Logic dictates that there is a God!

[King Doctor]

King Multi, I mean, King Democrat, if I touch your scientific robes, will I be healed of all that ails me?

It's worth a punt...

[john9blue]

I at least respect him for not flaming or taking sarcastic jabs at people who disagree with him.

He does not flame, but he does waste time.
To the point that this entire enterprise is a time-waster, that is no different from anyone else.

Well then don't talk to him if it's a waste of time. Maybe it's a "time waster" because you keep asking each other the same questions, and giving each other the same answers. Yes, BOTH of you.

[PLAYER57832]

I at least respect him for not flaming or taking sarcastic jabs at people who disagree with him.

He does not flame, but he does waste time.
To the point that this entire enterprise is a time-waster, that is no different from anyone else.

Well then don't talk to him if it's a waste of time. Maybe it's a "time waster" because you keep asking each other the same questions, and giving each other the same answers. Yes, BOTH of you.

I am not the one whining about someone "hating" me. I tried to answer his questions honestly. Found he was not interested and gave up, then suddenly I am accused of "attacking" him.

[King Doctor]

Well then don't talk to him if it's a waste of time. Maybe it's a "time waster" because you keep asking each other the same questions, and giving each other the same answers. Yes, BOTH of you.

It is good that we have a powerful arbiter such as yourself to keep the peace around here.

[john9blue]

Well player, you keep responding to him in the same manner, and then you wonder why he posts the same things over and over. I doubt that your arguments are going anywhere.

King Doctor, you're a troll, so stfu lol.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff,
You can call me whatever you want and I will have love for you anyway perhaps. : )

But you still won't try to overcome your problems. How sad.

[King Doctor]

Woodruff,
You can call me whatever you want and I will have love for you anyway perhaps. : )

But you still won't try to overcome your problems. How sad.

...and you won't stop trying to troll him.


His restraint in the face of your antagonism is to be commended.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff,
You can call me whatever you want and I will have love for you anyway perhaps. : )

But you still won't try to overcome your problems. How sad.

...and you won't stop trying to troll him.
His restraint in the face of your antagonism is to be commended.

I'm not at all surprised that you prefer his willingness to remain blindered and handcuffed. You seem that type.

[john9blue]

Fellas, fellas! As this thread's arbiter, I'm going to have to ask you both to take a chill pill.

[King Doctor]

I'm not at all surprised that you prefer his willingness to remain blindered and handcuffed.

You have now crossed over into outright 'crazy talk'. I have no idea what you are talking about or what you are attempting to articulate.


Also, as I'm sure that my colleague Saxitoxin will attest to, your choice of metaphor is a concerning indicator that you are drawn to sadomasochistic homosexual proclivities during your free time.

[Neoteny]

Fellas, fellas! As this thread's arbiter, I'm going to have to ask you both to take a chill pill.

Cracka please.

[Lionz]

Player,

You might feel I target weak points in debate on evolution, but what am I supposed to do if I myself hold that species have brought forth species? Who's arguing that no evolution at all occurs even if I asked what certain things had to do with whether or not people believe humans evolved from single celled organisms?

What do global climate change, antibiotic resistance, vaccinations, herbicide, fertilizer, and genetically modified crops have to do with whether or not people believe earth was created by Him without coming together from dust particles over billions of years? What specifically does believing in young earth creationism require disbelieving in when it comes to real science?

Who's telling someone to ignore nuclear power? I might have came across wrong.

There might be some transitional fossils, but what do we have in terms of a transition between whales and land dwelling mammals?

If you want to discuss Grand Canyon, can you address Vermilion Cliffs and Echo Cliffs and this?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1562&p=2659880#p2659880

I'm not sure if you hold that running water carved a gash between them or not maybe.

You say that those who seem the most "liberal" in many respect on this forum (regarding environmental controls, etc.) are also those who study or have studied science the most and say that is true around the world and claim that self-descriptions primarily back up that up? Can you elaborate?

You've suggested there was absolutely zero evidence for an earthwide flood and it can be argued that you've argued against the flood even if you've suggested you were not opposed to it having occured maybe.

