Continued debate from ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material I (first sequel)

1) ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material, 2) Continued debate ... (first sequel), 3) Continued debate ... (second sequel), 4) Continued debate ... (Third sequel), 5) Continued debate ... sequel four

Like it or not

we start with the scoffer, whose profile name is profaning Our Lord's name.

« Jeez S. Christ »

It's amazing that you are able to discern this viewpoint when it has been deposed so many years ago that we of proper knowledge no longer care enough about your old defeated arguments to construct the diagram by which you would be able to join us here in the present. If I were to work as hard as you in the endeavor, I am sure I could prove that the Hydrogen molecule is really just Helium in disguise. And who could blame Helium for being so insecure about itself? Let us see how far you will go with this argument, go boldly into this argument Sir, soon you will turn round and find no one following. Enjoy your singular and lonesome view of a world so easily observed to be in contradiction to your ability to perceive it properly.

When I called you [Blip] I was right in doing so and that verdict compounds itself with each banal grasp for more "intellectual" water as you drown in your silly SUPERFLUOUS rants. Continue, you have the floor.

And please stop mis-analyzing the properties regarding the relationships between Uranium, Deuterium, and Plutonium. [sic!] You are about as brilliant as John Morris Pendleton, who claims to be a Chemist when he is actually a Tire-Mechanic with a Chemistry degree from a diploma-mill.

Frankly dude, your "tone" is similar to the Gigantic Rube from outer Space known as Glenn Beck. Are you gonna start crying and emoting about Thomas Paine at some point?

To a layman you might sound educated but to an educated and qualified person of science you sound like a guy who is barely making it through your first day on the job. *

If you had taken Earth Science 101, way back in Junior College, you might not make such a grand fool of yourself in this arena, as you are doing.

*[Arguing is not a job on which THESE guys are my employers!]

auchucknorris

+Hans-Georg Lundahl ye so it only has rough certainty and other effects can effect it but your then asserting that because other effect can alter it we shouldnt trust it at all, which is technically fair but does nothing when its not just one fossil from one location we get these time lines, its based one LOTS of samples with LOTS of location variety and the fact they they all match up makes it the more likely answer than "all these things COULD of happened to throw it off" but seeing as we base science on what is MOST likely, because NOTHING is certain until we have concrete evidence of something ACTUALLY interfering your MAYBE hypohtisis is not ruled out but just highly unlikely.. and you keep saying flood.. please tell me your not the type of person i would really be annoyed having to actually bother explaining how there is 0 evidence of a world wide flood ever happening.. not to mention it came from a book made up of stolen stories ducktaped from other ancient religions and is in no way a credible scientific document... gawd now i HAVE to look at the links to see what kind of moron im talking to.. because if your who i think your going to turn out to be.. you cant win, citing one feild of science when all these other feilds either disprove components of you arguements, if you try n tell me the earth is 10,000 years old and dinisours were whiped out in the flood your about to get floor moped by a guy who knows general knowledge of the hows and whys of basically all feilds of science about how the universe to how this solar system to how this planet, to how life, to how we came about, like i have a chornological order of the hows and whys of every thing up to this point so its not going to be funny (besides for me), so i dare you, state in a clear scentense "the earth is 10,000 years old, evolution doesnt exist and we walked with dinosaurs" so i can beguine on you

« Jeez S. Christ »

+auchucknorris Begin the Beguine!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+auchucknorris "ye so it only has rough certainty and other effects can effect it but your then asserting that because other effect can alter it we shouldnt trust it at all, which is technically fair but does nothing when its not just one fossil from one location we get these time lines"

No fossil is in itself dated by UPb. For starters.

And LOTS of fossils are dated by period layer which in its turn is dated by fossils in it - for a good little vicious circle.

ON TOP of that, they do not superpose, unlike rock layers.

« Jeez S. Christ »

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm really enjoying the brutal arrogance of your indifference to the truth of this subject. It's like watching one of those ISIS dudes mishandle a grenade, for those 5.3 seconds there is a voyeuristic schadenfreude- then BAM!! The funny thing is, the true cold Morality of the Universe could care less if you wish to shove your own head in the sand and hum "Mary Had A Little Lamb" to block out the sounds of truth.

