Creation Science

[RickG]

Perhaps he can but first why don't you actually provide an example of deliberate misrepresentation of a creationists which YOU said was what this thread would be about or at least admit your are peddling false accusations against a Christian

The thread and my examples are about "creation science", not creationists. As for trying to get you to understand the problem with the "geologic column doesn't exist" claim; perhaps a couple of courses in basic geology, then some specific studies in sedimentology, stratigraphy, and sedimentary petrology, should help considerably.

And thus far I have only introduced one other misrepresentation, the "Lost Squadron", therefore ice core chronology is unreliable example. Post #3.

 

[MikeEnders]

The thread and my examples are about "creation science", not creationists.

Your thread is about creationists deliberately misrepresenting. Anyone can look at it and see that - You are busted

Is it? I say no, it is a deliberate dishonest misrepresentation of the same evidence.

In this thread I would like to see specific examples showing this.

Only people can deliberately misrepresent so you made a claim against creationists. You can try and fudge or shimmy after the fact but its right there in your OP

As for trying to get you to understand the problem with the "geologic column doesn't exist" claim; perhaps a couple of courses in basic geology, then some specific studies in sedimentology, stratigraphy, and sedimentary petrology, should help considerably.

Yawn............. I understand it completely. the issue however is your lack of English comprehension of what the phrase "deliberately misrepresent" means. Perhaps stop trying to claim ignorance when its you that needs to consult a dictionary. You can try to throw insults ,handwave and do the the twist but you will be held to the topic of this thread regardless - evidence of DELIBERATE misrepresentation

And thus far I have only introduced one other misrepresentation, the "Lost Squadron", therefore ice core chronology is unreliable example. Post #3.

You haven't presented any evidence of deliberate misrepresentation at all. Simply saying something is wrong does NOT make it a deliberate misrepresentation - please go find a good dictionary and avail yourself of the education it will provide.

 

[lasthero]

Dude I don't care how much you want to squirm around the fact but fact it is that your side claimed David and SOlomon were made up characters and now you have to be running form that false claim. Thats the point

When did our side (atheists? Who do you mean by that?) make the claim that David and Solomon were completely, 100% made up characters?

 

[MikeEnders]

When did our side (atheists? Who do you mean by that?) make the claim that David and Solomon were completely, 100% made up characters?

Many contended as late a 2014 there could have been no king David

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

 

[lasthero]

Many contended as late a 2014 there could have been no king David

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

Who? That article just repeats your claim, it doesn't support it. Who were these 'many'? What was their reasoning? Where did this make the claim that David was a completely mythological figure?

And why are you leaving Solomon out of it, now?

 

[MikeEnders]

Who? That article just repeats your claim, it doesn't support it.

Thats just plain silly. Science daily is repeating my claim without a reason to do so? Go argue with Science daily. I gave you a link that verifies the claim. Onus is now on you to prove science daily is wrong. If you cant be honest enough to recognize thats not a creation or christian site confirming it I wont be wasting any more time on you or your questions particularly since you didn't even read the link which doesn't leave Solomon out of it at all

 

[lasthero]

Thats just plain silly.

I asked you when anyone made the claim that David was a purely mythological figure. You linked me to an article that just repeats your claim and doesn't answer my question.

Science daily is repeating my claim without a reason to do so?

I never said they had no reason. Don't put words in my mouth.

Go argue with Science daily. I gave you a link that verifies the claim.

It didn't verify the claim. It repeated it. Repeating a claim doesn't verify it, no matter who is doing the repeating it. Your link doesn't answer the question I asked.

Onus is now on you to prove science daily is wrong.

No. How would I even go about proving a negative?

If you cant be honest enough to recognize thats not a creation or christian site confirming

It didn't confirm it, it repeated it. And I never said it was a Christian site. Don't put words in my mouth.

I wont be wasting any more time on you or your questions particularly since you didn't even read the link which doesn't leave Solomon out of it at all

I didn't say the link left Solomon out of it.

 

[MikeEnders]

It didn't verify the claim. It repeated it. Repeating a claim doesn't verify it, no matter who is doing the repeating it.

A credible source confirms that the assertion is not made up by the poster. the end.......beg some more

Your link doesn't answer the question I asked.

Then go do your own research now that it has been verified i did not make up the claim. You don't employ me to answer your every question particularly since all you are doing is playing games

I didn't say the link left Solomon out of it.

No you said I was leaving out Solomon but if a poster links to a source that includes Solomon claiming he is leaving Solomon out is just nonsense.

Have a great weekend though

 

[RickG]

Your thread is about creationists deliberately misrepresenting. Anyone can look at it and see that - You are busted

You seem to be making a really good case showing yourself misrepresenting me. Go back and read the OP again. I specifically state, "creation science".

