| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
27th April 2004, 02:32 AM
|  | Senior Veteran
 
| | Join Date: 12th August 2003
Posts: 4,705
Blessings: 97,554
Reps: 907 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by ikester7579 LOL, your all so funny. What I've come to learn here, in the many months I've been here, is that there is no evidence that you will accept from me or any other creationist. So why waste my time? But the thought of starting this thread to draw me and others in here is thoughtful. I'm touched that your thinking of me so much.
You never post any evidence. All you do is claim you have evidence and that we ignore it. |
27th April 2004, 03:41 AM
|  | Here's looking at you kid
  
| | Join Date: 19th April 2004
Posts: 4,224
Blessings: 92,928
Reps: 5,424 (power: 17) | | Originally Posted by ikester7579 LOL, your all so funny. What I've come to learn here, in the many months I've been here, is that there is no evidence that you will accept from me or any other creationist. So why waste my time? But the thought of starting this thread to draw me and others in here is thoughtful. I'm touched that your thinking of me so much.
Analasys: You don't know what you're talking about and or you don't have the evidence yourself. |
27th April 2004, 07:34 AM
|  | Contributor
65 
| | Join Date: 4th March 2003
Posts: 6,393
Blessings: 117,786 My Mood 
Reps: 19,183,710,574,649,584 (power: 19,183,710,574,664) | | Originally Posted by ikester7579 LOL, your all so funny. What I've come to learn here, in the many months I've been here, is that there is no evidence that you will accept from me or any other creationist. So why waste my time?
Refuting alleged evidence is not the same as not accepting evidence. The old creationist excuse was "We look at the same data, we just interpret it differently". The threads linked in the OP and post 6 clearly show that creationists don't look at the "same data" and in fact ignore vast quantities of data that refute their myth.
The new excuse has become "there is no evidence that you will accept so why provide any?". The problem is that you need to provide not just some small bit of evidence for some ad hoc claim but refutations of all the falsifications of the flood myth that have been put forth and you can't provide a refutation for any of them. The evidence required must be actual evidence refuting the specific falsification of the flood myth and not just some bogus young earth claim from the PRATT list. But the thought of starting this thread to draw me and others in here is thoughtful. I'm touched that your thinking of me so much.
Read the OP again. I started this thread to consolidate links to all the discussions of flood falsifications that the YECs who post here have not been able to answer. I got tired of listing them over and over each time some YEC claimed that the mythical worldwide flood was a real event. I was hoping that someone might be drawn in to discuss some of the specific threads but that hasn't happened much if at all in the three months since I started it. It is becoming clear that there are no refutations of the long list of falsifications of the worldwide flood myth.
We see that there is huge mass of evidence falsifying the flood that YECs won't accept no matter how solidly documented so you have the statement about who won't accept evidence backwards.
The frumious Bandersnatch  |
27th April 2004, 08:13 AM
|  | WinAce > cdesign proponentsists
32  
 | | Join Date: 24th June 2003 Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,443
Blessings: 125,873
Reps: 16,712 (power: 43) | | I don't think any YECs have ever made much of an effort to explain your threads frum. Chris Grose had a go for a while, though he mostly chatted to Joe. they hve been appreciated by me though, so don't think they were a waste 
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging. |
27th April 2004, 11:59 AM
|  | Legend
60   
| | Join Date: 22nd October 2002 Location: New York
Posts: 14,398
Blessings: 1,006,565 My Mood 
Reps: 406,903,328,345,094,208 (power: 406,903,328,345,118) | | | Oops. Double post. See below.
__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890
Last edited by lucaspa; 27th April 2004 at 12:06 PM.
|
27th April 2004, 12:05 PM
| | Legend
60
| | Join Date: 22nd October 2002 Location: New York
Posts: 14,398
Blessings: 1,006,565 My Mood
Reps: 406,903,328,345,094,208 (power: 406,903,328,345,118) | | Originally Posted by ikester7579 LOL, your all so funny. What I've come to learn here, in the many months I've been here, is that there is no evidence that you will accept from me or any other creationist.
Not at all. We accept data from Adam Sedgwick and William Buckland, both of them were creationists.
Ikester, we don't reject the data out of hand. What we do is critically examine all data, both from creationists and from evolutionists. When Barnes said that the strength of the magnetic field showed the earth could not be young, we accepted the data on the strength of the magnetic field. However, what Barnes said was that the magnetic field was always in one polarity. We looked to see if that claim was also true. It wasn't. We had independent data that showed that earth's magnetic field had reversed in the past. Since that was the case, Barnes' claims that the magnetic field showed a young earth was falsified.
