"Your point that "you have no such excuse" when encountering those same "inconvenient facts" is also -- MY POINT! You can't hide behind your atheist evolutionist bretheren taking THEIR same out when confronted by those inconvenient facts! They HAVE their excuse - what is yours??!! You certainly can't use theirs!"
Who are you quoting as saying "you have no such excuse?"
Anyhow, my point exactly. There are some people who are so desperate to deny God that they will look to any means necessary if that means having to invent a philosophy from legitimate science to do so. You seem to have trouble differentiating between the facts in the case and those that try and twinst and turn those facts to support opinions on both sides.
But I have no such problem. I am not trying to avoid submission to God or to rationalize a denial of God. I can take an unbiased appraisal of the facts.
Beyond that, I even came into this debate with a belief in YE and a strong distrust of OE.
But my mind was changed. Obviously it was not because of biases towards old earth that I carried into it. Obviously it was not because of some desire to deny God or to excuse behaving as I wish.
No the facts over came my predjudice and changed my mind. Despite the roadblocks to that course.
"Failed revisionism on your part shown here again."
Nope. You are the one attempting to revise history but failing.
It started with the entropy stuff. You quote people you find to be experts but excise the parts of their statement where they tell you why entropy is not a problem. This is a dishonest misrepresentation of their position. You fail to explain what entropy is supposed to prevent instead giving vague statements about "MASSIVE" decreases in entropy. You fail to acknowledge that we see decreases in entropy happening every day around us. And you fail to acknowledge, dispite many patient and detailed posts, that what you are talking about is not even thermodynamic entropy.
You then moved on to the chiral problem. You assert that racemized mixtures say that it could not have happened. I give you several references that show that common materials can act as catalysts that favor one stereoisomer. I give you references that show that common materials can act as catalysts and lead to optically pure chains, not the racemized mixtures you assert. You never show problems with these references. YOu do not even admit they exist. You just continue to assert the same things over and over.
Then you added Archaeopteryx to the mix. You claim it is just a "true bird." SO how can it be an intermediate. You cite a conference from the early 80's and two specific authors. So I show you that the authors in question present information both at the conference and in other forums that show that they think it was a transitional. So you keep making the assertion but drop the names. So I ask you to support your assertion. You ignore the request. So I tell you that the name of the preceedings for the conference was The Beginnings of the Birds. This shows that they were talking about the evolution of birds at the conference and the place of archy in this process. YOu pretend that that never happened. SO I went Googling and came up with the titles of as many papers at the conference as I could come up with. I present this in a list to you. They titles all show that they were discussing the evolution of birds and archy's place. You ignore this, too. I keep presenting information that shows that your assertion is wrong and asking you to give some evidence to support your assertion. YOu ignore the requests and ignore the evidence and continue to assert that they said that it was merely a bird. Gup lately has been charging people with a lack of intellectual honesty. You actions on this subject take the intellectual honesty cake.
So then you add the horse series to the mix. The facts are these. Early on, biologists thought that evolution was slow and steady going from A to B to C. When they started finding horse fossils, they constructed a series that matched this. Well as more fossils came in, they found that the series actual had a number of branches and that it was slow at times and then there would be rapid change and that sometimes things would change in one direction and then the other. IOW, it was bushy and jerky instead of smooth and steady. And they wrote papers on this where they said that the smooth series was wrong and that additional information had yielded better and more accurate data. Imagine that, learning as you research a topic. What a concept. Some people think you cannot be right if you do not have the complete story BEFORE you begin researching it. So you take these worthwhile papers and hack them down and change their meaning until it SOUNDS like they are saying that the whole series is fraudulent and does not exist. When the truth is pointed out to you and the context added to the quotes, you conveniently ignore the facts, can't let that get in your way, and continue to assert the same old same old.
"Have you forgotten about all the times (as in the above case) that you resort to this same mind numbing "Evolutionists are STILL evolutionists so the inconvenient facts must be solvable!" response??"
I am sorry you find it "mind numbing" for me to continue to point out that you are quoting these guys in a manner in which you try and make them say things with which they would not agree. You may not like it, but I am sure others find it quite enlightening that you will lie about what they said after the truth has been pointed out to you.
