Jump to content


Photo

What Can We Agree On?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
55 replies to this topic

#41 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 17 June 2010 - 11:20 PM

No they are completely random and mixed up. Look up Out of Place fossils on the net, this is a problem evolutionist face since they equate strata to certain fossils and then every once and awhile an out of place fossils appears. Creationists believe all of the strata was created rapidly, so the fossils will be mixed. There is no fossil pattern.
They are found in random places, hence why  evolutionists coined their ''out of place'' fossils. There is no pattern.

View Post


This is the problem with much creationist thinking. You said, "Creationists believe all of the strata was created rapidly, so the fossils will be mixed." Yes, I think you nailed it on the head. You come to the conclusion that fossils will be mixed because your model is one of strata being created rapidly in a worldwide flood. On the other hand the scientific approach is to actually study the occurence of fossils in strata and then draw a conclusion, instead of making a claim that the fossils are found at random because that is what you expect to see from the model you hold as inviolate. That is what William Smith did, and his conclusion was not one that came from being forced to conform with a model, as your conclusion is. This one isn't even close. Going to virtually any outcrop with fossiliferous rock and looking at the changes in the fossils through successive layers will show that your conclusion does not fit what is actually found.

#42 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 01:11 AM

Ikester has done the same thing. Started with the theory and then interpreted the evidence to fit it (see his last post about us not knowing the laws of physics are have always been the same, where he has taken the Biblical timeline of 6,000 years and now must find ways to change the laws of physics to show that this is correct).

In both these cases, they are not looking at the evidence. Bobabelever is the only creationist in 10 years to do that.

Cass, Ikester: To make it simple (not insulting your intelligence, just going back to first principles), let us look at one particular area.

From anywhere in the world in which fossils are found choose one area at random, or pick one that you know of.

I will be able to tell you what fossils are found there.

Let us once again look at my five points:

1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.
2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .
3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.
4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)
5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.

Cass, Ikester, which of these do you agree/disagree with?

I accept the possibility that there may be out-of-place fossils, and if directed to the best one or two I will examine the evidence, but don't bombard me with loads of them as that won't help, but leaving that issue on one side.

You cannot argue with point 1.
Point 2 I would say has been empirically verified.

I'll tell you what. Let's just stick to points 1 & 2 for now.

These have been empirically verified. Do you have problems with these two points?

#43 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 18 June 2010 - 03:40 AM

I accept the possibility that there may be out-of-place fossils, and if directed to the best one or two I will examine the evidence, but don't bombard me with loads of them as that won't help, but leaving that issue on one side.

View Post


I do not accept that there are "out of place fossils"....there may be some fossils that appear to anomalously present in strata. Most often the explanation can be found with further study. I have been involved in such work myself.

#44 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 03:47 AM

They are more than welcome to suggest some for me to investigate personally. All the ones that I've been pointed to before have been shown to be either fakes, mistakes, misrepresentations or misunderstandings.

It would be completely unfair of me to ask them to look carefully at evidence and then dismiss anything that could possibly counter such evidence. There could be one that does it. The "rabbit in the cambrian" fossil that if I spot the significance of first will make me famous.

I'm a born optimist, I guess.

#45 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 June 2010 - 03:55 AM

Ikester7579, you have done just what I have been trying to avoid, bring theory into it.

All that stuff about the Bible and cooking and times being out because we don't know that the laws of nature have always been the same - I'll go along with all of it.  Okay, all the rocks were formed in the last 6,000 years.  Fine.  That does not change the empirical evidence:

1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.
2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .
3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.
4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites[/i[ is always found in layers below the Carboniferous [i]Cycadophyta)
5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.

Well the problem with all this, you don't have an actual process of how the layers got laid down like they did. And the evidence is not empirical if what you claim is not observable or testable in a lab. The layering, through hydrologic sorting, is observable.



Can you show me an actual process in which the layers go there any other way? One where you can actually test it in a lab? Now that would be empirical. But words of what happened only make it to half way of being empirical. Anyone can find something and make up a story about what happened and how it got there. But when you can back it up with actual observable process, then you can claim empirical.

Also, if you take a fossil that is only 4 thousand years old, bury it in a layer that dates 4 million years old. The dating markers are going to cross contaminate the fossil and make the fossil date the same as the layer. So is a fossil that dates the same as the layer really 4 million years old, or is it cross contaminated by the age of the layer which "makes" it date that old?

