The Genesis Conflict - 101 - The Earth in Time and Space

[LOki]

He was not a very good geology student.

That doesn't stop Veith or you from waxing knowledgeable on the subject, does it?

Why do they name the strata if that is the case ?

For the purpose of specifically referencing them in discussion is a pretty strong reason IMO.

They name them because each layer of strata represents a certain timeframe and that is their measuring stick for how old a fossil is.

Clearly you're not a good geology student either.

But what they don't want you to know is they have found fossils in the wrong strata.

Nonsense. Literally nonsense. As in, there is no sense in that assertion at all.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He was not a very good geology student.

That doesn't stop Veith or you from waxing knowledgeable on the subject, does it?

Why do they name the strata if that is the case ?

For the purpose of specifically referencing them in discussion is a pretty strong reason IMO.

They name them because each layer of strata represents a certain timeframe and that is their measuring stick for how old a fossil is.

Clearly you're not a good geology student either.

But what they don't want you to know is they have found fossils in the wrong strata.

Nonsense. Literally nonsense. As in, there is no sense in that assertion at all.

Read through this site and see how many things you said that was inaccurate.

SUMMARY OF THE STRATA PROBLEMS

Here are 13 reasons why the evolutionary strata theory is worthless.

What is really there? What we find in the strata agrees with Flood geology. Consider these facts:

1: We find pockets of certain animals and plants here and there, washed into place.

2: We find mixed up and missing strata everywhere we look.

3: We find geosynclines: twisted and folded mountains.

4: We find megabreccias: giant boulders washed into place, with strata washed in around it.

5: We find overthrusts and upside-down strata.

6: We find vertical tree trunks washed into place.

7: We find the slowest sea creatures in the bottom strata.

8: We find the slowest land animals higher up.

9: We find few birds, since they could fly to the highest points.

10: We find few apes and humans, since they could run to the highest places.

11: We find complex forms suddenly appearing in great confusion at the very bottom.

12: We find only separate, distinct, species.

13: We find species which have become extinct.

That is what we find, and it all agrees with Flood geology. And none of it agrees with evolutionary geology.—p. 52.


FOSSILS AND STRATA - 3

Hear learn something.

Fault Finding

 

[Youwerecreated]

He was not a very good geology student.

That doesn't stop Veith or you from waxing knowledgeable on the subject, does it?

Why do they name the strata if that is the case ?

For the purpose of specifically referencing them in discussion is a pretty strong reason IMO.

They name them because each layer of strata represents a certain timeframe and that is their measuring stick for how old a fossil is.

Clearly you're not a good geology student either.

But what they don't want you to know is they have found fossils in the wrong strata.

Nonsense. Literally nonsense. As in, there is no sense in that assertion at all.

Do you want to see the denial your side goes to,to keep their theory alive.

Suppressed evidence of human antiquity

 

[Youwerecreated]

He was not a very good geology student.

That doesn't stop Veith or you from waxing knowledgeable on the subject, does it?

Why do they name the strata if that is the case ?

For the purpose of specifically referencing them in discussion is a pretty strong reason IMO.

They name them because each layer of strata represents a certain timeframe and that is their measuring stick for how old a fossil is.

Clearly you're not a good geology student either.

But what they don't want you to know is they have found fossils in the wrong strata.

Nonsense. Literally nonsense. As in, there is no sense in that assertion at all.

Ever heard of polystrate trees found standing in several different layers of strata ?


Polystrate Trees

Images of polystrate trees.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pol...iQK6x9zwCg&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=601&sei= Ke2pTp3cK4KQiQL0hayJCw

 

[Montrovant]

You are being willfully obtuse. The term "what science teaches us" isn't to imply that it's declaring a law that everyone must adhere to. It's simply a statement of that is what science has come to believe and teach as true at this time.

It seems to me that you are doing everything within your power to avoid having to respond to the LEGITIMATE questions and answers that Veith highlighted about science. In fact it seems pretty clear that that is the case here sir.

I can't help but notice you are again incorrectly assuming that all scientific questions must be answered by any given "atheist" for all of science to be correct. This is childish reasoning. If you can't tell me what God's favorite pizza topping is, does that mean all of religion is wrong? What on earth do strata layers have to do with ANY POINT?

Despite this complete unrelated topics, Loki has answered you. Twice. And linked to his answers. And you continue to claim he hasn't answered. Are you purposely being evasive and avoidant while claiming he is? Or are you just blind?

Creationists have explanations why not you ?