You mean all that was cited was a news brief in regards to a spider web trapped in an amber deposit that was located in a rock layer supposedly 100 million years older than a time spiders were assumed to have evolved? Nothing except a final conclusion and that put in a mass media format and not in a true scientific journal? There are a number of references given here including a Journal of the Geological Society reference and we should be careful about what we claim maybe.

http://www.icr.org/article/amber-trappe ... o-old-for/

Maybe evolutionary blinders can come across as offensive and I should change wording up. If there are ambers contained in coal deposits which predate an occurrence of flowering plants by hundreds of millions of years according to mainstream theory and the ambers contain chemicals most similar to what is seen in ambers produced by modern flowering plants, then what will that tell us if we are to approach that unencumbered by a preconceived notion about when flowering plants came to be? And what do you want in terms of data? Are there 8 references here you have tried to look into?

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/4992/266/

What suggests to you that amber deposits sunk through about 200 million years of geologic time through an inclusion process if something does? Simply a location in and of itself? That would be an example of a preconcieved notion on what has happened in the past trying to twist evidence into a personal worldview maybe... maybe it's likely everyone is guilty of having done that, but how about we try to simply let evidence speak for itself? What if it so happens that He created earth and then created flowering plants on it about 48 hours later?

You mean to ask where have you brought up one or more story that was invented to fit data into an evolutionary worldview? Well, would the amber simply coming from true flowering plants be the most direct explanation and was there not one or more different explanation given?

What do you want me to address about the Grand Canyon? Is there a certain post or site you want me to address in detail? You just said quite a bit of stuff having to do with it in a post I responded to and you came back with a 22 word response accusing me of wasting everyone's time maybe. There's one or more image showing upsteam from the Grand Canyon that you were thinking actually showed the Grand Canyon itself maybe... maybe I'm not sure if you hold that running water carved a gash between Vermilion Cliffs and Echo Cliffs or not and you can help me figure out if you do.

The BBC might have claimed mammalian hair was found in 100 million year old amber, but what are you arguing against if ICR itself is not claiming there is such a thing as 100 million year old amber?

Where is there a young earth creationist who claims Genesis is a full and complete scientific explanation?

Young earth creationists pretty much claimed there could be no speciation and now are trying to back off of that more and more? What do you have to back that up? Has someone claimed that Noah was with chihuahuas and great danes on the ark?

You want an example of an untrue assertion by you? You wrongly claimed that I said this in response to one or more thing for one maybe... oh, did you? Where have I said that and where have you given some pretty complete and detailed information on what a folded mountain image showed if you have somewhere? Do you refer to a post found here?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114455&p=2563262#p2563262

Maybe these are misquotes for all I know, but you said these perhaps...

I could not find a specific explanation tied to that picture you posted. (Not a surprise, I am sure the evidence exists, I just wasn't able to find it in the time I have available right now.) However, I did find a general explanation for the formation of the Rockies. I believe that picture is from the Rockies

However, that is just the explanation. For proof, you have to dig quite a bit deeper. Because a lot of geologic research was done years ago, its not all easily accessible on then net. However, if you keep following the links provided within the sites above to their reference citations, you will, eventually come up with references to the original research into the matter. Note that not every portion of every mountain has a full explanation. However, even if the exact "story" of a particular mountain is not 100% known, there are absolutely many examples of many mountains of all kinds explained.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

You might feel I target weak points in debate on evolution,

No, I believe you target NON points in the "debate" over evolution. Your "arguments" mostly show you don't understand evolution. That is the point. But, I have repeatedly tried to explain both real evolution and why those things you post are not alternative scientific ideas, but are ideas that are just not valid, period. You ignore it... as do all the other supposed "young earth" believers here.

You claim (as a group, not individually) that you "know evolution", but again and again show that you don't.. you just understand what young earthers like you to believe is evolution.

but what am I supposed to do if I myself hold that species have brought forth species? Who's arguing that no evolution at all occurs even if I asked what certain things had to do with whether or not people believe humans evolved from single celled organisms?

If you want to debate evolution, then you have to first understand what evolution actually says. That requires looking at scientific sites and not anything in young earth creationist sites. There is very little put forward in those sites that is real and true, except where they point out evolution frauds (sometimes true frauds, but discovered by evolutionists not young earth creationists)

What do global climate change, antibiotic resistance, vaccinations, herbicide, fertilizer, and genetically modified crops have to do with whether or not people believe earth was created by Him without coming together from dust particles over billions of years?

