"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[RickG]

But science does investigates historical facts and the testimony of witnesses. The same is true about criminal court cases.

You probably have not. You may have seen him debate a scientist, I doubt if you saw him win.

Probably from a video by him as well as opposed to an independent source.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Link? I tried look ...

The list was typewritten, and I did not save it. Now I wish I had kept it. But I know this professor, and I may try to contact him.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

And since you cannot supply this supposed list it is worthless.

It is not worthless, because I had the list in my possession, and so did the large number of individuals who listened to his presentation at the Loma Linda University.

 

[lasthero]

It is not worthless, because I had the list in my possession, and so did the large number of individuals who listened to his presentation at the Loma Linda University.

Evidence you can't produce is kinda worthless. There's really nothing to argue until we can actually see the list.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evidence you can't produce is kinda worthless. There's really nothing to argue until we can actually see the list.

Can't you treat it like you do evolution and play connect-the-dots?

What if you met Joe on the street and told him AV1611VET believes in Embedded Age Creation, and Joe said your point is worthless, unless you can produce a hardcopy?

Joe would be wrong, wouldn't he?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't you treat it like you do evolution and play connect-the-dots?

What if you met Joe on the street and told him AV1611VET believes in Embedded Age Creation, and Joe said your point is worthless, unless you can produce a hardcopy?

Joe would be wrong, wouldn't he?

Calling what is done in evolution "connect the dots" shows that you have no idea how the evidence supports evolution.

Watching a movie is a simple game of "connect the dots" since a movie is only a series of still images. The claim that AV believes in nonsense that is neither biblical nor science based would not be of much use in a debate either. If someone wanted to make disparaging claims about you they would need more than simple hearsay.

 

[AV1611VET]

Calling what is done in evolution "connect the dots" shows that you have no idea how the evidence supports evolution.

In evolution:

DOT + missing links + DOT = DOT _______________ DOT

 

[Subduction Zone]

In evolution:

DOT + missing links + DOT = DOT _______________ DOT

Nope, try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, try again.

Looks like connect-the-dots to me:

 

[RickG]

I have seen Dr. Sean Pitman debate a well trained scientist and win.

You didn't answer my question. Would you go to a geochemist for a medical check up? If not, then why accept information from a medical doctor who is purposely trying to discredit a scientific discipline for which he is not trained. Frankly, I would be happy to debate Kr. Pitman face to face in public. I would also like to do this with no notes or reference material. You either know the material or you don't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Looks like connect-the-dots to me:

Looks like real species that share real features.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looks like connect-the-dots to me:

That is only because you purposefully keep yourself amazingly ignorant. If you won't let yourself learn no one can help you here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Looks like real species that share real features.

We call that ontological reduction.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is only because you purposefully keep yourself amazingly ignorant. If you won't let yourself learn no one can help you here.

Until I do ... this looks like connect-the-dots.

And even after I do, I can't see how anyone can't see connect-the-dots in that picture.

So I might be amazing ignorant to some, but they are amazingly blind to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We call that ontological reduction.

No, that is an improper use of that term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Until I do ... this looks like connect-the-dots.

And even after I do, I can't see how anyone can't see connect-the-dots in that picture.

So I might be amazing ignorant to some, but they are amazingly blind to me.

But as usual you are wrong. The only blindness is yours as has been demonstrated time and time again.

It would help you immensely if you could understand the nature of evidence. You use terms that you do not understand as a means to try to make you look as if you might understand what you are talking about. Sadly you don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that is an improper use of that term.

It works for me.

It allows me to explain how things can have the same parts yet not be connected.

 

[Loudmouth]

We call that ontological reduction.

I call that reality, the thing that you keep having to run away from and ignore.

 

[AV1611VET]

But as usual you are wrong. The only blindness is yours as has been demonstrated time and time again.

It would help you immensely if you could understand the nature of evidence. You use terms that you do not understand as a means to try to make you look as if you might understand what you are talking about. Sadly you don't.

Suit yourself.

It seems to me, that if I was an evolutionist, I would agree with someone who told me that evolution was a game of connect-the-dots.

But that's just me.

Where I would disagree with that person though, is if he told me evolution was a game of connect-the-dots that only works on paper.

But again, that's just me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It works for me.

It allows me to explain how things can have the same parts yet not be connected.

Nope, you are still mistaken. Perhaps you should use simple terms since the complex ones are beyond you.

You can't make an explanation of a scientific idea if you can't use science properly. You are merely using a term because you like the sound of it.