It's like the problem with the big bang and age. If I take a rock that dates 12 billion years old, and blow it up. Will the fragments of that rock date 12 billion also, or will they date ages ranging from 1 billion and up? And what would make the fragments date different from the source of those fragments (the original rock)? Or in the case of the big bang, the original dot? So you see, measuring time through the age of how something dates is flawed because you cannot tell me how or why it dates as old as it does. You take it as that date because it conveniently dates just right for what you want to be true.

Look at these points.  No mention of the laws of nature, no readings from the Bible, no attempt at explaining why these things are as they are.  Just the evidence.

Real empirical evidence does not require interpretation to fill in the blanks. Observing the actual process of the interpretation of the evidence would make it empirical. I love the way you guys are quick to throw around the word empirical, yet you cannot even list what parts of your evidence is actually empirical. So I will do it for you. Here are the things of a fossil that are empirical.

1) You can observe what layer it's in.
2) You can date it's age.
3) You can usually determine it's species.

The rest of what is claimed is all just words with zero observable processes. So that makes the so called empirical evidence supporting your claims totally only make it to the halfway point. Unless you want to start showing us these processes of the claims that are made?

Will you do as I have done and take of your preconceptions and say which of the five points you think are true empirically?

You may think I am wrong, and I will listen (there is already the outstanding point of out-of-place fossils for me to deal with) but I will not hear listen to theory or explanation.

View Post

You see when it comes to doing what you actually said you would do, you fail. Instead of listening to what anyone else has said to the point you would claim you would, you immediately go into protection mode in defense of what you already believe because you saw that what I said has some merit. And you were afraid that if you did not post in defense of what you currently believe, that someone might actually give it some thought.

This is why I did not believe you when you claimed you could do away with what you currently believe to look at what others believe. It's ingrained into your mind what is a true fact and a absolute. So for you it's impossible to do.

Do you know the main reason it failed?

1) If the idea you despise most gets a upper hand and looks feasible. You go on automatic defense mode to protect your idea.
2) You take offense to anything that would dare to challenge what you believe.
3) You have already made up your mind on what is true.

To do what you claimed you would, you would have to:

1) Become totally neutral on the subject.
2) Not take offense when someone posts what they believe. What we debate here is not going to change the evolution vs creation controversy. And until you realize this, you are not going to be able to do this. Because if you did allow a creationist to make a point here, do you not think another atheist at another forum would knock it down? Do you think that someone would read what was said here and go: O my gosh. The atheist allowed the creationist to make his point and now evolution has been totally proven wrong. Never happen. But you are so afraid that it will, you cannot do this without reverting back to defending what you believe every time a creation point is made.
3) The thing you will hate most, which is to ask questions to push the creationist to answer to support what is claimed. How else are you going to find out what it is you claim you want to find out?
4) Quit fearing being converted. If the evidence is that convincing that you could convert, why would you fear the truth? Because as so many evos claim, creation has no evidence so what's to fear unless the claim is untrue?

So as you see, doing what you want in this thread is not as easy as you try and make it seem. How I know is because I debated a subject that I really wanted truth on for 3 years. It did not become clear to me until I took a neutral stance and allow what I deem as the thing (the Bible) that guides a person to truth to show me. It was a scary thing to allow something else to guide me through it instead of allowing what I was already taught as truth. But now it's so clear that I can now debate anyone on this idea and prove them wrong to the point they leave the debate. Just got finished with a debate on youtube on this subject. And because I made the point using scripture and he did not want to be corrected. He left the debate and said he did not want to debate me ever again. It's on Biblical doctrine in case you are wondering.

#46 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 05:22 AM

Well the problem with all this, you don't have an actual process of how the layers got laid down like they did. And the evidence is not empirical if what you claim is not observable or testable in a lab. The layering, through hydrologic sorting, is observable.


Do you read the actual words I write? I have never mentioned any process. I am trying to get some creationists to just look at the evidnce. I will accept hydrological sorting if you feel you need to have a theory to comfort you.

The evidence of the five points is empirical. The evidence of any theory that explains them is not necessarily so.

Can you see the difference between these two ponts:

1. There are layers of fossils and particular fossils are always found with other ones.
2. Layers of fossils are lain down over millions of years.

