Polystrate Tree Fossils

[JohnR7]

John, you have seen yourself that YEC's come her, post a lot of nonsense, are unable to discuss the numerous refutations, then say we are mean and leave. If they could actually discuss anything we wouldn't have an issue here.

You are a unruly group. But as loveable as you guys are, I wonder why they are so quick to bail out.

We do need to come up with some new issues to discuss though.

 

[obediah001]

If I bail out it is to go to sleep it is 10 pm here & I am tired - bed soon. This YEC will be back!

 

[LadyShea]

Actually, there are some issues to discuss, even right off of Dr. Dino's site. There are points that they make on the web site that have never been addressed or refuted here on this forum.

As far as if evolutionists actually sucessfully refute YEC claims, I am not so sure of that. But people do get tired of the same old discussions. There is only so much that can be said for moon dust and Dr. Dinos answer for Biodiversification that Kangaroos can swim has been pretty well refuted.

I agree, but all they have so far been capable of doing (apparently), is copy and paste. They don't post their own thoughts opinions or ideas beyond "I agree with this", they often refuse to even examine evidence instead choosing to attack the method they know nothing about (dating methods spring to mind), and they take Dr. Dino's opinion as the end all be all even when armies of scientist in a relevant field disagree. They happily argue geollogy, biology, cosmology, medicine, etc when they know nothing about it, and yet they won't take the writings of a geologist at face value. They have no understanding of proper debate or evidence or citation. The whole argument is "Godidit and Dr. Dino says so"...what's to discuss or refute?

It's very very frustrating. I don't have a degree, but even I know better than to stop researching when I find the one guy, or book or website that agrees with my preconceived notion.

 

[JohnR7]

they take Dr. Dino's opinion as the end all be all even when armies of scientist in a relevant field disagree.

YEC's make up a pretty big army also, and they are very good at recruiting people from the unchurched.

 

[JohnR7]

If I bail out it is to go to sleep it is 10 pm here & I am tired - bed soon. This YEC will be back!

Sleep is good, God can teach us a lot when we are sleeping.

 

[obediah001]

Lets hope he teaches me something, cause I am leaving now to floss my teeth them to sleep. Good nite all. from South central Missouri.

 

[LadyShea]

YEC's make up a pretty big army also, and they are very good at recruiting people from the unchurched.

Yes, but they are not scientists. If they are theologists, then they shouldn't call it "Creation Science". Scientists follow the same methods worldwide regardless of the topic or subject. Creationism isn't science

 

[LorentzHA]

Hay, stick around, I have told people on this forum that many, many times, that they are guilty of the very things that they accuse me of. But I always am told to knock off the Pee Wee imitation of: I know what you are, but what am I?

Good point. Bringing up sexuality in a discussion on evolution is a bit suspect.

 

[JohnR7]

Yes, but they are not scientists. If they are theologists, then they shouldn't call it "Creation Science". Scientists follow the same methods worldwide regardless of the topic or subject. Creationism isn't science

Well, I do not know that much about "creation science", but don't they claim to have a different explaination for the same observations? No one questions the natural record, just man's understanding of it, and man's attempt to try and explain it or even categorize the data.

 

[JohnR7]

Good point. Bringing up sexuality in a discussion on evolution is a bit suspect.

Well, actually there could be a connection. Was it not sex that did in Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker? Or was it that they just all share the same first name?

But the arguement falls apart if you consider that Darwin seemed to adore his wife and as far as we know, was a moral family man. Unless there is something we do not know about Darwin.

In general though, the Bible says all things shall be known and nothing can be hidden.

Luke 12:2
For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Well, I do not know that much about "creation science", but don't they claim to have a different explaination for the same observations? No one questions the natural record, just man's understanding of it, and man's attempt to try and explain it or even categorize the data.

That's pretty much the party line from AIG (and probably other creationist groups, too). Most professional YECs do not seem to like to resort to the "appearance of age" argument, since it creates all sorts of philosophical and theological implications.

But when interpreting evidence, one must be sure to account for all the evidence, and not selectively focus on evidence that supports the idea while ignoring evidence to the contrary. There is plenty of evidence falsifying YEC on these very forums that gets routinely ignored by YECs. Which renders suspect the idea that YEC is simply a matter of interpretation.

 

[LadyShea]

Well, I do not know that much about "creation science", but don't they claim to have a different explaination for the same observations? No one questions the natural record, just man's understanding of it, and man's attempt to try and explain it or even categorize the data.

Not really...they don't conduct tests or field research that I have seen. They take the research/measurements/photos/fossils done by mainstream scientists, then try to make it fit with the Biblical account.

 

[LorentzHA]

Tell you what, how about you use the correct term evolutionist instead of your juvenile evilutionist, and maybe we'll be inclined not to call you cretinists...deal? Or, are you in fact an atheist troll or a teenager trying to get a rise out of everyone. I don't believe you intenionally mispell or use the text shortcuts such as "u" at 41. We already think you're ignorant for being YEC, your location is irrelevant.

Well said. I do not believe the poor spelling was intentional either...

 

[LorentzHA]

Well, actually there could be a connection. Was it not sex that did in Jim Jones, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker? Or was it that they just all share the same first name?

Yes, first name and probably went for a swim in the same gene pool (shallow end). However, I have always wondered about Oral Roberts...I have wondered if his first name was his given name or a nick-name given by fellow church members?

But the arguement falls apart if you consider that Darwin seemed to adore his wife and as far as we know, was a moral family man. Unless there is something we do not know about Darwin.

True, I believe Darwin was a Christian.

 

[Jet Black]

Hovind 3 Evolutions 0

I posted about 3-4 falsifications of articles, one of which falsified several issues he had with dating methods, so the real nmber is more like

Hovind 0 Evolution 10-15

 

[JohnR7]

True, I believe Darwin was a Christian.

Why, because he was a student of natural theology and his degree was in theology? His dad just thought that to be a pastor would be a good way to make a living. Sometimes you have to study what people are willing to pay for, unless you want to get a job and pay your own way.

 

[Cantuar]

Well, I do not know that much about "creation science", but don't they claim to have a different explaination for the same observations? No one questions the natural record, just man's understanding of it, and man's attempt to try and explain it or even categorize the data.

Yes, thye claim to have a different explanation, based on scripture rather than the scientific method. They then claim that this explanation is scientific.

 

[Jet Black]

Why, because he was a student of natural theology and his degree was in theology? His dad just thought that to be a pastor would be a good way to make a living. Sometimes you have to study what people are willing to pay for, unless you want to get a job and pay your own way.

perhaps because he said so countless times, in diaries and so on.

 

[JohnR7]

Yes, thye claim to have a different explanation, based on scripture rather than the scientific method. They then claim that this explanation is scientific.

That maybe the case with Dr. Wise, but I do not think they all claim that their beliefs are not based on sound scientified evidence.

 

[Jet Black]

hey john, I debunked a load of hovind's stuff!