't instill much confidence
in the reader. It's kid stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by nwr, posted 05-07-2022 1:51 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by nwr, posted 05-07-2022 6:40 PM candle2 has replied
 Message 183 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2022 10:18 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 184 by Tangle, posted 05-08-2022 2:40 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 180 of 254 (894238)
05-07-2022 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
05-07-2022 4:58 PM


Re: You're missing the real message
Percy, you make a good point. However, I do
read the replies.
Perhaps, it isn't fair, and I don't mean it that way.
But, you need to u/s that because someone hasn't
replied doesn't mean that they have dismissed
your side of the argument.
I am still involved with a good deal of stuff, and I
can't just ignore everything else.
Perhaps, I am wrong to post at all since I can't seem
to find the time required to address everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 05-07-2022 4:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 05-08-2022 8:22 AM candle2 has replied
 Message 195 by ringo, posted 05-08-2022 2:14 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022