[_ Old Earth _] The Flaws of the Geologic Column (Timeline)

[Pard]

Barb, I got a favor to ask from you...

go answer my question here:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=48115&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

No one else seems to have an answer (maybe because they don't fit the description of the person I need to answer it) but I think you will.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Barb

Bronzesnake wrote; So let me get this straight.
You feel that it’s legitimate for you to use scientific evolutionary sources, but we can’t use scientific creation resources?

For the same reason you can't use orange leprechauns.

You could no more have atheistic or theistic science than you could have atheistic or theistic plumbing. Silly idea, that.

You just exposed yourself Barb.
I thought you were Christian? Those remarks are very Dawkins like.
If you are really a Christian then how could you have such a non Christian attitude?
You do believe in Jesus don't you? If yes, then tell me, how many orange leprechauns have you met?

I had serious doubts as to your true intentions here Barb.
I had wondered whether you're just one of those people who atheists are claiming to be Christian so that you can engage in written battle with "real" Christians.

I have engaged this kind before Barb, and you fit the bill.
I never read anything from you which defends Christianity. As a matter of fact, you really come across as having disdain for Christianity.
It's one thing to be a Christian theist, but when you make remarks such as these, you really do expose your true intentions.

Once again, almost your entire post has nothing to do with any real, honest topical discussion, but rather, once again, it is mostly unintelligent smart aleck remarks to a post that wasn't even addressed to you.


Take care.

John

 

[Evointrinsic]

So let me get this straight.
You feel that it’s legitimate for you to use scientific evolutionary sources, but we can’t use scientific creation resources?

Although Barbarian has already answered this, i'll make it more clear, as my original post seemed to somehow be incomprehensible. You are using a source, in which the former vice president of this source has stated that Creation is not science, there for creation can not be used to debate science.

Here is another very interestingly, and incredibly well put, statement.

[youtube:11ncmhcj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReV0nCuObcs[/youtube:11ncmhcj]

I’ve had this discussion before my friend. For some bizarre reason most people who ascribe to evolution can’t comprehend that the term “science†is not synonymous with the term “evolution†it is extremely perplexing.

And it is completely understandable how most people who do not understand science, can make statements such as these.

Instead of attempting to slander Christian scientists and their resources, why not let’s simply debate the science and the conclusions based on the science?

What i posted wasn't slander. If i were to say these people are liars and and untruthful without giving any evidence but simply stating that, then that would be slander. Fortunately, i gave an extraordinarily large amount of detailed and verifiable evidence to back my claims. thus, not slander.

I would never dream of suggesting atheists stop using their sources because my faith isn’t based on evolution, so please don’t ask me to stop using my sources.
You can’t comprehend that being a fundamentalist doesn’t only apply to Christianity.
I am a fundamentalist Christian in that I literally believe in creation.
You are fundamentalists also, in that you literally believe in evolution.

And I admire that in you Bronze. However, the facts that I have shown in my original posts do prove that the sources you have given aren't 100% reliable. I didn't say you cannot use those sources, I just said they were unreliable on the sense of debating science. Because of the ICR's impeccable number of even junior high school (middle school) scientific errors, it simply cannot be used as a credible source of information. If however you have found information from a credible source, then by all means give forth. I could care less what religious views the scientist (or anyone for that matter) has, as long as they can provide credible information. As Barbarian also has posted, there are Christian scientists who are credible, why not use them as your sources?

Look, perhaps I should take some time on this issue so it doesn’t come up again.
There is this seriously misguided idea that the only “real†scientists are evolutionists.
Well if that’s true then please answer me this...
Is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function?

I actually have never heard of anyone ever accusing Evolutionary Biologists as the only real scientists. In fact, I think Dr. Francis Collins is an absolutely brilliant scientist. He is a Geneticist, and is christian. I would also call Albert Einstein a scientist, believe it or not, he was a physicist.

Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution?

From the belief in evolution? no. from the fact of evolution, yes. and I quote Barbarian "Antibiotic protocols, for example. And comparative anatomy has had much to do with neurosurgery, based on the evolutionary connections between man and other animals. Of course, agronomists and animal breeders use evolutionary theory to make predictions about the fitness of new varieties. And now, bacteriologists are using evolutionary theory to predict the likely path of new antibiotic resistances."

The Barbarian has answered the next few bits of your post quite nicely too, so i'll leave you with his statements.

I’ve stated this before, and unfortunately it seems like I’ll have to repeat it again.
We cannot have a real, honest debate or discussion when one side seems incapable of recognising the other’s credentials.

I agree, So once you find that reliable information, then please post your new argument. I have clearly shown, however, that the ICR isn't reliable when it comes to debating scientific facts, theories, evidence and hypothesis.

