Complete Creation, 2nd Edition, Part 6 with Wazooloo

[evidenceonlythanx]

Usual religious mumbo jumbo and delusion, closely followed by supporting lies. These people JUST DON'T GET why people are drifting away from their ridiculous behaviour patterns. - MEGA-FAIL.

[firefws]

So the global flood happened..cool story. SO what?  What now?

[uziel187]

I know you ignored my invite, but its cool. When you get a chance, look up Niel Adams video about earth expanding. I am a Christian,and proud of it.

[TheHonestTheist]

why do so many YEC's look dress like kid's tv presenters?

[calledservant29]

JESUS BLESS YOU!!

GREAT KNOWLEDGE!!

[sangstar1]

This is a great stuff for everyone to listen to and to learn. Its a real pity that there are some morons here and cant tell the difference between fact and fiction.

[Squipplekillzbitches]

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. - Adolf Hitler

[HeMadeYouSpecial]

I hope the big lie you're referring to is Evolution.

[Squipplekillzbitches]

You are retarded.

[kp13822]

CMON! The Burdick Track? This is another dicredited FRAUD.

[kp13822]

Haven't the Puluxy "Man Prints" been pretty well discredited?

[RobbieSDA]

Hardly! While many who can't accept that their idea of what happened is rubish (*cough* evolution *cough*), they wish it were discredited and speak as though it has been. The verificiation of them has been rather strong, and all they can do is really come up with silly explainations as to what they are to avoid having to admit they certainly appear to be human footprints. Consider what it might mean if they are real, since they are!

[kp13822]

Why is it hard to believe that there are eras in which there was more erosion than new soil being laid down? This seems resonable to me.

[RobbieSDA]

On a purely rudimentary level that sounds plausible, but the layers are simply too even and level for errosion, which doesn't leave that kind of layers, to have been involved. A good idea, but the evidence doesn't support it is the vast number of places these layers with missing time are found. Keep in mind that this 'dating' system was essentially 'made up'. It isn't based on any valid reality.

[qwuad61]

it is resonable,but sometimes that doesn't seem to matter:)

[mrAndersen72]

100% BS.

[wazooloo]

No - you are the one propping up straw men, continually putting words in my mouth that I did not say, ignoring the evidence, and continually putting forth obfuscation.

I am not finished with the Paluxy footprints either. They are not fakes and you know it. See you then!

[lawilson200]

Tell you what. You find me a mainstream paleontologist who is willing to verify the authenticity of the Paluxy footprints, then you might be onto something. Otherwise, they are fakes. Even John Morris with ICR backed away from this claim.

[truthseeker1973]

You don't become a mainstream paleontologist without already being a degenerate darwinian. Most would probably refuse, the ones that wouldn't would find whatever excuse they could to discredit it.

[lawilson200]

Degenerate darwinian? What is that?

Actually, the Paluxy footprints were descredited because they were fakes, regardless on how the footprints might reflect on one's "worldview."

[magick205]

More conspiracy crap. Ok, prove it or turn off the X-files and read some real science and not the oral traditions of a pre-literate bronze age herding culture from the middle east.

[truthseeker1973]

Ya, there is no way that would happen. You're right.

[qwuad61]

would this be the same hurding culture that is now humbling the united states of america?

[magick205]

@qwuad61: You mean neolithic hebrews? You've an interesting view of history. But then again, such is not really much a of a suprise if you ascribe to the BS attempting to be passed off as science. Do you?

[qwuad61]

science started with religeous people. sir isaac newton wrote more books on religion than he did on math,so this man even if he is religous can still be a rational thinking human being, the founders of modern science were :)

[magick205]

@qwuad61: Indeed, science did start with people who were of a religious nature, however, since they were pagan Greeks and Egyptians does that really support your argument? In a word: No. Science doesn't have all the answers; if it did it would stop. Religion thinks it has all the answers so it really wants science to stop, and stop revelaing it for what it is: mythology based on neolithic camp fire stories of hobgoblins and boojums.

