Anti-Creationists Backed Into a Corner?

AgapePress ^ | February 24, 2003 | Jim Brown

[f.Christian]

1st of all ... when anything (( plates )) dries --- they shrink --- cracks (( canyons ))!

Most of these layers were formed from below as the earth cooled --- bubbled ...

and then mixture // 'batter' protruded hills and buttes through the cracks and holes from below !

The surface plate layers are from volcanic and flood sediments --- 'frosting' !

[dirtboy]

Creationist geologists don't say that it was carved out by the flood itself, but by an ancient lake draining suddenly through the canyon.

I was addressing the questions of how the rock layers were initially deposited in the Grand Canyon, as the Flood is usually used by Creationists to explain how sedimentary layers around the globe came to be. How the canyon itself formed is a separate debate for both parties.

BTW, catastrophism is becoming more in vogue regarding the creation of large landforms - the current wisdom is that terrain such as the Channeled Scablands and the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania (a 1,000 foot deep gorge) were formed very quickly from the rupture of glacial ice dams. Geology involves both the long and slow as well as the fast and furious.

[whattajoke]

Creationist geologists don't say that it was carved out by the flood itself, but by an ancient lake draining suddenly through the canyon.

Was the "ancient lake" that carved out the grand canyon filled sulphuric acid? 'Cause that's about the only thing that could have done it in a few thousand years.

[Dataman]

Was the "ancient lake" that carved out the grand canyon filled sulphuric acid? 'Cause that's about the only thing that could have done it in a few thousand years.

Your naturalist assumptions make sense only if you apply them to a naturalist worldview.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Hitler was not an evolutionist. How many times does this tactic have to be used before it dies? He believed in eugenics. Eugenics is what we do when we breed dogs. Social Darwinism and eugenics are perversions of the theory of descent with modification.

OK, for all of the science-minded people out there: why do we bother? Honestly, is Dataman or f.Christian ever going to turn around and say, oh wait, those deeply emotional ties I had to this relgious belief, yeah, those were no good. I agree with you now. They will consistently call us evil, and that's the way it is. Is there a good ending to this? Can someone help me out here?

[f.Christian]

Couldn't an earth'quake' (( cake )) cause a chasm // canyon 'overnight' ?

[PatrickHenry]

Is there a good ending to this? Can someone help me out here?

Some stories just don't have a happy ending. The phenomenon of creationism will be with us always. Deal with it.

[f.Christian]

jr ...

YOU've been shown this! ((On other threads)). That you SPOUT such nonsense -- time and again -- shows you're as incapable of retaining information!!! as you are // at writing a coherent sentence.

169 posted on 02/24/2003 5:50 PM PST by Junior (I want my, I want my, I want my chimpanzees)

fC ...

I've only seen the evolution erosian bug eyed theory of the geologic column . . .

you have another ? ?

[Buckeye Bomber]

So wait, you admit your argument is based on non-naturalist, and hence unobservable, phenomena? Then we are arguing here between faith and science. This argument can go nowhere.

If you want to believe in a religious story, or in some literal meaning of an ancient book that has probably been mistranslated many times (Why is the King James Bible the exact word of God? Because humans say so.), or some other such thing, go right ahead. But don't try and tell me you're interested in correct science. You have a particular religious viewpoint, and you have a right to tell whoever you want about that, as long as they are willing to listen. But keep your hands off of science and facts.

[f.Christian]

BR now !

Then came the...

SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/PSYCHO-EVO/NWO Soviet-LIBERAL-Socialist GULAG America---

the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...

Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative...

REDACTING them

and calling/CHANGING---

all the... residuals(technology/science) === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK IDEOLOGY/lies/bias...

to substantiate/justify/validate their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...

anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)---

and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...

against God--man--society/SCIENCE(religious oath-TEST for office/employment)!!

Evolution is satanic // witchcraft !

[whattajoke]

Why do we bother? Because these bible literalists and creationists are a blight on conservatives. too many liberal know nothings (esp. here in CT) lump me and you guys into the same group as the f.christians, datamans, and LBB's of the world. I, for one, can't stand that.

[Buckeye Bomber]

Witchcraft? Did someone say witchcraft? You know, this winter has been especially cold. I think f.Christian did it. Of course, if you look at this winter through naturalist eyes, my position won't make any sense.

f.Christian's a witch! Burn him!

[f.Christian]

Doesn't history // science (( evolution )) demand (( inevitable )) it ?

[PatrickHenry]

blight on conservatives

Placemarker.

[Buckeye Bomber]

History demands your burning? I hadn't even though of that angle.

Talking to f.Christian and Dataman makes me feel really smart.

There is only one demand science makes on anyone: the scientific method. The most beautiful creation of Western society is this tribute to reason.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is mind rape -- paedophiles !

[f.Christian]

A psychotic // evolutionist (( reprobates )) wouldn't know the differense between --- reason // rationalization --- LIES !

[Buckeye Bomber]

Most annoying ways to disagree with someone on FR:

1) Be f.Christian.

2) Say they're really from DU, and that is the only reason they disagree with you.

3) Call the person a RINO (honestly, is there some sort of marking on the soul of a true Republican? All political parties are only names.).

4) Present really really old data as "scientific proof".

5) Tell someone they are against the Bible, and thus will burn in eternal hell-fire for all eternity (you're welcome to inform me of this, but it's rather weak on the logic scale).

6) Accuse the person of being pro-paedophilia.

7) Despite a mountain of evidence on any given subject, tell the person that you have an intuition that tells you the opposite. I love Bill O'Reilly, but this is his most annoying tactic. But he's in the business of entertainment anyway, so I'll let it slide.

8) Attach the name of someone really evil to the opposing viewpoint. Honestly, everyone and their mother uses Hitler and the Nazi's as some sort of catch-all for anything with which they disagree. Soon it will lose all meaning. Oops, too late.

9) Attack someone's phraseology [sic]. This may seem hypocritical in light of my comment on f.Christian, but my problem with him is that his posts are completely nonsensical, and honestly, do we really need to come up with new words for every single idea (adding -ology to any assorted word, etc.)? I think the Germans have the right idea. Have a new idea? Just throw a bunch of words together to make one big word. (note the sarcasm please)

10) Attack the opposing viewpoint without offering a valid and reasonable alternative. This seems to be the way the world works though. From Dataman to the anti-war protestors, it's much easier to tear down ideas than to construct your own.

11) Tell someone that they're point is invalid because they don't have age or experience. Since when has being old meant you know more? If your reasoning is sound, you won't need to resort to this crap.

This is what I've observed from my days on Free Republic, which, admittedly, have not been many. But you learn quickly it seems. Add anymore if you think they are necessary. I'm sure Dataman has a few choice words for me. ;-)

[Buckeye Bomber]

11) Tell someone that their point is invalid because they don't have age or experience. Since when has being old meant you automatically know more? If your reasoning is sound, you won't need to resort to this crap.

My mistake.

[f.Christian]

evo-puke-bot-nik !