Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,147 Year: 5,404/9,624 Month: 429/323 Week: 69/204 Day: 11/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do creationists try to find and study fossils?
jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 32 of 182 (698031)
05-02-2013 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
05-02-2013 3:33 PM


Re: You're wrong on the fossil bit
Really?
Then how come we find human remains from the time of Adam that are NOT fossilized?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 05-02-2013 3:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 05-02-2013 3:44 PM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
(1)
Message 36 of 182 (698036)
05-02-2013 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
05-02-2013 3:44 PM


Re: You're wrong on the fossil bit
Oetzi is one good example but there are many, many more.
Sorry but the Biblical Flood never happened despite the fact that you fantasize that it did.
And there are no fossils that are less than ten thousand years old and maybe no fossils less than a hundred thousand years old.
The only evidence for a Biblical flood is in the imaginations of the deluded, the ignorant and the con men.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 05-02-2013 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 05-02-2013 3:56 PM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
(1)
Message 40 of 182 (698043)
05-02-2013 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
05-02-2013 3:56 PM


Re: You're wrong on the fossil bit
Still more misrepresentation and unsupported assertions I see.
Maybe for once you might produce some evidence to support your delusions?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 05-02-2013 3:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 05-02-2013 4:56 PM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
(1)
Message 44 of 182 (698047)
05-02-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
05-02-2013 4:56 PM


Re: You're wrong on the fossil bit
Actually Faith you are simply lying as usual. You did not point out that there was no evidence in the Oetzi thread, you simply as usual pulled the playground "Nah, nah, nah, I'm not listening" card. You said that you were not going to accept the evidence because it refuted your beliefs and then ran away.
For new folk, the thread is Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found.
But that is the same thing you always do. It's pitiful how weak, worthless and dishonest the faith you try to market is.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 05-02-2013 4:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 05-02-2013 5:05 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
(1)
Message 90 of 182 (698239)
05-04-2013 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
05-04-2013 1:51 PM


Faith writes:
If that's your criteria nothing from Old Earth geology qualifies either because obviously there is no way to prove the conditions existed that either theory argues for, they being in the unobservable past.
The past is unobservable only to the liars, con men and those who refuse to open their eyes.
Events leave evidence.
The past left evidence.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 1:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 9:52 PM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
(1)
Message 112 of 182 (698290)
05-05-2013 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Faith
05-04-2013 9:52 PM


