@stephen_33 is it me? Am I being unclear?
Do We Have Empirical Demonstration/Confirmation of Abiogenesis? NO
Sort:
Feb 14, 2023
0
#263
tbwp10 wrote:
@stephen_33 is it me? Am I being unclear?
I understand you perfectly clearly. When I made a reference earlier to 'Hardcore Creationism' I wasn't being entirely sarcastic because there are Creationist zealots who believe there's no 'truth' other than what's written in scripture.
Therefore, anything that conflicts, or worse contradicts scripture, must be in error and therefore false. For the hardcore creationist everything has to be viewed through the unerring lens of scripture. I think it creates a form of cognitive dissonance in that T_M probably recognises that what you keep saying is actually correct but since Genesis is an indisputably factual account (to him), he's compelled to reject the conclusions that we accept as fact.
It's the only explanation for his behaviour that makes any sense to me.
Yeah, I hear you and follow what you're saying. Still doesn't quite explain his rejection of simple, straightforward, indisputable observational facts (that even YECs accept) that have nothing to do with evolution or old ages. But that's okay. I've just about given up on this whole discussion. It's just way too much work (and we haven't even got to anything 'controversial' yet!).
No answer from TM I see
Feb 20, 2023
0
#266
tbwp10 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
tbwp10 wrote:
Wow, there's just no pleasing you.
I just call it like I see it. If I'm wrong in my assessment of you, then I'm willing to admit it or change that assessment. So by all means prove me wrong. But you won't even acknowledge that dinosaurs are not found at the bottom of the fossil record. So yes, someone who shuts their eyes to basic facts like that, how else would you characterize that other than someone burying their head in the sand and willfully ignoring the facts. But hey, prove me wrong. I welcome it. I want you to prove me wrong! Then we'd actually have made some progress on the subject instead of wasting ridiculous amounts of time just trying to agree on basic, observational facts that are not even controversial.
Why do you think where something was found means evolutionary time is identified, where a million other causes could come into play? What you are doing is simply making the judgment call and calling your conclusions facts, and facts are fact, opinions are opinions. The earth eruptions with the water springing up bursting out along with the great storm had water 💦 filling the surface. It went back to looking like before God uncovered the land to create life on. Then water flowing back into the earth would also have on the surface great forces due to water moving into earth would be altering everything as well.
You just claim things you can not possibly know but call what you think they mean facts!
Dude, seriously? Again, with the strawman arguments? The past 5 or so pages (or however long we've been trying to discuss this), I've been focusing *exclusively* on just the basic, bare-bone observations of where in the fossil record different types of organisms are physically found to occur and have said *nothing* about evolution or old ages, yet you continue to act like I have and continue to argue against things that I have not said (no matter how many times I point this out to you, which has to be at least half a dozen to a dozen times by now!!)
You don't want me to insult you, but I see only two possible conclusions: (1) that you are either doing this intentionally (and are therefore resorting to cheap, disreputable debate tactics); or (2) that you are doing this unintentionally (and are therefore slow on the uptake and being obtuse, OR you're just not carefully reading what I write).
Since you don't want me to insult you, then why don't you tell me which one it is, and explain the reason for it.
I've said the only facts we got are where the fossils are found and there are fossils, not complaining about that. If you want to add to that, this is what that means...
Wow, there's just no pleasing you.
I just call it like I see it. If I'm wrong in my assessment of you, then I'm willing to admit it or change that assessment. So by all means prove me wrong. But you won't even acknowledge that dinosaurs are not found at the bottom of the fossil record. So yes, someone who shuts their eyes to basic facts like that, how else would you characterize that other than someone burying their head in the sand and willfully ignoring the facts. But hey, prove me wrong. I welcome it. I want you to prove me wrong! Then we'd actually have made some progress on the subject instead of wasting ridiculous amounts of time just trying to agree on basic, observational facts that are not even controversial.
Why do you think where something was found means evolutionary time is identified, where a million other causes could come into play? What you are doing is simply making the judgment call and calling your conclusions facts, and facts are fact, opinions are opinions. The earth eruptions with the water springing up bursting out along with the great storm had water 💦 filling the surface. It went back to looking like before God uncovered the land to create life on. Then water flowing back into the earth would also have on the surface great forces due to water moving into earth would be altering everything as well.
You just claim things you can not possibly know but call what you think they mean facts!
Dude, seriously? Again, with the strawman arguments? The past 5 or so pages (or however long we've been trying to discuss this), I've been focusing *exclusively* on just the basic, bare-bone observations of where in the fossil record different types of organisms are physically found to occur and have said *nothing* about evolution or old ages, yet you continue to act like I have and continue to argue against things that I have not said (no matter how many times I point this out to you, which has to be at least half a dozen to a dozen times by now!!)
You don't want me to insult you, but I see only two possible conclusions: (1) that you are either doing this intentionally (and are therefore resorting to cheap, disreputable debate tactics); or (2) that you are doing this unintentionally (and are therefore slow on the uptake and being obtuse, OR you're just not carefully reading what I write).
Since you don't want me to insult you, then why don't you tell me which one it is, and explain the reason for it.