Look carefully. The first one is something that you could show a child with no knowlegde of science. Point 2 would require justification to back it up and explanations.

I am only talking about point 1.

Can you show me an actual process in which the layers go there any other way? One where you can actually test it in a lab? Now that would be empirical. But words of what happened only make it to half way of being empirical. Anyone can find something and make up a story about what happened and how it got there. But when you can back it up with actual observable process, then you can claim empirical.


I am not explaining anything, just looking at what there is to explain. Answer whether you agree or disagree with points 1 – 5, please.

Also, if you take a fossil that is only 4 thousand years old, bury it in a layer that dates 4 million years old. The dating markers are going to cross contaminate the fossil and make the fossil date the same as the layer. So is a fossil that dates the same as the layer really 4 million years old, or is it cross contaminated by the age of the layer which "makes" it date that old?


Great, so the explanation that you have said that I hold is incorrect. I’ll go along with that, I can’t explain it, but are trilobite fossils only found in rocks that we label as cambrian -> permian?

It's like the problem with the big bang and age. If I take a rock that dates 12 billion years old, and blow it up. Will the fragments of that rock date 12 billion also, or will they date ages ranging from 1 billion and up? And what would make the fragments date different from the source of those fragments (the original rock)? Or in the case of the big bang, the original dot? So you see, measuring time through the age of how something dates is flawed because you cannot tell me how or why it dates as old as it does. You take it as that date because it conveniently dates just right for what you want to be true.


The Big Bang is irrelevant to a discussion about rocks and fossils (though if you think anything with mass blew up then you misunderstand the physics).

You have convinced me, though. The dates are wrong. I hold up my hands and say I will not accept the dates of the rocks without better evidence but are trilobite fossils only found in rocks that we label as cambrian -> permian?

Real empirical evidence does not require interpretation to fill in the blanks. Observing the actual process of the interpretation of the evidence would make it empirical. I love the way you guys are quick to throw around the word empirical, yet you cannot even list what parts of your evidence is actually empirical. So I will do it for you. Here are the things of a fossil that are empirical.

1) You can observe what layer it's in.
2) You can date it's age.
3) You can usually determine it's species.

Fantastic. This is actually more than I’ve asked for. I take it you agree that trilobite fossils are only found in rocks that we label as cambrian -> permian?


The rest of what is claimed is all just words with zero observable processes. So that makes the so called empirical evidence supporting your claims totally only make it to the halfway point. Unless you want to start showing us these processes of the claims that are made?


YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! What claims have I made? Read what I havbe written.

You see when it comes to doing what you actually said you would do, you fail. Instead of listening to what anyone else has said to the point you would claim you would, you immediately go into protection mode in defense of what you already believe because you saw that what I said has some merit. And you were afraid that if you did not post in defense of what you currently believe, that someone might actually give it some thought.


All I said was that for you to accept that the 6,000 years you have to assume the laws of physics have changed:

My claim:

see his last post about us not knowing the laws of physics are have always been the same, where he has taken the Biblical timeline of 6,000 years and now must find ways to change the laws of physics to show that this is correct


Your claim:

Science cannot prove that the laws of time, nor the laws of physics stayed the same through out time.


See, I just repeated what you have said. That isn’t going on the defensive.

This is why I did not believe you when you claimed you could do away with what you currently believe to look at what others believe. It's ingrained into your mind what is a true fact and a absolute. So for you it's impossible to do.


Even if my ideas are ingrained, it does not stop these being true:

1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.
2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .
3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.
4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)
5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.


Do you get this? No theory is involved in the above five points. Show me how evolutionist assumptions can affect the position of Cycadophyta in relation to Prototaxites?

Do you know the main reason it failed?

1) If the idea you despise most gets a upper hand and looks feasible. You go on automatic defense mode to protect your idea.
2) You take offense to anything that would dare to challenge what you believe.
3) You have already made up your mind on what is true. 

This sounds so much like projection to me.

To do what you claimed you would, you would have to:

1) Become totally neutral on the subject.
2) Not take offense when someone posts what they believe. What we debate here is not going to change the evolution vs creation controversy. And until you realize this, you are not going to be able to do this. Because if you did allow a creationist to make a point here, do you not think another atheist at another forum would knock it down? Do you think that someone would read what was said here and go: O my gosh. The atheist allowed the creationist to make his point and now evolution has been totally proven wrong. Never happen. But you are so afraid that it will, you cannot do this without reverting back to defending what you believe every time a creation point is made.
3) The thing you will hate most, which is to ask questions to push the creationist to answer to support what is claimed. How else are you going to find out what it is you claim you want to find out?
4) Quit fearing being converted. If the evidence is that convincing that you could convert, why would you fear the truth? Because as so many evos claim, creation has no evidence so what's to fear unless the claim is untrue?