Now, we can disagree on conclusions, but please, don’t ask us to stop using our creation science resources, and we won’t ask you to stop using your atheistic scientific resources.

You see, this is the mindset that worries me. I can honestly say that if you supplied as much information on the sources I used that shows them acting in a deceiving manner, I would stop using that source. But the fact that you've just neglected to even address any of the things i have said, but instead have avoided the information by your post i am addressing now. You've completely ignored all the evidence and continue to believe these specific people are telling 100% infallible truth. This I cannot possibly understand.

It seems a very weak and tenuous position when instead of debating the science we resort to personal attacks and ironic accusations.
Your source made some blanant personal attacks, and even gave an example of a creation scientists who had been incorrect on a matter.
Are you inferring that evolution scientists are always correct? Always honest and forthcoming?
I could spend days posting examples of evolution mistakes and dishonesty my brother, so let's not go there.

I'm not debating the "science" because you haven't presented any. The Barbarian has already shown this. My sources show that these specific individuals and companies have outright lied to people and slandered others. I am in no way saying the evolutionary biologists are always correct. that would be dishonesty of me. You, however, do assume all of yours are correct, regardless of how much evidence shows that they aren't. I am however saying that the sources you used are quite frequently incorrect, and in some cases, misunderstand virtually all of science. I also show how the sources you've used even stated themselves that creation isn't science. A scientific debate requires considerable expertise regarding the matter on either side, the ICR does not represent persons who have considerable expertise on this matter and I have demonstrated that.

Do I have to post another long list of creation scientists credentials do I?
Also, you must be aware of the famous and highly respected Christian scientists throughout the years right?
Isaac Netwon? Carl Linnaeus? Nicolaus Steno? Andrew Ure? John Murray? William Kirby?
George Young? James Clerk Maxwell? to name a few.

You don't seem to understand how I have no problem with having a Christian scientist present information in a scientific debate. However, the source you got your information from has a consistent record of incorrect statements and information as well as straight out lies. Because of this, and this only, that specific source cannot be used as credible evidence. By all means, use any other scientist who has a good track record and place up a new argument. I have no problem with this what so ever, regardless if that scientist is a christian, Muslim, atheist or even Scientology. As long as this individual has a good track record, then it is a good source of information. This isn't about belief, this is about credibility.

There’s also the seemingly inconsistent actions of evolution scientists to consider.
They tell us the universe, all the planets and suns, including our own planet Earth and all life are the result of some fluke, random, chance accident and yet they struggle and sweat to try and make sense of what they themselves claim to be chaos?

You see, this is what I am talking about. I assume you believe evolutionary biologists (aka "evolutionist scientist") actually says anything about the universe. have you honestly learned nothing from my other thread that tells you exactly what the theory of evolution is? Evolution has absolutely nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing!!! with the formation of the universe, or planets or suns or earth or even the start of life on earth. nor does it say anything about any of these things had anything to do with fluke, random, chance or accidents. They don't say this because evolution is only the description of how life (which was already on earth) is so diverse. that is it. You have just demonstrated that you nor whatever source you acquired that information from knows anything about the theory evolution.

They work and day and night at trying to produce life in the lab, and yet if they ever do wouldn’t that just prove life needs intelligent creators to come into existence?

Creating life in the lab has nothing to do with evolution! that only applies to abiogenesis! Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life. yet again you show in a different manner how you do not understand the theory of evolution.

If all life can happen by accident, then surely the finest scientists should be able to produce far greater examples using their brains and superior scientific knowledge

and you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of the theory of evolution. Tell me, why are you attempting to debate something you know nothing about?

Just to clarify, this all applies to the topic because the sources you used as evidence are your argument. This, and my original post are questioning the validity of your sources. this all applies to the topic on hand because of that.

 

[Barbarian]

Pard's question:

So, my question is posed to those among us, if there are any on this site, and I can think of one at least ;) :

How can you accept Jesus and the entire Christian doctrine and still profess that Genesis is wrong and the modern excuse for science is correct? Furthermore, how can you deny any part of the Bible and yet accept Christianity (or Judaism for that matter)?

Keep in mind that Genesis directly contradicts YE creationism (it does not rule out other forms of creationism). It neither supports nor denies science or other forms of creationism.

So the problem is, your premise is wrong. Scientists who are Christians accept Genesis as it is; YE creationists don't.

So, the question should be addressed to YE creationists.

 

[jasoncran]

barb, then according the real way of interpretation by you, what does that ages of these men who died, prior to the flood?

adam, methusaleh, and noah, and others who lived over a few hundred yr.

 

[Evointrinsic]

This seems to be getting more and more gradually off course....

 

[Bronzesnake]

This seems to be getting more and more gradually off course....

