Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

Tomk80 · Apr 9, 2013

Gradyll, you asked for peer-reviewed papers. When presented with them, you alledge they are not peer-reviewed without presenting any evidence for that allegation whatsoever. Then you alledge that there are problems with these papers, but continuously avoid stating what those problem would be.

I am inclinded to agree with you that you are not dishonest. I think your behavior is much worse than just dishonest.

createdtoworship · Apr 9, 2013

FrenchyBearpaw said:
Reality would say otherwise.

cdesign proponentsists - RationalWiki

a lot of criticism came from ID separating from Religious textbooks to a science based ID textbooks, but they are in fact not associated with any religious book. And therefore not religious. Biblical Creationism, is design based entirely on the Bible. Science may be inferred. But not necessary. What is necessary with that, as with most religiouns is faith.

I believe both, but on this forum I have primarily focussed on ID not BC

your source is not correct. Trust me.

I would know more about it then wiki would.

I have literally emailed both parties on this issue.

createdtoworship · Apr 9, 2013

Mikecpking said:
Your goal posts must be very narrow, I have never seen such advoidance tactics as you make.

Not according to a court os law as shown in this abract:

On December 20, 2005, Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Judge at the Dover/Kitzmiller trial certainly did not see any.

So, if you believe the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years, I can see why you have to rubbish every shred of evidence presented to you to the contrary.
There is a saying that says 'Those who are presuaded against their will are still not persuaded still'.
In your case, you will never be convinced and not for one minute could I see you doing any serious field work study which could convice you otherwise.

Here is something of interest to everyone here:

12th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

oh the classic Trial! Well there was many flaws with that trial, and if you want I can message them to you. But it really has nothing to do with seashells on mountains.

createdtoworship · Apr 9, 2013

TheBear said:
No. You are being obtuse.

I'm really not interested in splitting hairs over the subtle differences of the various religious beliefs, and what covers what. My point went to the idea that your religious views and beliefs, whatever they are, shape and influence your opinions on the age of the earth, evolution, etc. So, there's absolutely nothing out of the way in bringing up your religious beliefs while discussing such things.

Sorry. I must have missed that. How old did you say it was?

oh there is no problem bringing up religion but lets be fair when we do this. When you speak of your flood views, let us all be able to interview your faiths or lack there of and take this into consideration for your future posts. (Oh wait that was posted from an agnostic view, or an athiest/humanist view....etc). I am not ashamed of any view I hold. I just think that you are doing a diservice if you confuse IC and BC. I mean, If you wish for me to discuss BC, I will and quote chapter and verse. However if you wish for me to discuss ID, I don't need a Bible for that. All you need is common sense.

createdtoworship · Apr 9, 2013

Lucy Stulz said:
Address just one of them. I'd be happy to talk about just one of them!

If you think that there's something "suspect" about Journal of Sedimentary Petrology or maybe Journal of Paleolimnology then explain yourself. What is illegitimate about these journals.

You love that "all" or "none" aspect. The universal claims. I am personally unaware of non-annual varves (since that is usually how varves are defined as "annual"), so perhaps you can find just one in these articles or other articles that indicate non-annual varves.

I've seen your Morris reference...it isn't even an "article"...it's a posting on the ICR webpage with no references, no data, no nothing.

Wouldn't it require you be able to understand the basic science first? Usually kids start off learning from textbooks the basics and then get enough science under their belts to tackle the harder stuff in the peer review.

What is "illegtimate" about the peer review I've posted. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this I will assume you have nothing.

LOL! OK. But remember, others can read what I've posted and they can see the highlights.

So....

I would gladly do that with you. But you don't seem able to do so.

Just take any of the references I've provided and tell me what the biggest problem is.

I will assume you are as good as your word on this.

why talk about Peer reviews that have nothing to do with the subject at hand? I asked for you to provide evidence that just one of your peer review articles were on topic (and not non sequitor). You have squirmed, avoided, talked about religioun, talked about everything other than what was asked. I would too, If I in fact had nothing to contribute. But if you want I can post several peer reviews having nothing to do with the topic at hand and you can read them, or maybe even pick just one and go with it.

