RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Stu]

I guess ab really does think he has studied evolution, knows a lot about it,
and is capable of "talking over" someone's head.

It is obviously not so, to anyone who actually has an interest,
let alone put in long hours' work in lab, field and lecture halls.


Easy to see as it would be to see I am cluelees if I tried to be the announcer
at football game. Or ab trying to do ballet. A man is supposed to know his limitations!

I'd be embarrassed to claim knowledge I dont have, but-

He isnt embarrassed to offer three made up and evidence free assertions
for how glaciers could survive a global flood, capping it with that it is god's
word. ( so he is incapable of being wrong?)

The current explanation is that the glaciers are stuck down.
Of course, they are not stuck. They move. If some part does temporarily freeze tight to
the bedrock, millions of tons pressure soon breaks it free.

I calculated the buoyant force per square ft if five miles of ice
went underwater. Anyone can do it. I forget what it was, but it
looked like about enough to pull a battleship in half. Ice dont freeze that tight to
rock. And of course, some ride on a cushion of liquid water. None are frozen down,
the point is moot.

But nope, ol'ab says he explained how ice could survive a flood.
(NEVER let no stinkin' facts mess with a good superstition)

I liked jac's idea that he doesnt get to talk about, aka mantra-chant,
about evolution till he admits he has no -zero- explanation for why polar ice does not
disprove his "flood"

I doubt it is possible, he has so much invested (see "sunk cost fallacy")
in gappitism, it might send him into a tailspin to accept that he is so mixed up,

But I guess his thinking is at least sincerely deranged; that is something.

It would be nice tho to see him on the road to rationality tho.

Go ahead and preach it is true,but let's get into the evidence. As usual you just declare evolution is true because you've been lectured to about it,etc. You don't have to be an expert or scientist to examine evidence behind evolution and realize it is nowhere near being confirmed true. Evolutionists typically imply that only scientists and experts can understand evolution and this is just apologetics of evolution. If only scientists and experts can understand it,what good is it? Evolution should be confirmed by evidence,but it is'nt and this is why only scientists and experts can understand the evidence behind it.They see what they want to see. Evolution is not the only way we can interpret the evidence in the earth.

And as far as the gap theory all I'm doing is coming to a different conclusion about what the evidence is telling us. You believe the evidence has to do with life evolving continually over billions of years,while I do not believe life evolves and the evidence in the earth only proves there was a former world different than this world we now live in. When you look at a fossil? Instead of thinking it evolved over billions of years just think instead this is just life that lived in the former world until it died and up until that world perished completely. Then read 2nd Peter 3:6

It is taking the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion about what its telling us. It is a much better theory based on the fossils that have been found and the massive amount of evidence for life over billions of years at the very least and possibly even longer than even scientists say because our God is eternal.

I guess you did not notice I am talking about polar ice disproving "flood".

Now, how about you just deal with the facts.

Christians have no need to deny facts, hide, run away, or change the subject, right?

I mean, you got god and inerrant bible-readin' on your side right?

Here are your made up stories:

1. The ice floated, but didnt melt. Then it settled back ( exactly) in place.

2. The ice did not float, it is stuck down.

3. The top half broke free, but did not melt, and settled back just so,
in place.

Then you wrapped it up with that you are right because "flood" is God's word.
(According to you)

Now, try again:

In face of the clear and obvious physical imposdibility of polar ice surviving a world wide flood,
how can you pretend there was?

There is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.

There's a classic case where an abandoned WWII plane was buried in the ice in Greenland. 50 years later a recovery team arrived to dig it out of what would thought to have been a couple feet of snow.

But to their surprise the plane was buried under 75m (250 feet) of ice! Glacial ice doesn't take thousands of years to accumulate....

The lost squadron

Not that I was expecting much, but I was hoping for something
better than that.

Do you really-really think that a creosite is a reliable source of ibfo?

Or that there are no differences in annual snowfall in so large a place as Greenland?

