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

Arden Chatfield

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

Arden Chatfield

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: 11178
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: 11178
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

Arden Chatfield

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

Louis

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

Louis

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: 11178
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