Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Ancient Rainforest Revealed in Coal Mine

Posted: April 23 2007,23:26

Beautiful.

Also the giant fungus in Saudi Arabia being finally classified. (Saudi f-ing Arabia, Ftk. Yep. Young earth creationism. Let's put it in the schools.)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,00:22

Wrong link! Sorry!

See here.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,02:56

as long as it's not a homosexual forest, FTK is down wid that.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,07:47

Yeah, it is cool. �That's why I put it �on my blog. �And, yes, I noticed that they didn't mention any flowering plants.

The 4.5 billion year age of the earth doesn't bother me, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up, Arden. �But, I keep an open mind about these issues, and seriously consider ~all~ the arguments from both sides of the debate.

So sue me for not refusing to join in the dogma.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,08:07

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,07:47)

Yeah, it is cool. �That's why I put it �on my blog. �And, yes, I noticed that they didn't mention any flowering plants.

The 4.5 billion year age of the earth doesn't bother me, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up, Arden. �But, I keep an open mind about these issues, and seriously consider ~all~ the arguments from both sides of the debate.

So sue me for not refusing to join in the dogma.

Agreeing that the world is much much more than 10,000 years old is 'dogma'?

Yeah, you're quite the rugged individualist. We're all impressed with your nonconformity.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Darth Robo

Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,08:50

"But, I keep an open mind about these issues, and seriously consider ~all~ the arguments from both sides of the debate."

I doubt you consider them seriously, but at any time will you be actually weighing up the "arguments" from both sides of the "debate"? Or you gonna STAY open minded?

Hey, I'm open minded about astrology, tarot cards and the vegatarian T-Rex. Should I be taken seriously?

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

Tracy P. Hamilton

Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,09:19

Quote (Darth Robo @ April 24 2007,08:50)

"But, I keep an open mind about these issues, and seriously consider ~all~ the arguments from both sides of the debate."

I doubt you consider them seriously, but at any time will you be actually weighing up the "arguments" from both sides of the "debate"? Or you gonna STAY open minded?

Hey, I'm open minded about astrology, tarot cards and the vegatarian T-Rex. Should I be taken seriously?

Behe says you should be taken seriously!

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you�re taking refuge in what we see in the world." �PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,09:47

More misinformation. I've addressed that false spin here before as well.

Sigh...

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,09:58

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,09:47)

More misinformation. I've addressed that false spin here before as well.

Sigh...

no, we're just keeping an open mind to both sides of the debate! You can call if "false spin" if you like, but it's really about being open minded.

And, just out of interest, do you also keep an open mind that every word in teh Bibble was in fact written by man and not inspired by gawd? Teach the controversy!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Richardthughes

Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,09:59

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,09:47)

More misinformation. �I've addressed that false spin here before as well.

Sigh...

You think the world might be 6000 years old. You've got an open mind. Despite the only evidence for a 6000 year old world is quackery and woo from bible-thumpers. I so wanted to use scare-quotes with evidence.

Twisting reality to match the bible's story isn't how science works.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,10:03

Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,10:03

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,10:03)

Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.

it's not. Once day you will learn that, and boy, will your face be red!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,10:08

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,10:03)

Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.

but but but, this is exactly what you are doing with Brown's nonsense, twisting reality to match up with a Genesis flood!
What a fool you are not to see this! And the twist in your reality must be breaking your back? Do you have a spine like a corkscrew!

Oh, teh irony!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Darth Robo

Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,10:21

"More misinformation. I've addressed that false spin here before as well."

Umm, which bit? You never seem to provide us with any details (on anything... )

"Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either."

Umm, which bit? Come on! Here's your chance! Show us all our "Doh!" moments! Where exactly have we got it wrong?

(dramatic music) Take it away, Ftk! :)

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,10:28

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,07:47)

The 4.5 billion year age of the earth doesn't bother me, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up, Arden. But, I keep an open mind about these issues, and seriously consider ~all~ the arguments from both sides of the debate.

So sue me for not refusing to join in the dogma.

From Meert's blog, a post about a geologist attending a conference where creationists discuss the age of the earth.