Ask someone who actually believes all that. I believe God created everything. I believe Genesis.

What specifically does believing in young earth creationism require disbelieving in when it comes to real science?

Like I said.. you ask over and over and over. My answer won't change, sorry. I don't care how much you dislike it, it is the truth.

What part of young earth creationism requires disblelieving real science?
Begin with chemistry (radiometric dating, chemical analysis of earth strata, biochemical analysis of various substances), go on to physics (earth forces, etc.), geology (pretty much everything in real geology is disputed by young earthers), paleontology (another given), genetics, biology, etc. , etc.

Who's telling someone to ignore nuclear power? I might have came across wrong.

?

There might be some transitional fossils, but what do we have in terms of a transition between whales and land dwelling mammals?

off the top of my head I am not sure, but I do remember researching it and answering this question already in the young earth creationism thread. Try looking there.

If you want to discuss Grand Canyon, can you address Vermilion Cliffs and Echo Cliffs and this?

Already did.

You've suggested there was absolutely zero evidence for an earthwide flood and it can be argued that you've argued against the flood even if you've suggested you were not opposed to it having occured maybe.

Only if you wish to twist my words.

I said there was no firm evidence. That means there is no evidence that cannot be otherwise explained.

You mean all that was cited was a news brief in regards to a spider web trapped in an amber deposit that was located in a rock layer supposedly 100 million years older than a time spiders were assumed to have evolved? Nothing except a final conclusion and that put in a mass media format and not in a true scientific journal? There are a number of references given here including a Journal of the Geological Society reference and we should be careful about what we claim maybe.

Read it for yourself. I provided you with the citations. I also explained why I said that, what was missing (data, methology and procedures explanations, etc. -- all standard for true journal articles).

Maybe evolutionary blinders can come across as offensive and I should change wording up.

Maybe it just is an opinion without reality, as I explained already. If IRC wants to dispute those findings, they can do so. The problem is they did not actually do that, they only claimed they did. Someone who has no experience with what science journals contain, what evidence and data are might actually believe they are refuting something in truth. That is why I say they are lying. They pretend to be doing science analysis, but are most definitely not!

If there are ambers contained in coal deposits which predate an occurrence of flowering plants by hundreds of millions of years according to mainstream theory and the ambers contain chemicals most similar to what is seen in ambers produced by modern flowering plants, then what will that tell us if we are to approach that unencumbered by a preconceived notion about when flowering plants came to be? And what do you want in terms of data?

Already answered this. If IRC has problems, they need to go back to the source of the data/theories and find errors in the process,the data collected or the conclusion in a real way. Instead, IRC just puts forward opinion. Basically they say "this doesn't fit our view... so it doesn't make sense... so believe us, not them".

Are there 8 references here you have tried to look into?

read what I wrote. I told you what I did and did not read, and why.

What suggests to you that amber deposits sunk through about 200 million years of geologic time through an inclusion process if something does? Simply a location in and of itself? That would be an example of a preconcieved notion on what has happened in the past trying to twist evidence into a personal worldview maybe... maybe it's likely everyone is guilty of having done that, but how about we try to simply let evidence speak for itself? What if it so happens that He created earth and then created flowering plants on it about 48 hours later?

I said there was not near enough information provided to make ANY conclusion. I also said that it could be an inclusion, just as an example of why something might be found in the "wrong" strata, but I would have to see this guys actual research to know why he was able to say, with full surity that it was not evidence of what IRC wishes to claim it should prove.

I don't know why, because, like I said, this is not really his report, it is just a media news release. I do, however, have enough confidence in the process of science to know that he would not make such an affirmative statement unless he were A. an idiot or poor scientist OR B. he had some real evidence to back him up. Supposing that the university is a decent institution, B is a much more likely option.

You mean to ask where have you brought up one or more story that was invented to fit data into an evolutionary worldview? Well, would the amber simply coming from true flowering plants be the most direct explanation and was there not one or more different explanation given?

Neither you nor IRC has anywhere near enough information to make that conclusion. Maybe the findings are wrong. Science can be wrong, but the point is you have to SHOW WHY its wrong. IRC just made a statement that they don't believe this so therefor it was obviously just a biased interpretation. In fact, if they actually looked at the real data, understood the processes he used, they would find answers. Maybe they could question then, but right now... they just put forward garbage that only someone not skilled in science or too lazy to follow up on their claims, would believe is real criticism.

