Science against evolution

reply to post by stereologist

Being clueless is your forte. The evidence against exodus is overwhelming. It's not a lack of evidence. It is strong evidence against. The evidence against a global flood is overwhelming. These are not assumptions. This is well established. The evidence against genesis is strong as well. Sodom and Gomorrah are nonexistent places. Only the bible mentions them. The bible is full of fiction. Not only that, but you claimed that the bible was written by those witnessing the events. You stated that and the bible states otherwise. Clearly, you have no idea what is in the bible.

And still you have no answer for where the water came from that helped develope the grand canyon and where the water went. All that we know for sure is that it was here becasue of what it left. Please, your making yourself look like a fool.

What is also quite clear from every post is that you have no idea what the word evolution means in science. Why would anyone listen to your drivel that it is assumption based when you can't even learn the meaning of the word let alone how the evidence is worked out.

I know enough about evolution to know that its a belief, and its not backed up by anything other than assumptions.

What else do I need to know? Judging from that do I wan't to know anymore? Probabably not.

Such a strange claim from someone that still cannot learn the meaning of evolution as use in science.

Science uses adaptation from evoluton for many things, that doesn't prove I share a common ancestor with apes

Its true, we have no instinctive values here. Instinct has been taken over by adaptation because we have no choice.

Evidence please

Aside from automatically knowing how to swim upward in water, I'm not aware of any instinctive values we brought to earth, but now is your chance to prove me wrong.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And still you have no answer for where the water came from that helped develope the grand canyon and where the water went. All that we know for sure is that it was here becasue of what it left. Please, your making yourself look like a fool.

The fool is you. I already posted the information in this thread.

I know enough about evolution to know that its a belief, and its not backed up by anything other than assumptions.

Again you make it abundantly clear that you do not know the meaning of the word evolution as used in science. Thanks for supporting what I wrote.

Science uses adaptation from evoluton for many things, that doesn't prove I share a common ancestor with apes

There you again confirming that you are clueless as to the meaning of the word evolution as use in science.

Why not post your first piece of evidence to support what is known as tooth's folly?

reply to post by stereologist

The fool is you. I already posted the information in this thread.

You never posted anything credible about the grand canyon.

Again you make it abundantly clear that you do not know the meaning of the word evolution as used in science. Thanks for supporting what I wrote.

I didn't know that you wrote that evolution was a belief.

There you again confirming that you are clueless as to the meaning of the word evolution as use in science.

Why not post your first piece of evidence to support what is known as tooth's folly?

Target Food proves evolution wrong.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Yet again you combine three posts despite having being told many times this is a dishonest tactic And shows without doubt you have no intention of being honest

Reply removed due to tooth's dishonesty

My reply has been removed as you dont deserve one.

You never posted anything credible about the grand canyon.

Yet again (not surprisingly) ANOTHER tooth fail..

Welcome to the Woolf's Den A well written debunking of the creationist account of The Grand Canyon.

I also want to make it clear that I'm interested in one thing only: do the rocks themselves support the creationist theory? I'm not interested in what the Bible says. If the physical evidence fails to support the theory, then no written words will change that. Humans can be fallible, humans can be deceptive, but the rocks cannot lie. Nature is often complex, but never dishonest. The geologic record shows what actually happened, and there's no way around that.

Refer to links...

So, first we need to look at how the Colorado Plateau got there. Then we can look at how the Grand Canyon was cut into the Plateau. Then perhaps we can summarize what we know and reach some conclusions.

www.jwoolfden.com...

In short, the Flood model for the origins of the rocks of the Colorado Plateau is internally contradictory and inconsistent with the actual data. It doesn't deal with all the available data, and it can't even adequately explain the data it does deal with. It simply doesn't work. So it seems safe to say that Austin's Flood model is definitely wrong. Furthermore, most of the objections raised here against Austin's particular model can also be raised against any model that attempts to explain the rock record as having been formed rapidly and recently. So we can reasonably conclude that any young-earth interpretation of the Colorado Plateau is doomed to failure.

www.jwoolfden.com...

I don't think there can be any doubt that Steven Austin's young-Earth, catastrophic model for the formation of the Colorado Plateau and the Grand Canyon fails in a great many ways. It does not explain the known facts, despite calling on a number of unjustifiable ad hoc hypotheses. It is internally contradictory, as well as inconsistent with the known evidence. Quite simply, it doesn't work, and there doesn't appear to be any way to salvage it so that it does work. Rationally, the only conclusion is that Austin's model fails, and it must be discarded.

www.jwoolfden.com...

The majesty of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River stands as a mute monument to the vast depths of time: time represented by the rocks, and time represented by the canyon through those rocks. No model of Earth history can be accepted unless it explains the Grand Canyon. The facts given in this article demonstrate clearly that Steve Austin's young-Earth model for the Grand Canyon is a complete failure. Further, it shows that the same questions and objections which kill Austin's model will also kill any other model that only allows a few thousand years for the history of the Plateau and the Canyon. No young-Earth model will ever survive the test of the Grand Canyon, and that means that no young-Earth model of Earth history can ever be accepted at all.

The geology does not lie...unfortunately tooth does...

Do your research and avoid a toothache.

I read all of the closed thread about TF and feel dumber for it and against better judgment started to read the 500 pages of Collins thread which was amusing at first because the religious folk didn’t know how to handle it. They seemed to not know how to state their case and reverted back to attacking evolution and the OP was explained to where a child could understand. What was the title of the thread before? Seemed like a lot of people were pissed off and you could tell many didn’t even take the time to read the OP before posting. I hate it when people do not read the OP and simply reply to the title.

I skipped to the end of the thread and yup tooth was there in a fantasy world. At what point did he jump in the thread with his fiction.

BTW do you know who would have loved tooth? L.Ron. Hubbard I think he would have polished his ideas and incorporated them in his books. It would have taken a lot of polishing. Shiny turds.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You never posted anything credible about the grand canyon.

And you never put up a counter argument to what he supplied just your usual unsupported dismissal.

What then I ask makes 'Aliens transported the water from Mars' credible?

Where is your answer to where did the water go?

reply to post by Grimpachi
He joined that thread around page 44 and had effectively stifled any real discussion by about page 60 and killed it by page 100

From memory the thread name was something like 'evolution 100% wrong. Proved' and as you say I made clear why I chose that heading in the OP.

If you really are going to read that thread look out for Quads posts as they were the closest it came to anyone addressing the OP.

I would not recommend reading that 500 page thread as it is just tooth repeating the same rubbish, denying the same facts. There are many toothisms which will make you laugh out loud but are they worth killing more brain cells?

What is strikingly obvious is he invaded this thread spouting the same ignorant nonsense that was destroyed in his failed thread and the same nonsense that was destroyed over and over again in the first thread.

This is why I say he is only here to prevent any dialog on this subject because intentional or not that is exactly what he does.

He never stays on topic even on his own thread. You just read it. Do you remember him laying out how target food disproved evolution? Did you find any evidence for the claims he made?

His other threads (you can find them in Hoax) he claims to be a science major. A discoverer of an arcane virus and insists he has been identified as a borderline genius.

Yep. He is that delusional.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Target Food proves evolution wrong.

Please your first piece of evidence supporting tooth's folly. Opinions are not evidence.

reply to post by colin42

And you never put up a counter argument to what he supplied just you usual unsupported dismissal.

What then I ask makes 'Aliens transported the water from Mars' credible?

Where is your answer to where did the water go?

I don't know, all I was saying was for someone that has all the answers he sure is coming up short.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Target Food proves evolution wrong.

Please your first piece of evidence supporting tooth's folly. Opinions are not evidence.

Stereo, really.

What's changed that would make you think he has evidence? Target food is as dead as his honesty chip.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I don't know, all I was saying was for someone that has all the answers he sure is coming up short.

Never made such a claim. What I do know is that tooth's folly is still without the first piece of supporting evidence.

Where is the first piece of evidence for tooth's folly? Seen many posters shred tooth's folly.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

And you never put up a counter argument to what he supplied just you usual unsupported dismissal.

What then I ask makes 'Aliens transported the water from Mars' credible?

Where is your answer to where did the water go?

I don't know, all I was saying was for someone that has all the answers he sure is coming up short.

Nope it is you that again has come up short. You cannot explain where or how the water appeared and cannot explain where it went but with no evidence against dismissed evidence supplied to you many times from many posters on this very subject.

A claim such as tooth's folly is without merit until shown to be plausible. With no supporting evidence it is simply a pointless comment. It isn't a theory. There are no facts upon which it is based. It's just a poorly constructed mess that conflicts with reality.

Not expecting any evidence to support tooth's folly. Until there is it is a meritless fantasy.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I read all of the closed thread about TF and feel dumber for it and against better judgment started to read the 500 pages of Collins thread which was amusing at first because the religious folk didn’t know how to handle it. They seemed to not know how to state their case and reverted back to attacking evolution and the OP was explained to where a child could understand. What was the title of the thread before? Seemed like a lot of people were pissed off and you could tell many didn’t even take the time to read the OP before posting. I hate it when people do not read the OP and simply reply to the title.

I skipped to the end of the thread and yup tooth was there in a fantasy world. At what point did he jump in the thread with his fiction.

BTW do you know who would have loved tooth? L.Ron. Hubbard I think he would have polished his ideas and incorporated them in his books. It would have taken a lot of polishing. Shiny turds.

he wouldnt have polished the turd...thats impossible.....He would have just rolled it in glitter.

Anyhoo....you can read highlights from the thread here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by idmonster


Some of those are downright hysterical. That was a great read. Thanks for cheering up the day.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by idmonster

 

Some of those are downright hysterical. That was a great read. Thanks for cheering up the day.

my personal favourites are:

“Actually I read books after deciding this. The books just happen to match”

“There is no way in hell that thing is human. You can tell just by looking at it.
It doesn't even have standard eye sockets.”

“but there is one thing I have learned in the over 30 years of studying reports about alien contacts. You cant trust aliens.”

and finaly:

“I'm not the one with the odd belief here.”

I did continue to save further toothisms after page 80, but never got around to posting them. Maybe I'll see if I can find the doc and post them here.

These are priceless.

“Actually I pulled it out of my @$$, but ok. It just seems like common sense to me.“

“I'm not the one with the odd belief here.”

“I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm ignoring theory.”

“Well science has only been blind to this because there are still a vast majority that refuses to believe in the supernatural”

reply to post by stereologist


I'm not understanding you, what the hell is tooths folly?

reply to post by colin42

Nope it is you that again has come up short. You cannot explain where or how the water appeared and cannot explain where it went but with no evidence against dismissed evidence supplied to you many times from many posters on this very subject.

The only thing I ever was presented about it, was very questionable. Now I know that doesn't mean much to you considering you have your faith in a very questional belief, however I don't roll that way.