Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   $50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 224 of 305 (79699)
01-20-2004 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sharon357
08-20-2003 10:04 AM


The farmers curse (frost pressing rocks up out of the earth)pressing up the rocks from only the upper 3 or 4 feet (the frost line) of the sediments, proves the theory of evolution has created the illusion that these rocks were laid down over millions of years, the rocks themselves testify that your sediments were laid down quite recently, were talking about some fairly good sized rocks, in some of the different soils depositions farmed today, that you all believe are quite old, the farmers plow is continually snagging their sprinkled tops each year, if the sediments were deposited millions of years ago, the rocks in the upper 3 to 4 feet would of surfaced to the surface, however, each year the farmer has to pick the rocks that surface, this is why you will see rock fences alongside some of the farmers fields, its called the farmers curse, toe never had the time it needed to be a viable theory, micro-evolution is simply explained by Intelligent Design, in fact the farmers curse seems to be supporting Intelligent Design, the biblical flood sediments, etc...
P.S. The sediment however would of dated old even before they erupted out of the earth, if the sediments were laid down millions of years ago, then the rocks sprinkled tops would of already been pressed up onto the surface, (frost under the rocks pressing them upward) the fact they are still being pressed up is your proof, and supporting the Creationists Theory that these sediments were laid down in the biblical world flood, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sharon357, posted 08-20-2003 10:04 AM Sharon357 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2004 2:13 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 227 by mark24, posted 01-21-2004 4:55 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 228 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 8:25 AM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 235 of 305 (79791)
01-21-2004 11:20 AM


crashfrog, It was the recent biblical flood that caused the glaciers to form suddenly, and agree it happened quite recently, etc...
mark24, I like to leave statements open, so you being the listener can infer whatever you think I'm implying, makes you a part of the posts, etc...
JonF, We seem to agree, that this phenomenom happened quite recently, though, given what we know about liquification, all the sediment layerings could of happened quite recently, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-21-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 11:48 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 269 by Trixie, posted 01-23-2004 5:22 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 237 of 305 (79811)
01-21-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by JonF
01-21-2004 11:48 AM


Walt Brown has a ph D in Mechanical Engineering from MIT, was tenured professor, taught college physics, math, and computer science,etc...He explains how the world biblical flood model could of laid down all the sediments layerings quite recently, by the the scientific processes known as liquification, etc...
Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Walt has his own google search engine for this website, Type: Liquefaction During the Flood
How about the glaciers that caused the pleistocene extinction, and the fossils that were found quick frozen, it all happened suddenly, etc... Atlantisquest.com
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 11:48 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 1:27 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 240 by Chiroptera, posted 01-21-2004 2:01 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 247 of 305 (79865)
01-21-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Chiroptera
01-21-2004 2:01 PM


Chiroptera, I agree Walts qualifications are impressive, probably why the evolutionists don't agree to Walts debating contract, however,
the lead evolutionists must have a doctorate in applied or basic sciences, what is interesting, Walt is willing at debate the sciences, but the evolutionists appear not interested in debating the sciences unless they are able to bring religion into it, etc...
P.S. If evolution is not a religion, then why do the evolutionists want to bring religion into a scientific debate, etc...
Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Written Debate The issue is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? Dr. Brown’s standing offer for a strictly scientific, written, and publishable debate is on page 328. Please read the entire passage and note that a few initially agreed to a strictly scientific debate, but later changed their minds, insisting they would only take part if the exchange included religion. One evolutionist is so upset that a written debate will not include religion that he now misleads by saying that Walt Brown has refused to debate him. (Correspondence in our files shows how he no longer wanted a strictly scientific debate after reading the 6th edition of this book.) Dr. Brown has consistently maintained his position for 23 years: the debate should be limited to scientific evidence.
If someone says, Walt Brown has refused to debate, we suggest you ask to see that person’s signed debate agreement. (Walt Brown has published his on pages 328-330.)
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Chiroptera, posted 01-21-2004 2:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2004 5:50 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 248 of 305 (79872)
01-21-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by JonF
01-21-2004 1:27 PM


JonF, William R. Farrand didn't include all the evidence, like Sir Henry Howorth, check this site out, etc...
P.S. The bible says all the creatures on land died, perhaps we should change the name the pleistocene fossils, and call it all, the fossils evidences of the biblical flood, etc...
The Last Extinction Event | Physics Forums
http://custance.org/...y/Volume4/Part_I/chapter10.html#Page5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 1:27 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 6:35 PM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 250 of 305 (79879)
01-21-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by PaulK
01-21-2004 5:50 PM


PaulK, Joe never signed Walts agreement, Joe changed the agreement to include religion, etc...
P.S. Walts appears to be more than willing to debate the science of it all, without dragging in religion, etc...Its interesting that Joe wasn't willing to debate Walt unless it included religion, etc...
http://www.trueorigin.org/Meert1.pdf.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2004 5:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by PaulK, posted 01-21-2004 6:41 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 253 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 6:41 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 254 of 305 (79898)
01-21-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by JonF
01-21-2004 6:41 PM


JonF, I find it interesting what it all comes down to, is Joe didn't want to debate the sciences, wanted to debate religion, change the topic, of the debate, etc...
P.S. Walts standing offer for over 20 years still is out there, no one is willing to debate the topic Walt's chosen. You all get upset when someone goes off topic, would think you all would be more sympathetic, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 6:41 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 7:30 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 256 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 7:56 PM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 257 of 305 (79907)
01-21-2004 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by JonF
01-21-2004 7:30 PM