Or that it snows like that in Antarctica?

Or that all the dating methods used on ice cores simply defy all laws of physics
when applied to ice, and therefore are all wrong.

Even ab is more sensible than that.

Or no, never mind, I've seen what must be your best hand. Carry on with
someone more patient with nonsense.

How humble of you oh mighty queen of self-righteousness. I expect nothing less from you, you atheist jerk.

[Stu]

I guess ab really does think he has studied evolution, knows a lot about it,
and is capable of "talking over" someone's head.

It is obviously not so, to anyone who actually has an interest,
let alone put in long hours' work in lab, field and lecture halls.


Easy to see as it would be to see I am cluelees if I tried to be the announcer
at football game. Or ab trying to do ballet. A man is supposed to know his limitations!

I'd be embarrassed to claim knowledge I dont have, but-

He isnt embarrassed to offer three made up and evidence free assertions
for how glaciers could survive a global flood, capping it with that it is god's
word. ( so he is incapable of being wrong?)

The current explanation is that the glaciers are stuck down.
Of course, they are not stuck. They move. If some part does temporarily freeze tight to
the bedrock, millions of tons pressure soon breaks it free.

I calculated the buoyant force per square ft if five miles of ice
went underwater. Anyone can do it. I forget what it was, but it
looked like about enough to pull a battleship in half. Ice dont freeze that tight to
rock. And of course, some ride on a cushion of liquid water. None are frozen down,
the point is moot.

But nope, ol'ab says he explained how ice could survive a flood.
(NEVER let no stinkin' facts mess with a good superstition)

I liked jac's idea that he doesnt get to talk about, aka mantra-chant,
about evolution till he admits he has no -zero- explanation for why polar ice does not
disprove his "flood"

I doubt it is possible, he has so much invested (see "sunk cost fallacy")
in gappitism, it might send him into a tailspin to accept that he is so mixed up,

But I guess his thinking is at least sincerely deranged; that is something.

It would be nice tho to see him on the road to rationality tho.

Go ahead and preach it is true,but let's get into the evidence. As usual you just declare evolution is true because you've been lectured to about it,etc. You don't have to be an expert or scientist to examine evidence behind evolution and realize it is nowhere near being confirmed true. Evolutionists typically imply that only scientists and experts can understand evolution and this is just apologetics of evolution. If only scientists and experts can understand it,what good is it? Evolution should be confirmed by evidence,but it is'nt and this is why only scientists and experts can understand the evidence behind it.They see what they want to see. Evolution is not the only way we can interpret the evidence in the earth.

And as far as the gap theory all I'm doing is coming to a different conclusion about what the evidence is telling us. You believe the evidence has to do with life evolving continually over billions of years,while I do not believe life evolves and the evidence in the earth only proves there was a former world different than this world we now live in. When you look at a fossil? Instead of thinking it evolved over billions of years just think instead this is just life that lived in the former world until it died and up until that world perished completely. Then read 2nd Peter 3:6

It is taking the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion about what its telling us. It is a much better theory based on the fossils that have been found and the massive amount of evidence for life over billions of years at the very least and possibly even longer than even scientists say because our God is eternal.

I guess you did not notice I am talking about polar ice disproving "flood".

Now, how about you just deal with the facts.

Christians have no need to deny facts, hide, run away, or change the subject, right?

I mean, you got god and inerrant bible-readin' on your side right?

Here are your made up stories:

1. The ice floated, but didnt melt. Then it settled back ( exactly) in place.

2. The ice did not float, it is stuck down.

3. The top half broke free, but did not melt, and settled back just so,
in place.

Then you wrapped it up with that you are right because "flood" is God's word.
(According to you)

Now, try again:

In face of the clear and obvious physical imposdibility of polar ice surviving a world wide flood,
how can you pretend there was?

There is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.