I am still waiting for you to support your assertions on the findings of the archy conference. I feel rather safe in predicting that such support will never come but also that you will continue to make the assertion dispite the evidence to the contrary and lack of any supporting evidence.
Who are you quoting as saying "you have no such excuse?"
Anyhow, my point exactly. There are some people who are so desperate to deny God that they will look to any means necessary if that means having to invent a philosophy from legitimate science to do so. You seem to have trouble differentiating between the facts in the case and those that try and twinst and turn those facts to support opinions on both sides.
But I have no such problem. I am not trying to avoid submission to God or to rationalize a denial of God. I can take an unbiased appraisal of the facts.
Beyond that, I even came into this debate with a belief in YE and a strong distrust of OE.
But my mind was changed. Obviously it was not because of biases towards old earth that I carried into it. Obviously it was not because of some desire to deny God or to excuse behaving as I wish.
No the facts over came my predjudice and changed my mind. Despite the roadblocks to that course.
"Failed revisionism on your part shown here again."
Nope. You are the one attempting to revise history but failing.
It started with the entropy stuff. You quote people you find to be experts but excise the parts of their statement where they tell you why entropy is not a problem. This is a dishonest misrepresentation of their position. You fail to explain what entropy is supposed to prevent instead giving vague statements about "MASSIVE" decreases in entropy. You fail to acknowledge that we see decreases in entropy happening every day around us. And you fail to acknowledge, dispite many patient and detailed posts, that what you are talking about is not even thermodynamic entropy.
You then moved on to the chiral problem. You assert that racemized mixtures say that it could not have happened. I give you several references that show that common materials can act as catalysts that favor one stereoisomer. I give you references that show that common materials can act as catalysts and lead to optically pure chains, not the racemized mixtures you assert. You never show problems with these references. YOu do not even admit they exist. You just continue to assert the same things over and over.
Then you added Archaeopteryx to the mix. You claim it is just a "true bird." SO how can it be an intermediate. You cite a conference from the early 80's and two specific authors. So I show you that the authors in question present information both at the conference and in other forums that show that they think it was a transitional. So you keep making the assertion but drop the names. So I ask you to support your assertion. You ignore the request. So I tell you that the name of the preceedings for the conference was The Beginnings of the Birds. This shows that they were talking about the evolution of birds at the conference and the place of archy in this process. YOu pretend that that never happened. SO I went Googling and came up with the titles of as many papers at the conference as I could come up with. I present this in a list to you. They titles all show that they were discussing the evolution of birds and archy's place. You ignore this, too. I keep presenting information that shows that your assertion is wrong and asking you to give some evidence to support your assertion. YOu ignore the requests and ignore the evidence and continue to assert that they said that it was merely a bird. Gup lately has been charging people with a lack of intellectual honesty. You actions on this subject take the intellectual honesty cake.
So then you add the horse series to the mix. The facts are these. Early on, biologists thought that evolution was slow and steady going from A to B to C. When they started finding horse fossils, they constructed a series that matched this. Well as more fossils came in, they found that the series actual had a number of branches and that it was slow at times and then there would be rapid change and that sometimes things would change in one direction and then the other. IOW, it was bushy and jerky instead of smooth and steady. And they wrote papers on this where they said that the smooth series was wrong and that additional information had yielded better and more accurate data. Imagine that, learning as you research a topic. What a concept. Some people think you cannot be right if you do not have the complete story BEFORE you begin researching it. So you take these worthwhile papers and hack them down and change their meaning until it SOUNDS like they are saying that the whole series is fraudulent and does not exist. When the truth is pointed out to you and the context added to the quotes, you conveniently ignore the facts, can't let that get in your way, and continue to assert the same old same old.
"Have you forgotten about all the times (as in the above case) that you resort to this same mind numbing "Evolutionists are STILL evolutionists so the inconvenient facts must be solvable!" response??"
I am sorry you find it "mind numbing" for me to continue to point out that you are quoting these guys in a manner in which you try and make them say things with which they would not agree. You may not like it, but I am sure others find it quite enlightening that you will lie about what they said after the truth has been pointed out to you.
I am still waiting for you to support your assertions on the findings of the archy conference. I feel rather safe in predicting that such support will never come but also that you will continue to make the assertion dispite the evidence to the contrary and lack of any supporting evidence.