I agree, you did take this topic off course as soon as you attempted to hijack the term “scienceâ€
I’ll start a new thread which will expose what the term “science†actually means because the evolution minded people are having an extremely difficult time with it.
So let’s keep this debate relevant by discussing the science and not simply attacking people.

John

 

[Pard]

Pard's question:

So, my question is posed to those among us, if there are any on this site, and I can think of one at least ;) :

How can you accept Jesus and the entire Christian doctrine and still profess that Genesis is wrong and the modern excuse for science is correct? Furthermore, how can you deny any part of the Bible and yet accept Christianity (or Judaism for that matter)?

Keep in mind that Genesis directly contradicts YE creationism (it does not rule out other forms of creationism). It neither supports nor denies science or other forms of creationism.

So the problem is, your premise is wrong. Scientists who are Christians accept Genesis as it is; YE creationists don't.

So, the question should be addressed to YE creationists.

Perhaps the proper place to answer that would be int he the thread I linked ya... since that is the reason I linked you to it.

And Evo, I got sources that state that evolution is not science, therefore we cannot use evolutionary sources because they are not science... (I really do have a source that says that, well many... but I got this book I am reading right now and its title is basically "Evolution is Anything But Science."

 

[jasoncran]

very well ignore myq uestion here, barb ,and you may answer that when you feel the need. i have asked that before , and in another thread.

 

[Bronzesnake]

OK, let’s go into circular reasoning and the fossil record.
Fossils are dated by the rock they are found in. The rocks are dated by the fossils which are found in them. The fossils then are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships.
And so the main evidence for evolution is based on the assumptions of evolution!

OK Pard. I'll do better and stick strictly to the topic.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Pard]

Perhaps you all could bring this discussion here

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=48141

and stop hijacking my thread, since you obviously are not going to answer the problems posed to you... usually I find no answers and slander of signs of defeat... at least this is true when arguing with liberals

 

[Barbarian]

OK, let’s go into circular reasoning and the fossil record.
Fossils are dated by the rock they are found in.

Actually, not. The fossils originally were used by scientists (who were creationists) to date the rocks. They noted that certain fossils were always found in a certain level of the geologic column.

 

[Bronzesnake]

OK, let’s go into circular reasoning and the fossil record.
Fossils are dated by the rock they are found in.

Actually, not. The fossils originally were used by scientists (who were creationists) to date the rocks. They noted that certain fossils were always found in a certain level of the geologic column.

Could you provide examples?
Also, how exactly does that refute what I posted?

John

 

[Pard]

OK, let’s go into circular reasoning and the fossil record.
Fossils are dated by the rock they are found in.

Actually, not. The fossils originally were used by scientists (who were creationists) to date the rocks. They noted that certain fossils were always found in a certain level of the geologic column.

How about a source?

You see, I know for a fact that fossils are not only found at certain levels on the geologic column...

Actually, if you take a creationist stand point and look at the geologic column it literally matches how one would expect to see fossils laid out if there was a mass extinction by flooding.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Actually, if you take a creationist stand point and look at the geologic column it literally matches how one would expect to see fossils laid out if there was a mass extinction by flooding.

... I would like to see this evidence actually. we take a literal view point of the bible and say that all living things were created at once, than we would see human remains buried with remains of dinosaurs and modern chicken remains next to that of a Priscacara liops. But we don't.

 

[Pard]

Actually, if you take a creationist stand point and look at the geologic column it literally matches how one would expect to see fossils laid out if there was a mass extinction by flooding.

... I would like to see this evidence actually. we take a literal view point of the bible and say that all living things were created at once, than we would see human remains buried with remains of dinosaurs and modern chicken remains next to that of a Priscacara liops. But we don't.

Oh but we do! Science is just hiding it from you. Give me a day or so to compile a bunch of sources and the such.

 

[jasoncran]

pard for the sake of them, use any and all non thieistic sites.

 

[Pard]

pard for the sake of them, use any and all non thieistic sites.

Very true. In fact, if I wanted to be as much like an evolutionist as possible (for the sake of them believing me) I should propose a grand idea, like the theory of evolution and than have no fossil records to prove it! That would make my life easy, huh?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Actually, not. The fossils originally were used by scientists (who were creationists) to date the rocks. They noted that certain fossils were always found in a certain level of the geologic column.

How about a source?

Sure. Look here:
http://www.geologyclass.org/correlation_concepts.htm

Sedgwick was a friend of Darwin's and took him on as a student before he wrote his book, but completely disagreed with Darwin's theory. And yet, here he was, using index fossils. Surprise.

You see, I know for a fact that fossils are not only found at certain levels on the geologic column...

Cool. Show us a Triassic trilobite. Or a Cambrian rabbit.

 

[jasoncran]

pard, that was to show that some evolutionist are trying to be objective not to destroy what you are saying. one can counter agrue against evolution from secular humanist sources or the goverments sites.