Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

Mike, you're using terms incorrectly in an oceanographic context, that might make sense in an engineering context and then struggling to justify it by insulting me?

hey...he's learned quite a bit from you.

 

[Soggy]

I'll take that as a compliment that I don't see the world through the predetermined outcome that today's science does.

Translation: You don't know enough about science to understand it

As for sedimentary rock everywhere, that could never have happened with a standing body of water:11: and had to be due to some other explanation that fits evolutionary models.

No, it couldn't have happened in a standing body of water and here's part of why. There's several factors at play here. Among other things, sediment in a standing body of water would have the sedimentary lines all in the same direction vs piled up in odd ways as we see in mountainous rocks. Your story is not what is observed. Additionally, by examining magnetic particles within the sedimentary rocks, we can determine where, in relation to the Earth's poles the rock formed. Sedimentary rock forming near the poles will have the magnetic field aligned perpendicular to the sedimentary layers, while rock forming at the equator will have the magnetic field aligned parallel to the layers. So, what is observed is that rocks have moved all over the place from their position when they formed.

There is *no* evidence that supports your position that I am aware of. If you have something, please, bring it.

You seem to be denouncing plate tectonics which is known and directly observed phenomenon (or did you think that whole Tsunami thing from a few years ago was a big hoax?)

Forget the prehistoric fish in Denver's Natural History Museum that was found in Breckenridge at 9000 feet in perfect condition....all 14ft of it.

I'm assuming you mean a prehistoric fish FOSSIL. I'm not sure what is so difficult about this. Due to glacial behavior, ice ages/warm periods, land mass movement, and a number of other factors, we find marine fossils in all sorts of places, including deserts. Just because it's a mountain now, doesn't mean it was millions of years ago when it was probably the bottom of an ancient sea or lake.

I find it interesting that most of your atheistic websites start their retort much like the atheists on here do, by insulting the intelligence of those they disagree with.

I don't recall sending you to any athiest websites.

Then they offer an anecdote for the any theory that opposes evoution so people like you have an alternative argument. It allows you to dismiss any evidence which doesn't line up with your presupposed theory.

Anecdotal? Clearly you are redefining words that word to mean "observed and tested" because little of what has been posted here by people knowledgeable about science is anecdotal.

Well read you might be, but no one will accuse you of thinking for yourself anytime soon.

Thinking for myself? My world view is a result of very carefully analyzing everything I've read, experienced, and discussed, and relating it to the world around me. I've spent years and years contemplating and re-contemplating my belief system. I've studied philosophy, religion, read the Bible and works by the Dhali Llama. You are one arrogant piece of work to suppose to know how I think. Because I have learned from others I cannot think for myself? That's weak. Get control of your ego and maybe pick up a book OTHER than the Bible once in a while.

How about yourself... the epitome of original thought with your book of stories? Real original.

As for walking into church for "family". That's commendable. But don't confuse the pomp and circumstance of religion with a personal relationship with Christ. The two are oil and water.

I have no relationship with Christ. If he ever lived, which I imagine he probably did, he died approximately 2 millenia ago and has been long since eaten by worms.

 

[deco_martini]

Because there are enough chemists, geologists, archeologists, biologists, physicists and other experts who disagree with them. Furthermore, they offer viable alternative evidences that are routinely dismissed by the inner circle of scientific philosophers.
.

This was another myth I was told growing up. That there were all these scientists out there with all this information the establishment was ignoring in pursuit of the destruction of religion.

This group of scientists with alternative evidence doesn't exist. They aren't there. When groups of "scientists" are touted as being on the ID bandwagon, they are usually christian medical doctors or people who aren't in relevant fields. This is how 911 conspiracy theories work, they take engineers/scientists from non-relevant fields who think they have found holes in accepted explanations and call their doubts based on misunderstanding and ignorance "evidence".

I really feel sorry for you because you are a mirror reflection of me 15 years ago. I had all the same talking points.

 

[Soggy]

Because there are enough chemists, geologists, archeologists, biologists, physicists and other experts who disagree with them. Furthermore, they offer viable alternative evidences that are routinely dismissed by the inner circle of scientific philosophers.

Where is the evidence? You keep telling us about it, but you haven't presented any of it. Ready, go. Let's see it.

Who are these "chemists, geologists, archaeologists, biologists, physicists, and other exports"? Please provide some names and their work.

 

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
I'll take that as a compliment that I don't see the world through the predetermined outcome that today's science does.

I take it you are not a Calvanist.

No. I'm more of a hobbist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
Then they offer an anecdote for the any theory that opposes evoution so people like you have an alternative argument. It allows you to dismiss any evidence which doesn't line up with your presupposed theory. Well read you might be, but no one will accuse you of thinking for yourself anytime soon.

I take it you have not idea what an anecdote or a theory is.

yes...you have to drink the koolaid before you're considered sentient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ce4jesus
As for walking into church for "family". That's commendable. But don't confuse the pomp and circumstance of religion with a personal relationship with Christ. The two are oil and water.

I take it you have not understanding of the Catholic Churches.

I'm certain being married to one for 22 years affords me some insight.

 

[Thalassamania]

hey...he's learned quite a bit from you.

Stay the hell out of it, that's between friends and we've settled it between friends.

 

[Thalassamania]

Clue here...and differing densities aren't just due to salinity. Temperature, tides and trade winds play a much larger role.

Once again you demonstrate abject stupidly leavened with a dash of correctness. Tides and trade winds have little or no role in global ocean circulation.

 

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalassamania
Wow ... now you've gone and shown us just how little you understand about oceanography. Just how deep a hole do you plan on digging yourself into? Stick to things you can at least pretend that you know something about.

Hint1: The Dead Sea has nothing whatever to do with global circulation and cycles, it is a body of water that is cut off from those processes.

Hint2: Ocean circulation is driven by differences in density between water masses.

Hint3: Wind.....Waves.....and eddy currents

This is all nice but how does that change the fact the oceans don't get "rid" of saline. Sure the pot gets stirred moreso than did the dead sea but at the end of the day even with those stirrings at current rates of salination, they wouldn't last very long...certainly not millions of years.

 

[Soggy]

No. I'm more of a hobbist.

That's funny because you don't know what a Hobbist actually is. But I got the Calvin & Hobbes joke. Ha ha.

 

[gary-ramey]

No, it couldn't have happened in a standing body of water and here's part of why. There's several factors at play here. Among other things, sediment in a standing body of water would have the sedimentary lines all in the same direction vs piled up in odd ways as we see in mountainous rocks. This is not observed. Additionally, by examining magnetic particles within the sedimentary rocks, we can determine where, in relation to the Earth's poles the rock formed. Sedimentary rock forming near the poles will have the magnetic field aligned perpendicular to the sedimentary layers, while rock forming at the equator will have the magnetic field aligned parallel to the layers. So, what is observed is that rocks have moved all over the place from their position when they formed.

And if those poles were not located where they are today, where would that put your theory?