There's a classic case where an abandoned WWII plane was buried in the ice in Greenland. 50 years later a recovery team arrived to dig it out of what would thought to have been a couple feet of snow.

But to their surprise the plane was buried under 75m (250 feet) of ice! Glacial ice doesn't take thousands of years to accumulate....

The lost squadron

For comparison regarding Stu's link about The Lost Squadron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

You quoting talk origins, that place reeks of bias and disinformation.

[neo-x]

You never answered a critical question: Tell me - did Jesus die, and then rise from the dead? Or was that just a trick as well?

The fact of the resurrection is crucial to my faith as a Christian. I've no idea how it happened. Have you?

Yet you pick and choose what is correct and what is not in the Bible. The bottom line is that your scientific mind overrides Biblical truth.

You even suggest that He never performed miracles!
You try and twist Jesus words to suggest that the flood was not true, by suggesting that he just placated His followers with lies about Noah.

What else were mere fables rather than the truth in the Bible? I suppose Jonah and the whale was surely a fable, right?

What about Adam and Eve, also a fable?

Stu, why are there two creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2? Which one do you believe is the correct one?
Most importantly, why do you think there are two and not one?

Explain further?

Nothing to explain...I asked you 3 very simple questions.

[hughfarey]

Yet you pick and choose what is correct and what is not in the Bible.

The bible has to be interpreted. You interpret it one way; I interpret it another - see next.

The bottom line is that your scientific mind overrides Biblical truth.

No. My scientific mind clarifies biblical truth. The bible is a form of words. By itself it is often contradictory and obscure, although its overall message comes across. In detail, I think it should be read in conjunction with the world of discoveries, both physical and intellectual, that our God-given brains have gathered over the centuries. How does your interpretation comes about?

You even suggest that He never performed miracles!

Nope. Try reading what I said more carefully.

You try and twist Jesus words to suggest that the flood was not true, by suggesting that he just placated His followers with lies about Noah.

Nope. Try reading what I said more carefully.

What else were mere fables rather than the truth in the Bible? I suppose Jonah and the whale was surely a fable, right?

Too right. Complete fable.

What about Adam and Eve, also a fable?

Correct. You're getting there....

[RickD]

Go ahead and preach it is true,but let's get into the evidence. As usual you just declare evolution is true because you've been lectured to about it,etc. You don't have to be an expert or scientist to examine evidence behind evolution and realize it is nowhere near being confirmed true. Evolutionists typically imply that only scientists and experts can understand evolution and this is just apologetics of evolution. If only scientists and experts can understand it,what good is it? Evolution should be confirmed by evidence,but it is'nt and this is why only scientists and experts can understand the evidence behind it.They see what they want to see. Evolution is not the only way we can interpret the evidence in the earth.

And as far as the gap theory all I'm doing is coming to a different conclusion about what the evidence is telling us. You believe the evidence has to do with life evolving continually over billions of years,while I do not believe life evolves and the evidence in the earth only proves there was a former world different than this world we now live in. When you look at a fossil? Instead of thinking it evolved over billions of years just think instead this is just life that lived in the former world until it died and up until that world perished completely. Then read 2nd Peter 3:6

It is taking the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion about what its telling us. It is a much better theory based on the fossils that have been found and the massive amount of evidence for life over billions of years at the very least and possibly even longer than even scientists say because our God is eternal.

I guess you did not notice I am talking about polar ice disproving "flood".

Now, how about you just deal with the facts.

Christians have no need to deny facts, hide, run away, or change the subject, right?

I mean, you got god and inerrant bible-readin' on your side right?

Here are your made up stories:

1. The ice floated, but didnt melt. Then it settled back ( exactly) in place.

2. The ice did not float, it is stuck down.

3. The top half broke free, but did not melt, and settled back just so,
in place.

Then you wrapped it up with that you are right because "flood" is God's word.
(According to you)

Now, try again:

In face of the clear and obvious physical imposdibility of polar ice surviving a world wide flood,
how can you pretend there was?

