People and dinosaurs did not exist at the same time

[River Jordan]

No, your point does NOT stand.

So don't try to bluff your way around here. Uniformitarianism in its turn was popularized by Charles Lyell, who clearly had an anti-biblical, anti-christian agenda

I'm sure that's what you have to tell yourself. If you were to believe differently, you couldn't be a young-earth creationist. I'm curious, what would happen if you stopped being a YEC?

But the point does stand. There is no geologic or paleontological evidence for the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs. None. And there is a strong statistical relationship between stratigraphy and phylogeny. Those are facts.

And of course he did! Everyone who isn't a young-earth creationist has an agenda against you! Very convenient.

You also suggested that I post "new information that would overturn any of that". I don't need new information because the information is already out there:

On a website? Gee....that's impressive.

If there's really valid scientific arguments that the earth and universe is really less than 10,000 years old, then write them up and send them in to the relevant scientific journals. You'll be famous! You'll be the guy who overturns 99% of the earth, life, and cosmological sciences!

Of course the creationist response to this is, "They'll never allow such a paper to be published."

Maybe that's so, but if the arguments in the paper are truly valid, then the reasons given for rejecting it will have to be arbitrary. Then you can take those letters (I suggest getting them from as many journals as you can) to the public and unequivocally demonstrate that the scientific community is suppressing valid science that supports YEC. Shoot, I'll even help you! I have some really good contacts at some pretty high-profile universities, so we can really get this thing rolling.

What do you say?

You see, this is your problem. What you "tacitly concede" is that any and everything that scientists believe is science, rather than understand that no matter whether you believe in creationism or evolution, the data itself needs to be INTERPRETED! I am no more "conceding" science than you are. All you are doing is allowing those who believe in evolution to interpret the data for you and calling it "science", whereas I do not.

Have you ever read an actual paper in a science journal? Have you ever done a thesis project? Ever participated in the peer review process?

I've done all those, and it's nothing like what you think. I mean, I realize you have to believe that the scientific community and the processes they engage in are all nefarious and dishonest, but if you would bother to actually go and see for yourself, you'd quickly realize that you're deluding yourself.

There is no "indirect command". When God said "let there be light" there WAS light, and so on. There is nothing in the text that suggests that anything took longer than the lenght of time God explicitly said it would take.

Hebrew experts disagree with you. That Genesis includes a jussive mood is pretty widely understood.

So if God created Adam as a complete system, then what prevents him from creating the entire universe as a complete working system?

That requires a deceptive God, one who creates starlight showing events that didn't really happen, tree rings showing years that never occurred, seasonal layers in ice and lake bottoms showing years that never occurred, and on and on and on.

I don't believe in such a God.

The same applies to you, so don't throw stones in a glass house. If you disagree then be my guest and explain why it doesn't.

The only thing I'm required to do is be objective and consider as much information as I can. You OTOH clearly cannot do so, and the only "consideration" you give to data contrary to your fundamentalist beliefs is to reflexively wave it away.

Well you could have said that you believe evolution and no matter what the Bible says you will believe in what man says anyway.

This is a good example. You have to misrepresent my position as just blindly believing "what man says". You cannot consider the fact that I've done a lot of field work, lab experiments, and study on my own and drawn conclusions from my own observations. Nope, you have to wave all that away because in your world, it's impossible for anyone to objectively consider the evidence and reach a conclusion different than yours.

Why should my belief in deception hinder me from discussing science? I discuss science when science is being discussed, especially when it is being used to lead others astray.

Oh my goodness. Seriously?

"How does my belief that the findings of scientists are part of the great deception in the end times affect my ability to discuss science?"

Come on dude. :blink:

Oh, so you have personally checked through "tens of thousands" of layers and seen "spring-summer-fall-winter cycles". That must have been tiresome for you! It's also funny because varves are usually only composed of light-dark laminated couplets, but I guess you just got lucky!

I was there as the excavation was taking place, and I was there as the samples were brought into the lab. I even looked at them myself. Why would you doubt that?

However, when Mount St. Helens erupted in Washington State it produced 25 feet of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon, so it is not at all unlikely that a global catastrophe such as a flood could have created millions of such layers.

Ah...perfect! I've actually been to Mt. St. Helens. Before I assume what you're going to cite, can you specify exactly where on Mt St Helens this "25 feet of finely layered sediment" can be found?

I didn't SAY they that the gaps for desert organisms would need to be the SAME as those for aquatic organisms, I said that they should be evenly dispersed. Why are there huge irregularities, such as the Cambrian explosion, and living fossils which should have fossils continuing up throughout ALL the layers. And IF your argument is that they ARE consistent then please answer MY question!

You stated, "we should expect gaps, but such gaps would be relatively evenly dispersed". What did you mean by that?

Don't put words in my mouth! Firstly I only commented on the artists impression. Secondly, I just gave you a perfectly good reason why I DON'T think that it is an important piece of evidence.

You agreed that if birds evolved from reptiles, we should see fossil specimens with a mixture of reptilian and avian features. Regarding this prediction and Caudipteryx, you stated, "Judging from the artists impressions yes". Is that or is that not an agreement that Caudipteryx shows a mixture of reptilian and avian features? That's all I'm asking.

