Here you go Moe!

Frank Cox · 07-21-2010, 04:03 PM

You wanted to know about the La Brea tar pits so here is a paper from a peer reviewed scientific journal by creationists .

La Brea Tar Pits: An Introductory History (1769–1969)

meatwadisprez · 07-22-2010, 11:19 AM

You still smell.

Frank Cox · 07-23-2010, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by meatwadisprez

You still smell.

Gee your smart, did you use both brain cells to come up with such a clever reply or just one?

willis · 07-23-2010, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Frank Cox

You wanted to know about the La Brea tar pits so here is a paper from a peer reviewed scientific journal by creationists .

La Brea Tar Pits: An Introductory History (1769–1969)

Originally Posted by your article

A non-uniformitarian interpretation based on the idea of a major flood may be the only viable way of making sense of the fossils recovered from the La Brea Tar Pits.

Ok i'm bored at work and read most of this.. part of their issue is with a lot of the fossils being damaged, and a larger part with the preponderance of carnivores or at least flesh eaters..

how does the idea of a major flood explain the larger proportion of carnivores than expected? flesh eating birds were differentially killed off in the great flood??

what were you hoping to show with this?

willis · 07-23-2010, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Frank Cox

Gee your smart, did you use both brain cells to come up with such a clever reply or just one?

Gee you're shitty at spelling correctly and using basic grammar.. creationism doesn't teach those subjects?

meatwadisprez · 07-23-2010, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Frank Cox

Gee your smart, did you use both brain cells to come up with such a clever reply or just one?

I'm sorry, I couldn't understand you over the stench your body is releasing.

Simius · 07-23-2010, 05:44 PM

How come the tar pits don't include kangaroos or whales or dinosaurs or other animals that were around during the great flood?

Also, that is not peer reviewed and has not appeared in any scientific journals.

Frank Cox · 07-25-2010, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by willis

Ok i'm bored at work and read most of this.. part of their issue is with a lot of the fossils being damaged, and a larger part with the preponderance of carnivores or at least flesh eaters..

how does the idea of a major flood explain the larger proportion of carnivores than expected? flesh eating birds were differentially killed off in the great flood??

what were you hoping to show with this?

That is a weak response but far and away the best one in this entire thread.

It seems obvious you are not alowing yourself, even if just for the sake of argument, to consider for a second the paradigm is wrong, Please open your mind, for over 150 years the paradigm of Uniformitarianism was the only belief allowed in secular circles and now the best secular geologist on earth condemn the man most responsible that belief, the lawyer Charles Lyell as a conman and master brainwasher who fooled them all by selling his philosophy and world view as the only true geology, In case you are unaware he was also the man most responsible for Darwin's views by Darwin's own admission. Since the 70's field geologist have embraced Neo-Catastrophism but the Uniformitarian nonsense won't stay in the trash where it belongs because it is needed to defend atheism.

The animals are violently ripped apart and you simply ignore that fact because it does not fit your worldview , no attempt to account for the evidence is made in order to to hold on to a story that is pure conjecture.
The weak explanation that the animals came down to a water hole to hunt the prey animals and got stuck in the tar defies any logical interpretation of the observable evidence, The evidence for mass kills all over the world in very many cases is that there are tremendous quantities of animals, billions in a few cases, that do not live together ripped apart and buried together, The only logical interpretation is they were ripped apart in a violent watery catastrophe such as a hyper concentrated flow {70-30 mix of sediment and water moving at twice freeway speed} and were deposited when the flow slowed enough to allow the body parts to settle out. Since there are so many different animals , in many cases a mix of terrestrial, marine and freshwater creatures , and so many period this happened over a vast area m in many cases thousands of square miles.

The forces that ripped these animals apart also uprooted giant trees and deposited them many miles from where they grew and left them without limbs or bark, just huge stumps and the main section , We have witnessed this phenomenon in recent history at Spirit Lake near Mt,St.Helens where millions of trees in that condition where left floating in the lake and as they became water logged sank upright {in the majority of cases} to the bottom and the bark quickly started building up as it also sank leading geologist to the conclusion that what they are witnessing is the creation of a Petrified Forest such as those at Yellowstone.