And right there, as far as I'm concerned, you basically lose whatever credibility you may have had and concede all argument.

Explain to me, if you can, why someone must have explanations for everything? Or explain to me why someone must have explanations for things like the beginning of life or even the beginning of the universe?

In your mind, it seems, a person MUST cling to some explanation for these and other questions, whether they have convincing evidence or not, whether they have the education to know/understand the possibilities or not, whether they have put much thought into the questions or not.

Creationists may have explanations for any question ever asked, that in no way makes them correct. In fact, it has little bearing on whether they are right or wrong; except, perhaps, that the very fact that they may feel they have answers to every question automatically predisposes me to assume they are not trustworthy. No one has all the answers.

I cannot explain how life began. I cannot explain how the universe began. At best, I can give incomplete summaries of some of the theories other people hold, religious or scientific. I see no reason I should have answers to those questions. I don't need answers to those questions to consider evolution a seemingly sound scientific theory. I don't need those answers to believe in god(s), either.

If you are unwilling to admit ignorance, if you think everyone else is unwilling to admit ignorance, I think you are unlikely to ever seriously question your beliefs or give any true credence to anyone else's.

 

[konradv]

He was not a very good geology student.

That doesn't stop Veith or you from waxing knowledgeable on the subject, does it?

For the purpose of specifically referencing them in discussion is a pretty strong reason IMO.

Clearly you're not a good geology student either.

But what they don't want you to know is they have found fossils in the wrong strata.

Nonsense. Literally nonsense. As in, there is no sense in that assertion at all.

Read through this site and see how many things you said that was inaccurate.

SUMMARY OF THE STRATA PROBLEMS

Here are 13 reasons why the evolutionary strata theory is worthless.

What is really there? What we find in the strata agrees with Flood geology. Consider these facts:

1: We find pockets of certain animals and plants here and there, washed into place.

2: We find mixed up and missing strata everywhere we look.

3: We find geosynclines: twisted and folded mountains.

4: We find megabreccias: giant boulders washed into place, with strata washed in around it.

5: We find overthrusts and upside-down strata.

6: We find vertical tree trunks washed into place.

7: We find the slowest sea creatures in the bottom strata.

8: We find the slowest land animals higher up.

9: We find few birds, since they could fly to the highest points.

10: We find few apes and humans, since they could run to the highest places.

11: We find complex forms suddenly appearing in great confusion at the very bottom.

12: We find only separate, distinct, species.

13: We find species which have become extinct.

That is what we find, and it all agrees with Flood geology. And none of it agrees with evolutionary geology.—p. 52.


FOSSILS AND STRATA - 3

Hear learn something.

Fault Finding

All you're saying is that earth's geological history has been messy, but nothing suggests scientists' inability to make sense of it all.

 

[MarcATL]

And right there, as far as I'm concerned, you basically lose whatever credibility you may have had and concede all argument.

Explain to me, if you can, why someone must have explanations for everything? Or explain to me why someone must have explanations for things like the beginning of life or even the beginning of the universe?

In your mind, it seems, a person MUST cling to some explanation for these and other questions, whether they have convincing evidence or not, whether they have the education to know/understand the possibilities or not, whether they have put much thought into the questions or not.

Creationists may have explanations for any question ever asked, that in no way makes them correct. In fact, it has little bearing on whether they are right or wrong; except, perhaps, that the very fact that they may feel they have answers to every question automatically predisposes me to assume they are not trustworthy. No one has all the answers.

I cannot explain how life began. I cannot explain how the universe began. At best, I can give incomplete summaries of some of the theories other people hold, religious or scientific. I see no reason I should have answers to those questions. I don't need answers to those questions to consider evolution a seemingly sound scientific theory. I don't need those answers to believe in god(s), either.

If you are unwilling to admit ignorance, if you think everyone else is unwilling to admit ignorance, I think you are unlikely to ever seriously question your beliefs or give any true credence to anyone else's.

Let's go with this faith that you have.

You would like us to believe that at one point, there was nothing, then there was life.

Something banged together (out of nothing mind you) and there was life.

Even if it was microscopic, your belief is that somehow life came out of non-life.

And Christians are the nut jobs and whackos in your world.

Interesting.

 

[MarcATL]

All you're saying is that earth's geological history has been messy, but nothing suggests scientists' inability to make sense of it all.

No. You're missing the point here. All he's saying, sir, is that all the evidence points to a massive flood that covered the entire earth at some point in history. Using your billions of years of earth's existence theory, relatively recent history at that. That's all.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't think you understand what an atheist is.