Sure, but my ojection would be the same. Proponents of evolutionists love focus on genetic similarities between their pet forms of life, but they don't say too much about the inconsistencies:

Nope, not following that red herring. So you agree that if birds evolved from reptiles, we should see indications of that in the genomes of existing reptiles and birds?

Why would I need to do that? What said was "I never said that rapid stratification was "the same as" a global flood. It is simply one piece of evidence, that's all."

So what does that have to do with subduction zones?

Never mind. I asked you if you believed that polystrate fossils are indicative of a global flood. You said you believed they were. Many polystrate fossils are found in coastal subduction zones, thus I asked you to explain how polystrate fossils in coastal subduction zones are indicative of a global flood.

Your dodging of the question speaks for itself.

Are you trying to insult my faith? I believe in what the Bible says, that's all, so you can keep your labels to yourself.

And what "supporting data" do you think I have a problem with?

Young-earth creationism is a fundamentalist Christian belief. That's just a fact.

And this thread is testament to your "problem with data".

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I'm sure that's what you have to tell yourself. If you were to believe differently, you couldn't be a young-earth creationist. I'm curious, what would happen if you stopped being a YEC?

Continue as much as you want with your rhetorical contempt for creationists. You don't have a single argument that you are not hypocritically guilty of yourself. If I stopped being a YEC then I would be an OEC. What exactly is that supposed to prove?

But the point does stand. There is no geologic or paleontological evidence for the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs. None. And there is a strong statistical relationship between stratigraphy and phylogeny. Those are facts.

You still fail completely to demonstrate WHY there would be paleontological evidence of any such co-existence that goes beyond your assumptions. Not a shred. So why keep nagging on about something that you have no statistical evidence for? You can provide as much other statistics as you want, but unless it supports your ORIGINAL claim then they are completely worthless.

And of course he did! Everyone who isn't a young-earth creationist has an agenda against you convenient.

No, not everyone. Just people who think they are capable of "freeing the science from Moses".

On a website? Gee....that's impressive.

Well, isn't that hypocritical! You have no problem posting from a website and yet complain when others do so.

If there's really valid scientific arguments that the earth and universe is really less than 10,000 years old, then write them up and send them in to the relevant scientific journals. You'll be famousturns 99% of the earth, life, and cosmological sciences

Oh, you mean the "scientific journals" that reject any supernatural explanations for anything, including your OWN beliefs? Sure! Anything that doesn't conform to evolution is ATTACKED, not accepted into journals. That is exactly what happened to Mary Schwartzer when she published her obervations concerning soft tissue in dinosaur bones. After that we are supposed to blindly swallow the argument that somehow bones burried under the earth have some kind of preservation quality that we don't understand.

Of course the creationist response to this is, "They'll never allow such a paper to be published."
Maybe that's so, but if the arguments in the paper are truly valid, then the reasons given for rejecting it will have to be arbitrary. Then you can take those letters (I suggest getting them from as many journals as you can) to the public and unequivocally demonstrate that the scientific community is suppressing valid science that supports YEC. Shoot, I'll even help you
What do you say?

What I say is that you are completely deceived and have no idea what you are talking about. As I have pointed out, "valid", today, is defined by what conforms to evolution. So listen up!! No one KNOWS the age of the earth or the universe. If you had a shred of humility in your body then you would admit it. MOST FACTS need to be interpreted, which means that "valid" interpretation is in the eye of the beholder! If you disagree then lay out the scientific data and facts that definitly proves the ages you claim are facts.

Have you ever read an actual paper in a science journal? Have you ever done a thesis project? Ever participated in the peer review process?
I've done all those, and it's nothing like what you think. I mean, I realize you have to believe that the scientific community and the processes they engage in are all nefarious and dishonest, but if you would bother to actually go and see for yourself, you'd quickly realize that you're deluding yourself.

I don't care what you have done. You have already been programmed to accept what is "valid" and what is "invalid", so your condescending remarks about creationists are completely worthless. You have provided absolutely nothing that demonstrates that those who have programmed you to believe what you do have ANY authority when it comes to origins. You just claim that the people you consider experts have more knowledge about such things than those who disagree with you, but you cannot provide any evidence that such a claim is true.

That requires a deceptive God, one who creates starlight showing events that didn't really happen, tree rings showing years that never occurred, seasonal layers in ice and lake bottoms showing years that never occurred, and on and on and on.
I don't believe in such a God.

You can believe in whatever God you want. All you are doing in effect is saying that a God that doesn't conform with YOUR beliefs about the age of the earth is a God you don't want to believe in. That is your choice, but if God tells us explicitly that he created the universe in 6 days and you don't believe him, then how exactly is he being "deceptive"? If build a ten story building in a week and tell you that I did so then I am NOT deceiveing you just because you hire some "experts" that tell you that it is impossible. YOU decide who you want to believe and so in doing so it is YOU yourself who is chosing who you think is doing the deceiving.

