The Deception of Evolution and the Fossil Sequence

[lifepsyop]

Wrong again. If you can't admit that creationists quote mine as if it were going out of style then you are not being honest to anyone. And no, the sources are not there. This is the internet age and there is no reason not to have links to the sources. I am not going to do your homework for you. When your source incorrectly cites sources that is a flaw that you need to address.

You do this a lot. No counter-argument - whine about alleged "quote mining". Ignore clearly provided references.

That's okay, I'll wait for someone who can actually provide an intelligent response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do this a lot. No counter-argument - whine about alleged "quote mining". Ignore clearly provided references.

That's okay, I'll wait for someone who can actually provide an intelligent response.

Once again, you should ask yourself why they did not link their supposed sources. I gave you a counter argument you did not understand it. That is not my fault. Honesty is a trait that is sorely lacking in creationists. To make up for that flaw they should be doing the opposite of what they are doing. Instead they keep digging deeper and deeper into a hole by continuing their suspect ways.

And watch the personal insults. You don't want to have the moderators coming down on you.

Meanwhile here is a challenge for you. If you promise to attempt to answer this I promise to look into your article more deeply. There are many geologic structures that Flood advocates cannot explain. Here is one of them, see if you can explain how it formed:

"2009-08-20-01800 USA Utah 316 Goosenecks SP" by www.Gernot-Keller.com (User: Gernot Keller), London - Canon 5D. Licensed under CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...09-08-20-01800_USA_Utah_316_Goosenecks_SP.jpg

ETA: Cool new feature! You can click on the image and it gets full size.

 

[dad]

Here is one of them, see if you can explain how it formed:
.

How would you say it formed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would you say it formed?

Nope, this is my challenge. You need to explain how it could possibly have formed with a magical flood.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Wow, an eight page derailment courtesy of AV. Why do people still take the bait?

 

[dad]

Nope, this is my challenge. You need to explain how it could possibly have formed with a magical flood.

Ha. Scared to answer your own question. Guess you know I'll take the answer and skew you with it. Such bluster.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha. Scared to answer your own question. Guess you know I'll take the answer and skew you with it. Such bluster.

No, I am not afraid. Once again I know the answer. It is not my answer, I did not make it up, but this is a problem that believers in a worldwide flood cannot answer. You can't bate me into giving an answer. I am confident in myself, that is why I posted this challenge.

When you openly admit that using Flood Geology you can't answer this challenge then I will give you the answer.

 

[dad]

No, I am not afraid. Once again I know the answer. It is not my answer, I did not make it up, but this is a problem that believers in a worldwide flood cannot answer. You can't bate me into giving an answer. I am confident in myself, that is why I posted this challenge.

When you give that answer, it will look silly when I get done with it. But as we see here you do not post support and substance but empty hot air.

When you openly admit that using Flood Geology you can't answer this challenge then I will give you the answer.

I admit flood geology is foolish. That is, to attribute all the layers and fossils to the flood. But you knew I didn't do that anyhow. No use asking you to debate honestly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you give that answer, it will look silly when I get done with it. But as we see here you do not post support and substance but empty hot air.

dad, you know that this is not true. I am willing to always give scientific evidence that supports my beliefs. Some people are in no position to demand scientific evidence since they have shown that they do not understand the concept. But I am willing to help them learn what scientific evidence is. Again, no my definition, I did not write it.

I admit flood geology is foolish. That is, to attribute all the layers and fossils to the flood. But you knew I didn't do that anyhow. No use asking you to debate honestly.

No, I didn't. I don't have a program for all of the different unscientific beliefs of creationists. There is no "Standard model of creationism". And no, you cannot and have not ever made me look foolish. You on the other hand have not done too well.

 

[AV1611VET]

The names were not even affixed to the Gospels until the 2nd century.

You were there?

 

[AV1611VET]

JEPD theory is being generous, I think the Hebrew redactors completly recast their entire history, converting ordinary secular history into a miraculous fiction, written to satisfy the child like mind of Bronze Age sheep herders and stubborn nationalistic pride. There are no secular history books of the Hebrews, they destroyed them all leaving only the grossly exaggerated narratives of the OT books.

And, of course, Jesus played along with it, didn't He?

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You were there?

No, but there are such things as historians. Whenever a creationists says "You were there?" He not only shows his ignorance, he defeats himself since he was not there when the Gospels were written. You are not thinking logically. Why do you trust the Gospels when there is no reliable evidence that supports them yet you doubt everything that goes against your beliefs even if it is supported by all of the evidence in the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, but there are such things as historians.

Historians were there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Historians were there?

Yes AV, and they can also read what was written at that time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes AV,

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

Wrong, try again.

 

[RickG]

You were there?

Exactly. How do you know scripture is legitimate scripture?

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. How do you know scripture is legitimate scripture?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

I get all teary-eyed and emotional whenever the KJB is preached.

Makes me almost want to jump a pew and swing from the chandeliers.

(And I'm not kidding.)

 

[RickG]

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

I get all teary-eyed and emotional whenever the KJB is preached.

Makes me almost want to jump a pew and swing from the chandeliers.

(And I'm not kidding.)

You didn't answer the question. How do you know that is authentic?

 

[AV1611VET]

You didn't answer the question. How do you know that is authentic?

Do you have anything you hold sacred?

How do you defend its authenticity?