Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

quote:

---

I was talking about the old worn out theory of evolution, and it's senile proponents.

---

Actually, lots of new evidence is provided all the time. And you mhave yet to have anything to contradict this with, other than your "but I don't WANT it to be true" tirades. Perhaps for a creation ist that is proof, but to the rest of the world, wishful thinking is not evidence.This tread have MANY posts with solid and documented evidence, and also have lots of creationist posts of unsubstantiated claims that are not proven despite many requests. Seems that the tired arguments are coming from creationists, thus making your claim false.You are engaging in what mental health professionals call "projection."This message has been edited by Steen, 07-01-2004 07:26 PM

quote:

---

PS easy on the links, try using your own short words, if you can.

---

And yet you ask for evidence?I guess this is EVIDENCE that you don't actually pay attention to evidence, basing your postulations on what you WANT to be the truth, regardless of how true it is.Well, that's really not surprising, as this is the general M.O. of creationists.

quote:

---

And you are it seems engaging in what God calls "rejection"! -

---

Nope. Please don't make false claims about me. I don't reject God. I reject creationist lies that are blasphemous to God.

quote:

---

-of the truth, so that one actually will really genuinely start to believe the lie!

---

Rather, that's what creationists are doing.

quote:

---

Watch out. Truth turned into fables

---

Ah, like creationist wishful thinking and spun tales. Yes, we know them well.

quote:

---

(like granny bacteria, and the cosmic cup o soup)

---

Ah, more creationist claptrap and nonsense. Yes, we have ALOS seen that before.

quote:

---

and fables cited as evidence.

---

Now THAT we see all the time from creationists. That could be your autobiography.

quote:

---

Your evidence is my evidence too.

---

Well, only per creationists selectively using some scientific evidence out of context and then lying about the rest of it.

quote:

---

You just seem to project it into your fable, put on the evo robes, wave the hand, and expect everyone to say amen.

---

And once again, we see creationists like you lie about science.

Is Robert a troll? We see nonsense claims, argument by "because I say so" and refusal to deal with objections to his wild claims, as well as major inconsistencies in his claims.As such, there is nothing meaningful in his posts, nor in debating them.For me, I am done. Whether it is inane stupidity or deliberate dishonesty, robert brings nothing to the issues.This message has been edited by Steen, 07-11-2004 01:21 AM

Excellent point. Science gives us the "what," but religion gives us the "why." These two are not competitors, but rather are complementary to each other.

quote:

---

The Bible uses the word star for anthing in the universe unless otherwise stated. Even Mars would be a star.

---

God is ignorant of stars, planets and comets, then?

quote:

---

The stars coming to earth need not of hit in thier full size but just fragments of them.

---

Ah, because you say so? I am always astonished about the creationists' willingness to invent and assume stuff that never have even remotely been documented, just so their "true in every detail of every word" story of creation is to be believed to be absolutely correct in every detail.What you are saying here is that the Bible is wrong, and that God is ignorant. Yet, creationists insist that every word in the Bible is absolutely true. So Mars is a star, even if it is not. Yup, sure, whatever.

quote:

---

And explains the choas in the universe at present because of a comic war.

---

Really ? (I presume you mean "cosmic"?) Funny how that really isn't much emphasized, this physical chaos resulting from a "cosmic war"

quote:

---

The public believes experts. The experts present to the public they are sure of what they say by methods of fact finding and testing.
Yet in evolution this was changed.
Evolutionists said they proved wrong something and proved right something else based on thier expertism.
But actually they changed the rules (the scientific method) about how truth was to be found on these matters.

---

All science is being investigated through the same Scientific Method. As such, your claim sounds rather silly. I am sure that you wouldn't make it without proof, though, so please document where the Scientific Method has been "altered" for the scientific exploration of Evolution.Because, otherwise you are actually attacking ALL science as being deceptive and political.{Fixed quote box - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-26-2004 12:47 AM

quote:

---

We have ways of coming to conclusions.
We had and have the practice of assesing the evidence and drawing conclusions.
Yet on the matter of origins suddenly it is insisted there will be a new way of finding conclusions. And this way is not just for the field of science but all society is to accept this new way on the issue of origins.

---

And I say that you are outright lying about this. The same Scientific Method is applied to all science and have not been altered for biological sciences. Your false claim is pathetic.

quote:

---

YES YES YES We insist as is our right and history in America that revealed religion is a legitamate way to get truth.
Prove our revealations wrong. Fine.

---

That has been done, yes.

quote:

---

BUT you can not disqualify us from the race before it starts. This is what your doing when you say we must show evidence for the claims in Genesis BEFORE we can contend with opponents.

---

Which we are not doing. We are saying that trying to disprove the Scientific Theory of Evolution is not evidence for the Bible. We are ALSO saying that the creationist arguments against scientific findings have been disproven in the past, but your kind still dishonestly repeat them. And we are saying that the actual process of evolution is an outright fact, and that the only legitimate attack could be on the Scientific Theory of Evolution, the explanation 9of the mechanisms. But evolution itself has been outright observed and documented, and only dishonest fundie creationists are trying to deny that.

quote:

---

All we have to do is show our opponents have not proven thier case by evidence. Before resonable men.

---

That would be the Scientific Method, then, as is the case for all science, your lies none withstanding. And guess what, the Scientific Method HAS been apllied to the Scientific Theory (Since that is how it became a Scientific Theory) and found valid.

quote:

---

We don't need positive points to back up our positive assertions and all that.

---

Yes, you do, as the Scientific Theory already have been established. It is the best explanation that fits all the evidence. If you claim some other model, then the burden is on you to prove it so.

quote:

---

And indeed the origins debate is not about the Bible.but rather creationists attacking evolution which is the dominate position in the establishment though not the hearts of the American people especially the founder peoples.

---

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are still talking about abiogenesis after having been told that this is not part of the Scientific Theory of Evolution, then you are either dishonest or of lesser intellectual capacity.

quote:

---

Evolutionary biology,geology,cosmology, are studies of history. Not Scientific studies.

---

Amazing accusation. Undocumented, and contradicted by the scientific works in those fields, but that never stopped a creationist from lying before, and obviously is not stopping you now either.

I really can't agree. When somebody multiple times have had explained IN DETAIL the errors of their argument, makes no attempt at responding to this, merely repeating the original argument, then yes they are lying, they are deliberately spreading misinformation. At least in my opinion, that's the case.I see no real reason why Robert should not be held to task for deliberate misrepresentations?