Only people can deliberately misrepresent so you made a claim against creationists. You can try and fudge or shimmy after the fact but its right there in your OP

No chief, I am addressing the argument, not the individual author(s). If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you report me to the moderators. If anyone is attacking an individual it is you attacking me.

Yawn............. I understand it completely. the issue however is your lack of English comprehension of what the phrase "deliberately misrepresent" means. Perhaps stop trying to claim ignorance when its you that needs to consult a dictionary. You can try to throw insults ,handwave and do the the twist but you will be held to the topic of this thread regardless - evidence of DELIBERATE misrepresentation

Yawn. ......

You haven't presented any evidence of deliberate misrepresentation at all. Simply saying something is wrong does NOT make it a deliberate misrepresentation - please go find a good dictionary and avail yourself of the education it will provide.[/QUOTE]

Then what do you call it. Certainly not actual science.

 

[lasthero]

A credible source confirms that the assertion is not made up by the poster. the end.......beg some more

Confirming would require it actually naming who these 'many' are. It didn't do that.

Then go do your own research now that it has been verified i did not make up the claim.

I never said you did. You're being ridiculously defensive.

All I did was ask a simple question. If you don't know the answer, just say so.

You don't employ me to answer your every question

I asked one question initially.

No you said I was leaving out Solomon

You did.

Have a great weekend though

Slightly random, but thanks.

 

[MikeEnders]

You seem to be making a really good case showing yourself misrepresenting me. Go back and read the OP again. I specifically state, "creation science".

You seem to be making a really good case for deliberately ducking....Only people can deliberately dishonestly misrepresent. Care to rebut that fact with something substantive? You ever known a rock or history without a person to deliberately misrepresent? Do tell the class this wonder to behold. Whats next? economics deliberately misrepresents? You are fooling no one plus you cited an example and quoted a PERSON.

Unfortunately it flopped at proving any deliberate misrepresentation

Then what do you call it?

I could call it right, I could call it wrong but it being either one does not make it automatically "deliberate dishonest misrepresentation". Apparently your dictionary still awaits its use and seeing as how making false accusations is something forbidden among Christians theres at least one other book you might want to consult as well.

 

[MikeEnders]

Confirming would require it actually naming who these 'many' are. It didn't do that.

Nonsense. every day on this forum people say biologists, scientists etc and once confirmed by a source no one requires each name. Your desperation to save your side from the embarrassment of being wrong is reaching levels of desperation seldom seen.

All I did was ask a simple question. If you don't know the answer, just say so.

You were answered. Your original question did not ask for names to be specified because the issue never was to point out any particular person being wrong but a group. IF a known science site states that scholars previously felt that way then an unbiased person would take it as a credible claim and if he wanted to dispute it go do his own research to claim its wrong.

You did.

Yes of course if a poster links to a source that talks about Solomon he is leaving out Solomon. lol....I guess maybe in Bizarro world but not here on planet Earth. You can say it ten more times i think most intelligent people can see you are clutching at straws[/quote]

 

[lasthero]

Nonsense. every day on this forum people say biologists, scientists etc and once confirmed by a source no one requires each name.

I'm not asking for each name. I'd settle for a few. If many scholars have made this claim, it shouldn't be hard to find.

Your desperation to save your side from the embarrassment of being wrong is reaching levels of desperation seldom seen.

You have yet to actually show where 'my side' made such a claim. You've simply said it was made, then linked to someone else who said the same thing.

Also, I, at no point, said the claim wasn't made. I just asked when it was made. If you don't know, just say so.

You were answered.

No, I did not.

Your original question did not ask for names to be specified because the issue never was to point out any particular person being wrong but a group.

All I asked was when this claim was made. Linking me someone else who said the claim was made doesn't answer that question.

IF a known science site states that scholars previously felt that way then an unbiased person would take it as a credible claim and if he wanted to dispute it go do his own research to claim its wrong.

I never said the site wasn't credible. I never even said you wree wrong. I asked for you for specifics. If you are incapable of unwilling to provide those specifics, just say so. And don't put words in my mouth.

Yes of course if a poster links to a source that talks about Solomon he is leaving out Solomon.

You did, in fact, leave out Solomon. I simply found it odd that you would suddenly disattach him from your post. You're trying to make this a lot more antagonistc than need be.

 

[MikeEnders]

You did, in fact, leave out Solomon. I simply found it odd that you would suddenly disattach him from your post.

I reference David and linked to a source including both David and Solomon. Whether you like it or not or will admit it honestly or not the link is part of my answer so it can't be logically claimed I left Solomon out. Thats just silly. THe link covers solomon as well as part of my answer. Whats odd is your reasoning but since I am not sure of your age I'll just leave it there with you having zero point. as for the rest - YOU never asked for names and I never promised to give you any. If you have further interest in the point which is already confirmed by the reference I gave then you can do more research yourself - not beg that I do it for you.