I feel like the doctors have released you from care before you were ready. They should have at least sealed your lobotomy hole back up properly.

Oh yeah, I am forgetting something...uh. Shit. I forgot because I am so stoned on Hash. Wait! I remember now! You're a dumb [blip]. that was it. Whew! i am glad I didn't forget that or leave that out. You might start getting the idea that someone is respecting you. The "I am arguing politely" routine is a bit old and doesn't fly on our Interwebs. Nice try though.

This is where you remind me that you stopped noticing my comments 'weeks ago" and that I am "beneath debating" and yet none of your claims or fact-sourcing rings true, which only augurs more laughter from the eternal peanut gallery of 'teh interwebs'.

[omitting a blasphemous expletive]

Brooks Anderson

I don't understand this conversation and I have been "doing geology" for more than 50 years.

auchucknorris

+Hans-Georg Lundahl thats cool and alls but before i get started i just need you to state in clear words what you BELEIVE so i can accurately start tearing you to shreds

+Brooks Anderson well i dont like to assume so i dont want to start on this hans guy but from what i can tell hes one of those people who believe there was a guy on a boat and a huge flood and some how that threw off all carbon dating so it cant be used.. even tho the huge ACCUMULATIVE EVIDENCE. not just one or two out liers have a very convincing case that that didn't happen and for the most part we can roughly gauge the time periods of many with atleast enough certainty to be EXTREMELY SURE the earth isnt 10,000 years old not to mention things in other feilds such as the cosmic background radiation that almost certainly proves both the big bang and age of the universe and MANNYYY other things which i just want him to clarify what his stating before i beguine

Brooks Anderson

OK Like I wrote, I simply don,t understand his arguments. I'm guessing that he is a "believer" so no amount of evidence is going to offset his FAITH (belief without evidence) .

auchucknorris

+Brooks Anderson not while hes got nit picked evidence he has no comprehension of in the 1st place, hell just keep reciting the semi scientific BS hes been feed with no clue you've already proven him wrong, because from what hes alerady stated hes willing to assume that things like a flood and nuclear bombs COULD throw of readings for ALL THE VAST CORROBORATING EVIDENCE but willing to bring up the outliers as evidence with out the same level of skepticism for the "could of's and might of's" that hes using to dismiss the overwhelming majority

« Jeez S. Christ »

Would anyone please explain to me how long it takes for fossil fuels to break down and age to the state they are in now? Is the stuff I am pumping into my Buick evidence of a timeline longer than 10,000 years? If so, I must say the argument wins itself.

Brooks Anderson

Jeez: :Google, The youngest natural oil on earth There is a 2010 russian research paper online claiming that there is 50 year old oil on the Kamchatca Peninsiula and 5,000 year old oil in the Guymas Basin. These are the youngest reported oil deposits. Most are considered to be much (millions of years) older. However, I am always skeptical of fantastic claimes for new scientific discoveries out of Russia. Although that country has some first rate scientists and engineers, for some reason, there is a disproportionate number of hucksters and false claims orginating there. So, read the article but, be skeptical.

Mike Hardman

+Jeez S. Christ well, 1st off, what we call fossil fuel, is simply an element we found that is useful, as far as proof dead leaves/animals create this substance, there is none.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

subdividing

α

“and you keep saying flood.. please tell me your not the type of person i would really be annoyed having to actually bother explaining how there is 0 evidence of a world wide flood ever happening”

OK, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene and so on fossils are not extant?

Or are you saying they are evidence for sth ELSE than a flood?

Let’s take your idea first. On your view, they are evidence of periods separated by millions of years. In any location where you find Permian deposits at all, that is an accident – it could have been sea in Permian and gotten filled up with an avalanche of rock in Triassic before we get to diggable fossils in Jurassic, which has not been washed away since, for instance. And similarily for each other period.

In that case, SOMEWHERE you might expect to find the same accident (basically) had happened for Permian had also happened for Palaeocene or sth?