The only thing I'm required to do is be objective and consider as much information as I can. You OTOH clearly cannot do so, and the only "consideration" you give to data contrary to your fundamentalist beliefs is to reflexively wave it away.

You are not being objective, so don't pretend that you are. You base your beliefs on what fallible men have spoon-fed you and reject anything that disagrees with what you believe.

This is a good example. You have to misrepresent my position as just blindly believing "what man says". You cannot consider the fact that I've done a lot of field work, lab experiments, and study on my own and drawn conclusions from my own observations. Nope, you have to wave all that away because in your world, it's impossible for anyone to objectively consider the evidence and reach a conclusion different than yours.

I haven't misrepresented your position at all. The only "field work" you presented, which I demonstrated was WILDLY exaggerated, doesn't prove anything. You say I don't know about YOUR experiences in the field and in the lab, as though the FIELD and the LAB are what determines what has happened BEYOND our ability to observe, but in the same breath you brush MY experiences aside as though they don't count!! You know nothing about why I became a YEC, and yet you puke out your arrogant comments by saying the following:

"your belief in young-earth creationism forces you into certain behaviors when discussing science."

Really? How do you know that? Do YOU know why I became a Christian? Do YOU know why I believe in scripture over and above what your precious "experts" believe???

I was there as the excavation was taking place, and I was there as the samples were brought into the lab. I even looked at them myself. Why would you doubt that?

Wow! You were there! So what???? Listen! I DIDN'T say that i doubt that you were there! Seeing samples being brought in to the lab is NOT the same thing as confirming that tens of thousands of layers showed, not yearly, but SEASONAL patterns!

Ah...perfect! I've actually been to Mt. St. Helens. Before I assume what you're going to cite, can you specify exactly where on Mt St Helens this "25 feet of finely layered sediment" can be found?

You know what? You are correct! I WASN'T there so I DON'T know. So here you have a BIG advantage over me to show off your superior knowledge.... although... I doubt very strongly you were present at your famous lakebed a few THOUSAND years ago...

"You stated, "we should expect gaps, but such gaps would be relatively evenly dispersed". What did you mean by that?"

I meant that the gaps would be dispersed consistenly, so that an ad-hoc theory would be COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

You agreed that if birds evolved from reptiles, we should see fossil specimens with a mixture of reptilian and avian features. Regarding this prediction and Caudipteryx, you stated, "Judging from the artists impressions yes". Is that or is that not an agreement that Caudipteryx shows a mixture of reptilian and avian features? That's all I'm asking.

And I answered you, so what is your point? What I NEVER admitted to was that it was "important". That is YOUR conclusion, not mine!

Nope, not following that red herring. So you agree that if birds evolved from reptiles, we should see indications of that in the genomes of existing reptiles and birds?

You can follow whatever you want, but UNLESS you explain why evidence that discredits evolution should be ignored then I will STICK to my so-called "red herring".

Never mind. I asked you if you believed that polystrate fossils are indicative of a global flood. You said you believed they were. Many polystrate fossils are found in coastal subduction zones, thus I asked you to explain how polystrate fossils in coastal subduction zones are indicative of a global flood.
Your dodging of the question speaks for itself.

I haven't dodged anything, you just eggagerating the strenght of your own arguments. There are marine fossils found over the entire planet, including in the layers of every mountain range in the world. So just about every inch of the globe can be considered a "coastal" zone.

Young-earth creationism is a fundamentalist Christian belief. That's just a fact.
And this thread is testament to your "problem with data".

Theistic evolution is a liberal Christian belief. That is a fact. But what does putting labels on people prove?
And I don't have a "problem with data". If you think I do then show me what "data" I have a problem with.

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

I think we long ago passed our end point in this discussion. You're just repeating the same things over and over. In sum....

Most of the earth, life, and cosmic sciences is assumption.

Non-creationist scientists are biased and have an agenda.

You don't care about the data and analyses done by non-creationists.

Scientists are all programmed what to believe.


And so on and so forth. Thanks for the fun.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

So some are forced into certain behaviors because of their presuppositions (creationists) but some are not (Darwinian naturalists)

Logical
Fallacy

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

I think we long ago passed our end point in this discussion. You're just repeating the same things over and over. In sum....

Most of the earth, life, and cosmic sciences is assumption.

Non-creationist scientists are biased and have an agenda.

You don't care about the data and analyses done by non-creationists.

Scientists are all programmed what to believe.


And so on and so forth. Thanks for the fun.

Well then, I guess that summarizes your prejudiced views, contempt for anyone who doesn't follow the pied-piper of evolution, weakly supported strawmen arguments and so on. What might have made this discussion more "fun" would have been if you were willing to present a more honest and balanced view of creationists, rather than resorting to the usual barage of exaggerations about who we are and what we believe.

 

[Floyd]

This is an interesting question.
Much information is ignored, and covered up by those in control.
This is confirmed by a good paper by Dr. Jocham, see : www.revelationsmessage.co.uk under the Subjectindex heading.
His paper is well documented with full reference list; and is an indictment of the cover- ups now perpetrated by Authorities!
The paper is titled "Old relics ignored by Science".
Regards.
Floyd.