There is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.

There's a classic case where an abandoned WWII plane was buried in the ice in Greenland. 50 years later a recovery team arrived to dig it out of what would thought to have been a couple feet of snow.

But to their surprise the plane was buried under 75m (250 feet) of ice! Glacial ice doesn't take thousands of years to accumulate....

The lost squadron

For comparison regarding Stu's link about The Lost Squadron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

You quoting talk origins, that place reeks of bias and disinformation.

On one hand, we have Audie who dismisses your website because it's a "creosite". And on the other hand, you dismiss talkorigins because it "reeks of bias and disinformation".

Does anyone actually care to address the points presented by either site, without dismissing them out of hand?

[Stu]

The fact of the resurrection is crucial to my faith as a Christian. I've no idea how it happened. Have you?

Yet you pick and choose what is correct and what is not in the Bible. The bottom line is that your scientific mind overrides Biblical truth.

You even suggest that He never performed miracles!
You try and twist Jesus words to suggest that the flood was not true, by suggesting that he just placated His followers with lies about Noah.

What else were mere fables rather than the truth in the Bible? I suppose Jonah and the whale was surely a fable, right?

What about Adam and Eve, also a fable?

Stu, why are there two creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2? Which one do you believe is the correct one?
Most importantly, why do you think there are two and not one?

Explain further?

Nothing to explain...I asked you 3 very simple questions.

The first explains Adam and Eve in a wider context within the seven days of creation.
The second account goes into more detail about Adam and Eve.

[Stu]

I guess you did not notice I am talking about polar ice disproving "flood".

Now, how about you just deal with the facts.

Christians have no need to deny facts, hide, run away, or change the subject, right?

I mean, you got god and inerrant bible-readin' on your side right?

Here are your made up stories:

1. The ice floated, but didnt melt. Then it settled back ( exactly) in place.

2. The ice did not float, it is stuck down.

3. The top half broke free, but did not melt, and settled back just so,
in place.

Then you wrapped it up with that you are right because "flood" is God's word.
(According to you)

Now, try again:

In face of the clear and obvious physical imposdibility of polar ice surviving a world wide flood,
how can you pretend there was?

There is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.

There's a classic case where an abandoned WWII plane was buried in the ice in Greenland. 50 years later a recovery team arrived to dig it out of what would thought to have been a couple feet of snow.

But to their surprise the plane was buried under 75m (250 feet) of ice! Glacial ice doesn't take thousands of years to accumulate....

The lost squadron

For comparison regarding Stu's link about The Lost Squadron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

You quoting talk origins, that place reeks of bias and disinformation.

On one hand, we have Audie who dismisses your website because it's a "creosite". And on the other hand, you dismiss talkorigins because it "reeks of bias and disinformation".

Does anyone actually care to address the points presented by either site, without dismissing them out of hand?

I done that on purpose because that is what all atheists do - they point to the source rather than what the source is saying. I believe that is the genetic fallacy, but they do it all the time.

Try this: Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years?

[Audie]

Xxx

[neo-x]

Yet you pick and choose what is correct and what is not in the Bible. The bottom line is that your scientific mind overrides Biblical truth.

You even suggest that He never performed miracles!
You try and twist Jesus words to suggest that the flood was not true, by suggesting that he just placated His followers with lies about Noah.

What else were mere fables rather than the truth in the Bible? I suppose Jonah and the whale was surely a fable, right?

What about Adam and Eve, also a fable?

Stu, why are there two creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2? Which one do you believe is the correct one?
Most importantly, why do you think there are two and not one?

Explain further?

Nothing to explain...I asked you 3 very simple questions.

The first explains Adam and Eve in a wider context within the seven days of creation.
The second account goes into more detail about Adam and Eve.

I'm sorry, where does it say in Genesis 1, it's Adam and Eve? Where did you read that?

[Audie]

I guess you did not notice I am talking about polar ice disproving "flood".