Where do you find three layers above each other, not just rock deposits supposedly separated by millions of years, but fossils from the right periods in each rock deposit? Where on earth could you find, not just a trilobite below a dinosaur, but also a smilodon above it? On the law of averages, it ought to have happened somewhere. Not everywhere, but like ten places on earth or sth.

Don’t say Grand Canyon, because all periods represented there, except the very top are shellfish, shellfish, shellfish. Perhaps some finned fish too, I don’t know. These are not the well known icons of land vertebrate faunas we saw in the dinosaur books as kids.

In Karoo, you can find Permian, you can find Triassic, you can even find Triassic. Wouldn’t it be the ideal spot to have already found (after I say this it might be arranged) a Permian Moschops five metres or two metres under a Jurassic Dracovenator regenti?

Now, let’s analyse the Flood scenario – or one of them, the one I find probable. If all these period fossils are really from same time, like Flood, we would expect sth else. A Permian biotope got drowned in Flood water and mud in one place, a Triassic one somewhere else, a Jurassic one somewhere else and a Cretaceous and a Palaeocene or Eocene one elsewhere too.

Guess how Karoo looks?

Moschops capensis is Permian and from Beaufort West:

Palaeocritti Blog : Moschops capensis
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/moschops-capensis.html

from:

Palaeocritti : Moschops capensis
http://www.palaeocritti.com/moschops

Arctognathus curvimola is also Permian and is also from Beaufort :

Palaeocritti Blog : Arctognathus
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/arctognathus.html

from:

Palaeocritti : Arctognathus
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/gorgonopsia/arctognathus

But Massospondylus carinatus is from Jurassic – and it is from Elliott formation.

Palaeocritti Blog : Massospondylus
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/massospondylus.html

from:

Palaeocritti : Massospondylus
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/dinosauria/sauropoda/massospondylus

And Litargosuchus leptorhynchus is from Jurassic and it is also from Elliott formation :

Palaeocritti Blog : Litargosuchus leptorhynchus
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/litargosuchus-leptorhynchus.html

from:

Palaeocritti : Litargosuchus leptorhynchus
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/crocodylomorpha/sphenosuchia/litargosuchus

I defy you to go through South Africa on palaeocritti site and find any Jurassic thing from Beaufort or any Permian thing from Elliott:

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
By Location‎ > ‎South Africa
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-location/south-africa

And South Africa is NOT the only place where I have looked. My backup blog …

Palaeocritti Blog
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com

… for their site …

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
http://www.palaeocritti.com/home

… is far behind, but you can see how many [or few, if you like] of the localities I have already gone through, totally or partially without EVER finding a trilobite under or a smilodon over a dinosaur in same spot – or even same general locality, unless we go to borders between periods that are horizontal rather than vertical in the terrain. To me that means the evidence fits the Flood better than the Evolution scenario of Litargosuchus leptorhynchus “developing later on the tree of life than” Moschops capensis. How you want to make it fit your world view, I am curious.

Did I hear “there must be some place”? Find it. I have spent MONTHS looking. Did I hear “it’s just a fluke”? Well, what about your own words: ” its based one LOTS of samples with LOTS of location variety and the fact they they all match up makes it the more likely answer than "all these things COULD of happened to throw it off" but seeing as we base science on what is MOST likely, because NOTHING is certain until we have concrete evidence of something ACTUALLY interfering your MAYBE hypohtisis is not ruled out but just highly unlikely”

”not to mention it came from a book made up of stolen stories ducktaped from other ancient religions and is in no way a credible scientific document”

Nice try, but how do you propose to prove, how do you think the experts YOU rely on have proven (if they have so) that: “Flood happened, Babylonians told story, Moses told story” is NOT what happened; and that: “Flood didn’t happen or just happened locally, Babylonians invented story (perhaps from memories of a local flood), and Ezra plagiarised story in a book he fraudulently attributed to Moses” IS what happened? How do you propose to prove any such preference against credibility of a particular source?

Besides, again, further up the thread I also dealt with that one. Could have saved yourself trouble by looking first and answering then.

