A challenge to DURANG0

[notto]

58. Rocks on the Earth's Surface

LOL! I'm convinced.

How can this laughable list be presented as something credible.

I've seen better evidence and data for a colony of bigfoots living in space ships just to the left of the face on Mars.

 

[webboffin]

My faith in creation is how the Bible tells it. I don't really care much if it doesn't go down well with scientists or some people but some branches of science admits it doesn't/can't handle the existance of God.
To me God does exist. The Bible is the inspired word of God himself so science really can't handle God or his works at all so there is not much point in arguing too hard really. Evolution though may work on some scales (i.e. a flu virus changes it'self to survive) I don't see it working with apes and people. And personally don't care too much if that bothers some. I believe in God, Jehovah The Master Creator.
But I don't agree with a lot of Christian beliefs in the trinity either so I really go against the grain of a lot of Christians who believe in a 3 persons godhead as well as trusting in evolution science. So I suppose I am a bit of a rebel to the beliefs of the masses. But I stand by my beliefs not because I am short sighted but because I like a few others see the Truth for what it is and feel satisfied and happy with my beliefs.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed the man out of dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[webboffin]

To dedicate a thread to ridicule Durango shows weakness in counter arguement. If he said something to touch a nerve with you guys then let his own words be his judge.
Surely, you don't need to use lynch mob mentality. It suprises me how religion and science can behave the same when disputed. Thoughts considered heresy to Christianity or thoughts considered heresy to science equals to a lot of comments designed to hurt the offender.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

To dedicate a thread to ridicule Durango shows weakness in counter arguement. If he said something to touch a nerve with you guys then let his own words be his judge.

I don't think this thread was started with the intention of ridicule. It was to give DURANG0 a chance to back up points he made in another thread. But now that he has refused to do so, it's not surprising the tone the thread has taken, especially given the bold claims that DURANG0 makes on these forums.

 

[webboffin]

Yes Pete, I can see what you are saying and yes maybe he should enlighten why he believes the way he does but I read some of the comments it is almost like it is personal.
But I have to admit I made the mistakes Durango made when I first joined the forum but have honed better discussion skills and also I gained better bible knowledge too so I feel confident even when under fire what I believe in.
Take note Durango.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Yes Pete, I can see what you are saying and yes maybe he should enlighten why he believes the way he does but I read some of the comments it is almost like it is personal.

Well, DURANG0 does carry himself with a certain arrogance on this forum, even proclaiming victory when it's obvious to everyone else he doesn't even understand the concepts he is trying to argue. So I can see why he'd draw people's fire.

The worst part is, though, he is doing much harm to peoples' view of creationists. Partially, because his aggressive approach to the debate causes other people to respond in kind. And when people get used to dealing aggressively with creationists, they tend to treat all creationists similar (sometimes new creationists will show up and get hit harder than they expect; but this is because such tactics have become commonplace when dealing with people like DURANG0, especially when PRATTs come up).

And also because he is so vocal, he drowns out other creationists that are able to debate these subjects more intelligently. So non-creationists start associating creationists with the behavior of the likes of DURANG0, and it makes all creationists look worse for it.

 

[Arikay]

I Did Not start a thread to ridicule Durango.

The reason for starting this thread:
I had made a challenge to him in another thread, and decided that I would make a new thread so that I wouldn't Off Topic that thread.

There is basically One point to this thread, to remove Durango's excuse that I picked the weakest of the arguments. He has claimed that all 75 points are valid. So I could just pick 5 and refute them, but I thought that that might end up with an excuse. Since he said that all 75 were valid and that I should study up, I decided to give him the choice to choose which of his arguments would be critiqued. Im not even asking him to back anything up, just select from his earlier statements.
Its amazing the work I have to do just to get him to select 5.


As far as you beliefs of creationism. I don't really care if you believe in creationism. I may think you are wrong, but it is your belief. and if you come to a debate forum i'll debate with you about it but I start to care more when people start presenting false information as truth, and when they start trying to push this false information into our schools. Or when they start to damage christianity with this false information and their views. That is when I care more.
Which is why I very much dislike creationist organizations, because they are the source.

To dedicate a thread to ridicule Durango shows weakness in counter arguement. If he said something to touch a nerve with you guys then let his own words be his judge.
Surely, you don't need to use lynch mob mentality. It suprises me how religion and science can behave the same when disputed. Thoughts considered heresy to Christianity or thoughts considered heresy to science equals to a lot of comments designed to hurt the offender.

 

[ikester7579]

I thought we were not allowed to direct a thread to a individual person? But then again, most rules here are never enforced.

 

[Jet Black]

I think it means direct at an individual person. I couldn't say, start a thread on why durango is a troll for example.

 

[PhantomLlama]

Thinking about it, since he declared that ALL are valid, it shouldn't matter which are picked so we could just pick five ourself.

If he complains, say 'We asked you to pick your five favourite ones, but you refused.'

Then move on to the next five. They shouldn't take much work to refute.

