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

[LOki]

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.

LOLsome.

Patently obvious pathological projection. BRAVO! to your stoic commitment to intellectual dishonesty.

 

[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

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

Nonsense. Science's foundations in rational beliefs cannot be honestly confused with superstitious beliefs founded upon faith.

 

[LOki]

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.

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.

I won't dispute this claim as you apply it to any debate other than the one you're having with me; in that case, your claim applies to you, and those who have posted in support of your assertions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

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.

The article explained it very well.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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/

Macro-evolution cannot be tested, studied, or observed. so is this belief based in science or faith ?

 

[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

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/

It's still faith based.
Here's an example even though thousands of planes fly everyday without a problem Some do encounter problems and crash Even though it's proven that fling is safe. You are still putting your faith in man an science to get you to your destination alive.

 

[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.

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.

LOLsome.

Patently obvious pathological projection. BRAVO! to your stoic commitment to intellectual dishonesty.

Those comments are spot on just look at any of the threads in this forum on the subject and look at the comments coming from your side.

You don't like it because creationists know how your side will act before they act.

You have called me dishonest for asking legitimate questions or ask you to back your claim with evidence. I have given plenty of explanations for my beliefs and I offer evidence but I am being intellecually dishonest according to your side.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Interesting read.

I particularly liked the following quotes.





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

LOLsome.

Patently obvious pathological projection. BRAVO! to your stoic commitment to intellectual dishonesty.

Those comments are spot on just look at any of the threads in this forum on the subject and look at the comments coming from your side.

You don't like it because creationists know how your side will act before they act.

You have called me dishonest for asking legitimate questions or ask you to back your claim with evidence. I have given plenty of explanations for my beliefs and I offer evidence but I am being intellecually dishonest according to your side.

Here's an argument for you The pro evolutionist are Humpy and Alice is played by the part of the creationist

As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice:


There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master – that's all.'

 

[LOki]

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.

The article explained it very well.

The article rationalized superstition, that much is true, but I still fail to see why you're changing the subject, or how your misrepresentations of the claims of others serves to refute any point I've made.

 

[LOki]

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/

Macro-evolution cannot be tested, studied, or observed. so is this belief based in science or faith ?

There is no meaningful distinction to be made between macro-evolution and micro-evolution; it's just evolution. The macro/micro evolution distinction is made only by the superstitious to rationalize their denials of verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, in an effort to validate their faith.

 

[LOki]

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/

It's still faith based.

This denial of reality is an example of one of the hallmarks of faith.

Here's an example even though thousands of planes fly everyday without a problem Some do encounter problems and crash Even though it's proven that fling is safe. You are still putting your faith in man an science to get you to your destination alive.

What you describe here is not faith. It is accepting risk based upon evidence. Faith denies evidence.

The proper example to illustrate faith would be jumping off a skyscraper, expecting to fly to your chosen destination safely, because you have faith in the safety of flying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The article explained it very well.

The article rationalized superstition, that much is true, but I still fail to see why you're changing the subject, or how your misrepresentations of the claims of others serves to refute any point I've made.

This from someone that would have to believe non-living matter created life

 

[LOki]

Interesting read.

I particularly liked the following quotes.





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

LOLsome.

Patently obvious pathological projection. BRAVO! to your stoic commitment to intellectual dishonesty.

Those comments are spot on just look at any of the threads in this forum on the subject and look at the comments coming from your side.

You don't like it because creationists know how your side will act before they act.

You have called me dishonest for asking legitimate questions or ask you to back your claim with evidence. I have given plenty of explanations for my beliefs and I offer evidence but I am being intellecually dishonest according to your side.

Your questions were demonstrated to NOT be legitimate, as they were demonstrated to be challenging assertions NOT made by those you are challenging.

These are intellectually dishonest tactics, as is your current denial of reality expressed above.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The article explained it very well.

The article rationalized superstition, that much is true, but I still fail to see why you're changing the subject, or how your misrepresentations of the claims of others serves to refute any point I've made.

I did not change the subject,you said it was intellectually dishonest to say many fossils were found in the wrong strata and I posted many things showing you to be wrong.