”[deleted a profanation] now i HAVE to look at the links to see what kind of moron im talking to.. because if your who i think your going to turn out to be.. you cant win, citing one feild of science when all these other feilds either disprove components of you arguments”

OK, every time I beat you one one field, you can repeat over and over again that I have just picked a detail and there are all these OTHER sciences (which you conveniently hadn’t cited yet) which completely disprove me … I sense a bit of a bad looser syndrome. When I beat you on the next item, are you going to get back to items I already beat you on and hope I had forgotten the answer I gave? Think again.

”if you try n tell me the earth is 10,000 years old and dinisours were whiped out in the flood your about to get floor moped by a guy who knows general knowledge of the hows and whys of basically all feilds of science about how the universe to how this solar system to how this planet, to how life, to how we came about, like i have a chornological order of the hows and whys of every thing up to this point so its not going to be funny (besides for me), so i dare you, state in a clear scentense "the earth is 10,000 years old, evolution doesnt exist and we walked with dinosaurs" so i can beguine on you”

I can't.

Sorry, but I can't!

I can’t state the Earth is ten thousand years old!

You see, I know the general hows and whys and in which order and it doesn’t add up to 10,000 years. St Jerome concluded from LXX text that Christ was born 5199 years after He had created Heaven and Earth.

One more, I am an ex-evolutionist. I know the general hows and whys and in which orders of YOUR story or myth quite as well as my own. Stating that “all scientists” agree (when that is even not the case, but a superficial impression which gives you as much credibility as a scientist as women priest Anglicans or Lutherans have as theologians, if not less) is just telling me the story tellers in question remember their story. I wasn’t doubting they could tell it, I was stating they couldn’t prove it. And explaining (especially explanations I will poke holes in and then you will whine again about “you can’t win on just one item, when all the other fields in science ….” ) with me does not count as proving. Nor do you score a victory by quickly changing the subject each time I score one from the arguments given.

β

Praise be eternally to Our Lord and God Jesus Christ!

Now for the foul type (whose profile takes His holy name in vain):

” I'm really enjoying the brutal arrogance of your indifference to the truth of this subject. It's like watching one of those ISIS dudes mishandle a grenade, for those 5.3 seconds there is a voyeuristic schadenfreude- then BAM!! The funny thing is, the true cold Morality of the Universe could care less if you wish to shove your own head in the sand and hum "Mary Had A Little Lamb" to block out the sounds of truth. “

Did I hear you compare a peaceful creationist to an ISIS thug?

”Oh yeah, I am forgetting something...uh. Shit. I forgot because I am so stoned on Hash. Wait! I remember now! You're a dumb [blip]. that was it. Whew! i am glad I didn't forget that or leave that out. You might start getting the idea that someone is respecting you.”

There are people respecting me more than they respect you.

”I feel like the doctors have released you from care before you were ready. They should have at least sealed your lobotomy hole back up properly. “

Did I get it right that you recommend psychiatry to get involved as thugs for your ideology against those not sharing it? Ha, that explains some of the evolutionist success! You can go on about “people had to believe in the Middle Ages, or they got burned on a stake” but what about the similar and more damaging threat of psychiatry mistreatment? Think of what you just said. Or let someone else do the thinking, till you are less stoned!

γ

+auchucknorris again:

C’mon! What was I saying about fleeing from the issue at hand?

“not while hes got nit picked evidence he has no comprehension of in the 1st place, hell just keep reciting the semi scientific BS hes been feed with no clue you've already proven him wrong, because from what hes alerady stated hes willing to assume that things like a flood and nuclear bombs COULD throw of readings for ALL THE VAST CORROBORATING EVIDENCE”

And how about getting some kind of idea of what your opposition is actually saying?

” well i dont like to assume so i dont want to start on this hans guy but from what i can tell hes one of those people who believe there was a guy on a boat and a huge flood and some how that threw off all carbon dating so it cant be used”

If you had looked up earlier parts in the thread, you would very much have known this is NOT what I am saying and NOT what Tas Walker is saying. Have you EVER heard of the initial buildup problem? ALSO, carbon dating has something to do with dating human remains in 20,000 years BP, but nothing to do with YOUR dating of dinos or trilobites. It has been tried on them but generally on creationist initiative. If a dino bone dates 20,000 to 40,000 BP by carbon dating, that is not refuting Biblical chronology, due to initial buildup, but it is pretty well, due to similarity of carbon levels in atmosphere at same time and due to similarity of decay rate, at least not very corroborating the dates given by other methods.

