Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well there we are. We do wonder why - and I can give you the answer Albert, my old mate. because people who believe all that Creationist, Young Earth, Genesis - literalist crud have a lot of money, a lot of exposure and a lot of influence and even if the Muslins weren't clambering on the creationism bandwaggon, there are a huge number of Christians who are opening Metro to kill the two hours on the underground from White city to Holborn and read 'Number of religious believers declines again - days of church numbered in years..' and they start panicking if they are census Christians and suddenly start regular church attendance, Sunday Bible class and sending out for Kent Hovind DvD's and they end up by believing this lunatic Eden and Flood crap just like Eusebius.
And they find bias confirmation in this hogwash and the only hope of them coming to their senses is when people like us show how it only looks convincing if you take the bits of the evidence that fits, lie about the rest so it looks like it does and ignore the remainder.
And that's why we put up with Eusebius and those similar pushing away the facts staring them in the face like the Whale's front flippers and slamming the mental windows when their imaginary world is collapsing and tell themselves it's just as they want to believe. Because it doesn't matter a tuppenny dip what he thinks or believes but because of his award -winning gutsiness in defending his deeply held religious faith in Eusebius -is -always- rightism, he enables us to repeatedly demolish the cruddy arguments peddled by Creationism, plus some ad hoc ones invented by himself.
Religion is also bullcrap, but that can wait Genesis is literally tru-ism is the the hard -target that requires the bunker-busters from the bomb-factory of TalkOrigins and others and the softer targets of the Vicar of the perish of Little Wittering kiddywinkies Sunday class of Jesus walked on water, turned a breadstick into a three course lunch and extracted a silver dollar from a sardine can be mopped up in due course.
Nonetheless, the videos proved my point. It's right before your eyes. It is proven. It can't be unproven. The video doesn't lie.
Nonetheless, the videos proved my point. It's right before your eyes. It is proven. It can't be unproven. The video doesn't lie.
It is refuted, at best irrelevant at worst a pack of lies. Give it up. You are deceiving no-one but yourself. If you can find any particular point that refutes my refutation, point it out and I'll deal with it, but blanket denial gets you nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I am a creationist. so the word "crud" should be used lightly. infact the only person I can see that is not a creationist is kat.
I always knew there was something a Bit Odd about you, Angle... particularly in the search for signs of Fundamentalism in any atheist that doesn't keep mousey quiet for fear of offending people who would be offended by his very existence, if he dared to reveal it.
And in fact I use all sorts of crud, crap and doo -doo lightly and I am not accountable to you, to Eusebius or any mythological ayatollah in the clouds, and only the Mods have the power of life and death over me. And if they can stand my crud, so can you.
It is refuted, at best irrelevant at worst a pack of lies. Give it up. You are deceiving no-one but yourself. If you can find any particular point that refutes my refutation, point it out and I'll deal with it, but blanket denial gets you nowhere.
And in fact I use all sorts of crud, crap and doo -doo lightly and I am not accountable to you, to Eusebius or any mythological ayatollah in the clouds, and only the Mods have the power of life and death over me. And if they can stand my crud, so can you.
Sorry but there is nothing for me to give up. You are deceiving others as well as yourself. The videos prove without a shadow of a doubt through scientific testing in the lab and in the field that it is the truth.
"If I can find a particular point"? How about we start with the very first words of the 1st video to the very last words of the last video with all the words in between.
You would have to prove their testings in the lab and field to be incorrect. You have not done so and in fact cannot do so. Give it up.
How about you even try to comprehend the objections to the video? It isn't so much that the experiments were wrong, but they do not prove a flood. It is just the same with Polystrates.
The strata deposits could in theory be laid down in a flood, graded by the material and covering a tree trunk with layers. it could also in theory be laid down by successive geological ages in both cases, so honours even that way. That would NOT disprove the Deep Time stratification theory as you seem to believe, even if there was no other evidence to consider.
