Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[NobleMouse]

@Bible Research Tools

I work with archaeologists who submit artifacts for carbon dating, regularly. They don't assume ages of billions of years, but they often have carbon dated artifacts dated far older than a few thousand years.

You insist that the earth is young and that there is no evidence for an old earth, but you don't actually know anything about geology. And you have yet to address several of my responses.

You said there shouldn't be paleozoic bioturbation. I gave you examples of complex subsurface burrow systems that obstructed subsurface lamination throughout the geologic column.

You have been unable to explain how an overturned angular unconformity could form within a megasequence that was allegedly deposited by a single wave.

You have asked how rocks can bend. I showed you examples of ductile deformation and sheared trilobites that have been deformed along with rock, there proving that ductile deformation is how rocks bend, as opposed to soft sediment bending.

I also told you that soft sediment would not undergo activities such as cataclastic deformation and regular thrust faulting. Yet you still seem to believe that rocks hardened after uplift and deformation. You dont get clean compressional fractures like this when you squeeze soft wet sediment. The rocks were hardened prior to deformation.

You seemed to find it laughable that slow tectonic motion could lift the himilayas. I taught you that the uplift of the himilayas is readily observable and that they're growing more and more every year.
Highest Mountain | Everest

You never explained how dinosaur tracks could form in the middle of a megasequence and claimed that the tracks we're made by fleeing animals. I showed you tracks of flying pterodactyls that were actually just casually walking around.
THE LATE CRETACEOUS VERTEBRATE ICHNOFACIES OF BOLIVIA - FACTS AND IMPLICATIONS | Meyer | Publicación Electrónica de la Asociación Paleontológica Argentina

You claimed that all the tracks we're going in a single direction, but in fact, tracks at Cal orcko are in various directions, some also change direction.

(East to West)

(going south to north)

(southwest to northeast)

Yet you continue to deny the fact that you're wrong on all of these topics.

@NobleMouse I just want you to witness this too. This is what you're supporting .

I support what God's word says, and I recognize that 100% of your arguments about things that supposedly take millions or billions of years to happen, are based upon assumptions and you think these assumptions are more valid than God's word about the past.

As I've told others and will tell you now, I think things like Old Earth Creation and Theistic Evolution are simply mechanisms invented to help bridge the gap for people whose faith is in the assertions of the scientific community. What better way to win souls to Christ (who would otherwise reject) because [1] it satisfies the ego for those who think they've, on their own merit, discovered what God has done during creation and [2] it satisfies the intellectualism side of those who think they're reading between the lines, unlocking the special secret hidden mystery of the Genesis account that everybody else is missing. Very well-conceived as a strategy, though not doctrinally sound. Interesting that through a series of lies one would be brought to the truth - I guess as long as you've been coddled through believing that what Charles Lyell has done for geology and Darwin has done for biology has led you to knowing and believing that your version of history and what the Bible says is the same... ultimately leading you to knowing Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior is all that matters.

I'll let you and the others here who just can't bring themselves to believing God's word regarding creation kick that around for a while. Enjoy the weekend all-

 

[pitabread]

Interesting that through a series of lies one would be brought to the truth

By "series of lies" do you mean the age of the Earth and/or evolution?

Because I'm still not sure what the motivation is to deliberately lie about those things.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

By "series of lies" do you mean the age of the Earth and/or evolution?

Because I'm still not sure what the motivation is to deliberately lie about those things.

Its obviously to discredit the bible. If not, why is every age of the Earth acceptable except those that support the biblical account?

Why is every theory of evolution considered science, but those theories involving special creation are rejected? There is no other explanation that makes sense, than rejection of the biblical account.

 

[Speedwell]

Its obviously to discredit the bible. If not, why is every age of the Earth acceptable except those that support the biblical account?

Why is every theory of evolution considered science, but those theories involving special creation are rejected? There is no other explanation that makes sense, than rejection of the biblical account.

Rejection of a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis promoted by a minority Protestant sect--which would merely be ignored if it wasn't being used as the basis for an egregious and un-American political agenda.

 

[Job 33:6]

I support what God's word says, and I recognize that 100% of your arguments about things that supposedly take millions or billions of years to happen, are based upon assumptions and you think these assumptions are more valid than God's word about the past.