What do you want me to address about the Grand Canyon? Is there a certain post or site you want me to address in detail? You just said quite a bit of stuff having to do with it in a post I responded to and you came back with a 22 word response accusing me of wasting everyone's time maybe. There's one or more image showing upsteam from the Grand Canyon that you were thinking actually showed the Grand Canyon itself maybe... maybe I'm not sure if you hold that running water carved a gash between Vermilion Cliffs and Echo Cliffs or not and you can help me figure out if you do.

No, I gave you a detailed and point-by-point analysis of what you presented in the young earth creationism thread. It took me a good deal of time to compile that. Yet, here you go again, claiming I never gave you any of that. THAT is why I say you are just wasting time.

You skipped quite a few steps..

The BBC might have claimed mammalian hair was found in 100 million year old amber, but what are you arguing against if ICR itself is not claiming there is such a thing as 100 million year old amber?

Becuase they made no such claim in that article. Read it for yourself. I already gave the link.

Where is there a young earth creationist who claims Genesis is a full and complete scientific explanation?

Using those exact words? Perhaps not. However, that is the basic claim to which they all infer. Like you, they are pretty adept at not actually saying things, but very much leaving inexperienced, particularly young and impressionable minds, with the idea that they want them to have.

Young earth creationists pretty much claimed there could be no speciation and now are trying to back off of that more and more? What do you have to back that up?

Well, let's see... about 40 years ago dinosaurs were "fiction".. etc. Study up on young earth creationist history for yourself if you don't believe me. I told you the true.

Has someone claimed that Noah was with chihuahuas and great danes on the ark?

No. They just try to claim that cows were put here on earth "as is", instead of evolving from earlier species.

You want an example of an untrue assertion by you? You wrongly claimed that I said this in response to one or more thing for one maybe... oh, did you? Where have I said that and where have you given some pretty complete and detailed information on what a folded mountain image showed if you have somewhere? Do you refer to a post found here?

Yes, to both. Reread the young earth creationism.. again thread.

Maybe these are misquotes for all I know, but you said these perhaps...

I could not find a specific explanation tied to that picture you posted. (Not a surprise, I am sure the evidence exists, I just wasn't able to find it in the time I have available right now.) However, I did find a general explanation for the formation of the Rockies. I believe that picture is from the Rockies

However, that is just the explanation. For proof, you have to dig quite a bit deeper. Because a lot of geologic research was done years ago, its not all easily accessible on then net. However, if you keep following the links provided within the sites above to their reference citations, you will, eventually come up with references to the original research into the matter. Note that not every portion of every mountain has a full explanation. However, even if the exact "story" of a particular mountain is not 100% known, there are absolutely many examples of many mountains of all kinds explained.

Yes, I said that and a good deal more.

[Lionz]

Player,

1. How don't I understand evolution if I don't understand it somehow? Maybe you can teach me.

2. We don't know whether or not He created stuff with things now considered daughter isotopes in them in the first place and assuming that He did not would only be one of three or more critical assumptions you would be making in thinking you were dating something accurately by one perhaps.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... active.asp

If we come across a diamond in the earth, does that mean it's diamond that was created over millions of years? What if He created gem filled earth out of absolutely nothing?

3. What does chemical analysis of earth strata have to say about how old earth is?

4. How does physics or geology conflict with young earth creationism if it does somehow? Even if continents are moving at a pretty steady rate, does that mean that they've always been moving at a pretty steady rate?

5. How does paleontology conflict with young earth creationism if it does somehow?

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation." (Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

6. How does genetics or biology conflict with young earth creationism if it does somehow?

7. I asked you one or more question here having to do with fossil evidence and whales and you proceeded to refer to past links without being specific about what links you referred to and to argue that you never claimed to be an expert in evolution maybe.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114455&start=210

Is there a fossil claimed to be a transitional fossil between land dwelling mammals and whales that you want to discuss or no?

