Atheist says Creatinionist Wins...

[6days]

How is lacking the patience to wade through a rather long article to look for something I suspect I will not being able to find a strawman?

Your strawmen is creating arguments you think you can defeat, rather than read the article and arguing against what was really said.
Ex.
YOU: "it could see pretty good"

HOWEVER...The researchers described it as "sophisticated vision....better than its modern descendants....optical design...exceptional clarity...superb vision".

*You said: "Notice what he is really saying, there is no evidence the eye evolved".
Perhaps you can clear up how anyone, except you, could possibly read, "The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye", as, "There is no evidence the eye evolved".

This was already answered. He is an evolutionist who believes vision evvolved... but has no evidence of it. The best evolutionists can do is draw a chart showing progressily more sophisticated eye designs starting with what they call a "simple" 'eye spot'. Again...there is NO evidence sophisticated vision evolved. That is why the scientist said 'It musta happened rapidly'. *

I have to wear glasses. My parents had 20/20 vision almost until they died. Does that mean I have "less sophisticated vision"?

Thats kind of a dumb question in response to what the article says that modern descendants don't have as good of vision as the fossil did ( when it was alive ). They are referring to different species. I assume you and your mom are both human.

How does Robert Ballard's investigation of the Black Sea morph into an investigation of a world wide flood?

This was answered immediatly before the link. I said "Actually, the evidence is glaringly obvious. The evidence is often discussed in secular journals also...although they think it was actually many large floods. Examples..."Robert Ballard, one of the world’s most famous underwater explorers, has set his sights on proving the existence of one of the Bible’s most well known stories.

"In an interview with ABC’s Christiane Amanpour the archaeologist who discovered the Titanic discussed his findings from his search in Turkey for evidence of a civilization swept away by a monstrous ancient flood.

“We went in there to look for the flood,” Ballard said. “Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed... The land that went under stayed under.”

What facts? My understanding of the case is it is one of, he said, he said, but little in the way of objective evidence.

Thats your understanding? It seems you have been presented with evidence that contradicts you....and you don't want to understand.

According to FreedomX attorney Bill Becker, who litigated the Coppedge vs JPL case in 2012, a motion for adjudication means that the judge has confirmed certain evidence to be factual, and thus not in need of debate before a trier of fact. Said evidence can thus be stipulated as factual at the beginning of a court proceeding. Whatever the facts were, they must have been significant enough to scare CSUN’s (Cal State univ.)attorneys from chancing a trial before a jury. http://crev.info/2016/10/mark-armitage-wins-legal-victory/

 

[MichaelCadry]

Your strawmen is creating arguments you think you can defeat, rather than read the article and arguing against what was really said.
Ex.
YOU: "it could see pretty good"

HOWEVER...The researchers described it as "sophisticated vision....better than its modern descendants....optical design...exceptional clarity...superb vision".

This was already answered. He is an evolutionist who believes vision evvolved... but has no evidence of it. The best evolutionists can do is draw a chart showing progressily more sophisticated eye designs starting with what they call a "simple" 'eye spot'. Again...there is NO evidence sophisticated vision evolved. That is why the scientist said 'It musta happened rapidly'. *

Thats kind of a dumb question in response to what the article says that modern descendants don't have as good of vision as the fossil did ( when it was alive ). They are referring to different species. I assume you and your mom are both human.

This was answered immediatly before the link. I said "Actually, the evidence is glaringly obvious. The evidence is often discussed in secular journals also...although they think it was actually many large floods. Examples..."Robert Ballard, one of the world’s most famous underwater explorers, has set his sights on proving the existence of one of the Bible’s most well known stories.

"In an interview with ABC’s Christiane Amanpour the archaeologist who discovered the Titanic discussed his findings from his search in Turkey for evidence of a civilization swept away by a monstrous ancient flood.

“We went in there to look for the flood,” Ballard said. “Not just a slow moving, advancing rise of sea level, but a really big flood that then stayed... The land that went under stayed under.” Thats your understanding? It seems you have been presented with evidence that contradicts you....and you don't want to understand.

According to FreedomX attorney Bill Becker, who litigated the Coppedge vs JPL case in 2012, a motion for adjudication means that the judge has confirmed certain evidence to be factual, and thus not in need of debate before a trier of fact. Said evidence can thus be stipulated as factual at the beginning of a court proceeding. Whatever the facts were, they must have been significant enough to scare CSUN’s (Cal State univ.)attorneys from chancing a trial before a jury. http://crev.info/2016/10/mark-armitage-wins-legal-victory/

Dear 6days,

Great post! Silent Hunter can be taxing. He likes it that way. It's useless to chat with Silent. You'll find out what he's like soon enough, in case you already know. Will chat more soon!!

Praise God & Jesus,

Michael

 

[Jose Fly]

6days again repeats his talking point that the only source for "codes" is "intelligence", thereby re-raising the problem previously identified....

So the genetic "code" for the smallpox virus that killed hundreds of millions of people was created by God.

The genetic "code" for the parasite that causes malaria, which has killed hundreds of millions of people, was created by God.

The genetic "code" for the bacteria that causes tuberculosis, which has killed hundreds of millions of people, was created by God.

The genetic "code" for the bacteria that causes cholera, which has killed hundreds of millions of people, was created by God.

Apparently 6days' approach is to ignore the problem, wait a bit, and hope no one brings it up again, just like the contradiction between his two statements...

"Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and not science"

--and--

"yes historical science is valid"

Once again we see how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

 

[Lighthouse]

It wasn't your point, but it was mine.

And irrelevant to the discussion.

It is now, in hindsight.

It always was.