a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Yes, the past left evidence, unique evidence such as the bazillions of fossils in the miles deep stack of sediments that has not occurred on such a scale since and never will. It is open to interpretation in a way evidence formed in the present is not because in the present you have similar events for comparison. That is not the case with the prehistoric past. The evidence remains open to interpretation. The same evidence you take to prove evolution I take to prove the Flood and I think the interpretation of a stack of neatly horizontal sediments as eras in time is stupid in the extreme.
No, once again what you are saying is simply not true.
There is no miles deep stack of sediments filled with fossils.
There is no single flood.
We did have similar events in the past.
We do know what the conditions were in the past, particularly the just yesterday past of when you seem to think the Biblical Flood happened.
You don't actually look at the evidence; if you honestly did that you would not say the things you say.
What you do is imagine and make up shit.
You imagine that the Biblical Flood caused volcanoes and earthquakes.
You imagine that the Biblical Flood killed all the animals and then also washed down miles of sediment to cover them.
You really don't have any actual evidence, just the fantasies in your head and the falsehoods that get published on Creationist and CCoI websites.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 05-04-2013 9:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:02 AM jar has replied
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:44 AM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 115 of 182 (698293)
05-05-2013 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
05-05-2013 9:02 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
I have. I have actually gone out and look at fossils in situ. I have actually looked at canyon wills and cuts, at new mountains and old mountains. I have helped on archeological digs that went back to well over 8000 years, long before the supposed flood where there was absolutely no signs of a flood and other similar aged sites where there were signs of numerous floods.
When someone honestly examines the evidence there can be no other conclusion than that the Biblical Flood never happened and that the fossil and just plain dirt confirm that the Biblical Flood never happened.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:51 AM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 118 of 182 (698297)
05-05-2013 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
05-05-2013 9:44 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Grand Canyon. One mile deep there up to the Permian, a mile deep of sediments chock full of fossils, and counting the layers in the Grand Staircase to the north as well, which would have also originally covered the Grand Canyon but clearly were washed away from that area, it's at least two miles of sediments chock full of fossils. And I've seen descriptions that claim more miles of depth than that in other parts of the world.
Again, that is a great example of the total dishonesty and misrepresentations of Creationists and how Creationists do NOT actually and honestly examine or study fossils or evidence.
The Grand Canyon is NOT "a mile deep of sediments chock full of fossils" as you certainly should know since you participated in the thread Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. until as usual you simply said "nah nah nah, I can't hear you" and ran away.
The Grand Canyon is a whole series of layers with different origins, produced by different processes, some containing fossils, some NOT containing fossils.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:44 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 10:04 AM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
(1)
Message 119 of 182 (698298)
05-05-2013 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Faith
05-05-2013 9:51 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Faith writes:
You cannot look at an archaeological dig or anything else and conclude that it's 8000 years old or any particular age, that's not something one can observe, it's all theory you impose on what you are looking at. And of course like all delusional OE evolutionists you have no idea what sort of evidence THE Flood would have produced and you stupidly think it could be compared to local floods.
Bullshit Faith, nothing but Bullshit.
Change leaves evidence.
Dig a trench and observe the layers of soil.
Dig a second trench a few yards away and observe the layers of soil.
First trench shows uniform soil top to bottom.
Second trench shows a series of alternating layers.
You can see from that that different processes happened at the two locations over time.
You most certainly can date materials found in the two trenches, particularly if the material is only 10-50,000 years old.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 9:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 10:10 AM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 122 of 182 (698301)
05-05-2013 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
05-05-2013 10:04 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Well folk can read the Grand Canyon thread and see if a Flood could explain what is presented or if it was an "idiotic thread".
But I note that you never presented the model or mechanisms to explain what is actually seen.
How does the Biblical Flood produce granite layers?
How does the Biblical Flood produce igneous layers and intrusions?
How does the Biblical Flood produce limestone layers?
How does the Biblical Flood sort the fossils by type?
How does the Biblical Flood produce alternating layers?
See this is the issue Faith, you answer to all that is just "the Flud Didit".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 10:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 12:16 PM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 123 of 182 (698302)
05-05-2013 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
05-05-2013 10:10 AM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
Change leaves evidence.
Dig a trench and observe the layers of soil.
Dig a second trench a few yards away and observe the layers of soil.
First trench shows uniform soil top to bottom.
Second trench shows a series of alternating layers.
This is not something one would actually find in reality a few yards apart. As usual you are making stuff up rather than giving actual evidence, you the master complainer about others not giving evidnece. You're always the worst offender. In fact I don't think you even know what evidence is.
Again, that is simply false; what I described is exactly what you find on the edges of any flood plain. It is something found all over the earth, time and time again.
AbE: this is a great example of how Creationists do NOT examine fossils or evidence.
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 10:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 12:19 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 130 of 182 (698317)
05-05-2013 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
05-05-2013 12:16 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
How does the Biblical Flood produce granite layers?
It doesn't, the volcano beneath the canyon did that in conjunction with the enormous weight of the stack of wet sediments above which at that point was at least two miles in depth or height.
Again, if you had actually looked honestly at the evidence you would know you are simply making shit up again.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
How does the Biblical Flood produce igneous layers and intrusions?
Again, the volcano beneath the canyon did that.
Except once again, the evidence shows you are just full of shit. What we see is that there was no single volcanic even or that the igneous layers were laid down from below.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
How does the Biblical Flood produce limestone layers?
By transporting and deposting bazillions of sea creatures, coccoliths for instance, or crinoids, in a layer which is then pressed down by the weight of other layers that accumulate over it as the Flood progresses.
More really stupid bullshit.
How does the Biblical Flood transport and deposit a layer of just one type critter?
Faith writes:
jar writes:
How does the Biblical Flood sort the fossils by type?
Presumably by some hydraulic principle that has nothing to do with the "type" as understood by evolutionists.
So again you are just making shit up.
Faith writes:
jar writes:
How does the Biblical Flood produce alternating layers?
The same way rivers do.
Rivers produce layers by happening over and over and over again. Rivers do not produce layers in one event.
Again, you are simply showing that like all Creationists you do not honestly examine fossils look for evidence, you just make shit up that suits what you want reality to be.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 12:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:13 PM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 133 of 182 (698321)
05-05-2013 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
05-05-2013 1:13 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
No Faith, you don't have a theory. Again, that is simply another example of the dishonesty of Creationists.
I believe you actually think you are being honest; I don't doubt you believe you are actually studying things or have a theory or have offered explanations.
What you believe is unrelated to either the truth or reality.
And the Biblical Flood was one event according to the Bible.
I asked how the Biblical Flood could produce layers of limestone. Not just one layer but a series of layers of limestone. Unless you can produce the mechanism that does produce a series of layers of limestone separated by layers produced by other processes you have no theory.
Creationists do not try to find and study anything. Period.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:31 PM jar has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 139 of 182 (698328)
05-05-2013 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
05-05-2013 1:31 PM


Re: a great example of how creationists do not study fossils.
Faith writes:
All the layers were produced by the SAME process and not different processes, and as for separated layers of the same sediment recurring in a given stack, why not? The Flood waters picked up whatever from wherever, limestone makings here, sandstone makings there, shale makings somewhere else, then more limestone makings from another source and so on and so forth.
Again, utter nonsense.
Making statements like that is just silly.
How did the flood waters do what you claim it did?
What is the mechanism for the flood to pick up just limestone making stuff and deposit just limestone making stuff, the cycle to just some other process, then return to the limestone process again.
How do it do that?
The conventional science explains such things.
You don't.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 05-05-2013 1:31 PM Faith has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34135
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 143 of 182 (698332)
05-05-2013 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Percy
05-05-2013 2:20 PM


Re: Steve Austin Nautiloid Article
Percy writes:
But I think at this point we can provide at least a preliminary answer to the question of this thread: yes, there is a creationist who has done some fossil research, his name is Steve Austin, he hasn't published this work in the technical literature, and it isn't available online.
Should that be "yes, there is a creationist who claims to have done some fossil research..."?
I've been going through Google Scholar trying to find something published by Steve Austin, the ICR geologist and haven't been able to find even one peer reviewed paper and even in the links to web pages from ICR and other similar Creation creations I've found not one references to actual data.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 05-05-2013 2:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Pressie, posted 05-06-2013 11:54 PM jar has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024