As I've told others and will tell you now, I think things like Old Earth Creation and Theistic Evolution are simply mechanisms invented to help bridge the gap for people whose faith is in the assertions of the scientific community. What better way to win souls to Christ (who would otherwise reject) because [1] it satisfies the ego for those who think they've, on their own merit, discovered what God has done during creation and [2] it satisfies the intellectualism side of those who think they're reading between the lines, unlocking the special secret hidden mystery of the Genesis account that everybody else is missing. Very well-conceived as a strategy, though not doctrinally sound. Interesting that through a series of lies one would be brought to the truth - I guess as long as you've been coddled through believing that what Charles Lyell has done for geology and Darwin has done for biology has led you to knowing and believing that your version of history and what the Bible says is the same... ultimately leading you to knowing Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior is all that matters.

I'll let you and the others here who just can't bring themselves to believing God's word regarding creation kick that around for a while. Enjoy the weekend all-

Here is an example of just one of the assumptions that i listed above.

I suggested that soft and wet sediment, could not fracture as rocks do. And i posted the below image.

Is it so wrong to suggest that this formation in fact was hardened before it was fractured? When has anyone ever been able to replicate such a feature, using a soft material such as wet sand at a beach?

If this is what you consider a lie, or if this is what you consider a false assumption, then I will tell you that i would accept this reality, over the suggestion that wet sediment faulted like this, any day of the week.

Especially when we have this...

shearing of rock.

Wet flood deposited sediment doesnt shear, only grains that are bound together, shear.

And its not about "secret truths", its not about winning or losing souls, its not about being deceptive or conceived strategies or about lies. Its not about conspiracies, or satanic black magic or anything wild like that.

Its just about reality. Simple reality that is right in front of us.

Wet sand doesnt sheer, it doesnt fracture, it doesnt strain. In order to stretch and object, it must be bound to itself. Stretchy objects like a rubber band, must be bound to itself in order to stretch and strain like the trilobite above. Wet sand is not bound, and cannot stretch and strain, it just falls apart. It cannot fracture at precise angles because it is not bound to itself as a single large unit.

Its just reality.

 

[pitabread]

Its obviously to discredit the bible. If not, why is every age of the Earth acceptable except those that support the biblical account?

Why is every theory of evolution considered science, but those theories involving special creation are rejected? There is no other explanation that makes sense, than rejection of the biblical account.

Science is about examining the natural world and figuring how things work based on observations of that natural world.

The reason the Earth is considered to be ~4.6 billion years old is because it looks ~4.6 billion years old. The reason species are thought to have come about via biological evolution is because they look like they have come about via biological evolution.

There are also various industries that depend on scientific knowledge and have vested interests in the best understanding of that scientific knowledge. Oil&gas and mining depend on understanding of geology. Agriculture and medical research depend on biology.

Those industries have zero interest in any theological debate. What matters is having the best understanding of the applicable science that applies to those industries.

The idea that scientific finds are all about denying a particular religious belief propagated by a minority position in one of the world's religions is just egocentric. It ain't about you.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Science is about examining the natural world and figuring how things work based on observations of that natural world.

The reason the Earth is considered to be ~4.6 billion years old is because it looks ~4.6 billion years old. The reason species are thought to have come about via biological evolution is because they look like they have come about via biological evolution.

There are also various industries that depend on scientific knowledge and have vested interests in the best understanding of that scientific knowledge. Oil&gas and mining depend on understanding of geology. Agriculture and medical research depend on biology.

Those industries have zero interest in any theological debate. What matters is having the best understanding of the applicable science that applies to those industries.

The idea that scientific finds are all about denying a particular religious belief propagated by a minority position in one of the world's religions is just egocentric. It ain't about you.

Yeah, this is the party line. But its just dressing. When one examines the evidence, its clear that the purpose of evolution is not science, but to offer a false alternative to the biblical account (irrespective of evidence), using scientific-sounding principles.

 

[pitabread]

When one examines the evidence, its clear that the purpose of evolution is not science,

False. Evolution is part of modern biology which is most assuredly a real science. And there are real world applications derived from evolutionary theory (in a scientific context).

The idea that this is all about the Bible is hubris on the part of creationists.

Why would anyone in industries like agriculture, medical research, pharmacology, etc, care about a theological debate? Their vested interest is in the best understanding of biology possible and using that knowledge to solve problems in their respective fields.

 

[AV1611VET]

Many on the Left are Christians.

With respect to the Bible, or in spite of It?

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

False. Evolution is part of modern biology which is most assuredly a real science. And there are real world applications derived from evolutionary theory (in a scientific context).

Anything that comes about by chance can also be designed. Even if you accept the impossible odds of the evolution of man, as evolutionists do, the fact that man (or other animals) could have been intelligently designed is not permitted in their theories. This alone demonstrates evolutionism has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with religion.