See what I am doing?

It's called changing the bars.

And this is what you have done the last 3-4 posts, in response to having no response you challenge me to answer your peer review articles.

They are not legitimate peer review articles, they are non sequitor.

(does not follow the premise)

Now if you can provide information regarding your positive statment of "all varves are annual varves" and use peer review,

then all is good in the world.

However, providing a peer review that simply mentions the presence of varves in the world, or the presence of one or two annual varves is not what is being asked.

What mechanism requires all varves to be in fact annual and not semi annual?

And all you have to do is quote a peer review!

(note the peer review should be from someone qualified to make the statments, no astromers or physicists for example)

should be phd's in geology

Is that this hard of a thing

With millions of scientists on your side,

with the federal government on your side?

naaaaah!

(I am not being difficult, I am simply being blunt....this is what I am saying when I say that you have not actually supported your OEC claims[old earht]

do you have any other claims you would like to make about the evidence for old earth (because I am fairly sure we are going no where with this?)

TTYL

Lucy Stulz · Apr 9, 2013

gradyll said:
why talk about Peer reviews that have nothing to do with the subject at hand? I asked for you to provide evidence that just one of your peer review articles were on topic (and not non sequitor). You have squirmed, avoided, talked about religioun, talked about everything other than what was asked. I would too, If I in fact had nothing to contribute. But if you want I can post several peer reviews having nothing to do with the topic at hand and you can read them, or maybe even pick just one and go with it.

See what I am doing?

It's called changing the bars.

And this is what you have done the last 3-4 posts, in response to having no response you challenge me to answer your peer review articles.

They are not legitimate peer review articles, they are non sequitor.

(does not follow the premise)

Now if you can provide information regarding your positive statment of "all varves are annual varves" and use peer review,

then all is good in the world.

However, providing a peer review that simply mentions the presence of varves in the world, or the presence of one or two annual varves is not what is being asked.

What mechanism requires all varves to be in fact annual and not semi annual?

And all you have to do is quote a peer review!

(note the peer review should be from someone qualified to make the statments, no astromers or physicists for example)

should be phd's in geology

Is that this hard of a thing

With millions of scientists on your side,

with the federal government on your side?

naaaaah!

(I am not being difficult, I am simply being blunt....this is what I am saying when I say that you have not actually supported your OEC claims[old earht]

do you have any other claims you would like to make about the evidence for old earth (because I am fairly sure we are going no where with this?)

TTYL

There is so much that is factually wrong with this post I honestly do not know where to begin. So I won't.

Thanks, troll.

Subduction Zone · Apr 10, 2013

What happened to this thread?

I know that creationists have no valid explanation for fossils, but why is anyone giving gradyll any credence at all? He is obviously a simple denier who has nothing but superstition on his side.

Joshua0 · Apr 10, 2013

gradyll said:
they are in fact not associated with any religious book. And therefore not religious.

That is not the point. The issue is that ID is not Science. You can not test ID. Actually lots and lots of the Bible is testable. The Bible is filled with promises. We can be sure that if we do our part, then God will 100% do His part. A lot of Science is a discovery of the laws of God that are 100 percent dependable. If we do what the Bible says to do then we will get the results that the Bible says we will get. That is why the word true has far reaching meaning. Carpenters talk about what is true. This is a standard of what you can go by to always get the right results. The Bible is always true and the results will always be true. So you have to violate the truth not to get the right results when you go to test the Bible.

Joshua0 · Apr 10, 2013

Mikecpking said:
Here is something of interest to everyone here:

12th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

Interesting. Yet they are the ones that are guilty of exactly what they are trying to accuse others of. Interesting how people usually only judge themselves when they are trying to judge others.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/554033_453227684759945_1352091944_n.jpg

createdtoworship · Apr 10, 2013

TheBear said:
No. You are being obtuse.