Quote

I asked why no recognized experts on radiometric dating were invited to participate in the conference, given that none of the speakers had any training or experience in experimental geochronology. He was candid enough to admit that they would have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young-earth geochronologists in the world. He also agreed that the mechanism for accelerating radioactivity by nearly a billion-fold during a single year (the flood year) was a major problem for the
group that in the end will probably only be resolved by invoking a �cosmic-scale event� or miracle. He further conceded that at this point they have no physical evidence for this miracle. Apparently, dissipation of the heat produced during the event is, in the end, going to require yet an additional miracle.

Perhaps FtK can show up at the next conference and set that poor dogmatic geologist straight. He needs to keep an "open mind" about miracles...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,10:39

LOL, I've set Meert straight on more than one occasion. I'll have to see if I can dig up some of our old conversations about his "offer" to debate Brown. What a crock.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,10:51

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,10:39)

LOL, I've set Meert straight on more than one occasion. I'll have to see if I can dig up some of our old conversations about his "offer" to debate Brown. What a crock.

LOL indeed.

Nobody gives a rodent's rectum about any history that you or Meert have with Walt Brown. You don't need to dig up old conversations. How about just addressing the issue in this conversation that no experimental geochronologist accepts a YEC timeline? How about addressing the issue in this conversation that accepting a YEC timeline will require supernatural events? It may be adequate in your mind to dismiss this conversation with "What a crock". But it won't really work anywhere else.

thanks in advance

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

Richardthughes

Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,11:10

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,10:03)

Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.

Let's see if this helps

Bible -----> reality ---> Observation --> Tard

Reality ----> observation ---> Darwinism ----> more observation ---> modern evolutionary synthesis ----> more observation.

We don't try and change reality to match evolution. Evolutionary mechanisms are observed and its legacy memorialised in stone.

You would change reality because it's at odds with scripture.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

JohnW

Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,11:25

Back on topic...

Great article. I grew up in a coal-mining village, and both my grandfathers were miners. Fossils were, not surprisingly, pretty common underground, and one of the local mines had a 20-30 foot section of (if i remember correctly) tree-fern by the gate. My first exposure to fossils was from looking at the things my granddad found at work.

I've known hundreds of miners and ex-miners. Many of them were very religious. Not a single one was a creationist.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Jasper

Posts: 76
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,11:53

Albatrossity2 asked FtK:
�

Quote

How about addressing the issue in this conversation that accepting a YEC timeline will require supernatural events?

Considering what she wrote here just over a year ago, FtK would probably say that "the earth appears old because of a natural occurance [sic] that happened during the flood."

In other words, she is willing to accept that the earth appears to be ~4.5 billion years old. �She remains "open minded" about whether it really is that old.

Right, FtK?

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,11:56

any comment on this FTK?
http://scienceantiscience.blogspot.com/2007/04/evening-with-rate.html

Quote

He was candid enough to admit that they would
have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young-
earth geochronologists in the world. He also agreed that the
mechanism for accelerating radioactivity by nearly a billion-fold
during a single year (the flood year) was a major problem for the
group that in the end will probably only be resolved by invoking a
�cosmic-scale event� or miracle.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,12:00

Quote

In other words, she is willing to accept that the earth appears to be 4.5 billion years old. �She remains "open minded" about whether it really is that old.

Translated: "I am aware of the evidence that makes my position ridiculous, yet I will persist in my ridiculous position because I am afraid I will be a Bad Christian otherwise, and besides I hate Darwinists."

Quote

He was candid enough to admit that they would have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young-earth geochronologists in the world.

Let me guess: by some amazing accident, all geochronologists happen to be atheists.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,12:05

Quote

Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.

Hi FTK,

Please provide some evidence that this has happened/is what's happening or withdraw this claim.

I've asked you several times for a science discussion, a thing you claimed to desire, and yet nothing from you. I've remained faithfully polite towards you (your excuses of abusiveness etc thus don't apply to me), and yet nothing from you. All I see from you, rather sadly, are big claims, no evidence and lots of running away. For example, if you are "open minded" on the age of the earth, what data do you have that is contrary to the currently accepted scientific position that the earth is ~4.6 billion years old? Surely for you to be open minded there must be some evidence you have that casts this very well established fact into some doubt. Rest assured that the work of Walt Brown has been shown in the past not to accomplish this.

