UppsalaDragby said:
Obviously these are only excuses (just like the ones you made earlier on and then retracted) that you are making for the sake of justifying your leaving that forum. These kinds of things occur in ANY Christian forum, including this one, so, I repeat my question: why are you still here if the above points are grounds for leaving?
I'm sure you see it that way, but that doesn't really matter to me. I gave my reasons for not wasting my time there, and I'm satisfied.
The reason I still post here is because I wasn't referred to Christianity Board as a good place to discuss scientific methodologies. I knew coming in that this was first and foremost a theological/philosophical forum centered around Christianity. So I have no expectations of engaging in detailed conversations about geochemistry and such. At the other forum OTOH, my expectations were very different, and I was severely disappointed.
Gee, to me that sounds a lot like going from one forum to another and declaring victory!
Oh, and by the way, how often did the nasty members at evolutionfairytale jump from thread to thread feigning victory?
Please provide some links so that I can look into this myself.
I've not "declared victory" in any way at all. I just left and gave my reasons for doing so. And no, I didn't keep count and I'm not at all interested in copying dialog from there into here.
Hehe.. nice try. I'm not a biologist, so it would be a huge disadvantage for me to join such a board.
So? You seem to be very interested in this subject.
Besides, what exactly within biology do you think can resolve this issue for me? The points of interest in this discussion lie beyond the reach of biologists. If you disagree River Jordan, then be my guest and show me what empirical evidence within biology that any bird was previously a reptile, or that life came from non-life, or that humans decended from any ape-like creature, or that common descent should be considered a fact.
There ya' go....join one of these forums and you'll get such things in spades, oftentimes from the very people who are studying those subjects. So what do ya' say?
As I pointed out, which you conveniently ignored, evolutionists and creationists work on different models.
I've not seen anything resembling a "creationist model". Can you describe it for me beyond just "It's based on the Bible"?
If you can't accept that then why don't YOU account for the untold dollars and time that evolutionists have spent attacking science, if you consider that a theoretical paradigm is "science"?
Sorry, I'm not following you there.
Firstly, I gave you a list of things that YOU agreed to and which show that radiometric dating IS based on assumption.
IIRC, none of the things you listed apply specifically or exclusively to geochemistry, and were so vague as to basically apply to everything.
Secondly, I never made the claim that the Mt. St. Helens was relevant to lake varves.
Then again I have to ask....why did you cite Mt St Helens in response to my bringing up lake varves?
Thirdly, YOU claimed to have observed lake varves that show seasonal patterns, which actually shows how YOU went beyond your knowledge of science!
????? I
have seen them, including the means by which they are determined to be annual layers. So I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Forthly, I never conflated geologists and evolutionists. That one I consider to be a flat out lie.
Yeah, you did when you said, "
creationists can PROVE that strata does not need millions and millions of years to form, whereas evolutionists cannot PROVE that any strata takes millions of years".
And what you mean by "finding a dino fossil is embarrassing" is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain?
When Arnie posted about a new dino fossil in Alberta, you responded by saying "
Well that's kind of embarrasing isn't it?" (and then went on your silly rant about the 60 MYO footprint).
What, am I supposed to give you an account for everthing I have read, and all the vidoes I have seen for the past 15 years or so? Get real! This is just a time wasting rehash of the same question you have been asking for weeks!
Yep, I've been asking for weeks and you
still haven't answered. Like I said, if you were in front of a jury, they'd think you were hiding something.
All you have to do is give me a few examples of what from the "evolution side" you looked into. If it was books, give two or three titles. If it was videos, give two or three titles.
Here, let me give you an example. Because of my work in our youth ministry, my background in biology, and the fact that kids come to us with lots of questions about evolution and creationism, I've spent a fair bit of time studying creationism. For example, I've read (in full) Morris' The Genesis Flood, Behe's Darwin's Black Box, Johnson's Evolution on Trial, and Wells' Icons of Evolution. I've also browsed through and/or read parts of Meyer's Signature in the Cell and Denton's A Theory in Crisis. I've also watched a handful of creationist movies including Darwin's Dilemma, Expelled, and some of AiG's Creation dvds.
See? Not hard at all.
You have ALREADY repeatedly insulted me by claiming that my knowledge of sciences is poor, even though you haven't specifically pointed out what I need to know that has relevance to origins, so what exactly is your point in all this? I have asked you this very question REPEATEDLY, and yet YOU claim that I am evasive!!! Stop playing games here!
This is absolutely bizarre. I've told you several times why I've been asking this question. I'll just repeat what I posted in
#151
Wow. This just gets more and more strange with every post. Not only did I answer your question in
post #118, I re-posted that answer in the
post you just responded to! Here it is again....
When you said you had "looked at all sides of this debate", I figured that would have included something from the "science side". So I asked you what specifically from the science side you had studied, and that's when you got all weird and was like "who said anything about science". I just wanted to know what specifically you had studied from science. That's all. 