When the first DNA data came indicating that neandertals were not H. sapiens, that data was looked at very critically. The details of the methods were questioned and the data was compared to the fossils. It was only after other people had also done the DNA assays on different samples and after people had done some more rigorous quantitative studies of the fossils did we finally accept that neandertals are not a subspecies of H. sapiens.
The major problem you have is that your view of science is that you make two stacks of "evidence for", and the higher stack wins. It doesn't work that way.
True statements can't have false consequences. IF YEC is true, including Flood Geology, then there are consequences -- evidence/data -- of that. When we find evidence that can't be there if YEC were really true -- such as the data about the Flood in this thread -- then we know Flood Geology (and YEC) can't be true. What you do is pretend that evidence against the Flood simply doesn't exist. You are quite happy to post evidence you think is against evolution, but you ignore evidence against Flood Geology.
Jesus did say something about removing the log from your own eye before commenting on the piece of dust in your neighbor's. You can't play be two sets of rules -- one for YEC and another for evolution.
We play by only one set of rules and let the chips fall where they may. Unfortunately for Biblical literalism, the chips have fallen falsifying YEC.
__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890 |
27th April 2004, 03:15 PM
|  | Mad Preacher
26 
| | Join Date: 24th August 2003 Location: Somewhere
Posts: 648
Blessings: 91,526
Reps: 118 (power: 0) | | Not really that impressive. http://www.icr.org/newsletters/drjohn/drjohnnov03.html
I could go step by step, and debunk the arguments in this one, but it would be a long and blustery post.
Two words: "polystrate fossils"
About the floating, and sinking, by that argument, fish falsify uniformitarianism, because dead fish float, so for them to be fossilized at the bottom of the ocean is impossible. How could poop falsify the flood because it is cracked? why couldn't it have been cracked before the flood came?
The answer would be in the oceans. Vredefort crater (300 km diameter, ~2 billion years ago)
Sudbury crater (250 km diameter, ~1.8 billion years ago)
Chicxulub crater (170 km diameter, ~65 million years ago)
Woodleigh crater (~120 km diameter, ~200-360 million years ago)
Popigai crater (100 km diameter, ~36 million years ago)
Manicouagan crater (100 km diameter, ~214 million years ago)
already based on the assumption that the earth is old.. so how does that prove the earth is old?
answer this one later.
More later from your friendly neighborhood creationist...
__________________
Ps. 119:105 "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolutionists can come up with all the wacko ideas they want, but they can't make a monkey out of me!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Darwin is dead, and Christ is alive. Gotta love natural selection.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
27th April 2004, 03:24 PM
| | WinAce > cdesign proponentsists
32
| | Join Date: 24th June 2003 Location: Chiark
Posts: 18,443
Blessings: 125,873
Reps: 16,712 (power: 43) | | | any chance of those being properly addressed, rather than meaningless hand waving?
__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging. |
27th April 2004, 03:26 PM
|  | I Have Been Complexified!
43 
| | Join Date: 16th March 2004
Posts: 989
Blessings: 94,577
Reps: 1,851 (power: 9) | | because dead fish float, so for them to be fossilized at the bottom of the ocean is impossible.
Really? Even their bones?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
See profile for details |
27th April 2004, 03:40 PM
| | Contributor
65
| | Join Date: 4th March 2003
Posts: 6,393
Blessings: 117,786 My Mood
Reps: 19,183,710,574,649,584 (power: 19,183,710,574,664) | | Originally Posted by AlHailThePowerOfJesusName Not really that impressive. http://www.icr.org/newsletters/drjohn/drjohnnov03.html
I could go step by step, and debunk the arguments in this one, but it would be a long and blustery post.
Two words: "polystrate fossils"
About the floating, and sinking, by that argument, fish falsify uniformitarianism, because dead fish float, so for them to be fossilized at the bottom of the ocean is impossible. How could poop falsify the flood because it is cracked? why couldn't it have been cracked before the flood came?
The answer would be in the oceans.
already based on the assumption that the earth is old.. so how does that prove the earth is old?
answer this one later.
More later from your friendly neighborhood creationist...
Why don't you go to the threads mentioned and bump them if you think you can refute them? Just spouting a little nonsense like polystrate fossils and fish float won't get it done. From what you have posted I don't think you really even looked at the threads in question.
The frumious Bandersnatch | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