So please FTK, for the umpteenth time of asking, just when are you going to do something other than play the victim (falsely), make big unsupported claims, distort this as a "clash of dogmas", cite claims from well refuted creationist sources and actually discuss the science you say you came here to discuss?

I'm beginning to worry about you. If you keep up this current tack of yours I'm worried you might appear to be dishonest or stupid and since I fervently hope that you are neither, I really don't want you to create this impression. As ever, it's up to you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,12:14

Louis, this shouldn't be a surprise since I've mentioned it repeatedly, but I don't care whether you think I'm dishonest, stupid, moronic, or any other choice of adjective you choose to use.

I've discussed many issues on my blog and at KCFS. �Peruse that if you need a fix, but I'm not going to be discussing anything in this forum.

I'm only here to correct serious misconceptions about my position that people seem to like to bring to this forum.

Have a great day!

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,12:40

I wouldn't worry about ME getting that impression of you FTK, I really am not that important. Note I didn't say I HAD those impressions either so no leaping for your victim card.

However, you are someone with a blog, an internet presence as it were, and people from there lurk and post here and vice versa, if it were me I'd worry about all my lovely local chums seeing me behave so badly. More than that I'd worry about appearing that way to myself (in your case apparently clouded by some degree of cognitive dissonance, sadly). Simply put I have greater respect for myself than to behave in the way you currently are on this forum (that's not to say I am without sin, I very much am not, which is why I try to correct my naughties with varying degrees of success). What misconceptions are there about your position? All I know about you is that you are an IDCist and have a blog.

Anyway, all the fun stuff aside, I notice you didn't answer my question.

Here's your quote again:

Quote

Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.

Can you please supply some evidence that this has happened/is happening or withdraw this claim please. It's the polite, intellectually honest, intelligent thing to do. Why can't you do it?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,12:50

Louis,

Let's be honest. Whatever I present as "evidence", you will reject. I'll sincerely believe it to be solid evidence, but you won't. Pretty much end of story.

And, as far as my readers are concerned, I have all confidence that they will certainly understand why I do not engage here.

But, thanks for worrying about me.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Richardthughes

Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,12:54

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,12:50)

Louis,

Let's be honest. �Whatever I present as "evidence", you will reject. �I'll sincerely believe it to be solid evidence, but you won't. �Pretty much end of story.

And, as far as my readers are concerned, I have all confidence that they will certainly understand why I do not engage here.

But, thanks for worrying about me.

If you presented god, we'd all be convinced. Honestly.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,12:55

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,12:50)

Louis,

Let's be honest. Whatever I present as "evidence", you will reject. I'll sincerely believe it to be solid evidence, but you won't. Pretty much end of story.

And, as far as my readers are concerned, I have all confidence that they will certainly understand why I do not engage here.

But, thanks for worrying about me.

Then present your evidence!
As you are not a scientist, it's not "your" evidence, and therefore it's not required that you defend it.

But people here can only respect you more if you say
"This is my position, and here is my evidence for that position".

Whatever we make of your "evidence" (I like these scare quotes more and more) to come here and mouth off about your beliefs strikes people as nothing but arrogance (as you say that your beliefs are informed by the evidence, but will not present said evidence).

A few links would do. Nobody's asking for a paper!

All your "readers" are seeing at the moment is you saying one thing but not backing it up even with an argument.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,13:15

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,12:50)

Let's be honest. Whatever I present as "evidence", you will reject. I'll sincerely believe it to be solid evidence, but you won't.

erm, could we clarify one thing?

What is the position that you are not going to present "evidence" for? I'm confused?

Is it for a young earth? If so, I thought you said that you were open to mutiple ages, both young and old! It seems to me you have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag about what it is that you really believe!

What position does this "solid evidence" support? Tell us that, even if you refuse to present evidence, please!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

carlsonjok

Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,13:32

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,12:14)

I'm only here to correct serious misconceptions about my position that people seem to like to bring to this forum.

In fairness to your antagonists, you haven't actually taken a position on anything, so it isn't clear what there is to mis-conceive. �So, since this thread is supposed to be about an ancient rain forest discovered in an Illinois mine, will you take a position with regards to said discovery or do I need to.........