But what the does for the Flood strata and polystrates argument is the evidence that the strata contains critters apparently graded by evolutionary development and polystrates apparently had other trees growing on top, which also became polystrates, which makes no sense other than in geological strata.
This has been explained before and you simply ignore it and bang on your video like it was Holy Writ and declare it true and perfect and utter refutation of all the evidence that doesn't fit it. As well as refuse to explain anything, but just refer to the whole thing, just as you refer us to books, sites and articles and tell us to do your research for you. I just wonder whom you think you are still fooling apart from yourself.
How about you even try to comprehend the objections to the video? It isn't so much that the experiments were wrong, but they do not prove a flood. It is just the same with Polystrates.
The strata deposits could in theory be laid down in a flood, graded by the material and covering a tree trunk with layers. it could also in theory be laid down by successive geological ages in both cases, so honours even that way. That would NOT disprove the Deep Time stratification theory as you seem to believe, even if there was no other evidence to consider.
But what the does for the Flood strata and polystrates argument is the evidence that the strata contains critters apparently graded by evolutionary development and polystrates apparently had other trees growing on top, which also became polystrates, which makes no sense other than in geological strata.
This has been explained before and you simply ignore it and bang on your video like it was Holy Writ and declare it true and perfect and utter refutation of all the evidence that doesn't fit it. As well as refuse to explain anything, but just refer to the whole thing, just as you refer us to books, sites and articles and tell us to do your research for you. I just wonder whom you think you are still fooling apart from yourself.
It is refuted, at best irrelevant at worst a pack of lies. Give it up. You are deceiving no-one but yourself. If you can find any particular point that refutes my refutation, point it out and I'll deal with it, but blanket denial gets you nowhere.
I always knew there was something a Bit Odd about you, Angle... particularly in the search for signs of Fundamentalism in any atheist that doesn't keep mousey quiet for fear of offending people who would be offended by his very existence, if he dared to reveal it.
And in fact I use all sorts of crud, crap and doo -doo lightly and I am not accountable to you, to Eusebius or any mythological ayatollah in the clouds, and only the Mods have the power of life and death over me. And if they can stand my crud, so can you.
Yeah, I am odd. Facts first. Then see how those facts interconnect. Form a story from those facts and interconnections. It is odd to think like that for most people. I don't have the luxury of say "Because it don't "mean" anything to me today it's not a fact anymore.". wish I could be that delusional though.
I have a creation story that I use. Period. It is not incorrect or correct. But It the best one we have today. So cruudy that one. Its at least as good as yours.
people lived by water back then. Areas that contain waters flood all the time. Everybody that lives near water has a flood story. Look at the Mississippi in the '90's. Can you image that flood happening 8000 years ago being a group of 100,000 people living next to that river? Buy the time the grandchildren got the story the whole world flooded. One person probably even predicted it and got his boat ready. Just like Isaac in the city of Galveston.
Let me ask you again eub. Why does the whole world have to flood for that story to be useful in teaching us to be ready? what, is it like? my god has a bigger flood?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,973,523 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
But they do prove a flood.
No, as there are many parts of the world which do not have a sedimentary rock overlay. These are often the oldest rocks, and a typical example is the Canadian Shield.
It only covers the majority of Canada, so obviously there was not a worldwide flood.
No, as there are many parts of the world which do not have a sedimentary rock overlay. These are often the oldest rocks, and a typical example is the Canadian Shield.
It only covers the majority of Canada, so obviously there was not a worldwide flood.
Then there are those ubiquitous sedimentary rocks which were deposited through aeolian processes. It's going to be tough to explain these being deposited while a flood is occurring. And by tough, I am being extremely generous. IOW, they would not exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
infact the only person I can see that is not a creationist is kat.
Genesis is literally tru-ism is the the hard -target that requires the bunker-busters from the bomb-factory of TalkOrigins and others and the softer targets of the Vicar of the perish of Little Wittering kiddywinkies Sunday class of Jesus walked on water, turned a breadstick into a three course lunch and extracted a silver dollar from a sardine can be mopped up in due course.
