It seems the christians here are selling snake oil

"TC and TB constantly dodge difficult questions or admit they don't have answers to them"
--You say this as if it is a bad thing? How's about you go ask a mainstream scientist in the early 1900's about the driving mechanism for plate tectonics, they will give you no answer. I as well as TB are not embarrassed to admit that there are many difficulties within our perspective. I do not dodge questions which I don't have answers to with any pompous attitude. I also don't itterate refuted mantra.. Have I even done any discussions with you yet? Your attack on Christians in general is pretty sophomoric as well..------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-19-2003]

"Ever heard of Buddika? Wanna go his way?"
--TC lets out a chuckle. ------------------

"yes i am laughing to as TC admittedly can't answer important questions by geologists in these forums."
--And, your point?"I am reading about This buddika right now from a Flood thread of yours: http://EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic -->EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood TopicTC i'd have to Edge and buddika did an excellent job at refuting your mythology. Again here is a great example how you dodge importnat questions.
"
--Wow.. i'm blushing, really. Hows about one of those 'examples', eh?[edit] - Don't accuse me of dodging anything if you cant support that statement.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-22-2003]

"Sure i'd be glad to show you some concerning this topic"
--Such as?" http://EvC Forum: General Flood Topic -->EvC Forum: General Flood Topic "
--Read post #38, this does not qualify as support for your assertion that I 'dodge' questions." http://EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II -->EvC Forum: Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood II "
--I never participated in this thread." http://EvC Forum: Paleosols -->EvC Forum: Paleosols "
--Show me where I dodge the question in the Paleosols thread, not here. Also, that thread is very much still on my mind, I am waiting for Yuretich to send me copies of his articles. I also have a copy of his response toward edge's e-mail. Furthermore, I had a very interesting conversation with Yuretich himself via telephone.
--When I get a hold of the papers he is mailing me, the thread will continue. If you want to participate, post in the thread, you are welcome." http://EvC Forum: Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents -->EvC Forum: Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents "
--Now I'd really like to see your comments on my responses in this thread which indicate that I 'dodge questions'.-------------------

"TC you aren't capable of answering tough questions presented to you in those threads. yes you are dodging them as you have never answered them. You just replied "this is a problem for YECs" "
--And you call that dodging the question? This isn't working, try again. Do you even know what how the argumentum of dodging the question goes?-------------------

"yes i do call that dodging."
--Then you don't know what dodging the question is. You earlier stated, "yes you are dodging them as you have never answered them." Which implies that since the question was not answered, it therefore, was dodged. Such logic is sophistic and execrable reasoning. You must read very little of the mainstream scientific literature, because if you had, you wouldn't be making this ridiculous invective. There being an unsolved problem does in no shape or form constitute dodging the question. If you wish to maintain this accusation, your throwing the scientific methodology of science itself right out the window."You keep on trying to find facts that substantiate your claims while ignoring everything that hurts your argument. "
--I don't consider admittance of there being an unsolved problem dodging the question, let alone ignoring the question. But again, if you want to incessantly sustain either, I don't know why your even in a science based forum with that type of profligatious mind-set.
--Please, try again. I would, furthermore, wonder why you would even stop to think that Buddika had anything beneficial to say back in that[corrected] thread. The poor guy didn't even know what he was talking about the majority of the time, or even what he was arguing. He is long gone from this forum and the conclusions are self-evident. I would much rather hold discussions with those characterizing less ignorance and more intelligence here.--I am still waiting for something of substance from you, maybe you could be more specific in your examples?[Edit] - I just noticed your post #18, you didn't use the reply button when you responded so I hadn't noticed it:"and contradictions? Will you address the specific questions please?"
--Such as?"No you dodge them simply because you don't have an answer YET proceed to further your agenda by trying to support it from another angle."
--So you arent aware of the concept of indirect evidence? You should read up on the cosmogony of interstellar media and see just how theoretical reasoning is supported in that field."If the biblical message contradicts itself it isn't true no matter what other part of it may be true."
--I'm not here to argue a game of scriptural semantics with you. Just look at my message index and see how much interest I have in that area, I don't even know why I'm in this thread, but I guess its because I didn't notice that it was in the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum when I started posting."yes you do. How many times have you persued this flood thing? How many times have your angles been refuted? If any one of your angles have been refuted your entire theory as a whole collapses."
--Sure, in its current state is is not entirely tenable. No problem there. The problem you have is that you believe that since it's current condition is poor that it therefor has no room for improvement. When in all reality, there is more possible improvement than you wan't to believe. To me, that makes it just that more exciting to be apart of the research."Oh please you are nothing more than a bunch theists with outdated and refuted doctrines who like drowning men grasp at anything to try and stay afloat. Don't call me sophmoric when you believe in great sky fairy."
--I believe that is called an Argumentum ad Hominem, it also looks like you already have your premise, and you've made a narrow mind an indicative characteristic of yours. When you begin to respect me and my position, I might begin to respect you (I already respect your position when it comes to evolution).-------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2003][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-25-2003]