JonF, Perhaps Joe is too religious to stay on topic, Walt wins by default, if any doctorate scientists in basic or applied sciences actually believed that their science supported evolution they would of answered the challenge, because no scientist with a doctorate degree in the sciences will meet the challenge, Creation wins by default, etc...
P.S. I find it interesting that no scientists is willing to debate Walt on the sciences, and feels the need to change the topic, which is the whole point of the debate, does science support creation or evolution, we all know religion supports creation, but that wasn't the topic, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-21-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 7:30 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 11:21 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 267 by JonF, posted 01-22-2004 8:02 AM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 259 of 305 (79971)
01-22-2004 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by NosyNed
01-21-2004 11:21 PM


NosyNed, Joe admitted he wasn't qualified to debate religion, but then changed his mind that he wanted to debate what he said he wasn't qualified to debate, etc...
P.S. Joe reminds me of one of American's Great President's, George Bush Senior who said, these famous words, read my lips, I'm sure Joe is qualified to debate science with Walt, but from his own lips he admitted he wasn't qualified to debate Religion, etc...
http://www.trueorigin.org/Meert1.pdf.
On Aug 26, 1996, Joe Meert wrote Walt Brown:?I am a faculty member in Geology at Indiana State University. At the present time, I would be interested in the debate form at providing there is NO THEOLOGY discussed. The debate will be on the intrinsic merits of the SCIENCE and no discussion of creationism or the Bible should be allowed.Once the debate enters this realm it becomes a debate about theology NOT geology.? [Emphasis his.]
On Aug. 27, 1996, Joe Meert wrote: Yes, I am well qualified to enter a scientific debate IF there is science to be debated. I am not qualified to debate theological arguments that are based on faith alone. You know, I would be more than happy to debate Walter on science if he was able to debate science. I found out very early on in life that you can't debate theology and that is really what Walt wants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by NosyNed, posted 01-21-2004 11:21 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2004 2:01 AM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 261 of 305 (79979)
01-22-2004 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by NosyNed
01-22-2004 2:01 AM


NosyNed,
If Joe wants to debate Walt about theology, let's change the topic to prophecies, and if Joe doesn't like the change in topic, he's wimpin out, etc... the problem is with Joe changing the topic to be debated, and Joe's qualifications to debate a topic hes admitted that he is not even qualified to debate, etc...
P.S. Its Common Sense isn't it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2004 2:01 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2004 2:45 AM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 263 of 305 (79986)
01-22-2004 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by PaulK
01-22-2004 2:45 AM


PaulK, If Joe wants to include theology on a debate on geology, perhaps a live debate with Dr. Gene Scott, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2004 2:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2004 3:40 AM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 265 of 305 (79992)
01-22-2004 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by PaulK
01-22-2004 3:40 AM


Joe apparently doesn't want to debate Walt, we all understand, he tried to change the topic to include religion, which would of made this debate meaningless, etc...
P.S. Joe isn't qualified to debate religion, even admitted he wasn't qualified to debate religion, then said he wanted to include religion into the debate, etc...
[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-22-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2004 3:40 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by mark24, posted 01-22-2004 5:11 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 268 by Loudmouth, posted 01-22-2004 12:46 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 272 by Asgara, posted 01-24-2004 3:45 PM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 270 of 305 (80382)
01-23-2004 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Trixie
01-23-2004 5:22 PM


Re: Comprehension bypass
Its believed the reason the glaciers are melting is simply due to less heat being reflected back into outer space, however, the northern and southern hemisphere show evidence of glaciation, the biblical flood explains how this could of happened quickly, however, Noahs ark is believed to of landed in the mountains of ararat, which is near the equator, might explain why the rains there didn't freeze, its believe the waters erupted upward because of the excessive heat as they erupted out of the fountains of the deep, so they cooled and came back down, as rain snow, etc...
P.S. Its called the hydro-plate theory, if it wouldn't of been for some of this excessive heat escaping the flood waters would of caused the oceans and the earth to over heat, etc...
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Hydroplate1.html Has 4 parts, will explain an alternative theory to how the flood waters erupted out of the earth, etc...
Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood type: glaciers on his google search engine,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Trixie, posted 01-23-2004 5:22 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Trixie, posted 01-24-2004 5:03 PM johnfolton has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 275 of 305 (80543)
01-24-2004 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Trixie
01-24-2004 5:03 PM


Re: Comprehension bypass
Trixie, You must realize that the scientists that have a doctorate degree (Ph D degree)in the sciences are afraid to debate the sciences with Walt, Walt is willing to debate the science's(not drag theology into the debate), has had a standing offer to debate: Does science support creation or evolution?, and for 23 years no scientists have shown enough faith they can show the sciences supports evolution, and not creationism, etc...Walts problem with evolutionists is the same problem with Intelligent Design, is that the evolutionists want to drag religion into the sciences, and that is kind of interesting given the theory of evolution is supposed to believe their theory is based on the sciences, etc...If they actually believed their theory is based on the science, they would of debated Walt, they haven't thus Creation wins by default, etc...
P.S. You seem to be saying, but rock will bend, however, this is not what you see in the natural, the deepest wells ever drilled, and oil wells, are finding fractured rock and water, etc...If rock is suppose to bend, to subduct, then why is all the rocks broken up with water filling the voids, etc...Walts theory makes sense, granite mantles rock rubbing rock would fracture, crumble, and the plates wouldn't of subducted under the continental plates, they would of crushed under the continents, etc...
Geophysics University of Bonn
Page not found | Geophysical Institute

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Trixie, posted 01-24-2004 5:03 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by AdminAsgara, posted 01-24-2004 7:55 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 278 by Trixie, posted 01-25-2004 9:14 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 279 by Trixie, posted 01-25-2004 9:18 AM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024