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. �We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,13:44

Good grief, what the heck is wrong with you, Oldman? �You're just dying to get into a big YE/OE bashing session, and I provided on the other thread a freaking 4 month long debate I was involved in called "Brown's evidence". �What the heck more could you want? �

Read it...have a ball. �I was up against god only knows how many Darwinists on that thread. �Well over 40 I'm sure. �

I have never said that I believe YE creation scientists to be right and other scientists to be wrong. �I believe there is ~much~ to consider coming from both sides of the debate. � I don't think ~anyone~ has it right yet.

So there.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,14:09

Quote

Good grief, what the heck is wrong with you, Oldman?

Umm, do I have to answer that? ;) If I do, you got to too!

Quote

You're just dying to get into a big YE/OE bashing session, and I provided on the other thread a freaking 4 month long debate I was involved in called "Brown's evidence".

That was there, this is here! OK, lets talk about the fossil forest instead. How old do you think it really is?

Quote

What the heck more could you want?

Ask me a question, i'll do my best to answer it. I'd like you to do the same.

Quote

Read it...have a ball. I was up against god only knows how many Darwinists on that thread. Well over 40 I'm sure.

Did they describe themselves are Darwinists? What convineinent handy label did you apply to yourself during that debate?

Quote

I have never said that I believe YE creation scientists to be right and other scientists to be wrong.

True True. You've said very little of substance, which to be fair to you, you are under no obligation to do. You obviously come here to relax, and chill, and so who am I (random internet gonk) to question that.

Quote

I believe there is ~much~ to consider coming from both sides of the debate.

I agree, however where we differ includes what to teach children. I say "teach the controversy" and give kids philosophy classes instead of religious education. Apparently you want to teach them that the earth quite possibly could be 10,000 years old and that there is "scientific" evidence to say so. Or is your moniker wrong?

Quote

I don't think ~anyone~ has it right yet.

Nobody ever gets it right (part from math folk!), but you can get close. And YEC is unsupportable by any honest open minded person without religious dogma forcing their viewpoints into particular containers.

There are a number of Ex-YEC here. Did you know that?

Quote

So there.

Well, IDers do get the best book covers, I'll give you that!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Jasper

Posts: 76
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,15:01

Quote

Read it...have a ball. I was up against god only knows how many Darwinists on that thread. Well over 40 I'm sure.

If one generously defines "Darwinist" as "anyone who disagrees with FtK," there were a total of 38 different "Darwinists" that posted to that thread:

Pete
Liz Craig
KC
EB
Connor J
apple
Josh Rosenau
Jason Meyers PhD
Jeremy Mohn
RBHoppe
ToSeek
Art
RF Brady
Bill A
Les Lane
Jack Krebs
Glyn
Jim Swan
csadams
Eric Reynolds
Kevin Nyberg
Joe Meert
slpage
texathome
JonF
zack falin
Don Monro
computer science guy
celdd
Seventy-Six
Gary S. Gaulin
Greg Myers
MisterOpus1
Unsympathetic reader
Harry Gregory
John Smallberries
grmorton
Piasan

Several of these people had only a few posts.

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,15:23

Quote (Jasper @ April 24 2007,15:01)

If one generously defines "Darwinist" as "anyone who disagrees with FtK," there were a total of 38 different "Darwinists" that posted to that thread:

Well, since she is on record with a definition that Darwinist=jerk, we'd probably have to add at least one name to the list, e.g.

Salvador Cordova

The best comment on that whole thread comes from about the middle (page 35). Jack Krebs wrote

Quote

What we are experiencing here is a long, drawn-out form of the Gish Gallop: no matter what responses are made to all the unsubstantiated and incorrect assertions that are made in one cut-and-paste from Brown, instead of a discussion all we get is another cut-and-paste with more unsubstantiated and incorrect assertions.

What I don't understand is why ftk doesn't see that in the eyes of virtually everyone here, this looks foolish. Her persistence, while it may look admirable to her, merely comes across to me as a symptom of denial - a persistent reluctance to see that this tactic is impressing no one.

What's next?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

Doc Bill

Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,15:31

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,12:14)

I'm only here to correct serious misconceptions about my position that people seem to like to bring to this forum.