I challenge you to provide one real world application derived from evolutionary theory that could not have, as readily if not moreso, been derived from design theory.

 

[tas8831]

I know you want to believe that evolution is based on science; but it is in reality just a modern, anti-God, faith-based religion. Nothing else.

Then I have to wonder why you continue to ignore evidence.

it is almost like you do not understand it, so you omit it from posts you respond to or ignore it.

 

[tas8831]

Still boring off-topic face-saving.


No evidence for God magic? Just like your hero Purdom?

The pathetic claims all come from evolutionists.



I said he is an evolutionist. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?



I guess you do have a reading comprehension problem. My point was and is, life is a lawn, not a tree, as Darwin (mostly) claimed, or even a bush, as Venter claimed. Evolution is false no matter how the debate goes.



There is no debate in government schools in which the state-respected and supported religion of evolutionism is the only game in town. All opposing views have been suppressed, much like the religious suppression our forefathers fled from centuries ago.

For the record, evolution IS old-earth creationism; either that, or it is old-earth magic. Take your pick.



I was curious how you would handle my last paragraph. Nice dodge -- on that paragraph and the previous one!

Dan

 

[tas8831]

I see. I provide a selection of examples from the many that could have been provided and you respond with further assertions lacking any support. Instead you talk of the confidence of Creationist scientists. That isn't just a weak refutation, it isn't a refutation at all.

He does this on all subjects.

Sad how "confident" this one is the youtube videos of his YEC overlords, without being able to understand any of it.

 

[Speedwell]

With respect to the Bible, or in spite of It?

With respect to the Bible, especially the Gospels--which is not a part of the Bible which the creationists seem to care much about, except as a source of anti-evolution proof-texts.

 

[Speedwell]

Anything that comes about by chance can also be designed. Even if you accept the impossible odds of the evolution of man, as evolutionists do, the fact that man (or other animals) could have been intelligently designed is not permitted in their theories.

Because the presence of design is an unfalsifiable proposition and thus not within the scope of the natural sciences. Design could be present whether evolution is true or not.

 

[Brightmoon]

Anything that comes about by chance can also be designed. Even if you accept the impossible odds of the evolution of man, as evolutionists do, the fact that man (or other animals) could have been intelligently designed is not permitted in their theories. This alone demonstrates evolutionism has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with religion.

I challenge you to provide one real world application derived from evolutionary theory that could not have, as readily if not moreso, been derived from design theory.

Snowflakes look deliberately designed but they aren’t . Even the pretty ones are due to the chemical structure of water and the surrounding air temperature . scientists figured that out not Bible thumpers.

 

[Brightmoon]

I see. I provide a selection of examples from the many that could have been provided and you respond with further assertions lacking any support. Instead you talk of the confidence of Creationist scientists. That isn't just a weak refutation, it isn't a refutation at all. Now, if this material exists, then produce it - actual evidence, not further fatuous opinions.

That's all you've got!

• The interpretation of the Earth's location is disputed.
• It didn't require a message from God to notice winds, tides and ocean flows.
• It didn't require divine revelation to notice that when people bled out they died.
• How many creation myths can you name that do not have a beginning to time?
• To my knowledge the genetic implications would contradict the Bible's claim. I ask the biologists here to confirm, or correct, my understanding that the female is the "basic" form.

No! I specifically addressed this. I justifiably discounted such egregious and probably deliberate ignorance. Here are the relevant words: "Instead, we get a handful of instances where through ignorance, incompetence, or malign intent, creationists have used the wrong method and then reached an unwarranted conclusion." The Mount St. Helen's example was the one foremost in my mind.
Where is the

The basic form during human fetal development is to have the sexual organs form near the gut .women retain that while males have the testes originally form where ovaries do. Obviously testes come out of the body cavity and go into the scrotum. The penis is sort of an enlarged [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] . Yeah you can basically say that the original fetal body form is sorta female . There’s a sex determining region on the Y chromosome and if it’s missing from the chromosome the child is essentially female with an XY genotype .

 

[AV1611VET]

Snowflakes look deliberately designed but they aren’t . Even the pretty ones are due to the chemical structure of water and the surrounding air temperature . scientists figured that out not Bible thumpers.

So the path a Roomba takes isn't by intelligent design?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So the path a Roomba takes isn't by intelligent design?

That analogy isn't even close. It's not even in the ballpark. It's not even in the same county.

 

[AV1611VET]

That analogy isn't even close. It's not even in the ballpark. It's not even in the same county.

I'll just go ahead and assume God told nature to design snowflakes the way they appear.