8. Do you claim that running water carved a gash between Vermilion Cliffs and Echo Cliffs?

9. What do you want me to read for myself? Is there not a scientific journal referenced here with the number 2?

http://www.icr.org/article/amber-trappe ... o-old-for/

10. You argue that ICR did not dispute certain findings and only claimed they did? Where is there even a claim to dispute findings? You refer to findings that back up young earth creationism maybe... what is there to dispute?

11. I'm claiming you never gave me any of what?

12. Where is there a young earth creationist who has even kind of claimed Genesis is a full and complete scientific explanation? Did you read that young earth creationists claimed that on an anti-young earth creationism site or what?

13. Do you have a source that suggests a young earth creationist said dinosaurs were fiction 40 years ago? The word dinosaur is actually included for H8577 in Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon maybe.

14. Do any of these contain pretty complete and detailed information on what a folded mountain image shows?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114455&p=2563262#p2563262

I could not find a specific explanation tied to that picture you posted. (Not a surprise, I am sure the evidence exists, I just wasn't able to find it in the time I have available right now.) However, I did find a general explanation for the formation of the Rockies. I believe that picture is from the Rockies

However, that is just the explanation. For proof, you have to dig quite a bit deeper. Because a lot of geologic research was done years ago, its not all easily accessible on then net. However, if you keep following the links provided within the sites above to their reference citations, you will, eventually come up with references to the original research into the matter. Note that not every portion of every mountain has a full explanation. However, even if the exact "story" of a particular mountain is not 100% known, there are absolutely many examples of many mountains of all kinds explained.

Maybe there are misquotes in here for all I know.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

1. How don't I understand evolution if I don't understand it somehow? Maybe you can teach me.

Yes, well, try reading the young earth creationism... again thread.

2. We don't know whether or not He created stuff with things now considered daughter isotopes in them in the first place and assuming that He did not would only be one of three or more critical assumptions you would be making in thinking you were dating something accurately by one perhaps.

No critical assumptions are made, except by those websites you keep posting. We know that certain dating techniques are accurate becuase they have been verified in various ways, shown to be accurate where dates are known. Because of this and the steady decomposition rate, scientists have been able to use these various dating techniques. However, they certainly did not just say "hey, this looks like it might work... let's assume it does". That is only what young earthers claim was done. Again, that is why I say they lie.

And.. I did both offer some explanation and refer you to multiple websites that discuss dating.

PS don't cite "answers in genesis" as if it were some kind of true authority. Virtually anything they say about science or evolution is plain garbage, including this bit about Carbon 14 dating only being based on assumptions.

If we come across a diamond in the earth, does that mean it's diamond that was created over millions of years? What if He created gem filled earth out of absolutely nothing?

He could have, but its not what the evidence indicates. But instead of looking at the real evidence, you simply refer to "answers in genesis" and other utterly unscientific sites that pretty much lie about science and evolution.

Try comparing with what they say to what is said on ANY real science site.

3. What does chemical analysis of earth strata have to say about how old earth is?

It can tie strata that are in disparate locations at times, etc.

4. How does physics or geology conflict with young earth creationism if it does somehow? Even if continents are moving at a pretty steady rate, does that mean that they've always been moving at a pretty steady rate?

5. How does paleontology conflict with young earth creationism if it does somehow?

lol ... they do, but you would have to actually study the fields or even listen to real explanations to get that, I suppose and you apparently are not willing to do so.

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation." (Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

This AGAIN. The POINT is that this "excerpt" does not mean what you keep, over and over and over, insist it should mean. furthermore, you cannot simply trot out one scientist and claim that he/she is suddenly unquestionable.

The facts are that evolution and paleontology do go hand in hand and that there are far more fossils than every would be present if young earh theories were correct.

6. How does genetics or biology conflict with young earth creationism if it does somehow?

Read a few of the explanations many of us have already provided, for a start. If you still don't get it, its becuase you refuse to even try... (or perhaps you are just an idiot?)

7. I asked you one or more question here having to do with fossil evidence and whales and you proceeded to refer to past links without being specific about what links you referred to and to argue that you never claimed to be an expert in evolution maybe.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114455&start=210

Is there a fossil claimed to be a transitional fossil between land dwelling mammals and whales that you want to discuss or no?