As far as the flesh eating birds please provide evidence they all were such and considering the evidence strongly suggests the creatures were ripped apart elsewhere and deposited together at La Brae I can imagine all sorts of ideas, all conjecture of course.

I appreciate your answer but if you ignore the fact that catastrophic forces ripped the animals apart you will never come to a true picture of what happened just as ignoring the origin of life and the origin of the genetic code. If you pick and choose which evidence to ignore or not you might as well just accept millions of years and evolution for what it is, what it has been since at least 600 years before Christ walked the earth that we have records of and certainly long before that,an ancient anti-God religion.

If you critically examine the evidence science does not support it at all.

Frank Cox · 07-26-2010, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by Simius

How come the tar pits don't include kangaroos or whales or dinosaurs or other animals that were around during the great flood?

Also, that is not peer reviewed and has not appeared in any scientific journals.

The Creation Society Quarterly is and has been a peer reviewed scientific journal for nearly 50 years, apparently you are unaware what the word means. Everything published in there is peer reviewed. The monthly was first published by 8 PHD scientists in 1964 the argument that because the majority disagrees with their views changes that fact is just hot air, and religious bigotry.

From there webpage:

Published continuously since 1964
Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists
World-wide circulation
Scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines
Fresh perspectives on science and society as impacted by origins
Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent creation, and a catastrophic worldwide flood

With the degree of brainwashing you have received I would be surprised if you did not think the National Pornagraphic was peer reviewed instead of the sensationalist yellow journalism it is.

Since there is no real argument from science evolutionists bounce from one dishonest tactic to another. The list is long and includes the outright frauds like Piltdown Man , Piltdown Bird, the Lucy Dolls and the Laetoli lie, Haeckles Drawings, The Fairy Moths nailed to trees, conspiring to deny creationists access to secular publications and then claiming because they don't publish in those journals they are not "real scientists" and when a creationists set up their own journals they claim, without any basis whatsoever, that because they are creationists their PHD's , their inventions, their discoveries and their journals don't count. Everyday though more and more young geologist are seeing the hypocrisy and the lack of scientific integrity of the mainstream because the theories of the creationists such as the trees being buried in bark at the bottom of Spirit Lake as an explanation for the so called petrified forests such as those at Yellowstone are based on empirical science whereas the old explanation ignores the evidence completely,
.

As far as why there are no Giraffes or dino's at La Brae I would imagine they were elsewhere at the time these creatures were swept there. You explain away the fact there are giant fossil beds all over the world with marine, terrestrial, and freshwater creatures all ripped to pieces and buried together by asking why no girafees or dinosaurs in a paticular bed?
No one can make you think .

Frank Cox · 07-26-2010, 04:11 AM

their webpage

Pro Street · 07-26-2010, 03:08 PM

hey I'm a degreed scientist.

JDTC · 07-26-2010, 03:27 PM

Frank, if you could prove to us that Creationism is fact, would that in turn prove to us that the God you believe in exists concretely?

Not trying to set up an argument or anything, just a question.

Frank Cox · 07-27-2010, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

hey I'm a degreed scientist.

How did you pull that off? It seems you would have to have at least a grade school grasp of the subject.

Frank Cox · 07-28-2010, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by JDTC

Frank, if you could prove to us that Creationism is fact, would that in turn prove to us that the God you believe in exists concretely?
Not trying to set up an argument or anything, just a question.

You are trying to set up an argument. If you could prove that atheism was fact would it in turn prove that right and wrong do not exist?

It never fails, those who who consider themselves, brights, free thinkers , intellectuals etc. answer any and all scientific challenges to their religious beliefs with canned cliches that are posted on skeptic websites. So far there has been one attempt to answer from science and it was weak.

It is a disgrace we have allowed our school system to be turned in to a propaganda factory that produces people who allow others to do their thinking. Trying to shift the burden of proof by asking questions you know the answers to already in order to hide the fact all of your beliefs are purely religious and scientifically indefensible is par for the course.
ALL beliefs about origins are religious and none can be proved, whether my contention that the God of the Bible is the creator or yours that asks us to believe that the incredible miracle of self reproducing organisms was uncaused and in fact completely spontaneous.

Science rarely proves anything and historical/forensic science is weak at best and is in no way similar in weight to operational science.

Historical records ALWAYS trump historical/forensic science . No architect will pick the estimates made using c-14 dating over historical records. The only reason that people discount the historical record in the Bible is they don't like its morality, they don't like the "Thus sayeth the Lord" part.
We have the book of isaiah from the Dead Sea scrools that details numerous events in the life , cruxifiction and resurrection of Jesus Christ .
Writing history in advance is proof of supernatural power.

The critical Christianity that has been adopted by so many liberal seminaries and is promoted by skeptics everywhere was based on the charge Moses could not write , Soddom and Gommorah were myths , the land of Elba was a myth , the claim David and his son Solomon never existed etc etc. The proof all these things were myths? There is no record outside the Bible to compare them to. That is bigotry as nothing the Bible teaches has ever been disproved despite the claims of skeptics.

We now have the evidence from archeology that Elba was a very real place
and it existed many centuries before Moses was born and they could read and write, the records found at Elba speak of the cities of the plain including Sodom and Gommorah and we have found evidence of David and Solomon but the same lies atr still promoted.

All one can do from science in regard to origins is to try and determine the truth of any account by seing if it fits the evidence. The Biblical account agrees with the facts, the ancient anti-God religion of evolution does not.

The Bible says that God created the universe and all life . That He created all life to reproduce after its kind. That is what we observe, animals have great variety , plants have great variety, humans have great variety but cats are cats, dogs are dogs, monkeys are monkeys and people are people. In the beginning God explains the creation of the genetic code , God applying His intelligence on matter He called into existence.

Evolution has no origin , it pleads with us to just accept that for no reason a complex language simply create itself and that the first self reproducing orgsanisms, one cell of which is more complicated than the universe and beyound the combined intelligenc of man to create were Just There.
An origin account with no starting point is not an origins account.

So no, I cannot prove that the God of the Bible is the creator God but considering the Bible writes history in advance it is the best logical conclusion there is.

In order to believe in evolution you have to believe matter created itself and then created intelligence.

In order to believe the Bible is true you have to believe intelligence created matter . Science supports the Bible, there is no method known to science to created languages by material means and without the genetic code you have no life.

.

Pro Street · 07-28-2010, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Frank Cox

How did you pull that off? It seems you would have to have at least a grade school grasp of the subject.

yep... shame you don't know

JDTC · 07-28-2010, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Frank Cox

You are trying to set up an argument. If you could prove that atheism was fact would it in turn prove that right and wrong do not exist?

It never fails, those who who consider themselves, brights, free thinkers , intellectuals etc. answer any and all scientific challenges to their religious beliefs with canned cliches that are posted on skeptic websites. So far there has been one attempt to answer from science and it was weak.

It is a disgrace we have allowed our school system to be turned in to a propaganda factory that produces people who allow others to do their thinking. Trying to shift the burden of proof by asking questions you know the answers to already in order to hide the fact all of your beliefs are purely religious and scientifically indefensible is par for the course.
ALL beliefs about origins are religious and none can be proved, whether my contention that the God of the Bible is the creator or yours that asks us to believe that the incredible miracle of self reproducing organisms was uncaused and in fact completely spontaneous.

Science rarely proves anything and historical/forensic science is weak at best and is in no way similar in weight to operational science.

Historical records ALWAYS trump historical/forensic science . No architect will pick the estimates made using c-14 dating over historical records. The only reason that people discount the historical record in the Bible is they don't like its morality, they don't like the "Thus sayeth the Lord" part.
We have the book of isaiah from the Dead Sea scrools that details numerous events in the life , cruxifiction and resurrection of Jesus Christ .
Writing history in advance is proof of supernatural power.

The critical Christianity that has been adopted by so many liberal seminaries and is promoted by skeptics everywhere was based on the charge Moses could not write , Soddom and Gommorah were myths , the land of Elba was a myth , the claim David and his son Solomon never existed etc etc. The proof all these things were myths? There is no record outside the Bible to compare them to. That is bigotry as nothing the Bible teaches has ever been disproved despite the claims of skeptics.

We now have the evidence from archeology that Elba was a very real place
and it existed many centuries before Moses was born and they could read and write, the records found at Elba speak of the cities of the plain including Sodom and Gommorah and we have found evidence of David and Solomon but the same lies atr still promoted.

All one can do from science in regard to origins is to try and determine the truth of any account by seing if it fits the evidence. The Biblical account agrees with the facts, the ancient anti-God religion of evolution does not.

The Bible says that God created the universe and all life . That He created all life to reproduce after its kind. That is what we observe, animals have great variety , plants have great variety, humans have great variety but cats are cats, dogs are dogs, monkeys are monkeys and people are people. In the beginning God explains the creation of the genetic code , God applying His intelligence on matter He called into existence.

Evolution has no origin , it pleads with us to just accept that for no reason a complex language simply create itself and that the first self reproducing orgsanisms, one cell of which is more complicated than the universe and beyound the combined intelligenc of man to create were Just There.
An origin account with no starting point is not an origins account.

So no, I cannot prove that the God of the Bible is the creator God but considering the Bible writes history in advance it is the best logical conclusion there is.

In order to believe in evolution you have to believe matter created itself and then created intelligence.

In order to believe the Bible is true you have to believe intelligence created matter . Science supports the Bible, there is no method known to science to created languages by material means and without the genetic code you have no life.

.

what

Pro Street · 07-28-2010, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Frank Cox

....

In order for any of your arguments, you need to prove the Bible is fact.

By doing this, you cannot use circumstantial evidence. This means you cannot take a THEORY and post another THEORY to disprove it as evidence. Otherwise you are just stating an opinion or yet another theory.

You cannot use the logical fallacy of proving a negative either, nor can you use a claim to omnipresence.

Any of such is nothing but an excuse to fill in holes in your theory.

You fail countless times Frank, because you disprove what you rely on. You will take anything supporting you with full gusto, but close yourself off to conflicting evidence.

As such you're trying to lecture, not discuss.

You are blind to anything that involves expanding your acceptance of what the reality might be. As such you are the shepard to the real lambs.

If there is a god, he is very disappointed in you.

Mosheh Thezion · 07-29-2010, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

In order for any of your arguments, you need to prove the Bible is fact.

By doing this, you cannot use circumstantial evidence. This means you cannot take a THEORY and post another THEORY to disprove it as evidence. Otherwise you are just stating an opinion or yet another theory.

You cannot use the logical fallacy of proving a negative either, nor can you use a claim to omnipresence.

Any of such is nothing but an excuse to fill in holes in your theory.

You fail countless times Frank, because you disprove what you rely on. You will take anything supporting you with full gusto, but close yourself off to conflicting evidence.

As such you're trying to lecture, not discuss.

You are blind to anything that involves expanding your acceptance of what the reality might be. As such you are the shepard to the real lambs.

If there is a god, he is very disappointed in you.

Everyone seems to agree that Frank is in some ways.. wrong.

However, he is not completely wrong simply because he may have his facts wrong.

I would ask that you read this link, I wrote it all, its my baby so to speak, and as a degreed sceientist, you should be able to have some intelegent view.... unless you are overly biased by Atheist dogma.
------> Theory

It is my view that the whole of empirical evidence actually supports not only Biblical Genesis Generally, but a God, as the original source of potential energy.

-Mosheh Thezion

Pro Street · 07-30-2010, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Mosheh Thezion

Everyone seems to agree that Frank is in some ways.. wrong.

However, he is not completely wrong simply because he may have his facts wrong.

I would ask that you read this link, I wrote it all, its my baby so to speak, and as a degreed sceientist, you should be able to have some intelegent view.... unless you are overly biased by Atheist dogma.
------> Theory

It is my view that the whole of empirical evidence actually supports not only Biblical Genesis Generally, but a God, as the original source of potential energy.

-Mosheh Thezion

trying to find the time.... skimmed over it, really good stuff.

Frank Cox · 08-01-2010, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by JDTC

what

I will right slow since you don't read fast.
If evolution existed , which it does not then you need at least one self replicating organism to start with. One cell of this self replicating organism has to be more complicated than anything man can conceive, let alone build. Life requires the genetic code which is a code system similar to a computer ode but more complex than anyhting man has come up with.

Evolutionist plead for us to just BELIEVE that these sell replicating organisms and the genetic code were just there. That is religion, a fairy tale religion, not science. Unless of course you have proof of spontaneous generation and intelligence arising from .matter