 

[shenzhou]

61. Lack of soil layers anywhere in the geologic column

False

See: A Paleosol Bibliography http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/pweathering.htm

and Joe Meert's paleosol page: http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm

and http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walker.htm

A paper on paleosols in the Columbia river basalt "Pedogenesis and Geochemical Alteration of the Picture Gorge Subgroup, Columbia River Basalt, Oregon" http://www.uoregon.edu/~nsheldon/Bulletin2003.pdf

A paleosol is also mentioned in my flood falsifying thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t90596

and here: http://www.christianforums.com/t90261

 

[IrishRockhound]

Why don't we just start at the top and work through each point? I know it'll take a while, but seeing as Durang0 isn't being all that helpful...

 

[notto]

Why don't we just start at the top and work through each point? I know it'll take a while, but seeing as Durang0 isn't being all that helpful...

The hard part about that is that there is so little substance to the list it is very difficult to determine exactly what each item is referring to.

 

[obediah001]

Durango has it figured out. The evidence does not support evolution, all that does suport it is the philosophy of the evolutiionist which says there is no God so evolution must be soo & they create all kinds of wordy theories & hyperbole to make themselves sound intelligent & blur the truth. There is NO evidence for evolution; hay even Stephen Gould said there are No transitional forms in the fossil record. Aldous Huxley a former UNESCO head & grandson of the other Huxley said he believes in evolution cause the idea of God interferes with his sexual morays.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Obediah, you are a liar. You have told the following lies in that last post:

1. Gould said there were very few transitionals between species. Between higher taxa he said they were abundant. This was pointed out to you yesterday, by me, but you prefer your revisionist (i.e. made up, i.e. dishonest) version.

2. You cannot demonstrate that Huxley said anything of the sort, and have been called on this before. But I know you don't take a blind bit of notice of what anyone tells you, because you are still referring to Morays, which, as we have pointed out, are eels, when you mean 'mores'

Pathetic.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Why don't we just start at the top and work through each point? I know it'll take a while, but seeing as Durang0 isn't being all that helpful...

As Notto says the lack of substance is a problem but having seen most of these before I think this is doable. Here are the first three.
1. The amount of dust on the moon's surface - I understand this argument is generally no longer used due to more up to date rates of processes and info. being utilized (i.e. Snelling's article in TEN Tech J)

This one is no longer used by AiG. Rates of interplanetary dust accumulation on the earth actually provide strong evidence against the global flood. http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/idp.htm

2. Lack of meteorites in the geologic column
In addition to all the impact craters meteorites have been found in the geologic column.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/meteor.html
3. The Poynting-Robertson Effect on Cosmic Dust Sphericals

Other known effects counter the Poynting-Robertson effect. For very small particles, radiation pressure will actually drive particles away from the sun. Close encounters with planets radically change the orbits of dust particles; also, gravitational resonances with the larger planets trap particles into stable orbits. Finally, the creationists overlook obvious sources of new particles: particles shed from asteroids and from comets.

http://www.griffithobs.org/IPS%20Planetarian/answerscreationism.html

(This page also refutes some other YEC claims about the moon.)

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Bushido216]

My faith in creation is how the Bible tells it. I don't really care much if it doesn't go down well with scientists or some people but some branches of science admits it doesn't/can't handle the existance of God.
To me God does exist. The Bible is the inspired word of God himself so science really can't handle God or his works at all so there is not much point in arguing too hard really. Evolution though may work on some scales (i.e. a flu virus changes it'self to survive) I don't see it working with apes and people. And personally don't care too much if that bothers some. I believe in God, Jehovah The Master Creator.
But I don't agree with a lot of Christian beliefs in the trinity either so I really go against the grain of a lot of Christians who believe in a 3 persons godhead as well as trusting in evolution science. So I suppose I am a bit of a rebel to the beliefs of the masses. But I stand by my beliefs not because I am short sighted but because I like a few others see the Truth for what it is and feel satisfied and happy with my beliefs.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed the man out of dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

No Theistic Evolutionist will ever deny that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. What we will argue is that Genesis is not meant to serve as a science text, but as a Theological text. Genesis deals with the beginnings of our relationship with God, including our fall from Grace. The way Genesis (IMHO) should be read is as a whole, looking for the meaning of the passages, not line by line literally.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Umm, hate to bust your bubble but DURANG0 is right that we haven't proven the age of the Earth, but the universe is 13.7 billions years old according to NASA's WMAP which also revealed that the universe is constructed of only 4% normal matter.

 

[Arikay]

Actually, we have "proven" the age of the earth, at around 4.5 billion years I believe.

 

[Hydra009]

Yes. At the very least we know it is much older than YECs claim.

*looks at clock*

If Durango doesn't post by 9pm, I'll choose 5 randomly, and we'll go from there to a thread to examine them in more detail. I'm an atheistic evolutionist, so do we have any Creationist(s) here who is willing to scientifically support any of his claims? (Since he apparently can't)