8. Do you claim that running water carved a gash between Vermilion Cliffs and Echo Cliffs?

9. What do you want me to read for myself? Is there not a scientific journal referenced here with the number 2?

http://www.icr.org/article/amber-trappe ... o-old-for/

10. You argue that ICR did not dispute certain findings and only claimed they did? Where is there even a claim to dispute findings? You refer to findings that back up young earth creationism maybe... what is there to dispute?

11. I'm claiming you never gave me any of what?

12. Where is there a young earth creationist who has even kind of claimed Genesis is a full and complete scientific explanation? Did you read that young earth creationists claimed that on an anti-young earth creationism site or what?

13. Do you have a source that suggests a young earth creationist said dinosaurs were fiction 40 years ago? The word dinosaur is actually included for H8577 in Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon maybe.

14. Do any of these contain pretty complete and detailed information on what a folded mountain image shows?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114455&p=2563262#p2563262

I could not find a specific explanation tied to that picture you posted. (Not a surprise, I am sure the evidence exists, I just wasn't able to find it in the time I have available right now.) However, I did find a general explanation for the formation of the Rockies. I believe that picture is from the Rockies

However, that is just the explanation. For proof, you have to dig quite a bit deeper. Because a lot of geologic research was done years ago, its not all easily accessible on then net. However, if you keep following the links provided within the sites above to their reference citations, you will, eventually come up with references to the original research into the matter. Note that not every portion of every mountain has a full explanation. However, even if the exact "story" of a particular mountain is not 100% known, there are absolutely many examples of many mountains of all kinds explained.

Maybe there are misquotes in here for all I know.

Nope, no more.

Once again, you ask the same questions over and over, ask questions that make it plain you have no interest in real answers and just generally make it clear you are a troll, not a true seeker of knowledge with any interest in what other people think.

[Lionz]

How about simply tell me what I don't understand about evolution?

Is there a radiometric dating method that doesn't assume that something started with zero so called daughter isotopes and that doesn't assume a constant rate of production of a certain isotope? And is there an example you can refer to me of an instance where a measured date has been shown to be accurate because of a date being known? It's one thing if you observe that something started out with zero of a certain kind of isotope and measure some in it later maybe, but who knows if He created rocks with so called daughter isotopes in them in the first place?

Want to discuss the carbon 14 method specifically? Maybe we should expect for there to have been more plantlife on earth before the flood and it would be a ridiculous assumption to assume there's a ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere that's always been a constant. And if it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then what should that tell us?

Where is there evidence that indicates He didn't create diamond filled earth out of absolutely nothing? What could even theoretically indicate that?

Chemical anaysis can tie strata that are in disparate locations at times? Can you elaborate?

There are far more fossils than every would be present if young earh theories were correct? What do you mean? Who knows how many preflood plants and animals there were? And really how many fossils are there that are not from a marine invertibrate or a plant or algae?

95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates--clams, etc.
4.75% of all fossils are algae and plant fossils
0.2375% includes insects and other invertebrates
0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mainly fish. 95% of land vertebrate fossils consist of one bone fragment or tooth. For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found as of 1994.

I've come across one or more format related issue and that's a misquote that should contain more for all I know maybe. Source here you can compare with perhaps...
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/d ... lMan1.html

[King Doctor]

Long posts are motherfucking long.

[Darwins_Bane]

How about simply tell me what I don't understand about evolution?

Is there a radiometric dating method that doesn't assume that something started with zero so called daughter isotopes and that doesn't assume a constant rate of production of a certain isotope? And is there an example you can refer to me of an instance where a measured date has been shown to be accurate because of a date being known? It's one thing if you observe that something started out with zero of a certain kind of isotope and measure some in it later maybe, but who knows if He created rocks with so called daughter isotopes in them in the first place?

theres is this saying. the simplest explanation is often the truest.

Want to discuss the carbon 14 method specifically? Maybe we should expect for there to have been more plantlife on earth before the flood and it would be a ridiculous assumption to assume there's a ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere that's always been a constant. And if it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then what should that tell us?

carbon dating is used because it has been proven to work. I have no idea what the rest of this paragraph is trying to say. its wrong.

Where is there evidence that indicates He didn't create diamond filled earth out of absolutely nothing? What could even theoretically indicate that?

diamond is created in a volcano. look it up.