First and foremost, I have no fear of conversion. My mind and opinions change so often that I tell people that I collect paradigms. I have been told that nothing I can do, being so mired in sin, can make me right with God. It is the miracle of God’s grace that saves us and nothing we can do can earn it. At the moment I don’t believe, but if God’s grace falls on me then I will. No problem at all.

Next, read my posts. Continually I have said I will accept the Biblical account, flood geology and within this post hydrological sorting. If that isn’t being neutral (for an evo) then what is?

I haven’t taken offence at anything apart from where Cass called me a liar. Your position as a YEC is not something that I find personally offensive. Read the last few posts in this thread (http://www.evolution...opic=3320&st=80) and you will see that I am asking questions of a creationist to try and understand something that is way over my head.

The other thing you put, your point 3, confused me at first but I get it now. You think I am afraid of the creationist arguments and that is why I won’t talk about theories. Understand, I have been debating this subject for 10 years. I have heard them before. What I have only once heard is a creationist say they will look purely at the evidence, and that was Bobabelever on this site.

So as you see, doing what you want in this thread is not as easy as you try and make it seem. How I know is because I debated a subject that I really wanted truth on for 3 years. It did not become clear to me until I took a neutral stance and allow what I deem as the thing (the Bible) that guides a person to truth to show me. It was a scary thing to allow something else to guide me through it instead of allowing what I was already taught as truth. But now it's so clear that I can now debate anyone on this idea and prove them wrong to the point they leave the debate. Just got finished with a debate on youtube on this subject. And because I made the point using scripture and he did not want to be corrected. He left the debate and said he did not want to debate me ever again. It's on Biblical doctrine in case you are wondering.

That sounds like you are just ramming your point home until people get tired and walk away rather than engaging in debate. I wouldn’t be proud of that record, personally. I am proud that Bobabelever listened, and I am proud that people on this site have said I’m not like any other evo. My aim is purposeful dialogue. Already I have learned from Cass that some creationists don’t believe in Natural Selection and frpm Alan I am learning about recombination and selection and ultimately (I hope) get my head around some of the maths he is talking about. That will be a long process, though.

I have learned so much from creationists on this site, even though I have only been here for about a week. I hope to learn a huge amount more. I will listen to your ideas when we discuss them. I will listen to your objections when we talk about processes, until we start discussing them, can you say categorically whether you agree with my five points?

#47 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 18 June 2010 - 06:12 AM

There's a difference between these 2 questions:
1. Is the sky blue?
2. Why is the sky blue?

PhilC is effectively only asking if you'd give an affirmative answer or not to question 1. Instead of answering, you just argue against the dogmatic evolutionary lies used to explain to question 2.

If you guys don't want to play, then why not just say so? Are you afraid of an alterior motive or something?

#48 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 06:21 AM

Brilliant, Falcone.

You have hit the nail on the head exactly.

#49 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 18 June 2010 - 11:49 PM

Well the problem with all this, you don't have an actual process of how the layers got laid down like they did. And the evidence is not empirical if what you claim is not observable or testable in a lab. The layering, through hydrologic sorting, is observable.



Can you show me an actual process in which the layers go there any other way? One where you can actually test it in a lab? Now that would be empirical. But words of what happened only make it to half way of being empirical. Anyone can find something and make up a story about what happened and how it got there. But when you can back it up with actual observable process, then you can claim empirical.because you saw that what I said has some merit. And you were afraid that if you did not post in defense of what you currently believe, that someone might actually give it some thought.

View Post


Go to a beach and observe the sand accumulated there. See the way it interacts with the waves. Go to the banks of a meandering river and observe the sands deposited there. Visit a site where a hurricane has struck and torrential rains have caused a river to break through levees. The deposits from these are layers formed in a different way. These can processes can be simulated in a lab as well.

#50 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 18 June 2010 - 11:54 PM

Do you read the actual words I write?  I have never mentioned any process.  I am trying to get some creationists to just look at the evidnce.  I will accept hydrological sorting if you feel you need to have a theory to comfort you.


Comfort me? You see you cannot even pretend to walk in someone else's shoes unless you make a belittling remark.

The evidence of the five points is empirical.  The evidence of any theory that explains them is not necessarily so.

Can you see the difference between these two ponts:

1.	There are layers of fossils and particular fossils are always found with other ones.
2.	Layers of fossils are lain down over millions of years.

Look carefully.  The first one is something that you could show a child with no knowlegde of science.  Point 2 would require justification to back it up and explanations.

Here again you imply a belittling remark that I am as stupid as a child. Or should I say, all creationists are stupid as children? You don't make points when you just keep up the belittling remarks.

Anything you accept from us is because it comforts us (your words). Anything we have to accept from you is because it's an absolute fact, right? So your points are mute.

I am only talking about point 1.
I am not explaining anything, just looking at what there is to explain.  Answer whether you agree or disagree with points 1 – 5, please.

Since you are [laying the usual evo game, I'm just going to say I disagree just to show you how frustrating it is to deal with people who insert the words you do because you have such a dislike for the opposing side.

Great, so the explanation that you have said that I hold is incorrect.  I’ll go along with that, I can’t explain it, but are trilobite fossils only found in rocks that we label as cambrian -> permian?

You don't have to go along with anything. You have already made it very clear that you will be kicking and screaming all the way down the road to be able to agree with anything. It proves what I said earlier. One side has to compromise because the other never will. Each time you post and insert belittling remarks, and express frustration, you make direct examples of this which supports what I have said. I knew this was to good to be true.

The Big Bang is irrelevant to a discussion about rocks and fossils (though if you think anything with mass blew up then you misunderstand the physics).

I was using the idea as an example. Also you guys change what happened 10 times a day. One person comes in here and argues that it spun until it came apart. While another will come in here and claim it blew up. I guess both opinions are correct as long as truth is relative and the evolutionist makes all the rules. You can always make the creationist look dumb when you change the answer every 5 minutes and from evo to evo that comes in here.

You have convinced me, though.  The dates are wrong.  I hold up my hands and say I will not accept the dates of the rocks without better evidence  but are trilobite fossils only found in rocks that we label as cambrian -> permian?

You were so close to your goal then you pull back in defense of evolution. I guess it's an automatic defense mechanism.

Fantastic.  This is actually more than I’ve asked for.  I take it you agree that  trilobite fossils are only found in rocks that we label as cambrian -> permian?
YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! What claims have I made?  Read what I havbe written.

If you believe in evolution. the claims that are made by the theory are your claims as well. Said or not, unless you would like to make a list of what you disagree with involving evolution?

All I said was that for you to accept that the 6,000 years you have to assume the laws of physics have changed:

Correct.

See, I just repeated what you have said.  That isn’t going on the defensive.
Even if my ideas are ingrained, it does not stop these being true:

1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.
2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .
3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.
4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)
5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.


And this supports what? The geological column. Which supports what according to science? Evolution. So see you cannot even step away from evolution in one post or one quote.

Do you get this?  No theory is involved in the above five points.  Show me how evolutionist assumptions can affect the position of Cycadophyta in relation to Prototaxites?


Darwin was convinced about evolution when he read Lyell's book on the very thing you list.

This sounds so much like projection to me.

First and foremost, I have no fear of conversion.  My mind and opinions change so often that I tell people that I collect paradigms.  I have been told that nothing I can do, being so mired in sin, can make me right with God.  It is the miracle of God’s grace that saves us and nothing we can do can earn it.  At the moment I don’t believe, but if God’s grace falls on me then I will.  No problem at all.


But your defense of evolution, and your ridicule of anything creation tells me that your mind has been already made up. You see you are not the first that has come here trying to claim agnostic or some type of a neutral state in what they believe to be true. But when put to the test that requires one to take sides, 99.9% of the time it's the evolution side that they take.

Next, read my posts.  Continually I have said I will accept the Biblical account, flood geology and within this post hydrological sorting.  If that isn’t being neutral (for an evo) then what is?


Neutral = no opinions made on the ideas presented. No sides to take. Yet you do take sides, and you still have an opinion against.

I haven’t taken offence at anything apart from where Cass called me a liar.  Your position as a YEC is not something that I find personally offensive.  Read the last few posts in this thread (http://www.evolution...opic=3320&st=80) and you will see that I am asking questions of a creationist to try and understand something that is way over my head.


When someone calls you a liar, you need to hit the report button where this was posted. We don't allow words that cause strife between members here.

The other thing you put, your point 3, confused me at first but I get it now.  You think I am afraid of the creationist arguments and that is why I won’t talk about theories.  Understand, I have been debating this subject for 10 years. I have heard them before. What I have only once heard is a creationist say they will look purely at the evidence, and that was Bobabelever on this site.


I have owned 2 creation vs evolution forums. And have helped run 3 forums on the same subjects. I also own and webmaster a YEC site. and have been debating almost as long as you have on this very subject. And I have also heard all the arguments before as well. Every once in a while someone surprises me. But basically, it's always the same game with a new twist.

That sounds like you are just ramming  your point home until people get tired and walk away rather than engaging in debate.  I wouldn’t be proud of that record, personally.  I am proud that Bobabelever listened, and I am proud that people on this site have said I’m not like any other evo.  My aim is purposeful dialogue.  Already  I have learned from Cass that some creationists don’t believe in Natural Selection and frpm Alan I am learning about recombination and selection and ultimately (I hope) get my head around some of the maths he is talking about.  That will be a long process, though.


No, there was no ramming. They were ignoring more than 50% of the scripture I posted that proved them wrong. And I would not let them get away with that so they got mad. In the Bible you cannot pick and choose things out of context if you are looking for a whole truth. And that is what they were doing and they did not like that I could prove this.

I have learned so much from creationists on this site, even though I have only been here for about a week.  I hope to learn a huge amount more.  I will listen to your ideas when we discuss them.  I will listen to your objections when we talk about processes, until we start discussing them, can you say categorically whether you agree with my five points?

View Post


I can look at anything with an open mind. But I also base and gauge my response on how my debate opponent is responding to what I say as well. If I find most of what I say is being rejected out of some sort of bias, I do the same. But I do this solely for the purpose that when they complain about it, I can point out they did the same thing. It's the only way you can make some people realize what they do is when you do it back to them.

I know that sounds childish, but the again we have people come on here playing childish games. So the way I look at it is: Act like a child, I'll treat ya like one. Not saying that you have.

#51 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 19 June 2010 - 12:37 AM

Mutation is required to make new alleles and selection determines which alleles are compatible with life.

Do you read the actual words I write?  I have never mentioned any process.  I am trying to get some creationists to just look at the evidnce.  I will accept hydrological sorting if you feel you need to have a theory to comfort you.

Comfort me? You see you cannot even pretend to walk in someone else's shoes unless you make a belittling remark.


Okay, I went too far and I apologise. To explain (but not excuse) it was caused by my frustration that all creationists but one seem to avoid answering these simple points which are empirically observable without bringing in theory whilst at the same time accusing me of doing the same thing.

Can you see the difference between these two ponts:

1. There are layers of fossils and particular fossils are always found with other ones.
2. Layers of fossils are lain down over millions of years.

Look carefully.  The first one is something that you could show a child with no knowlegde of science.  Point 2 would require justification to back it up and explanations.

Here again you imply a belittling remark that I am as stupid as a child. Or should I say, all creationists are stupid as children? You don't make points when you just keep up the belittling remarks.


This was not meant to be belittling, but astraight forwards observation. A child could see that these things are true with no knowledge of science. That does not mean I equate creationists with people of that intelligence. I have great respect for the intelligence of creationists, but do as I asked, and look carefully at those two points.

Point 1 is something a child could understand. It is an observable fact.
Point 2 is not. It is an explanation which requires acceptance of scientific theory first.

Please, can we start again. The following were discovered before the explanatory theories started:

1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.
2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .
3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.
4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)
5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.

No matter what my preconceptions are, no matter what my theories are, the five points are facts…as far as I am aware.
Do you agree that they are true? If you disagree with any of them, then tell me why.
Also, with the same caveats about no theories could you look at this thread?
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3447

#52 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 19 June 2010 - 05:33 PM

I doubt that many people will accept that "particular fossils are always found together in rocks" and that "it is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it" unless they witness this for themselves, or they are willing to take somebody's word that this is the case. For most people that would require them to rely upon textbooks and articles that are deemed "evolutionist" to a creationist and therefore having an agenda to mislead people by distorting science. The best thing to do is to check it out and not rely upon anyone. People who do that will go down the road William Smith did, and re-discover the same principle that he identified so long ago.

I think there is a fear factor with people, that investigation of ideas that they have a habit of rejecting might bring about doubt that they have been holding to a correct belief. Doubt is uncomfortable, when one wonders if perhaps cherished beliefs are not so solid after all. As a Mormon I was taught that questioning Mormon beliefs was the way to apostasy. The Mormon leaders were correct, I started to question some of their unique beliefs and that led to doubting they were true, and ultimately I left them. It was uncomfortable for me to change something that had always had been basic in identifying who I was as a person.

#53 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 24 June 2010 - 09:30 PM

PhilC,

I believe this is the topic in which you suggest (in another topic) that I have not responded. I don't agree. I've said all I need to here, that is why I have not posted anymore. My last statement:

I would be very interested in the conclusion a truly unbiased person would document.  I just don't think that is anywhere close to possible.  This person would have to be isolated from any idealogy, worldview, religion, philosophy, etc..., but still be taught the basics of education.  Then, without saying a word, show them the evidence.  That would be interesting.

View Post

We both know that won't happen here. We each have our presuppositions:
- I know that God created the Earth. I know that the Noahic flood is a true event, which resulted in the fossils as we see them.

- You've already said that you "will argue that it shows evolution".

The evidence, which is the same for us both, fits better in a creationist, young Earth, model.

Bring me the conclusion that the truly unbiased person makes and I will have reason to have a piqued interest in this particular discussion. Until then there is nothing more to discuss!

#54 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 June 2010 - 02:34 AM

Boba, in several places I have said "only one creationist ever has responded and that is Bobabelever on this board”. In just about every other case I have shortened that to “Only one creationist has ever responded.”

I agree that you have and those comments are not aimed at you (they are also not intended as a criticism, it is entirely possible that other creationists on this board have just not spotted the threads or do not have time to respond). You have gained a lot of respect in my eyes for being the first creationist I have ever seen to just look at the evidence.

Eventually I will argue that the theory of evolution will explain this, but the problem is that this is only one strand of the evidence. It is not enough on its own to put forwards a case. If the geology were the only evidence then I would not accept evolution. In another thread I have started looking at the embryological evidence. In simple terms, there are about five different strands of evidence and each will need to be expounded before any explanation is put forwards.

Would you mind reviewing the other thread?

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3447

To show the power of the explanation, creationists need to first look at all the evidence, and it would help if there was more than just one so that there are a number of people examining the subject.

#55 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 25 June 2010 - 08:47 AM

Boba, in several places I have said "only one creationist ever has responded and that is Bobabelever on this board”.  In just about every other case I have shortened that to “Only one creationist has ever responded.”

I agree that you have and those comments are not aimed at you (they are also not intended as a criticism, it is entirely possible that other creationists on this board have just not spotted the threads or do not have time to respond).  You have gained a lot of respect in my eyes for being the first creationist I have ever seen to just look at the evidence.

Eventually I will argue that the theory of evolution will explain this, but the problem is that this is only one strand of the evidence.  It is not enough on its own to put forwards a case.  If the geology were the only evidence then I would not accept evolution.  In another thread I have started looking at the embryological evidence.  In simple terms, there are about five different strands of evidence and each will need to be expounded before any explanation is put forwards.

Would you mind reviewing the other thread? 

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3447

To show the power of the explanation, creationists need to first look at all the evidence, and it would help if there was more than just one so that there are a number of people examining the subject.

View Post

Hi Phil,

I have read that thread, and the tone is synonymous with this one; you want to show us creationists that evolution is true. It won't happen!

You have said, in many threads, that you are open to a different explanation, while at the same time you continue to say (paraphrasing), "I'll show you that evolution is true".

Allow me to sum up my understanding:
Fossil record = the Noahic flood.
Commonalities amongst the creation = Common Designer.

Allow me to expand that second point:
God designed everything, and when it made sense to use common design He did so; five fingers, five toes, two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, four legs, fur, hair, no hair, etc...

Every "living" thing has DNA; DNA is coded; God created (coded) it. DNA couldn't have come about by anything other than intelligence; God.

It is us creationists that are often accused of not having an open mind, I'm not saying you personally have ever said that, I'm speaking generally. Why do I mention this? In my humble opinion, you are in that state, but against creation. In order for you to come to an understanding that includes God, you must truly allow yourself to see the evidence objectively, as you have suggested but have yet to show that you are able.

Me, I've already done it. I was taught the same things everybody that goes to public school was taught (evolution). I wasn't raised Christian. I always did have doubts about evolution though, even though it didn't matter to my lifestyle - I could care less either way. When it did matter I studied, I went to the library and read, I learned as a layman what it meant to believe in each worldview. Creation simply makes more intelligent sense, it is rational, it is logical. Evolution is the exact opposite; it doesn't make sense, it is not rational, it is not logical.

Maybe that all should have been a PM, but I hope it helps you, et al, to open your eyes to the truth of God and His creation.

This will be more on topic:
For many years, probably 100's of years, it was assumed that the Grand Canyon took millions/billions of years to form. Then Mount St. Helen's happened. God speaks in a still quiet voice, but He can speak in a large booming voice (pun intended). I believe this event was God specifically telling us WE ARE WRONG; a canyon with layers, fossils, petrification, it's all there - and it only took a few years!

Sincerely,
Bob

#56 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 June 2010 - 09:19 AM

Sometimes you read something that an “opponent” writes and you are gladdened by it as it shows depth of thought and obvious consideration.

This post is one of these times:

Hi Phil,

I have read that thread, and the tone is synonymous with this one; you want to show us creationists that evolution is true. It won't happen!

You have said, in many threads, that you are open to a different explanation, while at the same time you continue to say (paraphrasing), "I'll show you that evolution is true".

Allow me to sum up my understanding:
Fossil record = the Noahic flood.
Commonalities amongst the creation = Common Designer.

Allow me to expand that second point:
God designed everything, and when it made sense to use common design He did so; five fingers, five toes, two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, four legs, fur, hair, no hair, etc...

Every "living" thing has DNA; DNA is coded; God created (coded) it. DNA couldn't have come about by anything other than intelligence; God.

It is us creationists that are often accused of not having an open mind, I'm not saying you personally have ever said that, I'm speaking generally. Why do I mention this? In my humble opinion, you are in that state, but against creation. In order for you to come to an understanding that includes God, you must truly allow yourself to see the evidence objectively, as you have suggested but have yet to show that you are able.

Me, I've already done it. I was taught the same things everybody that goes to public school was taught (evolution). I wasn't raised Christian. I always did have doubts about evolution though, even though it didn't matter to my lifestyle - I could care less either way. When it did matter I studied, I went to the library and read, I learned as a layman what it meant to believe in each worldview. Creation simply makes more intelligent sense, it is rational, it is logical. Evolution is the exact opposite; it doesn't make sense, it is not rational, it is not logical.

Maybe that all should have been a PM, but I hope it helps you, et al, to open your eyes to the truth of God and His creation.

This will be more on topic:
For many years, probably 100's of years, it was assumed that the Grand Canyon took millions/billions of years to form. Then Mount St. Helen's happened. God speaks in a still quiet voice, but He can speak in a large booming voice (pun intended). I believe this event was God specifically telling us WE ARE WRONG; a canyon with layers, fossils, petrification, it's all there - and it only took a few years!

Sincerely,
Bob


Thank you for sharing that, and I disagree about it should have been in a PM. This is your belief and it is very important to you. I’m not the only non-believer on this forum and I bet in the back of your mind you had the thought that this shouldn’t just be read by me.

Obviously I disagree, though :)

One thing is worth particularly mentioning is this comment:

You have said, in many threads, that you are open to a different explanation, while at the same time you continue to say (paraphrasing), "I'll show you that evolution is true".


This sums up my point of view exactly. I think evolution is true and I think if we look carefully at the evidence it is clear, but I have been wrong so many times in my life that I am open to being wrong about this, and welcome these discussions. There isn’t a contradiction here.

Allow me to sum up my understanding:
Fossil record = the Noahic flood.
Commonalities amongst the creation = Common Designer.


That’s okay for an explanation, but to paraphrase Falcone, you are trying to tell me the sky is blue before we have agreed that it is. Well, that’s unfair, you have agreed to part of it, but the theory of evolution is based on truckloads of evidence, and the few points I started with are just the start.

Anyway, thank you for your post. I did read it carefully and felt that you had put your case extremely well.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users