What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by Penguin
Again, you've not said what is wrong with my arguments for abiogenesis and evolution.

[b]Since you've not pointed out any flaw in my arguments so far and just ignored them, I'll assume you can find no flaw and therefore have accepted them.

Therefore, what is taking place does not require an intelligent designer since you have accepted the bl ...[text shortened]... processes of abiogenesis and evolution.

I say again. My work here is done.

--- Penguin.[/b]

You can believe what you will on both topics.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have evidence; okay...I've never said you didn't. I do disagree
with you from time to time when you start telling me what your
evidence means. It is one thing to have evidence and quite another
to explain it properly/accurately as it relates to reality. I do not hold
evidence in disdain, I hold postions of faith and belief that are made
as if they are facts in disdain.
Kelly

Well, every rock ever discovered that is older than 2 billion years (as determined radiometrically) shows a lack of oxygen, except perhaps locally. How would you interpret this other than to say there was no free atmospheric oxygen?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can believe what you will on both topics.
Kelly

Indeed I can, but you have still not responded to my original arguments. Failure to do so suggests that you have no response. Until you come up with one, I think I am perfectly justified in my position.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Indeed I can, but you have still not responded to my original arguments. Failure to do so suggests that you have no response. Until you come up with one, I think I am perfectly justified in my position.

--- Penguin.

What post are you so proud of that you think you have nailed truth
down to the place you are justified in your beliefs? Seems like you
have been trying to bait me or some one to argue with you, so which
one?
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, every rock ever discovered that is older than 2 billion years (as determined radiometrically) shows a lack of oxygen, except perhaps locally. How would you interpret this other than to say there was no free atmospheric oxygen?

You have rocks you date older than 2 billion years old, you have faith
in the dating method.

You don't seem to find rocks that your method dates older than
2 billion years old, could be your dating method has holes in it you
are not aware of, or what you think is going on is. You choose to
believe what you will about your dating method.

There are a lot of things going on I'm sure. you believe you have
a handle on them all, your faith not mine.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have rocks you date older than 2 billion years old, you have faith
in the dating method.

You don't seem to find rocks that your method dates older than
2 billion years old, could be your dating method has holes in it you
are not aware of, or what you think is going on is. You choose to
believe what you will about your dating method.

There are ...[text shortened]... ngs going on I'm sure. you believe you have
a handle on them all, your faith not mine.
Kelly

Back to the radioactive dating being wrong again are we Kelly? Your arguments seem to run in cycles. But here's some news, just because it's been a month since someone last discredited one of your arguments doesn't mean we've all forgotten.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have rocks you date older than 2 billion years old, you have faith
in the dating method.

You don't seem to find rocks that your method dates older than
2 billion years old, could be your dating method has holes in it you
are not aware of, or what you think is going on is. You choose to
believe what you will about your dating method.

There are ...[text shortened]... ngs going on I'm sure. you believe you have
a handle on them all, your faith not mine.
Kelly

Ah, so refusing to answer the question - seems like a reoccurring theme recently Kelly.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Ah, so refusing to answer the question - seems like a reoccurring theme recently Kelly.

I did not refuse, I gave you two ways to look at that and suggested
that there could be more.
Kelly

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Back to the radioactive dating being wrong again are we Kelly? Your arguments seem to run in cycles. But here's some news, just because it's been a month since someone last discredited one of your arguments doesn't mean we've all forgotten.

You see me call anything "wrong", I have not once ever said that.
You want to believe that, so believe that is my position on the dating
methods, they cannot be proven right or wrong so I do not waist my
time saying they are either. You may be in agreement with people
who disagree with me that you are dealing with faith when looking
in the distant past, that does not mean that I was discredited only
that that you are part of a choir nothing more.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What post are you so proud of that you think you have nailed truth
down to the place you are justified in your beliefs? Seems like you
have been trying to bait me or some one to argue with you, so which
one?
Kelly

Back on page 115, there are 3 posts from me (dated on the 19th at 10:42, 12:19 and 13:49) where I provide arguments against several of your comments. You have not responded to a single one of those arguments so I'm making the assumption that you have no response and have therefore had to accept my arguments.

I agree that there is baiting going on here, from both sides. That is the nature of this argument and is the reason that the thread is 116 pages long. It doesn't change the fact that I have put forward a number of arguments to which you have no response, and I wouldn't mind betting that all my arguments have been posted by others more than once during the life of this topic and been repeatedly ignored while you go round in circles re-asserting statements that have already been dealt with. I believe this is standard tactics for creationists.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You see me call anything "wrong", I have not once ever said that.
You want to believe that, so believe that is my position on the dating
methods, they cannot be proven right or wrong so I do not waist my
time saying they are either. You may be in agreement with people
who disagree with me that you are dealing with faith when looking
in the distant past ...[text shortened]... s not mean that I was discredited only
that that you are part of a choir nothing more.
Kelly

So if you want to talk science then talk science. You're throwing around theories. let's see any one of them pass a single observation test.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have rocks you date older than 2 billion years old, you have faith
in the dating method.

You don't seem to find rocks that your method dates older than
2 billion years old, could be your dating method has holes in it you
are not aware of, or what you think is going on is. You choose to
believe what you will about your dating method.

There are ...[text shortened]... ngs going on I'm sure. you believe you have
a handle on them all, your faith not mine.
Kelly

So there was no free atmospheric oxygen 5000 years ago?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
So if you want to talk science then talk science. You're throwing around theories. let's see any one of them pass a single observation test.

I like talking reality, when we have something to observe let us
discuss that, when you tell me about things that you say took place
billions a years ago, I'm telling you that is your faith and belief, and
that is where you are playing then. You have gone beyond the
observable when discussing billions of years or millions of years,
and in some cases thousands of years.. You can dress up a belief and
call it a fact, doesn't mean that it is reflects the reality you claim.
Kelly

Originally posted by telerion
So there was no free atmospheric oxygen 5000 years ago?

Why do you say that or ask that?
Kelly

Originally posted by Penguin
Back on page 115, there are 3 posts from me (dated on the 19th at 10:42, 12:19 and 13:49) where I provide arguments against several of your comments. You have not responded to a single one of those arguments so I'm making the assumption that you have no response and have therefore had to accept my arguments.

I agree that there is baiting going on here, fr already been dealt with. I believe this is standard tactics for creationists.

--- Penguin.

Pick one we can discuss it.
Kelly

edit:
By the way thank you for going back and showing me what posts you
were talking about.