I'm really not interested in splitting hairs over the subtle differences of the various religious beliefs, and what covers what. My point went to the idea that your religious views and beliefs, whatever they are, shape and influence your opinions on the age of the earth, evolution, etc. So, there's absolutely nothing out of the way in bringing up your religious beliefs while discussing such things.

Sorry. I must have missed that. How old did you say it was?

okay, so I remembered late last night of a book:

by an athiest, in support of intelligent design!

Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design: Bradley Monton: 9781551118635: Amazon.com: Books

So ID and BC is not synonomous!

createdtoworship · Apr 10, 2013

Lucy Stulz said:
There is so much that is factually wrong with this post I honestly do not know where to begin. So I won't.

Thanks, troll.

all is well, thx for the debate!

btw- a troll is one who floods forums with info that does or doesnot actually represent the material of the thread. In other words - non sequitor. But can also just post a huge amount of material to overwhelm the audience, I have seen this typified as trolling. What I am doing which is answering questions most of the time, is by no means trolling.

So if you wish, you can report me?

Or if you wish you can research what trolling actually means?

but please, I beg of you....

no more name calling.

I have not once called you any names or attacked you personally.

I don't believe your arguments used, but thats not a personal attack (ad hominem)

it is simply an attack on you logic.

anyway, thanks again for the patience to learn from the other side of things.

createdtoworship · Apr 10, 2013

Mikecpking said:
Your goal posts must be very narrow, I have never seen such advoidance tactics as you make.

Not according to a court os law as shown in this abract:

On December 20, 2005, Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Judge at the Dover/Kitzmiller trial certainly did not see any.

So, if you believe the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years, I can see why you have to rubbish every shred of evidence presented to you to the contrary.
There is a saying that says 'Those who are presuaded against their will are still not persuaded still'.
In your case, you will never be convinced and not for one minute could I see you doing any serious field work study which could convice you otherwise.

Here is something of interest to everyone here:

12th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

again, this is misinformation.

please see this ID'er who is definately NOT christian! And doesn't ever want to be!....

Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design: Bradley Monton: 9781551118635: Amazon.com: Books

createdtoworship · Apr 10, 2013

How about this! NAutiloids!

we shouldn't need a peer review to prove basic existence of fossils, but I looked and there is relatively little information on ancient squid....nautiloids.

steve austin has self acclaimedly, seen more nautiloids than everyone in the US combined. He has found multiple sites, and has perfected a technique to locate the layers in which they exist.....

I dont think it is peer reviewed but a basic debate between two geologists on nautiloids...

Trivializing Creationist Scholarship

a creationist source:

Millions of Grand Canyon nautiloid fossils prove rapid limestone formation | Young Earth .com Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

Tomk80 · Apr 10, 2013

I don't know what you call little, but when I search for fossil nautiloids on google scholar I get about 6,000 hits.

And now you suddenly don't think peer-reviewed literature is important? Nicely hypocritical of you.

Lucy Stulz · Apr 10, 2013

gradyll said:
btw- a troll is one who floods forums with info that does or doesnot actually represent the material of the thread.

TROLL: In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response

So when you repeatedly request something and I provide it only so you can then repeatedly denigrate it, that is clearly an intent to provoke an emotional response.

IF you were are not a troll, then you have some serious reading comprehension issues.

So if you wish, you can report me?

Done and done!

Or if you wish you can research what trolling actually means?

Done and done!

but please, I beg of you....

no more name calling.

Troll.

I have not once called you any names or attacked you personally.

But you CONSISTENTLY denigrated the efforts I HONESTLY went to to address your requests.

That is indifferentiable. And it was clearly either a display of your disingenousness or trolling.

Either you are a liar, troll or unable to read. Take your pick.

I don't believe your arguments used, but thats not a personal attack (ad hominem)

No, it was clear you didn't read what I posted. So it would be hard for you to "believe" anything I posted. Even when I highlighted the important bits.

it is simply an attack on you logic.

You never attacked my "logic". I was posting data in response to your requests. Only to have them denigrated BUT AT NO TIME DID YOU ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE REASONS WHY THESE WERE INAPPLICABLE TO THE DEBATE

(Could you see that? Cuz I'm not entirely sure you could see my other posts...)

anyway, thanks again for the patience to learn from the other side of things.