Now, how about you just deal with the facts.

Christians have no need to deny facts, hide, run away, or change the subject, right?

I mean, you got god and inerrant bible-readin' on your side right?

Here are your made up stories:

1. The ice floated, but didnt melt. Then it settled back ( exactly) in place.

2. The ice did not float, it is stuck down.

3. The top half broke free, but did not melt, and settled back just so,
in place.

Then you wrapped it up with that you are right because "flood" is God's word.
(According to you)

Now, try again:

In face of the clear and obvious physical imposdibility of polar ice surviving a world wide flood,
how can you pretend there was?

There is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.

There's a classic case where an abandoned WWII plane was buried in the ice in Greenland. 50 years later a recovery team arrived to dig it out of what would thought to have been a couple feet of snow.

But to their surprise the plane was buried under 75m (250 feet) of ice! Glacial ice doesn't take thousands of years to accumulate....

The lost squadron

For comparison regarding Stu's link about The Lost Squadron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

You quoting talk origins, that place reeks of bias and disinformation.

On one hand, we have Audie who dismisses your website because it's a "creosite". And on the other hand, you dismiss talkorigins because it "reeks of bias and disinformation".

Does anyone actually care to address the points presented by either site, without dismissing them out of hand?

Regarding creosites and divers other woo woo sites, the "out of hand" thing may be more aparent than real.

I've seen Ron Wyatt taken seriously by creationists, in his many claims of discovery.
A person with the least eye for geology can spot his "noah's ark" or "Sodom and Gomorrah"
as simple common land forms.

I suppose one could go to some big professor of archaeology with Ron-photos
of the ark, and challenge (stump) him with them, like in a Chick tract. Or more likely, not.

Paleontologists, archaeologist, they get their share of such. It could be that after seeing the
same sort of thing enough times, and the same sort of ab or stu style obduracy over and over,
that when the next one shows up with Ica stones or Paluxy man tracks to stump the prof,
well, maybe they do get dismissive.

But not in the sense of refusing to even look. Moe likr, it aint their first rodeo.

In general sure, dont be dismissive. Agenda driven sources tho, derserve nothing better.
If a person cannot cite original research papers, but must go to some predigested site
that offers opinions for the sycophants, they dont have anything but
dismissal coming to them.

With the rare-if they exist at all- exceptions being those who actually want to learn something.

[Stu]

Stu, why are there two creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2? Which one do you believe is the correct one?
Most importantly, why do you think there are two and not one?

Explain further?

Nothing to explain...I asked you 3 very simple questions.

The first explains Adam and Eve in a wider context within the seven days of creation.
The second account goes into more detail about Adam and Eve.

I'm sorry, where does it say in Genesis 1, it's Adam and Eve? Where did you read that?

It says:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Are you trying to tell me that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are referring to four different people? Or what is your point exactly?

[Stu]

There is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.

There's a classic case where an abandoned WWII plane was buried in the ice in Greenland. 50 years later a recovery team arrived to dig it out of what would thought to have been a couple feet of snow.

But to their surprise the plane was buried under 75m (250 feet) of ice! Glacial ice doesn't take thousands of years to accumulate....

The lost squadron

For comparison regarding Stu's link about The Lost Squadron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

You quoting talk origins, that place reeks of bias and disinformation.

On one hand, we have Audie who dismisses your website because it's a "creosite". And on the other hand, you dismiss talkorigins because it "reeks of bias and disinformation".

Does anyone actually care to address the points presented by either site, without dismissing them out of hand?

Regarding creosites and divers other woo woo sites, the "out of hand" thing may be more aparent than real.

I've seen Ron Wyatt taken seriously by creationists, in his many claims of discovery.
A person with the least eye for geology can spot his "noah's ark" or "Sodom and Gomorrah"
as simple common land forms.

I suppose one could go to some big professor of archaeology with Ron-photos
of the ark, and challenge (stump) him witBut notbdismissive in the senseh them, like in a Chick tract. Or more likely, not.