I see you made a typo in a previous posting. �Allow me to correct it for you at no charge.

FtK meant to write:

Quote

I'm only here to post misconceptions.

Much more accurate

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,15:48

ftK:

Quote

Strange world we live in. It appears that anything that can be even remotely traced to religion is now outlawed, and porn, homosexuality, explicit sexual content in books, and naturalistic creation stories are A-Okay.

My bold. So, let me get this straight - naturalistic creation stories are in the same category as porn, homosexuality and explicit sexual content in books?
Like ones not an attempt to discover humanity's ultimate origin and the others, well, just not, basically!
I've read that "Post", and I still don't understand the point of it! Are you saying that because naturalistic creation stories are taught that either religion should be taught in science class or that naturalistic creation stories are banned in science class? Or sexual content all together should be banned?
Ftk:

Quote

Such a puzzling world we live in. As I surf the web from one Darwinist site to another, it seems that most of these folks are die hard liberals who believe that there should never be censorship of anything in our schools and universities.

huh? I think I see your problem. You have confused
http://scholar.google.com
with
http://www.google.com

And FTK, it may interest you to know that this website
http://textalyser.net/
rates your website like so:
Readability (Gunning-Fog Index) : (6-easy 20-hard) 5.2
Average Syllables per Word : 1.69
Number of different words : 1375

And so on.
For Comparison, PT gets
Number of different words : 1973
Readability (Gunning-Fog Index) : (6-easy 20-hard) 8.1
And so on. Interesting huh?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

jeannot

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/age_of_earth.html

Posted: April 24 2007,15:55

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,10:03)

Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.

Quote

"Flood geology" has been dead ever since leading Christians scholars in geology at Cambridge and Oxford rejected it, and that was before Darwn's Origins was ever published.
By the 1850s, Christian men of science agreed the earth was extremely old.
For some of their reasons, see, "Reasons Why 'Flood Geology' Was Abandoned in the Mid-1800s by Christian Men of Science".

Such men included:
Reverend William Buckland (head of geology at Oxford)
Reverend Adam Sedgwick (head of geology at Cambridge)
Reverend Edward Hitchcock (who taught natural theology and geology at Amherst College, Massachusetts)
John Pye Smith (head of Homerton Divinity College)
Hugh Miller (self taught geologist, and editor of the Free Church of Scotland's newspaper) and,
Sir John William Dawson (geologist and paleontologist, a Presbyterian brought up by conservative Christian parents, who also became the only person ever to serve as president of three of the most prestigious geological organizations of Britain and America).

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,16:01

Quote

I believe there is ~much~ to consider coming from both sides of the debate.

Why?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: April 24 2007,17:56

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,09:47)

Sigh...

Don't steal my catchwords, FTK.

Intelligently design your OWN.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: April 24 2007,18:00

Quote (Ftk @ April 24 2007,12:14)

I'm only here to correct serious misconceptions about my position

Honey, with all due respect (none), nobody here gives a flying #### about "your position". We're all jsut here to laugh at you. (shrug)

You seem to have an awfully inflated sense of your own self-importance. I've noticed that to be quite common amongst fundie whackjobs.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,18:01

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,16:01)

Quote

I believe there is ~much~ to consider coming from both sides of the debate.

Why?

Louis

Let me guess: so we don't go to hel1?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Amadan

Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,18:13

http://www.orwelltoday.com/doublethink.shtml

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

Further comment would be superfluous. And redundant.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye 4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,18:18

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 25 2007,01:00)

We're all just here to laugh at you.

That's not strictly true.

As I mentioned with my "Quantum Leap" analogy a while ago, I'm here because I'm an optimist. I hope one day to meet a genuinely curious IDCist or YECist who is convincable on the basis of the actual evidence. I've met a few and I'd like to meet more.

Although I DO laugh at people like FTK because after a while their evasions and tap dancing just become funny. I sadly note that IMO (happy to be wrong) FTK has jumped that shark and is headed down the long dreary road to Object of Mockery. I hope she'll pull off the road and try to work her way back home, but I doubt she'll manage it. It seems a little beyond her. After all, she can;t even support a simple claims she made about science being twisted to conform to "On the Origin of Species". Some people would call throwing claims like that up and not supporting them dishonest. Not me, I'm FAR to nice to think that!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: April 24 2007,18:46

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,18:18)

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 25 2007,01:00)

We're all just here to laugh at you.

That's not strictly true.

As I mentioned with my "Quantum Leap" analogy a while ago, I'm here because I'm an optimist. I hope one day to meet a genuinely curious IDCist or YECist who is convincable on the basis of the actual evidence.

I gave up on that looonnngggg ago. They all have soundproof heads.

So I'm just here to laugh at them.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Tom

Posts: 15
Joined: April 2007

Posted: April 24 2007,21:42

I don�t know if everyone knows, but there is a new movie due out this summer:
A Few Good Creationists starring Free to Konfuse(Ftk) played by Jack Nicholson and Darwin played by Tom Cruise.

Here�s one scene set in a courtroom, late in the day with a thunderstorm in the background

Darwin: �Ftk, where is this evidence that supports your position?
Ftk: �I�ve blogged about it on my website and other websites, you can go there to get your answers.
Darwin: �Ftk, where is the evidence?
Ftk: �You want evidence?
Darwin: �I think I�m entitled.
Ftk: �You want EVIDENCE!
Darwin: �I want the Facts!!
Ftk: �You can�t handle the Facts! �Son I live in a make believe world. �Myself and other creationists use tactics such as quote mining, strawmen, and suspension of disbelief. �We are putting you evilutionists on notice that we have our on creationologies to explain the natural world and we don�t give a #### what you think!
Darwin: �Is the bible your source for the facts?
Ftk: �I think I�ve answered the question.
Darwin: �Is the bible your source for the facts?!
Ftk: �You�re God #### Right It Is!!!!!!!! (Echoes of thunder throughout the courtroom)

End of scence

After watching Ftk jump around from thread to thread and avoiding question after question, from some reason A Few Good Men popped into my head and I came up with this little script. �Hope you enjoyed it.

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 24 2007,21:49

"I eat breakfast 300 yards from 4000 scientists who are trained to destroy my childish arguments, so don't think for one second you can come down here and flash your degrees and make me nervous. YOU WANT ME ON THAT TARD; YOU NEED ME ON THAT TARD"

nuytsia

Posts: 131
Joined: June 2006

Posted: April 24 2007,23:21

Really hate to bring this thread back on to topic but I've just noticed that the BBC have an article on this find.
Curiously it's filed under Wales?

Cos like, that where coal comes from... Wales.
You know?

Come home to a real fire...

As you were soldier...

Darth Robo

Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

Posted: April 25 2007,06:56

"I'm only here to correct serious misconceptions about my position that people seem to like to bring to this forum."

So in other words, you're basically here to say "I think 'Darwinism' is wrong and you're all liars, but I'm not going to give you any evidence to that effect."

At least skeptic is entertaining. (yawn)

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: April 25 2007,07:01

FTK,

I've thought about this, and sorry but I for one am quite disappointed with you. Oh well I'm sure your little heart is breaking right! ;-)

Here's two issues you have raised that I think you owe everyone here an explanation for or a retraction of.

1)

Quote

I believe there is ~much~ to consider coming from both sides of the debate.

Why?

2)

Quote

Twisting reality to mesh with Darwin's "The Origins of Species" shouldn't be how science works either.

Please provide some evidence that this is happening or has happened. Why do you expect or think that it is or has? On what basis do you make this claim?

Just try answering those two questions FTK or withdrawing your unsupported claims.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Stephen Elliott

Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: April 25 2007,14:09

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 24 2007,18:46)

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2007,18:18)

�

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ April 25 2007,01:00)

We're all just here to laugh at you.

That's not strictly true.

As I mentioned with my "Quantum Leap" analogy a while ago, I'm here because I'm an optimist. I hope one day to meet a genuinely curious IDCist or YECist who is convincable on the basis of the actual evidence.

I gave up on that looonnngggg ago. �They all have soundproof heads. �

So I'm just here to laugh at them.

Lenny,
I was an IDCist. I was convinced by actual evidence. Whatever happened to the "1 contradiction disproves a positive claim to none"?

Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005