I also don't think you grasp the concept that disproving science, or failing to do so in your case, in no way proves religion.

one is faith in science and one is faith in the super natural. Both are faith based

 

[MarcATL]

Ever heard of polystrate trees found standing in several different layers of strata ?


Polystrate Trees

Images of polystrate trees.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pol...iQK6x9zwCg&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=601&sei= Ke2pTp3cK4KQiQL0hayJCw

Interesting read.

I particularly liked the following quotes.

When debating, you will recognize a few key methods almost all evolutionists use. They begin by intimidating critics; avoiding hard questions by machinegun fire questions to smoke screen the issue they are attempting to avoid; and establishing themselves as authoritative by declaring their position to be evolutionary. Once they have declared themselves to be ‘inside the box’ of evolution, they can then use their own quotes as facts. The reasoning is if evolution is the only authoritative position and they stand inside that box, others can then assume their opinions are fact because of that authority.

We often see the claims of evidence without having to provide the evidence. While an evolutionist requires irrefutable proof, they avoid having to prove evolution by bombarding critics with accusations and attempting to create rabbit trails for others to chase. We a creationist calls a bluff, they are either ignored or accused of misquoted evolutionists. To avoid answering opposition or explaining how evolutions leaders contradict themselves and the facts, they accuse others of dishonesty and ignorance.

Boy if that doesn't describe a good chuck of the posters in this thread, I don't know what does.

 

[MarcATL]

I don't think you understand what an atheist is.

I also don't think you grasp the concept that disproving science, or failing to do so in your case, in no way proves religion.

one is faith in science and one is faith in the super natural. Both are faith based

One is faith in man (self) and one is faith in God (our Creator). Is a more simplified or another way to put it.

 

[Montrovant]

And right there, as far as I'm concerned, you basically lose whatever credibility you may have had and concede all argument.

Explain to me, if you can, why someone must have explanations for everything? Or explain to me why someone must have explanations for things like the beginning of life or even the beginning of the universe?

In your mind, it seems, a person MUST cling to some explanation for these and other questions, whether they have convincing evidence or not, whether they have the education to know/understand the possibilities or not, whether they have put much thought into the questions or not.

Creationists may have explanations for any question ever asked, that in no way makes them correct. In fact, it has little bearing on whether they are right or wrong; except, perhaps, that the very fact that they may feel they have answers to every question automatically predisposes me to assume they are not trustworthy. No one has all the answers.

I cannot explain how life began. I cannot explain how the universe began. At best, I can give incomplete summaries of some of the theories other people hold, religious or scientific. I see no reason I should have answers to those questions. I don't need answers to those questions to consider evolution a seemingly sound scientific theory. I don't need those answers to believe in god(s), either.

If you are unwilling to admit ignorance, if you think everyone else is unwilling to admit ignorance, I think you are unlikely to ever seriously question your beliefs or give any true credence to anyone else's.

Let's go with this faith that you have.

You would like us to believe that at one point, there was nothing, then there was life.

Something banged together (out of nothing mind you) and there was life.

Even if it was microscopic, your belief is that somehow life came out of non-life.

And Christians are the nut jobs and whackos in your world.

Interesting.

Thank you for continuing YWC's trend of assuming everyone has an explanation for whatever questions you might ask.

Did I say I know how life began? Or did I, in fact, say that I do not know how life began?

I went ahead and bolded the relevant part of my previous post, so that you can more easily see for yourself that you are simply ascribing beliefs to me that I have not professed.

If you cannot accept such simple statements and feel the need to declare I have faith in something I never claimed, how can you possibly expect me (or anyone else) to take what you say seriously?

 

[MarcATL]

Thank you for continuing YWC's trend of assuming everyone has an explanation for whatever questions you might ask.

Did I say I know how life began? Or did I, in fact, say that I do not know how life began?

I went ahead and bolded the relevant part of my previous post, so that you can more easily see for yourself that you are simply ascribing beliefs to me that I have not professed.

If you cannot accept such simple statements and feel the need to declare I have faith in something I never claimed, how can you possibly expect me (or anyone else) to take what you say seriously?

I know. You're actually proving my point.

You haven't a clue as to how life began, yet you're CERTAIN that earth is BILLIONS of years old.

Uncanny!

 

[Montrovant]

Again! Putting words in my mouth!

I'm pretty confident, based on all the evidence I've ever seen, that the earth is billions of years old. I wouldn't say I'm certain, and I'm pretty certain I've never said that I am here, but somehow you know that I am.

