Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

What is the best explanation for Polystrate Fossils?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Stuu
    Wouldn't life be easier just modelling what appears to have happened in natural history
    Do you assert that the Hydroplate Theory does not make a valid attempt at doing what you claim should be done?

    without filtering it through Bronze Age
    Is there something wrong with looking at history through the eyes of those who recorded it?

    mythology?
    What, exactly, are you claiming is "mythology"?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stuu
      Wouldn't life be easier just modelling what appears to have happened in natural history...
      A bit of mental gymnastics always helps. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Elon Musk and other Darwinialist atheists have gone so far as to assert that we are living in a simulation and that which we think is real is merely an illusion. We can only attempt to make sense out of the natural order, but things are often not as they appear.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stuu
        Any objections to those?
        Yes, but it's a tangent, so I'll start a new thread dedicated to this topic.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
          Are you quite sure that is what Stripe meant?

          Stuart
          Quite.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

            Quite.
            I think Stuu is playing stupid. How could anyone not know that I hold to the global flood explanation for pretty much every aspect of geology?
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • I was right.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • User Name used to have just enough sense that what he posted was at least worth taking the time to check if something said was worth reading. But for a long time now, the energy to scroll past User Name's posts greatly outweighs the contribution in them. And by greatly, I mean by AT LEAST 2 magnitudes.

                What happened to Alate_One and Barbarian? They were just here!
                Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stuu
                  Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                  Originally posted by Stuu
                  Wouldn't life be easier just modelling what appears to have happened in natural history
                  Do you assert that the Hydroplate Theory does not make a valid attempt at doing what you claim should be done?
                  Not only have I asserted it, I have given you evidence to that effect.
                  Ok, so you answered a question I did not ask.

                  You answered the following question:
                  "Does the Hydroplate Theory present an accurate description of 'what appears to have happened in natural history'?"

                  The question I asked necessarily precedes that question. Allow me to rephrase it slightly:
                  "Does the Hydroplate theory make a valid attempt to 'model what appears to have happened in natural history'?"

                  Could you answer the second question please, and not the first?

                  Widmanstatten patterns in meteorites completely disprove it. Ice core evidence from Greenland and from Antarctica completely disproves it. Correlated dendrochronological patterns in living and preserved bristlecone pine trees completely disprove it. The absence of any evidence for recent genetic bottlenecks widespread across species completely disproves it.
                  Again, I did not ask if the HPT accurately describes reality, I asked if it makes a valid attempt to do so.

                  I'll stop listing there, but you know the list is long. It's not the hydroplate theory, it's the disproved hydroplate hypothesis.
                  This is why I asked if the HPT makes a valid attempt at describing reality, because you seem to have an a-priori commitment to naturalistic origins, shown by your above sentence.

                  Do you have any ways to account for these items of physical evidence that don't involve the usual rambling conspiracy theories provided by creationists?
                  Your a-priori beliefs are showing again.

                  Originally posted by Stuu
                  Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                  Originally posted by Stuu
                  without filtering it through Bronze Age
                  Is there something wrong with looking at history through the eyes of those who recorded it?
                  History is written by the victors, and revised by the descendants of the vanquished, so yes there is plenty wrong with it.
                  Israel is hardly the victor throughout most of the Bible.

                  So your claim doesn't really have much of a point.

                  Eyewitness accounts give evidence but in themselves are about the worst way of establishing what happened in history. But I'm not sure what this has to do with natural history.
                  Typical atheist, forgetting the point he tried to make just a few posts previously. You said, Stuart:


                  without filtering it through Bronze Age mythology



                  By which you clearly meant (and I gave you an opportunity to define what you meant, but you apparently thought it was bait) the Bible.

                  In other words, you're the one who brought up the Bible, and now you're asking what it has to do with natural history?

                  When it comes to understanding the natural history of the planet do you appreciate the significance of the Royal Society's motto Nulluis In Verba, take no-one's word?
                  I do agree with it, to the extent that it agrees with what God in the Bible says about establishing a matter, using two or three witnesses.

                  Originally posted by Stuu
                  Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                  Originally posted by Stuu
                  mythology?
                  What, exactly, are you claiming is "mythology"?
                  I will respectfully decline your bait.

                  Stuart
                  It wasn't bait. I was trying to get you to clarify, since "mythology" is quite a broad topic to mention, even limiting it to "bronze age" mythology.

                  But of course, your a priori commitment to your paradigm of beliefs makes your paranoid of such questions.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                    The reason is embodied in the motto of the Royal Society "Nullius In Verba".
                    Wait....so, they won't ask you, because they "take nobody's word for it", and they take you for nobody? You, of course, take their word for it that they are somebody--that they are authority.

                    But, the question remains: Why do they ask (or pretend to ask) each other--that is, why do they ask those whom they call their "peers"? What a glaring piece of hypocrisy, on their part, to adopt such a motto if, as you say, "Nullius In Verba" means that they ask nobody.

                    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                    Et tu, 7djendo7? In matters of fact, do you take no word but the "facts from experiments"?

                    Stuart
                    If, by "take", you mean "believe", why then, in matters of fact, I take no word but the facts. Why would I, or should I, believe anything other than facts?

                    Oh, and what matter would you say is not a matter of fact?

                    I do not take your phrase, "facts from experiments", to be meaningful.
                    What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                    MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stuu
                      not actually supported by any unambiguous evidence at all.
                      You've never given even the slightest account of your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence". I've repeatedly prodded you with questioning about it, and got nothing from you but the sound of crickets in response to my questioning. Yet, here you are, once again, parroting your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence".
                      • You are incapable of speaking rationally to the question of what makes something
                        evidence
                      • You are incapable of speaking rationally to the question of what makes something
                        unambiguous
                      So, of course you have found, and will continue to find it impossible to account for your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence".

                      Your saying, "...not actually supported by any unambiguous evidence at all", is wholly an emotive use of words by you. In saying it, you're not saying anything that is cognitively meaningful.
                      What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?

                      MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

                        You've never given even the slightest account of your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence". I've repeatedly prodded you with questioning about it, and got nothing from you but the sound of crickets in response to my questioning. Yet, here you are, once again, parroting your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence".
                        • You are incapable of speaking rationally to the question of what makes something
                          evidence
                        • You are incapable of speaking rationally to the question of what makes something
                          unambiguous
                        So, of course you have found, and will continue to find it impossible to account for your meaningless phrase, "unambiguous evidence".

                        Your saying, "...not actually supported by any unambiguous evidence at all", is wholly an emotive use of words by you. In saying it, you're not saying anything that is cognitively meaningful.
                        I think by "unambiguous evidence" he means "something I assent to because it is suitable for my fragile worldview."

                        For someone who actually cares about what words mean, it would be the equivalent of "proof," which has a specific and very limited application, and not one that would be sensible to demand in this situation.

                        Basically, he's happy when the conversation is over what words mean. When it comes to evidence, Darwinists run for the hills.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stuu
                          I think I did answer your original question by describing the hydroplate hypothesis as an hypothesis, so characterising the nature of the model more accurately: it isn’t really a model, it’s a wrong guess motivated not by curiosity about the facts of history but by an obsessive need to develop the alt facts for the needs of the fundamentalist christian lifestyle. The disproved hydroplate hypothesis is not a serious attempt to model natural history because that’s not really it’s actual aim.
                          Your bias is hardly showing at all.
                          All of my ancestors are human.
                          Originally posted by Squeaky
                          That explains why your an idiot.
                          Originally posted by God's Truth
                          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X