Don't blame the equipment. You made the error. You proofread so there shouldn't have been an error, right? (More on this in a second that I won't point out.) I actually "mispelled" the word once, the duplicate was copy-and-paste. Is it OK if I blame my equipment too?

It wasn't the equipment's fault in any way in your case.

You're the one who thinks a minor spelling errors is cause to start a war. Your comment, "You don't have any room to talk", therefore applies to you alone.

A war? All I did was point it out. Hyperbole much?

You need to learn to chill out.

As opposed to?

Sure, now that you've been told

I was told a couple of decades ago. I'm just as astounded at the level of wilful ignorance it takes to believe now as I was then.

I'll refrain from pointing out one of the two things that's wrong with your statement so you won't need to blame your equipment again; the other is, you're assuming your personal and private concept of a deity is something real.

I'm not assuming anything.

There is nothing that came from nothing except by virtue of not coming from anything, so only on a technicality did it come from nothing.

Well, is there more than one possibility or is your personal and private concept of a deity the only possibility?

Of course there's more than one possibility. But there is only one truth.

So? Beating straw is 6days forte.

What does that have to do with anything?

Do you often engage in this sort of irony or is it a new skill you're developing?

I've seen the evidence; it doesn't tell the story its presenters claim.

 

[MichaelCadry]

And irrelevant to the discussion.


It always was.


It wasn't the equipment's fault in any way in your case.


A war? All I did was point it out. Hyperbole much?


As opposed to?


I was told a couple of decades ago. I'm just as astounded at the level of wilful ignorance it takes to believe now as I was then.


I'm not assuming anything.

There is nothing that came from nothing except by virtue of not coming from anything, so only on a technicality did it come from nothing.


Of course there's more than one possibility. But there is only one truth.


What does that have to do with anything?


I've seen the evidence; it doesn't tell the story its presenters claim.

Like I said, Silent Hunter is best when he's Silent.

Praise The Lord!!

Michael

 

[patrick jane]

 

[patrick jane]

 

[Jonahdog]

Does Ray use the banana example in the movie?

 

[CherubRam]

6days is lying again. He has zero interest in "academic freedom" or "following the evidence wherever it leads". He operates under the same anti-scientific framework as AiG...

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Where is this evidence that shows that Iron can protect tissues for millions of years?

 

[patrick jane]

 

[patrick jane]

Many atheists eventually face reality and admit that there is a divine creator. Since that is known, it is imperative to know Jesus Christ

 

[6days]

Where is this evidence that shows that Iron can protect tissues for millions of years?

As you know.. there is NO evidence... But, evolutionists believe anyways.

Here is the deal on the iron story. Mary S. said basically that soft dinosaur can't exist after 65+ million years, but she believes it's that old anyways. So she had to come up with some explanation for how tissue might be preserved. There isn't much in a dead body to preserve things so she latched onto the iron in blood. (Since iron can act as a preservative). However...in her experiment, she didn't try preserve tissue in blood, but instead in pure hemoglobin... a protein molecule in the blood that contains an iron atom.
So..... Placing tissue in pure hemoglobin...in a laboratory for two years is hardly indicative of a dead dinosaur, later encased in stone, in the plains on Montana, for 65 million years. Mary did say the tissue was still recognizable after two years though... So evolutionists latched onto the 'iron' as the savior of soft dinosaur tissue...and their beliefs.

 

[CherubRam]

As you know.. there is NO evidence... But, evolutionists believe anyways.

Here is the deal on the iron story. Mary S. said basically that soft dinosaur can't exist after 65+ million years, but she believes it's that old anyways. So she had to come up with some explanation for how tissue might be preserved. There isn't much in a dead body to preserve things so she latched onto the iron in blood. (Since iron can act as a preservative). However...in her experiment, she didn't try preserve tissue in blood, but instead in pure hemoglobin... a protein molecule in the blood that contains an iron atom.
So..... Placing tissue in pure hemoglobin...in a laboratory for two years is hardly indicative of a dead dinosaur, later encased in stone, in the plains on Montana, for 65 million years. Mary did say the tissue was still recognizable after two years though... So evolutionists latched onto the 'iron' as the savior of soft dinosaur tissue...and their beliefs.

So, the Evolutionist are pulling rabbits out of the hat again? The missing links are missing because life did not evolve in this Universe.

Isaiah 43:10. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

 

[Jonahdog]

As you know.. there is NO evidence... But, evolutionists believe anyways.

Here is the deal on the iron story. Mary S. said basically that soft dinosaur can't exist after 65+ million years, but she believes it's that old anyways. So she had to come up with some explanation for how tissue might be preserved. There isn't much in a dead body to preserve things so she latched onto the iron in blood. (Since iron can act as a preservative). However...in her experiment, she didn't try preserve tissue in blood, but instead in pure hemoglobin... a protein molecule in the blood that contains an iron atom.
So..... Placing tissue in pure hemoglobin...in a laboratory for two years is hardly indicative of a dead dinosaur, later encased in stone, in the plains on Montana, for 65 million years. Mary did say the tissue was still recognizable after two years though... So evolutionists latched onto the 'iron' as the savior of soft dinosaur tissue...and their beliefs.

Whatever the explanation, 6 days will not accept it---because Genesis.

 

[gcthomas]

As you know.. there is NO evidence... But, evolutionists believe anyways.

"As you know.. there is NO evidence... But, creationists believe anyways. "

Fixed it for you. It applies better, since at least the scientists don't believe they already know everything infallibly, and are working to improve the world's knowledge, while you are convinced that there is nothing to learn, even in principle, that could contradict anything you already believe.

In this case, you don't have any evidence that iron can't protect tissue like has been suggested, but you believe that very strongly anyway. Don't you see this as a case of double standards?