Of course, my thoughts on the age of the earth are not necessarily important to my thoughts on how life began. Still, for some reason, you think you know what I believe without any need of pesky things like statements from me. I guess I shouldn't bother posting anything, since you can do it for me!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ever heard of polystrate trees found standing in several different layers of strata ?


Polystrate Trees

Images of polystrate trees.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pol...iQK6x9zwCg&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=601&sei= Ke2pTp3cK4KQiQL0hayJCw

Interesting read.

I particularly liked the following quotes.

When debating, you will recognize a few key methods almost all evolutionists use. They begin by intimidating critics; avoiding hard questions by machinegun fire questions to smoke screen the issue they are attempting to avoid; and establishing themselves as authoritative by declaring their position to be evolutionary. Once they have declared themselves to be ‘inside the box’ of evolution, they can then use their own quotes as facts. The reasoning is if evolution is the only authoritative position and they stand inside that box, others can then assume their opinions are fact because of that authority.

We often see the claims of evidence without having to provide the evidence. While an evolutionist requires irrefutable proof, they avoid having to prove evolution by bombarding critics with accusations and attempting to create rabbit trails for others to chase. We a creationist calls a bluff, they are either ignored or accused of misquoted evolutionists. To avoid answering opposition or explaining how evolutions leaders contradict themselves and the facts, they accuse others of dishonesty and ignorance.

Boy if that doesn't describe a good chuck of the posters in this thread, I don't know what does.

That has happened in every debate I have participated in on evolution and creation.

You and those Quotes are spot on.

 

[LOki]

He was not a very good geology student.

That doesn't stop Veith or you from waxing knowledgeable on the subject, does it?

For the purpose of specifically referencing them in discussion is a pretty strong reason IMO.

Clearly you're not a good geology student either.

But what they don't want you to know is they have found fossils in the wrong strata.

Nonsense. Literally nonsense. As in, there is no sense in that assertion at all.

Ever heard of polystrate trees found standing in several different layers of strata ?


Polystrate Trees

Images of polystrate trees.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pol...iQK6x9zwCg&ved=0CEMQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=601&sei= Ke2pTp3cK4KQiQL0hayJCw

I've seen the superstitious use the term.

I understand what you're describing, to be petrified trees.

I fail to see your point in changing the subject to them. Particularly if it's to refute some point I've made.

 

[LOki]

You are being willfully obtuse. The term "what science teaches us" isn't to imply that it's declaring a law that everyone must adhere to. It's simply a statement of that is what science has come to believe and teach as true at this time.

It seems to me that you are doing everything within your power to avoid having to respond to the LEGITIMATE questions and answers that Veith highlighted about science. In fact it seems pretty clear that that is the case here sir.

I can't help but notice you are again incorrectly assuming that all scientific questions must be answered by any given "atheist" for all of science to be correct. This is childish reasoning. If you can't tell me what God's favorite pizza topping is, does that mean all of religion is wrong? What on earth do strata layers have to do with ANY POINT?

Despite this complete unrelated topics, Loki has answered you. Twice. And linked to his answers. And you continue to claim he hasn't answered. Are you purposely being evasive and avoidant while claiming he is? Or are you just blind?

Creationists have explanations why not you ?

It's easy for creationists to have an explanation ... they just made it up.

 

[LOki]

Let's go with this faith that you have.

You would like us to believe that at one point, there was nothing, then there was life.

Something banged together (out of nothing mind you) and there was life.

Even if it was microscopic, your belief is that somehow life came out of non-life.

And Christians are the nut jobs and whackos in your world.

Interesting.

This is the precise intellectual dishonesty (of the superstitious) that I speak of.

 

[LOki]

All you're saying is that earth's geological history has been messy, but nothing suggests scientists' inability to make sense of it all.

No. You're missing the point here. All he's saying, sir, is that all the evidence points to a massive flood that covered the entire earth at some point in history. Using your billions of years of earth's existence theory, relatively recent history at that. That's all.

I agree. He is indeed saying that "all the evidence points to a massive flood that covered the entire earth at some point in history."

And the fact of reality is that the entire body of known evidence on the subject points to something other than a massive flood that covered the entire earth at some point in history.

 

[LOki]

I don't think you understand what an atheist is.

I also don't think you grasp the concept that disproving science, or failing to do so in your case, in no way proves religion.

one is faith in science and one is faith in the super natural. Both are faith based

Nonsense. Faith is belief unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, and is validated by denial of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Faith only applies to your belief in the supernatural/