Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
That's when you've stooped to his level. Ignoring opinions just to satisfy your own version of reality.
Get my point?
So far the only argument I would consider sufficiently filled in enough by you all (reaching the limits of understanding where I am able to respond
back properly) is the argument of the conservation of angular momentum. The other two arguments of that have been attempted to be responded to, why we
can't detect population III stars (yet detect perfectly well population I and II stars) and the complete lack of anti-matter around has not been
successfully argued (despite AugustusMasonicus making an honest attempt). And the other couple lines of arguments raised (from the order of my
framework) have not been argued basically at all. The idea that I am ignoring opinion is a poor argument. The general gist of the thread was that the
creationist and the YEC believe in fairy-tales and the weight of evidence is against them. I stepped in to see just how good the alternative
consensus view of the mainstream (supposedly backed up by science) really is. Obviously, in the opinion of you all at the start, the creationist and
the young earth creationist should be able to come up with no proper arguments at all, right?
So far AfterInfinity you have ignored every single one of my 5 or so 'opinions' made...the lack of argument and discussion is being dishonest in
trying to mutually discover how the world is but it places you in a spot where, by you lack of a response at my shots at the
uniformatiarian/naturalist/evolutionary belief system, you are then, by default, admitting the only alternative, that being, supernaturally intervened
creation from an intelligent designer outside of space-time.
How much validity should I give you Pangaea argument when your lack of response forces your credibility to only argue from a creationist frame now.
I will be happy to not 'ignore your opinion' (even though you provided no evidence to explain how the crustal plates would move so readily on molten
magma which is twice as dense as granite and explained no subduction of abduction areas that would obviously form all the plates hitting each other to
our current arrangement away from Pangaea). Generally, flicking me a link and saying 'what about Pangaea' is not going to cut the mustard with me in
validly proving your argument for Pangaea, you have to explain your argument every step of the way to iron out all the problems in it. That is
homework you never did in your response...and I am meant to take it seriously? It is like flicking you a link to Wikipedia or any other place where it
say 'many scholars believe the Bible accurate'. That is a piss weak argument!
If I jump ahead temporarily in what I want to present to give you a few examples only (that you won't have any good response for) of why the the Earth
has to be less than 10,000 years old based on various limits, would that satisfy you that your Pangaea 'opinion' is debunked (as it relies of
assumptions of hundreds of millions+ of Earth's existence)?
The reason I don't like to jump ahead is because if I present that information then it clouds the discussion in other areas. For instance, if I
provide irrefutable evidence for a very young earth then by default the only belief-system that can account for that is young-earth creationist. If I
already establish that then what does that do to the very important discussion needed on debunking the evolution of organic matter to life and more
complex life (macro and micro evolution). By default, those traditional evolutionary theories will be unable to be argued from the now view of having
to fit it into a YEC framework. I want to have an honest discussion on the straight up merits of organic, macro and micro-evolution without the
argument being destroyed by confirming to short ages.
So I put it out to those on the thread, do you want me to refute Pangaea's merit right now by targeting its assumption of an Earth that has been
around look enough to make it possibly happened (and thus stuffing up the honest discussion on organic and macro-evolution) or it is acceptable to you
that we put off such a topic (relating to the geological features of the Earth) until after the time I have presented fully (not halfheartedly) on the
arguments that limit the Earth to a young age (after the topic of micro-evolution) and the evidence for the global flood (which we will be looking at
in detail to explain many of Earth's unique geological features).
What say you all...?
My vote is to hold off for now so we can have a proper discussion of the last and most important (readily believed) stages of the evolutionary
framework....and go through properly the other steps...when we get through to the part offering alternative hypothesis to the geological features of
the Earth then the topic can be raised (is it still wants to be).
Democracy people...you decide
edit on 4-9-2012 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)