IF a major unbiased site sources the same information you can pretend all you want it IS a confirmation of what I said. if you don't think so then you can get busy presenting some evidence that contradicts it.

 

[MikeEnders]

You're trying to make this a lot more antagonistc than need be.

You are the only one making my answer as an issue because you are begging for particular names which I never promised to give. Again I referred to a group which in 99 our of a 100 threads citing a reputable source as confirming a claim is an acceptable answer ( the Op has been doing that for pages in this thread simply referencing "geologists" with no issue from you) but because you have an agenda in most threads siding with atheism you are trying to pretend like more is required.

SO last time - if you require more then go find it for yourself. Since you admit that the linksource I gave is credible then it should not be hard to find what it references . Use your mouse and keyboard and use google and get crackin!!

 

[lasthero]

I reference David and linked to a source including both David and Solomon. Whether you like it or not or will admit it honestly or not the link is part of my answer so it can't be logically claimed I left Solomon out

You did. It was a simple observation. I really don't understand why you're getting so worked up over this.

YOU never asked for names

True. I simply asked when the claim that David was a purely mythological figure was made. You've yet to answer that question.

and I never promised to give you any.

Did I say that you did?

If you have further interest in the point which is already confirmed by the reference

You source didn't confirm your point, it repeated it. Repeating a point is not the same as confirming. The question I initially asked remains unanswered.

I gave then you can do more research yourself - not beg that I do it for you.

I never begged you to do anything. I asked. If you don't want to, that's fine. Just say so.

IF a major unbiased site sources the same information you can pretend all you want it IS a confirmation

No - once again, repetition is not confirmation. I'd aslo like to stress that I never said you were wrong or that what you were saying wasn't true. I merely asked you when it was said.

I get the impression you're not responding to what I say, but what you want me to say.

if you don't think so then you can get busy presenting some evidence that contradicts it.

That would require me to prove a negative, which I couldn't do. But, again, I never said you were wrong, I simply asked for specifics. Your imagining conflict where there is none.

 

[lasthero]

You are the only one making my answer as an issue because you are begging for particular names which I never promised to give.

I'm not begging. I asked a simple question. If you don't want to answer for whatever reason, fine

IN 99 our of a 100 threads citing a reputable source as confirming a claim is an acceptable answer

My question was when such a claim was made. Your source didn't answer that question. Whether it's reputable or not is a moot point - it didn't answer the question.

( the Op has been diong that for pages in this thread simply referencing "geologists" with no issue from you but because you have an agenda in most threads siding with atheism you are trying to pretend like more is required.

I never said that more was required. I asked a simple question. If you don't want to answer the question, fine.

 

[MikeEnders]

I'm not begging. I asked a simple question. If you don't want to answer for whatever reason, fine

LOL ...begging is all you are doing. I told you like five posts ago if you want more you should go do your own research and here you are five posts later still saying "you haven't answered my question". get Cracking dude!! YOu want more then go get more.

why you're getting so worked up over this

sorry you can't judge emotions very well through posts. at this point I just find your posts funny in a kind of twilight zone way.

You source didn't confirm your point, it repeated it. Repeating a point is not the same as confirming.

Sigh.......... come again? If a major new source says that a group of people used to deny the literal existence of a king David then it what weird world you live in is it not a confirmation that that was the case? do you know what the word confirm means? So if you say Darwin wrote an article and CNN says he wrote the article its not a confirmation of your claim? lol...now that doesn't mean it cant be contradicted but its the person who that is not good enough for that then has to show that its not an accurate confirmation...which is why I said....get busy dude.

 

[lasthero]

LOL ...begging is all you are doing. I told you like five posts ago if you want more you should go do your own research and here you are five posts later still saying "you haven't answered my question".

I'm also saying that, if you don't want to answer the question, that's fine. How is that begging?

I'm only saying you haven't because you repeatedly presented the article as if it did, when it, in fact, doesnt.

get Cracking dude!! YOu want more then go get more.

I already did, actually. I've heard this claim before, but I've never been able to find a single scholar who actually said that David was purely myth. I figured you might know of some specifics. If you don't, that's fine.

sorry you can't judge emotions very well through posts

You keep responding to me even though we've established that it's fine if you don't want to answer. Also, you say that I'm questioning your credibility and saying you made it up when I did no such things. It strikes me as needlessly antagonistic.

at this point I just find your posts funny in a kind of twilight zone way.

I'm glad you get some enjoyment out of them, then.

 

[MikeEnders]

I'm glad you get some enjoyment out of them, then.

Yep at this point quite a bit which is why I am still answering you