You seem incapable of learning, but I have learned all about you.

I know you by the fruit you bear.

Matt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

And I can tell a troll when I see one.

Lucy Stulz · Apr 10, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
What happened to this thread?

I know that creationists have no valid explanation for fossils, but why is anyone giving gradyll any credence at all? He is obviously a simple denier who has nothing but superstition on his side.

I was unaware of the depth of his trolling desire. That is why I initially attempted to not only provide him peer review (which he then consistently ignored and denigrated but never really addressed, even when his concerns on this peer review were highlighted).

This level of untrustworthiness on his part is unbecoming of a Christian and so you will understand I was at first under the impression that he was going to seriously consider those things he asked for when they were presented to him, even if he didn't agree with them.

You see I could gladly have discussed these things even if he never agreed with them. But he asked for them, I provided them and he will not discuss them.

I have learned my lesson. I assume I will probably come back at times to correct his posts but I know that when he says things like this to take them with a grain of salt:

gradyll said:
funny how all available evidence has missed this particular forum!

I haven't seen one person quote a peer review! ...

Because of the way he acted on this thread I have to wonder when he said that if indeed others in the past have presented peer review...he just denigrated it.

This is his biggest problem. In asking for peer review then never addressing it only denigrating it he has established that he may be less than honest on these things.

It is sad. That is why I have reported his post. I hate reporting posts, but people who act thusly certainly should be held accountable.

Lucy Stulz · Apr 10, 2013

gradyll said:
How about this! NAutiloids!

we shouldn't need a peer review to prove basic existence of fossils, but I looked and there is relatively little information on ancient squid....nautiloids.

Fractal wrongness strikes again.

The Nuatiloid Cephalopods of the Pennsylvanian System in the Mid-Continent Region, Miller, A.K., Dunbar, C.W. Condra, G.E., 1933, Bulletin, Number 9 : 240 pages (LINK)

The cephalopods of the Eagle sandstone and related formations in the western interior of the United States, Reeside, J.B., (LINK)

Miller, A.K., Lane, J.H., Unklesbay, A.G., 1947,A Nautiloid Cephalopod Fauna from the Pennsyvlanian Winterset Limestone of Jackson County, Missouri, UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS PALEONTOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS MOLLUSCA, ARTICLE 2, PAGES 1-11, (LINK)

Teichert, C., Glenister, B., 1952,Fossil Nautiloid Fauna from Australia, J. Paleonotology, v26, pp730-752 (LINK)

Frey, R.C., 1989, Paleoecology of a well-preserved nautiloid assemblage from a Late Ordovician shale unit, southwestern Ohio, J. Paleontology, v63

W. W. Nassichuk, 1971,Permian ammonoids and nautiloids, southeastern Eagle Plain, Yukon Territory Journal of Paleontology, v. 45, p. 1001-1021

Gosh that was just a couple seconds of Googling!!!!

And that doesn't even include just about every standard intro paleontology textbook on the planet!

LOL!

So this quip from Gradyll earlier is starting to make more sense every post!

gradyll said:
what does biology have to do with paleantology?

Loudmouth · Apr 10, 2013

gradyll said:
all is well, thx for the debate!

The debate was settled 200 years ago. What we have here is you just making stuff up as you go. That's not a debate. It's story hour.

createdtoworship · Apr 10, 2013

Loudmouth said:
The debate was settled 200 years ago. What we have here is you just making stuff up as you go. That's not a debate. It's story hour.

well thats your opinion, you have nothing to base your conclusion on, no premises, no arguments, no anything.

Just speculation.

Lucy Stulz · Apr 10, 2013

gradyll said:
well thats your opinion, you have nothing to base your conclusion on, no premises, no arguments, no anything.

Just speculation.

Actually history.

take a geology class. Just one.

Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

Titleless

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Joshua0

Guest

Joshua0

Guest

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Titleless

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

In the grip of grace

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency