Philosophy Debate TEXT BATTLE "Re-Buttal the person above you"

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by lyricalpriest, Dec 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    the problem with interpretations is when people like coup only interpret to their advantage

    Any time coup doesn't understand something he chalks it up as wrong
    anytime he is directly, indeniably "faith fucked" he claims that "I can explain that" and then never does, ducking out to "debate" other topics, which means he's just using outdated and idiotic NE creationists data collections, all for the promotion of their highly biased agenda of apparently stifling knowledge.
    He still won't tell me why we are even able to see a supernova explosion, when just being able to, is proof that the universe is way old because of the wavelength lengthening calculations (which actually comes from physical, actual...don't touch it, it will burn you... in front of your face science
    apparently god made the universe with 99% of it in the middle of an action...yea, i guess god set them photons part way to us and pushed them just right...so the math lines up...but just to fuck with us, same with dinosaurs...

    What coup's saying is not evidence, is the scientific data. He doesn't believe the radiocarbon dating system that tells the ages of the fossils, even though it the same system and data collection he gets his "proof of the bible" from. This is because, to him, that data is not tangible enough, apparently, it would take a person to have lived several billion years, actively collecting physical samples, in order for him to believe...yet, he will never give a reason for how he came to conclude the bible is true

    He blatantly denies the act of gravity and how it has made the big bang's explosion result in what appears to him "organized. I have shown him video of salt in a bottle on the space station, collecting together, forming "planets" if you will. He claims this is an example of a "micro observation" being used to conclude macro evolution of the universe (which is does)...
    But then...Coup, using the micro observation, that the moon is getting an inch farther away a year...has jumped to a macro conclusion that the moon was therefore touching on the earth a couple million years
    same thing with plate tectonics...he can extrapolate the past history of the moon from present day data, but says there was never "pangeas" or whatever names they gave the 2/3? times all the land has convened


    He says ice core samples don't go back further than 6000 years, (and at the 6000 year mark, there was an elevated oxygen level...see dumbshit news below) by using the same data that says that they are older...
    he says there's no evidence for elements heavier than iron made in stars...still does so after I show him the experiments at MSU, the school he went to?
    he claims the nag hammadi gnostic texts, were actually made by the romans to go against christianity...when the romans were promoting christianity, for their political reasons...
    yea, they wrote 'em up and hid them from themselves...



    and most recently in dumbshit news of the Coup

    The earth had a layer of ice...above the atmosphere, yes, for real... that caused the atmosphere to be pressurized and make a higher concentration of oxygen (but not any of the other gasses in the atmosphere for some reason)
    God shattered this ice, and that caused the global flood that has no science to back it up, but he for some reason thinks it does...a middle eastern flood, is not the globe

    it's sad
    test
  2. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    LOL @ breathless,

    I forgot to say that the fountains of the deep broke open during the flood and the water was not solely from the layer of ice, it was mostly from the deep in the earth breaking open...

    The flood best explains several things: Oil, fossils, mountains on earth, scars in the earth such as the grand canyon, the oceans, and other things...and does it more scientifically than what we all have been indoctrinated with in our schools since an early age.


    You must wake up. You are truly sleeping...but there is still hope for all of us. King Jesus Christ. Do you really want to know truth ? You will never come to it unless you know Jesus.

    I sat here reading your last post just shaking my head. I have work to do I see. I will not quit. Why ? I am right you are wrong. King Jesus is truth.
    test
  3. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    Prove any of the flood with science that is not the product of a fringe report that hasn't even been peer reviewed or you concede (not willingly of course, by default) that the flood indeed did not happen.

    Also, "Kang Jeebus" being truth..yeah prove that as well. Don't go around making these pompous grandiose claims without a way to substantiate them. You're burying yourself in things you cannot defend.
    test
  4. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I can show you and I will.

    There are things about peer review that you need to know. First, all mainstream science publications are humanist at the root. This implies several things:

    1. creationism is to be left out, never published
    2. all major mainstream journals are evolutionist in leanings (steps 1-5)
    3. majority consensus proves nothing and is not evidence for anything.


    SO, I will show you the flood and show you with science. All in due time. I'm actually putting together some notes now. This will be a long topic. I mean that. Deception is large, board and very real....you must understand this and then understand why truth is so buried and so difficult to show atheists. You really need Jesus bro.


    And about King Jesus, read the scripture in my signature.
    test
  5. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    Too careless for too long coup. This is the Achilles heel of arrogantus bastardus (you), is that you think that you are untouchable. I can now expose you as 1 of the 2 things that ARE true about you (maybe both) that you are 1. ignorant of the topics that you speak or 2. possess knowledge but choose to lie to people.

    For you to so closely scrutinize the scientific community you don't have any idea how it actually works. The scientific method does not have an outcome already in mind and try to fit everything into that. Science says "let's see if this works" and then mathematical equation and physical tests are used to "see" if whatever *that was* actually "worked".

    Within the scientific community glory is not received through writing reports that merely go along with older ones. Prestige is achieved by ripping apart older theories and establishing yours as the norm. Most all scientists I've ever talked to or researched view the peer review process this way. For example, it was widely accepted that particles could not travel faster than the speed of light. We now know they can. Under your faulty view of science, this would have been suppressed because it would discredit a popular accepted theory.

    So, for evolution, for example, to be the main theory of human origins for over 80 years, is NOT an indictment of it, but a TESTAMENT (for lack of better term) to it's legitimacy. Had it had major faults in the theory the scientific community would have had every incentive to expose it as such.

    So you, Coup, as someone who talks so much shit about science (only, conveniently when it comes to things that discredit your stupid deity..go figure) would know all this. Right? And if you knew all this, but still make the erroneous assertions you do with this knowledge, then you are a liar and have no credibility. If you did NOT know that this is how things actually went, and still made your assertions....then you are not qualified to make the arguments in the first place so shut your stupid goddamn mouth.
    test
  6. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    I can be ignorant just like anyone else really, I am not untouchable be any means. However, I stand firm in my beliefs. I know without a SHADOW of a doubt the fallacy in evolution. I am too well schooled in it to be shaken by its arguments though. I'm just going to comment on one paragraph at a time.


    Just because I do not agree with the mainstream community does not mean I do not know how it works. I have real time experience in that community. So, let's not pull this one again. LOL Give me the benefit of the doubt, I'm not pulling at straws. Why would I do that ?

    Yeah, I know the rethoric: "...the method does not have a certain outcome in mind" or a predetermined bias. But you know what ? It does. Theories can read beautifully mathematically, like String Theory. Beauty. But it exist only on paper. The interpretation of the natural world is what is unintentionally false. The 'community' is sharp, bias and all in all most in it believe in evolution. The theory will be interrupted from any data, whether hard data or assumptions. The theory will not fail or be shown false. It's the culture. Agenda.


    it was widely accepted that particles could not travel faster than the speed of light. We now know they can

    supply me with a link or somehting...I want to read that. I am highly doubtful this is usefully or even practical.


    then you are not qualified to make the arguments in the first place so shut your stupid goddamn mouth



    Key word being qualified. This is mans appeal to authority. This is the mindset I'm talking about. An agreement that happens to be the consensus of a majority is not evidence to any legitimacy. What you are not figuring into that thought is human nature. Agenda.

    Alos, the theory of evolution is as old as man. Nothing is new under the sun. It is very much older than 80 years in the mainstream



    Evolution has no scientific backing. I ask you this: IF you find a piece of evidence, please make a thread, or PM me it. I will then show you something that maybe you have not thought of about it. Because I tell you the Truth, evolution is not true. I would never knowingly lie. I am not a liar.
    test
  7. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    I'm not going to humor your gross intellectual dishonesty you tool. Especially since you ignored the last link I posted specifically for you to refute. You are not concerned in the slightest with knowing the truth about evolution (because the fact that it's true makes your cult obsolete) you have made that clear. Why should I make any effort? Find that link and address it and then we'll talk.

    Also, lol at that "rebuttal".
    test
  8. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    What link ? If you don't link it to me and post it here in your own words additionally, then it's not worth your time or mine. And it is probably just more garbage. Actions speak.

    I know the truth about evolution... that's the thing. I'll just have to make another thread full of good stuff that will not be shown false on top of the other thread that has also been left untouched by atheist other than personal attacks. But, where is the atheist threads backing up their religion ? There is none. That speaks volumes of the level of confidence in the atheist pool here.

    Are we in the rebuttal thread ?...we are having conversations in about four others ,so what's it matter what we say now ?

    I challenge to hold your tongue with the name calling in my next thread that will continue to chip away at your evolution. I won't challenge you to refute it, because that is impossible for anyone here to try...why is that ? Really. So, baby steps, hold your tounge first, then try to back up evoltion. You can't.
    test
  9. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    Seriously...lol I'm tired of using the words: pretentious, pompous, condescending, dishonest....but short of hitting up the thesaurus to come up with other ways to call you a lying arrogant bitch, I will have to stick with those if you don't learn to tell the truth/not be an asshole.

    So yea, you stick to your talking points and continue to be ridiculed by anyone with intelligence for your stupidity.
    test
  10. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Dude, just link me! GIve me something.
    test
  11. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Let’s take a look at the scientific method, if you don’t mind, for a moment. Perhaps some here will be interested or compelled to further examine their own opinions. Either way, if you wouldn’t mind humouring me for the minute, it would be appreciated.

    The scientific method:
    1. Define the question
    2. Collect information
    3. Form a hypothesis
    4. Conduct experiments to test hypothesis
    5. Analyse resulting data
    6. Interpret data and formulate conclusions to verify hypothesis or start anew
    7. Publish results and/or retest

    More simply:
    1. State the question
    2. Form hypothesis
    3. Experiment
    4. Interpret data

    Now, let’s apply this method to the topic of evolution and creation. The question is, simply put, “where did life come from?” The hypotheses presented are evolution and creation. The experiments are various tests conducted by a scientific collective of palaeontologists, geologists, biologists and other specialized scientists, as well as relevant discoveries.

    Time/Age Test (Distance): The creation hypothesis would argue that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, whereas the evolution argument asserts it is billions of years old. Without presenting scripture to detail how creationists come to their conclusion (assuming it has already been explained), I will briefly address, albeit simply, the methods used by scientists to measure distance in the universe (which is the premise of their belief of the age of said universe). You may conduct your own research to confirm, or refute, my brief explanation.

    The Parallax Method:

    As the earth travels in orbit, our viewpoints change. Astronomers will observe the apparent change in position that nearby stars make, relative to more distant reference stars, while the earth rotates around the sun. Less apparent movement implies the star being measured is farther away, and more movement implies that it is closer (acting more or less like the reference star). It is worth noting that this technique assumes (despite the absence of stating) that the reference star does not move. The formula is as follows (d = distance in light years, p = parallax in arc seconds, constant is 3.262): d = 3.262/p ; applied to Proxima Centauri as an example, 4.243 = 3.262/0.7687
    Please note that the two measurements are commonly taken 6 months apart (opposite ends of earth’s orbit), we’re assuming that neither the reference or measured stars move, Proxima Centauri is the closest star (which affords the best accuracy), and the parallax measured is <1/3600 of 1 degree.
    To present the margin considered if assuming the universe is only 10,000 years old: 10000 = 3.262/0.000326 or <0.0000000906 degrees
    There are variables to be considered, such as the theory of general relativity, and considering the exceedingly miniscule margin for error, calculations are more than difficult to measure accurately. Certainly beyond even a few light years accuracy is questionable, let alone distances of 10,000 light years (where a parallax of 90 billionths of one degree is observed) and more.

    We then have other indirect methods of measuring distance, such as the luminosity method, which uses the luminosity and apparent brightness of the star, and another method which uses Cepheid variables as distance indicators. In an effort to avoid a novel length post, I will not endeavour to explain these methods; suffice to say that they rely on the accuracy of the parallax method to establish standards. Although it is worth noting that the use of Cepheid variable stars is considered the most reliable.

    To summarize: Over the period of several months we’re measuring in the billionths of one degree. To obtain maximum accuracy we must assume the object is stationary and that reference points (stars) are also stationary – an assumption that defies scientific reason. And furthermore, just one variable of light bending, in accordance with the theory of general relativity, would completely alter computations.

    Conclusion: Although methods are available to attempt to measure cosmic distances, none offer an accurate enough result to disprove either the creation or the evolution hypotheses.

    Time/Age Test (Fossilization): Evolution would argue that over a very long period of time these numerous fossils, which have been discovered, accumulated. Thinking logically, if an animal died in the desert, or a field, or forest today, would they become fossilized? Would they remain free of environmental influence to be kept long enough for soil or sand to cover till fossilization occurs? I believe it would be more reasonable to think not. On the creation side, if there was a global flood, which caused all fauna to die suddenly and sink to the depths, it would appear more reasonable to argue that the numerous fossils discovered could be brought about by this occasion rather than the evolution hypothesis. With less environmental influence than on land, sediment could quickly cover remains until fossilization.

    Conclusion: Creation hypothesis more plausible than evolution.

    Time/Age Test (Stratification [Layer Deposition]): Again, in an effort to avoid extending an already lengthy post, I will assume you understand the evolution hypothesis on this subject. However, investigations studying the Mount St. Helens eruption, which produced a massive canyon, proved that thousands of layers can be deposited over days, rather than over geologic ages. Without disputing the potential for layers to be deposited over such time as would agree with the evolution hypothesis, it allows for such depositories to have resulted r.apidly (period is not an error, the word is censored when spelt without it), perhaps due to a geologic catastrophe such as the biblical flood.

    Conclusion: Both evolution and creation hypothesis are plausible.
    test
  12. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Time/Age Test (Fossil separation): Supposedly, in old rock layers we find older fossils, conversely recent fossils are found in more recent rock layers. However, there are some fossils which are found in all strata. Realizing which same fossil was millions of years and which is only a few thousand years old becomes difficult to ascertain.
    Most layers are dated by the fossils they contain. A reference fossil, known as a simple index fossil, is determined, and then it is assumed (in accordance with the phylogenetic tree) that the index fossils were the oldest. Discovering an index fossil in a layer identifies that layer as being the oldest. Then a date is assigned to that rock layer (based on the hypothesis being tested; evolution) and it’s recorded on the geologic time scale. The process is continued with the more complex index fossils – each increase in complexity is assigned to a younger rock layer until the geologic time scale is completed. (Complete geologic time scales are referred to as a geologic column.)
    Please note that although the layers were dated using index fossils, said index fossils were dated by estimating their age based on the hypothesis being tested; the theory of evolution. This is not a valid application of the scientific method. A date is assigned to the fossil (in accordance with the theory), which dates the layer of earth which contained that fossil. So it proves the age of the fossil, because the date of the layer is known. This is classic circular reasoning.
    This brings us to radiometric dating (RMD), which is not as accurate as some may believe. For example, volcanic rock dating, which uses the decay of potassium and argon, presumes that no argon exists in the rock upon initial formation. There are also inconsistencies between different dating methods. The decay of uranium won’t conform to the decay of potassium which won’t conform to the date given by fission track dating. So depending upon which methodology is used, a different date is determined. There have been documented examples of the same rock having discrepancies of up to 500 million years. Then there are ‘more reliable’ dating methods (see isochron dating), however, they’re designed to date on the order of billions. Consequently, everything measured will be done so in the billions. Also noteworthy is that before testing is conducted, operators will require an estimation of age to determine the appropriate methodology. Results are almost biased upon the desired result before testing is conducted.
    The biblical flood, when testing the creation hypothesis, would allow for the discovery of different fossils in different layers. The turbulent waters, due to the absence of land, would result in mixed species and earth and vegetation reaching the depths in disorganized order.
    The discovery of different fossils in different layers does not prove, or disprove, either the evolution or creation hypotheses.

    Conclusion: Both hypotheses are plausible.

    Time/Age Test (Fossil spans): The complete skeleton of a baleen while was discovered in California in 1976. This fossil spanned many geological layers – which would (in accordance with the evolution hypothesis) mean spanning millions of years of strata.
    Many fossil trees are discovered in a position occupying many geologic layers (see polystrate fossil trees). This would indicate remaining in such a position for millions of years (in accordance with the evolution hypothesis) whilst the appropriate geological layers accumulate.
    However, referring back to the Mount St. Helens eruption, it is certainly plausible to have such discoveries spanning many geological layers according to the creation hypothesis.
    Such discoveries, that span multiple layers, seem to reject the belief that geologic layers represent millions of years. Without dismissing the fact that layers form over extended periods of time, it certainly does not prove such a hypothesis either. However, it is a fact that fossils found spanning several layers can be deposited at virtually the same time.

    Conclusion: Creation hypothesis more feasible.

    Time/Age Test (Fossil grouping): Large ‘graveyards’ of fossils are oft discovered containing multiple species. It appears somewhat unreasonable to explain this in accordance with the evolution theory. Multiple bodies of several different species dying and remaining together in a heap, or even close proximity, until fossilization occurs is more than unlikely. However, using the creation hypothesis, the biblical flood presents a much more feasible scenario. The waters would stir, mixing different species, and tidal influence would deposit a multitude of animals in specific locations until sediment covered the remains, allowing for fossilization.

    Conclusion: Creation hypothesis more feasible.

    Common Ancestry Test (Phylogenetic tree): The most important observation, in relation to the testing of both hypotheses, is the absence of transitional species. The species are clearly distinct; there is no evidence of one species changing in to another. There is only a gap signifying that a change has occurred, an attempted illustration of a principle that has no evidence of existence.

    Conclusion: Creation hypothesis more plausible.

    Common Ancestry Test (Transitional forms): Palaeontologists look for transitional forms (missing links) in an effort to prove that one species descended from another. The evolution hypothesis, in a simplified manner, presents the theory that simple life form developed (evolved) in to more complex life forms over millions of years (simple organisms --> fish --> amphibians --> reptiles --> mammals). There are many fossils proving the existence of variation within species, known as microevolution, however, to date, there are no fossils providing evidence of macroevolution; that is one species changing (evolving) in to an entirely new species.
    It is commonly misconstrued that the evidence of variation within a species is evidence for one species evolving in to another. It is worth repeating that this variation, known as microevolution, does in no manner prove the existence of macroevolution, or the hypothesis of evolution itself.
    The Archaeopteryx discovery is often used by evolution theory proponents as perhaps proof of macroevolution with dinosaurs evolving in to birds. Although this has already been scientifically proven incorrect, and just another example of microevolution, I would be happy to elaborate if you so desire.
    Although microevolution does not prove the creation hypothesis, it certainly does not disprove it. And considering the search for transitional species has been underway for over 100 years, and taking in to account the numerous fossils discovered, it is somewhat reasonable to consider the lack of evidence further proof that the evolution hypothesis is less plausible than the creation.

    Conclusion: Creation hypothesis more feasible.

    I will have to continue this at a later time. I would like to address the Cambrian radiation and also the supposed living fossils, and perhaps one or two other 'experiments' or 'tests', but am required elsewhere at the moment.
    test
  13. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Time/Age Test (Cambrian radiation): Assuming you’re familiar with the Cambrian explosion, I won’t explain it except for fundamental descriptions, albeit with considerable brevity.
    The Cambrian period, the second in the Phanerozoic Eon, has considerable significance due to the expeditious appearance of the majority of phyla in existence as well as major diversification of existing organisms. Prior to the explosion most organisms were rather basic single cell forms, afterward, however, life began to develop the attributes we’re familiar with today; diverse, complex, sophisticated multicellular organisms. This explosion was noted well over 100 years ago, the evidence of which was discovered through geological rock layers. The Pre Cambrian layer was almost completely absent of any fossils, the few that existed were simple cellular organisms such as algae and bacteria. The next stratum, the Cambrian (primordial strata), suddenly displayed a variety of sophisticated multicellular organisms, the appearance of which is that r.apid, it seems to defy the process of microevolution and reject the basic premise of the evolution hypothesis. Despite the accelerated diversification it is worth noting that some of the species discovered from fossils in the Cambrian stratum are still with us, virtually unchanged. Conversely, the creation hypothesis would garner more credence when considering the Cambrian radiation. And taking in to account the biblical flood, it appears even more credible. A geologic layer, deposited rather suddenly on the ocean floor, containing numerous fossils of complex organisms, resting on top of a seemingly empty stratum. Assuming the biblical flood occurred as described, with the hydrothermal vents ejecting massive amounts of heated water, as well as the deluge from above, all simple marine life would have been affected first essentially forming the fossil collection discovered in the lowest stratum.

    Conclusion: Creation hypothesis more feasible.

    Time/Age Test (Living fossil): A term coined by Charles Darwin in reference to organisms that, over supposed millions of years, have remained in morphological stasis; virtually unchanged. There are numerous examples, both fauna and flora, of such anomaly when considering the evolution hypothesis: Crocodiles; alligators; cockroaches; army ants; salamanders; velvet worm; nautilus; dragonfly; horseshoe crab; coelacanth; gingko; crinoid; Wollemi pine. The attempted explanation of this anomaly is given as stabilized selection. Basically a decrease of genetic diversity as stability in population is attained through favourable environmental factors or inherent traits within the species. Perhaps a more simplified, albeit uncouth, description; natural selection prevented innovation, as it was unnecessary for survival, for millions of years. This absence of morphological change quite simply defies the theory of evolution. Contrarily, the creation theory would support the discovery of such living fossils.

    Conclusion: Creation hypothesis more feasible.

    Time/Age Test (Pliocene Homo Sapiens): Modern human skeletal remains have been discovered in Pliocene layers. For your reference please see the Calaveras skull (1866), Ipswich skeleton (1912), Lansing man (1902) and Castenedolo skull (1860/80) to research these anomalous fossils. Homo sapiens fossils discovered in strata considered to belong to a time of Sivapithecus casts genuine doubt on the evolution hypothesis. If Homo sapiens indeed did exist alongside Sivapithecus, when Homo sapiens are considered to be descendants of the now extinct Sivapithecus, it would prove inconsistent with the evolution theory. Such discoveries have either been explained as hoax or the result of burials. Neither of which are, nor can be, proven. The fact is it is another serious anomaly with regard to the evolution hypothesis.

    Conclusion: Creation hypothesis more plausible.
    test
  14. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    if i might address the bolded portion:

    biological evolution is a theory that deals with the process of speciation. that is, the diversification of life and the divergence of the various taxonomic orders. in other words, 'where did life come from' is not the primary question at hand. that would be the hypothesis of abiogenesis. though i see why you found it useful to use this narrative; so that creationism could seem like the natural alternative to evolution rather than a completely unrelated hypothesis in need of its own evidence.

    ah. i see that by 'the creation hypothesis' you are referring specifically to biblical young earth creationism. otherwise there is no reason to assume that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

    your criticism of stellar parallax is less than compelling. there is no such assumption that the celestial bodies are stationary; astronomers are well aware that stars are subject to move.

    proper motion is detected by plotting linear trends over time, radial motion (motion towards us or away from us) is detected by wavelength shifts in the spectrum of the star. stellar parallax produces specifically sinusoidal oscillations which is typical of the angular shift in point of view which they represent. mapped over time, the stars portray these oscillations on top of the linear trend which portrays their actual motion. in other words, the two trends are easily distinguished from one another.

    parallax is of course limited in its accuracy, in no small part due to the fact that these stars are quite obviously very very far away. in fact, parallax was at one point used as an argument against copernican heliocentrism:

    The Observations of Tycho Brahe

    this highlights the obvious fact that if the universe were much smaller and the stars much closer to us (which i assume is what you are implying) then the parallax of these objects from the polar ends of earth's orbit would be even more obvious than it is right now. the fact that the parallax is so minute highlights that even if the measurements are imprecise, the one thing we can be sure of is that the stars are very far away.
    test
  15. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    in most cases, organic remains are not fossilized. in order for it to occur certain conditions must ideally be met: namely a rapïd burial and quick sedimentation. the fossil record that we have is by no means complete or fluid and it accurately represents just how rare of a process fossilization is.

    the flood story might seem plausible in that it could provide for a quick burial and sedimentation, however it is inconsistent with the actual fossil record which has rare scores of fossils in each sedimentary layer with distinct fossils appearing only in certain layers and other fossils spreading across several layers. were all the world's fossils to have been made in a single catastrophic event, we wouldn't expect such a specific layering of the lifeforms within:

    Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition



    mt st helens is one thing, the grand canyon is quite another. how do you explain such a world wonder that was so clearly created by a slow erosion (in hard materials such as sandstone and limestone rather than volcanic ash, mind you) through a single catastrophic flood or world event?

    this is absolutely wrong.

    index fossils are fossils that are only found in a specific stratum. rather than scientists identifying that strata by the fossils, they identify an index fossil by the fact that it is only found in this one particular stratum. the fossils that appear in more than one strata lived in more than one time period.

    the general order of the geologic column was worked out prior to the prominence of the theory of evolution, by scientists who were themselves for the most part creationists. this alone disproves the assertion that the geologic column is a fraudulent invention of evolution based circular reasoning.
    test
  16. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    ^it should also be noted that a complete version of the geologic column exists in the correct order in several locations spanning the globe.
    once again your criticism relies on the assertion of faulty assumptions that do not actually exist. there's no presumption that the daughter element might not already have been present at formation. argon is a gaseous element which would escape from molten lava:
    How Old is the Earth: Radiometric Dating

    as for the accusation of inconsistency, radiometric dating has yeilded largely consistent results. (see a list of the oldest rocks and dating methods used here.) results are often cross referenced when applicable, and cases which yeild an unreasonably large margin of error are generally seen as evidence that that particular dating method isn't reliable in that scenario.

    different elements do decay at different rates, but each rate is constant which makes them a good indicator of age. elements with very long half lifes are not good for dating very young rocks because they can only give a vague minimum age (since not enough of the daughter isotope has accumulated yet), and likewise elements with a short half life are insufficient in dating very old rocks. yet the different methods yeild largely consistent results and have correctly placed the geologic column in its proper chronological order.

    that brings me to a counter point. how does the global flood account for the different dates yeilded from the different layers of strata? were they all laid down in a single year, you'd expect relatively universal uniformity in their dates, or if the assertion is that radiometric dating is flat out unreliable then you would see random fluctuations in the dates. instead what we have is an ordered chronological storybook which coincides perfectly with the narrative of an old earth slowly molded over roughly 4.5 billion years.

    polystrate fossils are accounted for by standard geology. "Polystrate" Fossils
    test
  17. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    the whale story covered here:
    How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column

    this is getting to be a bit tenuous. as has already been established (and as you have acknowledged yourself earlier in your post), fossilization usually occurs after a rapïd burial. given this fact, how is it unreasonable to expect that several bodies from different species could be buried at once? the only way i could see this being an argument against evolution is if the species in question were said to live in completely different time periods.


    List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    and yes, i'd like you to expand on the archaeopteryx point before i respond.
    test
  18. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    the cambrian came directly after a global ice age, which is one explanation for the sparsity of life as well as the sudden spur of growth and evolution. another explanation for the sudden boom in fossils is that this is when animals were first developing hard parts, which are more prone to be preserved in fossilization.

    the cambrian also contains evidence for evolution, such as transitional fossils found from the period (lobopods; a transition between worms and anthropods) and the fact that the majority of the life we know today is absent in the cambrian fossil record(no land plant life, for example), along with the vast majority of cambrian species being extinct today(the period ended with a mass extinction, followed by another boom in life in the ordovician).

    it's also worth keeping in mind that we are still talking about a period which spans tens of millions of years, so it is not at all too rapïd to be compatible with the theory of macroevolution.

    evolution does not dictate constant and gradual morphological change. adaptions which are beneficial will likely prevail through sexual selection. creatures that have a steady prey, environment and evolutionary niche are perfectly suitable to maintain a relative stability in their morphological design. it is also worth noting that the creatures that are said to be living fossils, such as cockroaches, also do evolve. there are over 4,000 different species of cockroaches of various shapes and sizes living today.

    lets review a few of these in slightly more detail.
    test
  19. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    Are There Human Fossils in the "Wrong Place" for Evolution? | NCSE

    i'll add that sivapethicus was not necessarily an ancestor to homosapiens, though that is not of any real importance. overall i think we would find a much more even distribution of fossils were they all to have been caused by a global flood. there's no reason for them to be layered the way that they are other than gradual change over time. the fact that we are left debating the prospect of a few rare events where a fossil is taken to be 'out of place' further highlights the overall consistency with which they were deposited.

    conclusion: the creationist argument relies almost exclusively on attempts to debunk and poke holes in hundreds of years of scientific progress. from astronomy to geology to biological evolution, any science which makes the bible harder to sell is subject to their attack. you consequently have neglected to provide any sort of positive arguments for creationism or a global flood, other than the odd vague statement that it 'seems more plausible' than evolution to explain certain scenarios. an event like what you are proposing should have very well left some good evidence behind. i suggest creation scientists should take some of the energy they expend on trying to attack evolution and use it to start uncovering that evidence.
    test
  20. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    i won't believe that unless you print it out and glue it into a king james bible

    KJB...the religious counterpart of the KGB

    "in soviet calvary...christ crucifies you!"
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)