And if you can't understand the problem polystrate trees present for the geologic timeline, and the age of fossils, and the earth you are blind.

Not to mention the many fossils found in the wrong strata as well.

 

[LOki]

The article explained it very well.

The article rationalized superstition, that much is true, but I still fail to see why you're changing the subject, or how your misrepresentations of the claims of others serves to refute any point I've made.

This from someone that would have to believe non-living matter created life

Again, but not the least bit surprising considering the strength of your past record, you dishonestly assert that I make a claim that I do not make.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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/

It's still faith based.

This denial of reality is an example of one of the hallmarks of faith.

Here's an example even though thousands of planes fly everyday without a problem Some do encounter problems and crash Even though it's proven that fling is safe. You are still putting your faith in man an science to get you to your destination alive.

What you describe here is not faith. It is accepting risk based upon evidence. Faith denies evidence.

The proper example to illustrate faith would be jumping off a skyscraper, expecting to fly to your chosen destination safely, because you have faith in the safety of flying.

Actually no it's not You are putting your faith in man an science to get you where you want to go. Most people do not know the mechcanics in how a planes flies, but they put their faith and trust in man made object everytime they leave the ground.

 

[LOki]

The article explained it very well.

The article rationalized superstition, that much is true, but I still fail to see why you're changing the subject, or how your misrepresentations of the claims of others serves to refute any point I've made.

I did not change the subject,you said it was intellectually dishonest to say many fossils were found in the wrong strata and I posted many things showing you to be wrong.

And if you can't understand the problem polystrate trees present for the geologic timeline, and the age of fossils, and the earth you are blind.

Not to mention the many fossils found in the wrong strata as well.

There is no such thing as "wrong strata." And "polystrate trees" is term meaningful only to the superstitious who simply refuse to accept that the formations they refer to are inconsistent with validly presented old earth descriptions of the sedimentary formations they are found in.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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/

It's still faith based.

This denial of reality is an example of one of the hallmarks of faith.

Here's an example even though thousands of planes fly everyday without a problem Some do encounter problems and crash Even though it's proven that fling is safe. You are still putting your faith in man an science to get you to your destination alive.

What you describe here is not faith. It is accepting risk based upon evidence. Faith denies evidence.

The proper example to illustrate faith would be jumping off a skyscraper, expecting to fly to your chosen destination safely, because you have faith in the safety of flying.

Faith denies evidence partly true but this happens all the time. Macro-evolution the main theory now is mutations is the engine that drives macro-evolution but it is clear that mutations do very little or are very harmful to the organism. But your side ignores the evidence and are going on faith to believe it is the engine that drives Macro-evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LOLsome.

Patently obvious pathological projection. BRAVO! to your stoic commitment to intellectual dishonesty.

Those comments are spot on just look at any of the threads in this forum on the subject and look at the comments coming from your side.

You don't like it because creationists know how your side will act before they act.

You have called me dishonest for asking legitimate questions or ask you to back your claim with evidence. I have given plenty of explanations for my beliefs and I offer evidence but I am being intellecually dishonest according to your side.

Your questions were demonstrated to NOT be legitimate, as they were demonstrated to be challenging assertions NOT made by those you are challenging.

These are intellectually dishonest tactics, as is your current denial of reality expressed above.

So you're rewriting geology textbooks that say it took millions of years for each layer of strata to form ?

 

[LOki]

It's still faith based.

This denial of reality is an example of one of the hallmarks of faith.

Here's an example even though thousands of planes fly everyday without a problem Some do encounter problems and crash Even though it's proven that fling is safe. You are still putting your faith in man an science to get you to your destination alive.

What you describe here is not faith. It is accepting risk based upon evidence. Faith denies evidence.

The proper example to illustrate faith would be jumping off a skyscraper, expecting to fly to your chosen destination safely, because you have faith in the safety of flying.

Actually no it's not You are putting your faith in man an science to get you where you want to go.

This is nonsense, and I explained it to you clearly.

Most people do not know the mechcanics in how a planes flies, but they put their faith and trust in man made object everytime they leave the ground.

This specific lack of knowledge of the mechanics of airplanes is irrelevant; where the risks involved in flight are calculated based upon evidence, faith is simply not involved.