Chemical anaysis can tie strata that are in disparate locations at times? Can you elaborate?

not my area of expertise i'll leave this point for someone else.

There are far more fossils than every would be present if young earh theories were correct? What do you mean? Who knows how many preflood plants and animals there were? And really how many fossils are there that are not from a marine invertibrate or a plant or algae?

if it takes time to make fossils then less fossils would have time to form if the earth were so young.

[Lionz]

Bane,

Maybe simple is quite often in the eye of the beholder and I don't treat Genesis as if it's something that's supposed to be a work of fiction or as if it's something originally written to purposely deceive masses with lies.

What if He actually exists and Adam was created as a full grown man who could be mistaken as being in the midst of a growing process that started several years beforehand and rock was created full grown and could be mistaken as being in the midst of a radioactive decay process that started several years beforehand? What if He wanted earth to have diamond and gold and silver and rubies and sapphires and emeralds in it at one day old?

Has carbon dating been proven to work on remains of a preflood creature?

It doesn't even take hundreds of years for something to fossilize perhaps. Have you flipped forward and seen slides here? http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... /frame.htm

[natty dread]

To all you young earth creationists out there,

you are making a fool of yourselves. Please stop.

[BigBallinStalin]

WHOA! Lionz is racking up the points.

[Darwins_Bane]

Bane,

Maybe simple is quite often in the eye of the beholder and I don't treat Genesis as if it's something that's supposed to be a work of fiction or as if it's something originally written to purposely deceive masses with lies.

I have studied history as it is a hobby of mine. i dont treat genesis as a work of fiction. I treat it exactly as it is. a piece of literature written by man. and you cant argue that. whether it was only man that wrote it or it was god that told man to write it that fact remains unchanged. that being said. I don't blindly follow anything. I weigh all of the options.

What if He actually exists and Adam was created as a full grown man who could be mistaken as being in the midst of a growing process that started several years beforehand and rock was created full grown and could be mistaken as being in the midst of a radioactive decay process that started several years beforehand? What if He wanted earth to have diamond and gold and silver and rubies and sapphires and emeralds in it at one day old?

and what if i showed up in africa and claim an angel had flown me there. thats a more complicated explanation than just i used a airplane.

Has carbon dating been proven to work on remains of a preflood creature?

considering i dont believe in the flood. do you have a date in history that the flood was, so that i can answer the question?

It doesn't even take hundreds of years for something to fossilize perhaps. Have you flipped forward and seen slides here? http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... /frame.htm

it has been proven and detailed explanations have been provided as to why and how fossils take to long to form. also we know when they formed for other reasons. (ie the asteroid or natural disaster that killed the dinosaurs.)

[AAFitz]

It doesn't even take hundreds of years for something to fossilize perhaps. Have you flipped forward and seen slides here? http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... /frame.htm

[/quote]

This is the title of one of the articles that supposedly disproves evolution of earth and animal... on one page.

Supporting Creation

If one fact can disprove a theory, then the theory is wrong.


Ok. You argue the earth was created, then plants than the sun.

Heres one fact that proves your theory wrong. Plants need warmth and sunlight to survive. Its a fact. Its easy to prove. There simply could not have been plants without a sun, minus some force field idea akin to a starwars novelette.

It also starts with the old adage, "there must be a God, because wtf else could have done it" line.

It goes on from there to provide arguments that perhaps maybe anyone over the age of 5 could argue.

Thanks for the link.

Always enjoy a good laugh before going to work.

Well, heres one fact that

[AAFitz]

It doesn't even take hundreds of years for something to fossilize perhaps. Have you flipped forward and seen slides here? http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... /frame.htm

[/quote]

This is the title of one of the articles that supposedly disproves evolution of earth and animal... on one page.

Supporting Creation

If one fact can disprove a theory, then the theory is wrong.


Ok. You argue the earth was created, then plants than the sun.

Heres one fact that proves your theory wrong. Plants need warmth and sunlight to survive. Its a fact. Its easy to prove. There simply could not have been plants without a sun, minus some force field idea akin to a starwars novelette.

It also starts with the old adage, "there must be a God, because wtf else could have done it" line.

It goes on from there to provide arguments that perhaps maybe anyone over the age of 5 could argue.

Thanks for the link.

Always enjoy a good laugh before going to work.

[Falkomagno]