jerryR34 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Why even go there - your reserach will be attacking fossil order via a couple of extraordinary circumstances (overturned folded strata et al.). Also, you will impugn radiometric dating based on a couple methods or examples at the tails of the bell-shaped curve. Your arguments are tired, and ingnored by science. They are only valid in a forum such as this where people know what they want to believe and believe the tiniy fraction of the evidence that supports it in spite of the overwhelming body of evidence that does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,136 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,816 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 17, 2014 Blessings Old School lol....I guess you will have to take it up with God,I did not write 2Peter 1:20-21........He is the One that has told us the Scriptures are not written by anyone's interpretation....................You are most certainly entitled to believe as you will but "please"....do not tell me what I say is ";unbiblical" because I disagree with you,thanks With love-in Christ,Kwik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyjmcgirr Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 194 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 37 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1984 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 Well, if I'm not mistaken, mammals could climb trees and dinosaurs couldn't. And they were probably more intelligent. Why would Noah waste 120 years to build an Ark for a local flood? It would be simpler to move a few miles or into the mountains for a small local flood. A small local flood wouldn't cover the mountains. How else would you find massive fossilized clams on top of mountains? As for the so-called Geologic Column...it is completely built upon false assumptions and circular reasoning. Scientists say, "Wow, we found this bone in this layer, so this layer must be X millions of years old because this dinosaur lived at that time." "Whoa, how do we date this bone? Well, it was found in X layer, so it is X millions of years old." And the ONLY way you get a fossil is if the animal is immediately covered in sediment which is most likely to happen in a flood. And not to mention, you cannot get any accurate date by any dating method. Those, too, are also made in bias because you can't accurately date anything beyond 50,000 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Why even go there - your reserach will be attacking fossil order via a couple of extraordinary circumstances (overturned folded strata et al.). Also, you will impugn radiometric dating based on a couple methods or examples at the tails of the bell-shaped curve. Your arguments are tired, and ingnored by science. They are only valid in a forum such as this where people know what they want to believe and believe the tiniy fraction of the evidence that supports it in spite of the overwhelming body of evidence that does not. ================================================================================ So in response to......."Go ahead and list the Top 2, then I'll go ahead and research then put them through the Crucible." Your response......Translation: There aren't any we just make them up "ad hoc" as we go. Science doesn't "Ignore".....Logical Fallacy (Reification) You know, here @ Worthy, they have Automatic Spell Check.....if it's misspelled, a Red Squiggly Line shows up beneath it. (just FYI) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) You know, here @ Worthy, they have Automatic Spell Check.....if it's misspelled, a Red Squiggly Line shows up beneath it. (just FYI) I have not seen spell check on here. I usually copy and paste to word - was in a hurry on that post. Ok... top two - although they go hand in hand...1) fossil sorting 2) radiometric dating. Try to surprise me... Edited March 17, 2014 by jerryR34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthonyjmcgirr Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 194 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 37 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/31/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1984 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 Yeah I just don't get why they can't accept there is more than one way to interpret the evidence! I see flood evidence all over the world. Even scientists will agree that at different 'stages' the whole world was covered. Like, they explain the Grand Canyon as being carved out by a massive lake that existed in the area covering the space of several states and over millions of years it was carved out. Well, why not by a world-wide flood? It would be a perfect example of such a flood occurring, with marine fossils found all over the canyon. We've seen with Mount St. Helens that such massive, devastating, powerful events can change the area instantly. But if we had no record of the volcano's eruption, scientists would assume all that happened over a span of millions of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Yeah I just don't get why they can't accept there is more than one way to interpret the evidence! years. No, the problem is science lets the evidence tell the story, while creation science is telling the evidence what it is saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 17, 2014 ============================================================= Radiometric Dating Comprehensive Refutation (Start Here): fossil sorting?? Can you tell me How in the World does "fossil sorting" answer the Question..... "How do you differentiate "newer" vs "Older" fossils without using a Circular Argument?" I smell a circular argument that goes something like this......The "older ones" are on the bottom, Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted March 17, 2014 ============================================================= Radiometric Dating Comprehensive Refutation (Start Here): fossil sorting?? Can you tell me How in the World does "fossil sorting" answer the Question..... "How do you differentiate "newer" vs "Older" fossils without using a Circular Argument?" I smell a circular argument that goes something like this......The "older ones" are on the bottom, Right? which fossils will be older? Those lower in the geologic column or those higher. Very intellectually dishonest question from you...was it for effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 17, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Yeah I just don't get why they can't accept there is more than one way to interpret the evidence! years. No, the problem is science lets the evidence tell the story, while creation science is telling the evidence what it is saying. ====================================================================== No, the problem is science lets the evidence tell the story, while creation science is telling the evidence what it is saying. That's not what one of your "Science Priests" says...... ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology. Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14. and speaking to "Ad Hoc"..... New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. Henry Gee PhD (Senior Editor, Nature) In Search of Deep Time (2001) p. 32 as for "scientific", well..... “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts