Search This Blog

Friday, October 23, 2009

Evolution will not fly. First five reasons why




The Jurassic Shrimp wants you to know they didn't leave us 50 million years ago. Not even Richard Dawkins can tell you this is not the same kind of shrimp commonly found in fossil rocks.


Should I say he could not say it honestly? Good, that is better.




You think the rocks above were still kind of wet and freshly laid when they were twisted like taffy?
That would be the logical and obvious conclusion.


Ripple marks on sandstone at Cliff Springs, Arizona. All rock layers show signs of water formation at some point when carefully examined. Uniformitarianism has been debunked.




Part One: Our series from





FIFTY REASONS WHY

EVOLUTION WILL NOT FLY


(RMCF content in blue)

There is ample evidence to believe that a God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis. Please read on and give each point careful thought as to which religious view sounds more reasonable -- special creation or evolution.





1. PARACONFORMITY: Evolutionary geologists contend that rocks were laid down in a uniform, predictable manner over billions of years. These scientists label and date these rock layers with familiar names such as Jurassic and Pre-Cambrian. The term Paraconformity describes those rock formations that are missing certain layers which are predicted by evolutionary geology. None of the typical gullying and weathering is visible in these examples, unlike what we see when the ground has been exposed for long periods. At several places in the Baltic region, clays of the so-called Pleistocene age rest directly on clays that contain Cambrian age fossils, creating an evolutionary gap of 400 million years. Yet in some places the break between layers can hardly be located, so similar are the two clays. Creationists say that the evidence from these anomalies indicates that the traditional, evolutionary dating methods for rocks are faulty. What do you say?

Radar - Notice the smooth layers of rocks in the Grand Canyon. The expected aging is not there, the layers are smooth and all show signs of water formation. Check out this picture of the Grand Canyon walls, below:



Radar - Dr. Sean Pitman has a great treatise on the subjects both above and below (see pic below).



2. GEOLOGY REVERSED: Around the world, we see rock layers out of normal evolutionary sequence. Naturalist geologists believe the earth’s rocks were laid down in a uniform manner over billions of years. In Glacier National Park, however, a block of Precambrian “old” rock sits on top of Cretaceous “newer” rock. Why is this important? Evolutionists have a hard time explaining this embarrassing example of 1 billion year-old rock sitting on top of 100 million year old rock. Perhaps the rocks have moved since they were laid down? Unfortunately, when geologists look for signs of movement such as scrape marks or tallis piles they find none. Additionally, the tensile strength of rock makes it highly unlikely that the older block of rock moved across the newer without shattering to dust. Looking at the evidence, creationists say that both rocks were created at the same time. What do you say?



Radar - Picture above of Hanging Lake area, Glenwood Canyon --- An unconformity occurs between the lower Ordovician Manitou Formation and the upper Devonian Chaffee Group. [The Manitou Fm extends left horizontally from the lone tree on the sloping skyline ridge in the middle of the picture. The formation is about twice as thick as the tree is high. The Chaffee Group is about the same thickness and is the next higher layer with many tree growing along the top of it on the skyline.] The "25 million year-long Silurian period" is missing between them, although no evidence is found here for major erosion in the lower layer. Missing layers, cross-bedding, switched layers, all of these are common throughout the world. The standard geological column presented to students is a fraud.



3. RADIOMETRIC DATING: This process attempts to place an accurate date on the age of rocks by measuring the decay of radioactive minerals trapped within. Scientists first examine the relative ratios of various minerals in the host rock. Three basic assumptions are made when dating a piece of rock;



A. the rock contained no ” radioactive “daughter-product” atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms.

B. since the moment of its creation no parent or daughter atoms were either added to or taken from the sample rock.

C. the rate of decay has always remained constant (uniform decay).


These assumptions cannot be proven with any degree of accuracy. To make a scientific claim, one must be able to reproduce results. What do you think? In your experience, can an algebraic equation with three unknown variables yield a predictable, verifiable result?

Radar - So I mentioned that the RATE conferences have found ways to actually date rocks. Too bad the results come back at about 6,000 years or so.

4. OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date all sorts of things. Two examples included oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by the carbon-14 dating method reveal them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating these products using this method. Do you think it is intellectually sound to reject a process that fails to yield the results you so badly wanted? Is this good science?



Radar - Oil has to have been trapped underground less than 100,000 years. Check out the picture below (There is no "impermeable" cap rock. Oil and gas are escaping from their lairs and their pressure is decreasing.













5. PERMANENCE OF KINDS: Also called stasis, this field of observation has determined that most animals have remained relatively unchanged throughout the fossil record. Despite millions of (supposed) years and billions of chances to evolve into higher life forms, no evidence exists for this theory. Many fossils from “older” rocks, when compared to their modern counterparts, are often identical in form. Worms still look like worms, not some hybrid creatures. Not one change of one life form into another has ever been recorded, yet evolution is regarded in most circles as fact.








Radar - Living fossils, we find more of them each decade. So many animals have remained basically or perhaps entirely unchanged. Not good for evolution.

The Purple Frog lives underground so escaped discovery until recently. Pretty much the same thing found in fossils.






The Mantis Shrimp, once thought extinct, was supposed to develop 400 million years ago? They have perhaps the most advanced eyes in the biosphere.




Then there is the good old Colecanth, rediscovered in the 1930's. We now know they live off the coast of Africa and also SE Asia.








A Frill Shark, one living fossil that looks like a remarkably impressive monster and now we know it is most definitely NOT extinct. In fact actual Tyrannosaurus tissue from a Western United States dig kills evolution dead. Organic tissue could not conceivably last millions of years!





The above soft tissue from the famous T-Rex found by Mary Sweitzer.


The 2005 discovery of "fresh" tissue in the femur of a fossilized T. rex in Montana was quite a surprise (except to informed creationists), reported for example March 25, 2005, by Reuter News Service, "Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue: 70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels". National Geographic News reported also in an article March 24, 2005, in which lead researcher Mary Schweitzer was quoted as saying, "Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]."




Full disclosure...I am not a staffer for the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship but I am a member in good standing.

28 comments:

WomanHonorThyself said...

fabulous post my friend..what research!

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, that T-Rex soft tissue that completely disproves evolution, right? Let's see what Dr. Mary Schweitzer (who is, ironically, an evangelical Christian), has to say herself about creationists hi-jacking her research:

Smithsonian.com: Dinosaur Shocker

Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”


Yes people, that's how creationists do it: don't do research yourself, don't submit yourself to any scientific scrutiny; just manipulate the data of hard-working, serious scientists in any way possible to support your own pseudo-scientific views.

Oh, and by the way: it appears that research of the dinosaur tissue showed remakable molecular similarities with chicken, which is more proof for what scientists already theorized: that birds evolved from dinosaurs:

T. REX TISSUE OFFERS EVOLUTION INSIGHTS

So once again, Radar: great job of displaying the irrationalism and idiocy of creationism. Who knows, you might have helped some more christians leave their faith.

I'm all in support of that! Do carry on!

radar said...

Anonymous, whoever you are?

1) You did not address any of the five points made in this post.

2) Using Smithsonian as an example after I showed how they tried to pass off a carving of a Stegosaurus as a Rhino, was that unintentionally funny? Smithsonian is in the tank for the evolution paradigm and does not give a rip about seeking truth.

3) A worthwhile Ornithologist could pick apart the dino-to-bird thesis easily. Wrong bone type, wrong breathing/ribcage structure, no actual transitional kinds. There were flying reptiles but they do not relate to birds well anatomically. Do some research and come on back.

radar said...

Oh, and "geologists have established" is about as reliable and probably as scary as "a new government agency has been added."

Anonymous said...

1) Why should I? Like I've pointed out above: you do an excellent job of displaying the irrationalities of creationism yourself.

2) There's no way I could be any funny than you sinking to the bottom of the YEC-barrel by presenting something that vaguely resembles a Stegosaurus (why would an eyewitness make the head WAY to big) as proof of creationism. Can anyone spell desperation?
Once again: great job of making creationism look ridiculous, Radar. Two thumbs up!

3) Funny that you use the word 'research' while -as I've pointed out above- that's exactly the thing creationists don't do themselves. Rather leave the hard work to real scientists, only to twist their data to fit your conclusions, huh?

radar said...

Anonymous, you are pretty far behind so maybe you should begin easy?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Dinosaurs-for-Kids,6184,185.aspx?utm_source=AiGSuperSpecials&utm_medium=email&utm_content=MainPanel_DinosaursForKids&utm_campaign=SS10272009

Petrified bone is called a "fossil" while if organic material is detected we call it "remains." Sweitzer is not happy that her find is actual evidence that dinosaurs lived recently and gee, that really is too bad.

Fossil rocks are dated by the fossils within them sometimes and sometimes the fossils are dated by the rocks. But if you ask a geologist to prove how old a rock formation is they will not resort to evidence, they will tell a story. Creationists spent years of research in RATE I and II finding the evidence and publishin the results.

If you cannot tell a stegosaurus from a rhino, then maybe a basic review of your education is in order. Smithsonian is just lying to protect their religious beliefs. I am not afraid of evidence and they are. But you do not seem to even be willing to think about the evidence. So when will you actually address any of the five points?

radar said...

So no evolutionists have stood up to the first five points?

Okay, next five coming up!

Anonymous said...

Behe owned by his own Biology Department.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

Good stuff.

No Radar, it's not that we haven't "stood up" to your 5 points. They are all ridiculous cherry picked anecdotal misrepresentations of actual facts. Not being an expert in these areas (just like you, I might add), I'm not going to even bother reading most of your standard cut and pasted post (as I have said before your posts are WAY TOO LONG to begin with). You continually post the same crap and are dead wrong on all counts. No one outside of your faith asserts the kind of BS you do (can you show me one instance where a non-believer has come to the conclusion that a global flood occurred in the last 6000 years?). Prove to us that we should take your sources seriously, and then maybe we'll actually read what you post (but, again you also need to stop being so lazy and shorten things up or, heaven forbid, write on the topics yourself). Although, to be fair, I think when creeper has time to visit, he actually does go through your garbage, but that said, he also definitely strikes me as an expert in these areas.

I also want to remind you that it is you that lets your religion color your views on science, not the Smithsonian. Answers in Genesis is somehow a better source than the Smithsonian?!? It has word "Genesis" in it's freaking URL. I mean, who's being unintentionally funny again? To put yourself on an intellectual pedestal like you do, though really makes you look like the crazy conspiracy theorist that you are.

This is also hilarious by the way, "A worthwhile Ornithologist could pick apart the dino-to-bird thesis easily." So, what basis do you have to say this, and what does the term "worthwhile ornithologist" even mean? How is it that you feel that you are even able to evaluate the work of any ornithologist, in order to determine who's better? Your sense of self importance is truly stunning.

By-the-way, where's my health care response, and did Debbie read my comment relative to your "bankrupt or die" answers to creeper's questions?

- Canucklehead

radar said...

So still no actual rebuttals...

My health care situation is not really any of your business, but for the sake of the readers I will answer anyway.

I have not mentioned this, but I was offered disability status by my old company years ago when I was seriously injured and I preferred and believed I should make it on my own. If I actually did have a terrible illness I could bite the bullet and claim disability status that would, among other things, provide me with health care coverage and payments from the government. Unless I absolutely must do so, I will not consider myself as disabled and will not resort to that.

For you US citizens, that means I am trying to make it on my own and not depend on your taxes to take care of me.

If you think that is careless or irresponsible then you just go ahead and think that way. I do not care whether you approve or not. But technically I could be living off of you right now and I am using a computer and a phone and my brain and my gift of gab and my knowledge of IT technology to make money instead.

Anonymous said...

Radar, you truly have a talent for comedy. You said:

Smithsonian is just lying to protect their religious beliefs.

Quite ironically, in the same reply where you refer to Answers in Genesis, the organisation that built the Creation Museum. And whaddayaknow: when some atheists visited the museum, one of them was asked to turn his T-shirt inside out because it said 'NO GOD'.
Have you ever heard of a Christian visiting the Smithsonian being taking apart for wearing a T-shirt with 'Jesus Saves' or anything like that? Imagine the outrage of something like that would happen.
Now who's protecting his religious views, huh?
Yup, that's the kind of people creationists are. Nuff said.

Once again, Radar, you display the idiocy of creationism. Thanks for that.

I must say though, that I'm quite surprised to see you expect any rebuttals to your pseudo-scientific claims. By now you should know why there aren't any.

One word: Hartnett.

Do you really believe you are taking serious after you have been caught with your pants down at the 'Hartnett debacle'?
Really, Radar, it's time to get that genius intellect of yours in gear.

But since you do seem to be genuinely unhappy because of the lack of rebuttals, I'm willing to do one small effort.

This should cover any of your current and future claims:

Why do people laugh at creationists?

Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism


This should keep you happy for a while. Have fun with it.

Don't get me wrong though: I DO hope you post the follow-up arguments. It'll keep me entertained during the more boring hours of the day.
And maybe, just maybe, it might deconvert a few christians which is always a plus.

Which brings me back to my original question: does it bother you, Radar, that by stating that people have to choose between Genesis and evolution, some people might choose evolution and reject their faith?

In other words: is you being right more important than people being saved?

highboy said...

This is an odd formula for debate.

Radar: "Here is my argument, here are my links to support my argument."
Anonymous: "You're crazy".
Radar: "Prove it".
Anonymous: "Why should I?"
Radar: "Prove it".
Anonymous: "I can't, because I'm not an expert in the field, and I don't bother to read all your posts anyway. But you're wrong, and crazy. Ha ha!"

I must say this is a bizarre debate indeed.

radar said...

Highboy wins the "Comment of the Year" award!!!

Okay, safe to post the next five, I think. We have had the typical non-responses and Highboy has capped this one off with a flourish. Thanks, buddy!

Anonymous said...

LOL, this is hilarious!

Thanks, guys!

Oh, and now you're here, highboy: according to Radar one should reject either the theory of evolution or the Book of Genesis. Which do you choose?

highboy said...

Anonymous: I'm glad you find the fact that you admit to having no rebuttals to the argument posted and your admission to not even reading the posts before responding to them so hilarious. We find them funny too, so its awesome we all agree on something. As to your choice: I obviously choose Genesis. Just because I've stated in the past that Genesis doesn't necessarily have to mean 24 hours in regards to the age of the earth doesn't mean I ascribe to evolution. I haven't seen enough compelling evidence whatsoever to warrant that humans and apes have common ancestors.

Anonymous said...

Hey highboy,

1- If you scroll up a bit, you'll see I posted three links that lead to a whole list of rebuttals to just about every creationist claim out there. So I'm not sure why you wish to believe I said I have no rebuttals.
If you read my reply carefully you will understand the point I'm making: Radar should just browse through the archive of his blog instead of making the same PRATTs over and over again.
And copy/pasting outright lies, like in the case of the Hartnett debacle doesn't do his credibility any good. That's his own fault; don't blame me for it, LOL.

2- where exactly did I state that I did not read Radar's article?

3- you think that yom doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours, yet Radar is convinced it does. Which one of you is wrong?

Also: would you agree with me that by stating that people must choose either Genesis or the Theory of Evolution, some people might choose Evolution, thereby risking eternal torment? Should Radar be worried that he might have been instrumental in people leaving their faith?

radar said...

Radar is not worried about killing off faith.

1)Long ago we established that you do not have to believe in YEC to be saved.

2)Tim is certainly a man who exhibits all the signs of being a born-again believer. We may disagree about yom, and I hope to persuade him, but his salvation rests in Christ and not in specific exegetical studies of the Book of Genesis.

3) The issue is not whether Tim believes God, but merely how he understands the usage of the word "yom." But you, anonymous, have a problem and that is that your problem is with God. Not me. Not Tim.

highboy said...

1."Not being an expert in these areas (just like you, I might add), I'm not going to even bother reading most of your standard cut and pasted post"

That was posted by someone using the same old "anonymous" screen name.

2. Yes, you posted 3 rebuttals made by someone else, not 3 posts after accusing radar of being lazy and copying and pasting too much.

3. "you think that yom doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours, yet Radar is convinced it does. Which one of you is wrong?"

First of all, I said it doesn't have to mean 24 hours, I never said it doesn't. If radar is convinced it does he very well may be right, and I could care less if its 24 hours or 24 million years. I don't have the first clue either way and don't claim to.

4. If people choose evolution over Genesis its not radar's problem. Truth is truth precisely because its narrow, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be truth. So people either accept God or reject Him. If radar is presenting truth and someone rejects it for evolution that's on their head, not radar's. Its not up to radar to water down choices so that people make a different choice under false pretenses.

Anonymous said...

1. "That was posted by someone using the same old "anonymous" screen name."

Yes, and if you had read a bit more carefully you would have noticed that some comments by 'Anonymous' are undersigned, and others aren't. I never undersign my comments, but that quote came from a comment that WAS undersigned. By Canuclehead to be precise. So you accuse me of something Canucklehead typed. Why?

2. "Yes, you posted 3 rebuttals made by someone else, not 3 posts after accusing radar of being lazy and copying and pasting too much."

First: I posted rebuttals by someone else just like Radar posted arguments by someone else. What's the problem?

Second: Same story here as in point 1: it was Canucklehead who called Radar lazy, not me.

So what was that again about responding to articles without reading them? It appears you didn't read the comments well enough to distinguish Canucklehead's comments from mine, and simply jumped to unfounded conclusions.
And jumping to conclusions is Radar's domain.
Highboy, you may be Radar's buddy for whatever reasons, but should that really mean you have to make the same mistakes he does?

Oh, and by the way: if you say that posting under 'Anonymous' makes things complicated: you'll have to take that up with Radar. If I recall correctly, he said he allowed it because of freedom, so I don't think he will be contradicting himself now by disabling it. Hell, even his wife Debbie posts under 'Anonymous', so..

3. "If radar is convinced it does he very well may be right..."

So Radar could be wrong?

4. "If people choose evolution over Genesis its not radar's problem."

Now, you see, if Radar is really so concerned about people's salvation as he says he is, it should be his problem.
The real heart of the problem is that Radar, and by extension creationists, want people to choose.
The are plenty of people who are Christians and believe in the theory of evolution. They see no conflict, and no reason to choose. And even Radar admits that people can be saved even when they believe in evolution.
Yet still he says that one must reject either Genesis or evolution. And I truly wonder why, because thereby he risks the fact that people will indeed to that and -not surprisingly considering the huge amount of evidence for evolution- reject their faith and thereby their salvation.

So I really ask: isn't it better to just let people believe in evolution? Even if Radar thinks it's wrong; isn't it better for them to believe in a lie -which is only during their short time on Earth- as long as they accept God and be saved, which is for eternity?

How many lost souls is Radar prepared to risk just to be right?

highboy said...

"By Canuclehead to be precise. So you accuse me of something Canucklehead typed. Why?"

If people weren't so cowardly that they couldn't even register a phony screen name it might not be so confusing. I have no way of knowing if "anonymous" is Canucklhead or not, simply because you say its not you.

"So what was that again about responding to articles without reading them? It appears you didn't read the comments well enough to distinguish Canucklehead's comments from mine, and simply jumped to unfounded conclusions."

Yes because I should automatically know that the coward "anonymous" isn't the same person posting as another anonymous. Got it.

"Hell, even his wife Debbie posts under 'Anonymous', so.."

...and puts her name under it. Which you don't. So....

"So Radar could be wrong?"

About the age of the earth, yes he could be. You're apparently trying to point something out with this.

As to your number 4 response: if what radar is preaching is the truth, no, its not better to let someone believe a lie to be saved. It won't work, it won't happen, no one comes to true salvation under a false pretense.

Anonymous said...

If people weren't so cowardly that they couldn't even register a phony screen name it might not be so confusing. I have no way of knowing if "anonymous" is Canucklhead or not, simply because you say its not you.

Just by reading you know. Look who undersigned and who didn't. And if you are confused or can't be sure about who said what, here's a tip: say nothing at all instead of posting unfounded accusations. It'll just make you look silly.

Yes because I should automatically know that the coward "anonymous" isn't the same person posting as another anonymous. Got it.

See above: read and you shall know. If still in doubt, say nothing at all.

Apparently you cannot resist complaining about people posting under 'Anonymous', but like I said earlier: you'll have to take that up with Radar. It will be interesting to see if he will disable it and thereby contradict his earlier statement where he claimed he allowed it because he doesn't believe in restricting free speech.

Also, I'm anxious to know how posting under a phony screen name instead of 'Anonymous' would be a display of courage. Unless, of course, you just called me a coward because it made you feel good...

...and puts her name under it. Which you don't. So....

But Canucklehead did, yet you seem to have problems with that.

About the age of the earth, yes he could be. You're apparently trying to point something out with this.

Maybe...

As to your number 4 response: if what radar is preaching is the truth, no, its not better to let someone believe a lie to be saved. It won't work, it won't happen, no one comes to true salvation under a false pretense.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough, but Radar himself stated that being a creationist is no pre-requisite for salvation. He stated that Young-Earth-Creationism and salvation are not directly linked.

So again I ask: if believing in YEC is not necessary for salvation, which is after all the most important thing for a christian, why risk people's salvation by posing a false dichotomy?

highboy said...

"And if you are confused or can't be sure about who said what, here's a tip: say nothing at all instead of posting unfounded accusations. It'll just make you look silly."

Yes, you don't look silly at all posting under a name "anonymous", and than bitching about mistaken identity. Come back to the infield fella.

"Maybe..."

Maybe your point wasn't as hard-hitting as you once thought, which is why you still haven't posted it?

"if believing in YEC is not necessary for salvation, which is after all the most important thing for a christian, why risk people's salvation by posing a false dichotomy?"

Because you're operating under the assumption that the dichotomy will create an abandoned ship effect with people who are either already Christian/evolutionists or are flirting with the idea. Sorry, but evolution just isn't that strong and the Gospel just isn't that weak. Instead of trying to find different ways and means of trying to pin radar down with philosophy word salad, maybe just stick to refuting/not refuting the science he posted.

Anonymous said...

Yes, you don't look silly at all posting under a name "anonymous", and than bitching about mistaken identity. Come back to the infield fella.

LOL, why would I be bitching about mistaken identity? You're the one that looks silly because you accuse someone of not reading properly before replying, while doing exactly the same yourself. That's just too funny to bitch about.

Look, highboy, I've already told you: if you find the use of the nickname 'Anonymous' confusing, just have a word with Radar. For you, he might just disable it.
However, he might not be pleased that you called his wife a coward because she didn't register a phony screen name.

And just to give you a tip: there's a very, very easy way to avoid confusion. It's been used here continuously, and you have even used it yourself: simply quote the one you're replying to. No way of mistaking someone or being mistaken. It's THAT simple. Really.

I must say though, it's quite amusing to see how you can't produce the courage to simply say: "OK, I misread that. My bad. Let's move on.", yet accuse me of being cowardly for not using a registered name.

Maybe your point wasn't as hard-hitting as you once thought, which is why you still haven't posted it?

LOL, you simply assume too much.

Because you're operating under the assumption that the dichotomy will create an abandoned ship effect with people who are either already Christian/evolutionists or are flirting with the idea.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm simply pointing out how Radar's statements contradict each other. One need not be a rocket scientist to see that.

Sorry, but evolution just isn't that strong and the Gospel just isn't that weak.

If so many people leave christianity because of evolution, like Radar claims, it probably is.

...maybe just stick to refuting/not refuting the science he posted.

I'll keep that advice in mind when Radar actually posts science (instead of pseudo-science). Thanks anyway.

highboy said...

"You're the one that looks silly because you accuse someone of not reading properly before replying, while doing exactly the same yourself. That's just too funny to bitch about."

Except the difference is I actually read the post before responding to it. Not catching the name written under "anonymous" at the end of the post is wholly different. But you go ahead and cradle it to your breast. I enjoy your long meandering posts about nothing.

"LOL, you simply assume too much."

and I'll now assume you had no point to begin with.

"I'm not assuming anything, I'm simply pointing out how Radar's statements contradict each other. One need not be a rocket scientist to see that."

Not sure how they contradict each other. He already stated that one can go to Heaven and still believe in evolution, he's simply saying if they choose evolution over Genesis, they're wrong. Why you keep beating this dead horse is beyond me.

"If so many people leave christianity because of evolution, like Radar claims, it probably is."

How many people did radar claim left Christianity for evolution again?

Anonymous said...

"Not catching the name written under "anonymous" at the end of the post is wholly different."

It stands to reason that if you go and accuse someone of something you make sure you're accusing the right person. So again no: you didn't read what was very important to your reply.
It's kinda getting the police accuse you of speeding because they saw a car the same colour and make as yours speeding a few blocks further but couldn't read the license plate.

"I enjoy your long meandering posts about nothing."

Does that mean you kept replying to them so you could get a reply back and enjoy it? Although it would classify as a sort of trolling I would gladly admit I completely fell for it if this is the case. Can't say I didn't enjoy it myself...
Anyway, I'm afraid this will be the last time you can enjoy it because eventually even fun things can get boring...

"Why you keep beating this dead horse is beyond me."

Well, I've already explained it two or three times. If you really don't get it I'm willing to explain it once more, if necessary in even simpler terms. But you'll have to let me know if you want to understand or are just content to leave it at this.
Just to be sure I'm not wasting my time, OK?

"How many people did radar claim left Christianity for evolution again?"

Did he ever mention a specific number? If anything, he literally said that he focused on YEC because evolution was the main reason young people turned away from God. Surely if that's his motivation, the number of people must be high enough for him to be concerned.
However, I might have misinterpreted Radar's statement.
So if Radar wishes to state that only a few young people turn away from God because of evolution I'll be happy to retract my statement.

highboy said...

So just to recap:

1. You're anal about distinguishing one anonymous poster from another anonymous poster, and are wrapped up in not having your identity mistaken, yet post no identity.
2. You thought you had a point in pitting my thoughts on the age of the earth against radar's but didn't.
3. You falsely accused radar of contradicting himself and yet still haven't shown how.
4. You've generalized radar's basic mission statements in a vain attempt to show how he could be responsible for Christians jumping ship and it didn't work.

This is all very simple: Radar acknowledges that people can go to heaven and still believe in evolution. He also states that evolution is a false science that many young people can be lead astray from, therefore he has this site. End of story.

Anonymous said...

1. Highboy, here's a tip: if you can't stand your mistakes being pointed out to you, don't make them in the first place. Next.

2. That's an assumption from your side so I'm not going to comment on that. Believe whatever makes you happy.

3. I did show how, only you didn't understand it. I offered to explain it again if you wanted but apparently you don't so I'm not going to waste any more time on this apart from asking Radar:
Can you be saved if you reject the Book of Genesis?
Next.

4. Again: assume whatever makes you happy. Next.

"He also states that evolution is a false science that many young people can be lead astray from, therefore he has this site."

Ah, so how many people did Radar claim left their faith because of evolution?
Anyway, it's quite contradictory to go and scream that evolution it false science while supporting your own claims with pseudoscience or outright lies. Radar has done both. Nuff said.

Just one thing though: hope you apologised to Radar for calling his wife a coward because she didn't register a phony screen name.

That will be all, it's all yours now. Have fun!

highboy said...

1. Assuming I made a mistake. The jury's still out.
2. If you didn't have a point why'd you continuously bring it up?
3. Radar already answered that. Get over it.
4. I'll then assume once again that your points have fallen flat on their face. Next.

"Anyway, it's quite contradictory to go and scream that evolution it false science while supporting your own claims with pseudoscience or outright lies. Radar has done both. Nuff said."

Except you didn't prove that save with some links and a "nuh-uh".

"Just one thing though: hope you apologised to Radar for calling his wife a coward because she didn't register a phony screen name."

She wrote her name underneath her post. You didn't. You're a coward. But if my arguments were as weak as yours, I wouldn't post my name under them either.

radar said...

There is nothing pseudo about my science and that is illustrated by the utter lack of the commenters to refute the first five points. I had a couple of political rants to get off my chest but now I bet they don't do any better with the next five...