δ

+Brooks Anderson "OK Like I wrote, I simply don,t understand his arguments. I'm guessing that he is a "believer" so no amount of evidence is going to offset his FAITH (belief without evidence) . "

Madame, that is what I guess about you. Brooks is a girls' name, right? You sound like a true believer in my former religion (from age 6 - 8, about), someone who will just block out any rational argumentation against it and say "I just don't understand" and feel reassured if a manly but not very logic type just reassures you. The rest of what I say here is just in case I am wrong:

I was not only arguing with the others and with you too, but I asked you about a specific question about California.

Supposing a red sandstone usually lies above a white lime stone all over the place, but in Western California, it is the white limestone which lies above the red sandstone. Or whatever the case may be, since so far you did not specify, I'll be free enough to invent by reconstruction what you might have meant and answer that, until you give the specifics.

On your view, the deposits happened same order in Western California too. Then ...

On my view, streams during the Flood mostly directed the deposits for red sandstone onto the shellfish that were reacting or had already reacted so as to give limestone (and God was keeping Noah's ark out of the way and some fish out of the way so they could survive), but right in the region of Western California, the streams with red sand and shellfish came the other way round. If this is wrong, what are the specifics why I should take your view?

Also, on my view, first of all you are not likely to find a vertebrate fossil from one period straight above the vertebrate fossil from another one. But even if there is a mile between two rocks, geologists will look at the stone, presume the formations continued all over, and see if they can fit together two superpositions in them. In that sense you have a professional jargon specific usage of "above" and "below", in that sense you see Jurassic Dracovenator from Elliott formation as being above the Perlmian Moschops from Beaufort West (in Karoo), whatever the geographic distance within that scale. Could I have guessed right that in Western California you have actually found Jurassic and Permian type fossils deposed in the wrong order according to your superpositions?

That is the kind of question I'd ask a geologist, but if Madame prefers taking me for someone who can get heaps of evidence and ignore it, well, why did you bother to read as far as this?

ε

Commenting on a conversation between Madame and the scoffer who abuses the name of Our Lord:

” Is the stuff I am pumping into my Buick evidence of a timeline longer than 10,000 years? If so, I must say the argument wins itself”

Whether it is evidence or not depends on how long it took for it to form.

”There is a 2010 russian research paper online claiming that there is 50 year old oil on the Kamchatca Peninsiula and 5,000 year old oil in the Guymas Basin. These are the youngest reported oil deposits. ”

Could it be they for once carbon dated instead of just assuming it was too old for that? Is 50 years a typo or did I get it right?

”Most are considered to be much (millions of years) older. ”

Like because they are found below some Cretaceous lime stone usually referred to as “shale”, right? And because Cretaceous is supposed to have ended 65 million years ago? Would I be wrong?

”However, I am always skeptical of fantastic claimes for new scientific discoveries out of Russia. Although that country has some first rate scientists and engineers, for some reason, there is a disproportionate number of hucksters and false claims orginating there. So, read the article but, be skeptical. ”

One major reason would be the dechristianisation after the Russian Revolution. Oparin came up with a theory of abiogenesis which Miller Urey has so far NOT substantiated, and Oparin was Russian.

ζ

+Mike Hardman

”well, 1st off, what we call fossil fuel, is simply an element we found that is useful, as far as proof dead leaves/animals create this substance, there is none. ”

For coal, there is proof, in the sense that some coal is tessellated or whatever you like to call it in patterns closely resembling for instance leaves of very great ferns.

For petrol, one evidence it is from animals is that if it were from plants, it would be coal. If there is more chemical evidence to it, I don’t happen to know it.

Are you bothered if this would meaning driving fuel might imply burning remains of pre-Flood men and Nephelim? I have seen some argue that God wanted them to be first squished, then useful. But perhaps it should be about time it became useful as an argument. Not just an asset. Kent Hovind may have come into trouble because some petrol magnate dreads a return to other ways of living than driving cars and other fuels for heating than petrol, if creationism is heard.