Paleontologists, archaeologist, they get their share of such. It could be that after seeing the
same sort of thing enough times, and the same sort of ab or stu style obduracy over and over,
that when the next one shows up with Ica stones or Paluxy man tracks to stump the prof,
well, maybe they do get dismissive.

But not in the sense of refusing to even look. It is like, "this aint my first rodeo".

In general sure, dont be dismissive. Agenda driven sources tho, derserve nothing better.
If a person cannot cite original research papers, but must go to some predigested site
that offers opinions for the sycophants, they dont have anything but
dismissal coming to them.

With the rare-if they exist at all- exceptions being those who actually want to learn something.

It's called the Genetic Fallacy, plain and simple. And you are full of it.

[RickD]

There is a case here for how polar ice developed during and after the flood.

There's a classic case where an abandoned WWII plane was buried in the ice in Greenland. 50 years later a recovery team arrived to dig it out of what would thought to have been a couple feet of snow.

But to their surprise the plane was buried under 75m (250 feet) of ice! Glacial ice doesn't take thousands of years to accumulate....

The lost squadron

For comparison regarding Stu's link about The Lost Squadron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

You quoting talk origins, that place reeks of bias and disinformation.

On one hand, we have Audie who dismisses your website because it's a "creosite". And on the other hand, you dismiss talkorigins because it "reeks of bias and disinformation".

Does anyone actually care to address the points presented by either site, without dismissing them out of hand?

I done that on purpose because that is what all atheists do - they point to the source rather than what the source is saying. I believe that is the genetic fallacy, but they do it all the time.

Try this: Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years?

I can't read an answersingenesis article, because their site reeks of bias and disinformation.

[Stu]

For comparison regarding Stu's link about The Lost Squadron:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

You quoting talk origins, that place reeks of bias and disinformation.

On one hand, we have Audie who dismisses your website because it's a "creosite". And on the other hand, you dismiss talkorigins because it "reeks of bias and disinformation".

Does anyone actually care to address the points presented by either site, without dismissing them out of hand?

I done that on purpose because that is what all atheists do - they point to the source rather than what the source is saying. I believe that is the genetic fallacy, but they do it all the time.

Try this: Do Ice Cores Show Many Tens of Thousands of Years?

I can't read an answersingenesis article, because their site reeks of bias and disinformation.

Round and round we go...

[neo-x]

Explain further?

Nothing to explain...I asked you 3 very simple questions.

The first explains Adam and Eve in a wider context within the seven days of creation.
The second account goes into more detail about Adam and Eve.

I'm sorry, where does it say in Genesis 1, it's Adam and Eve? Where did you read that?

It says:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Are you trying to tell me that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are referring to four different people? Or what is your point exactly?

You tell me!

I am asking you your reason for saying that the above verses are on Adam and Eve...I see man, male and female, I do not read Adam and Eve? where and how did you reach that conclusion? As far as I see Adam and Eve are made in Gen 2 and then not together. Eve is made after. But Gen 1 doesn't say that. Also in Gen 1 the order of creation is plants, birds and fish, mammals and reptiles, and finally man, while in Gen 2, the order is changed, with man first, then plants and animals. The two stories also have different narratives, opposite environments. In the six-day story, the creation of humans occurs through a single act and the creator appears to be a distant impersonal, non-human like God, who is present only through a series of verbal commands. In the Adam and Eve story in Gen 2, the man and woman are created through two separate acts at different times and God is present in a way which feels almost father-like.

Infact why do you think that Gen 1 should be considered a wider context? The creation account is different in both stories. Even God feels different in both. They both have a few similarities but are different as well. So which one is it? And in which one do you place Adam and Eve and why?

I'm sorry this is not a trick question. You made a comment, rather a rhetorical one about Adm Eve being fable to Hugh I think. So I am trying to know your reasons for not thinking them as fable?