[qwuad61]

interesting observation majick205 pagan greeks,hobgoblins etc

here is a few facts i bet you never herd of and most church folk probably don't know. the founders of modern science were christian people and believed the bible here is a sample. johann kepler,francis bacon,blaise pascal,robert boyle ,nicolaus steno,athanasius kircher,isaac newton,michael faraday,samuel f.b morse, louis pasteur,lord kelvin,joseph cerk maxwellgeorge washington carver.

[magick205]

@qwuad61: Your list is totally irrelevant to the argument as most of these people lived long before the theories of biological evolution or uniformitarianism geology were even postulated. Science rests on what the data says, not what individual belief systems might foist upon it. Also, your list is largely composed of people who would've been talking about things beyond their scientific field. Discussing things you don't understand simply reveals one's own ingnorance, yes?

[magick205]

@qwuad61: Notice you got somewhat quiet there. Any further comments that have nothing to do with facts or real data? I mean, smoke and mirrors is the stock and trade of the YECer, is it not?

[qwuad61]

I love you to.

[TheFallibleFiend]

Yes! We need someone else spreading anti-knowledge! Youtube doesn't have enough of that!

[lawilson200]

Ultimately Ian, the burden falls on you. If you want to present an cogent argument supporting Noah's Flood, why are you stringing examples that mainstream geologists got wrong (again your straw man argument) and ignoring modern examples that actually lend support for Noah's Flood?

I have yet seen you make a comparrison with geologic formations with the Channel Scablands, hurricanes, local floods and tsunamis, all events that I expect from a flood...

[lawilson200]

Perhaps the reason why you don't refer to any similar examples is because even they do not support a global flood?

I do believe that is the most likely case here.

[wazooloo]

Helloooooo - were they global? No, so therefore their application to a global flood is limited.

[lawilson200]

The only difference is scale. Beyond that it should not matter.

Wait, I almost forgot, you do not accept the laws of uniformity. Well, I got news for you, by applying the laws of uniformity, you can distinquish between a feature laid down by a flood and a feature laid down by another geologic process.

[uziel187]

@lawilson200 Explain to me the sea materials on the highest mountains? And a mammoth frozen under all that ice?

[lawilson200]

@uziel187 - Gee, this not really much of a challenge. 1) Plate tectonics. 2) Cold temperatures.

My advice is to actually get to understand the actual sciences. It does take an inquisitive mind and a desire to ask questions. The problem with YECs, they seek to suppress inquiry because it might cause you to actually question false theologies common with biblical literalism.

[uziel187]

@lawilson200 Its only a theory in a box of doubt, and yes I have asked a Harvard professor a while back (Lol, my old landlord). Your cells are programed to regenerate right? Do you tell your body to heal? You have no control over your own body, so its programed for you already. A program set by a Programmer, plants are the best proof of this.

[lawilson200]

@uziel187 = You really should try to stay focus here. The questions you asked involved geology and paleontology. Now you seek to retort with a question involving biology.

Now, if you think to have uncovered an issue which requires further research, here is a opportunity to head my advice. Science is about inquiry and exploration. YECs want to suppress inquiry.

[wazooloo]

Oh - I see, so this means you don't have to produce evidence to back up your claims? Ah - how convenient!

Glad to see you're finally admitting modern geologists got some things wrong. But you've missed the glaring point (again) - the geologic record IS the best evidence for the flood of Noah, and the best evidence refuting deep time.

[lawilson200]

Good! Produce it.

However, you did not read my statement fully. Defeating a straw man (which the reason why - when the evidence is against you - strawmans become a tool) is not the same as defeating actual geology and it certainly does not present positive evidence in favor of a global flood. This is why straw mans are intellectually dishonest method of debate.

Show me how dolomite can accumulate rapidly in 150 days (enough to cover a Montana mountain). Now that should be interesting.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@wazooloo No it's not and in fact contradicts a global flood. The layers in the strata are not at all sorted by their hydrodynamic principles. This means that it's not only unlikely but physically impossible that they were collectively sorted by a hydrological event.

[wazooloo]

Please clarify; your comment is disjointed and vague. What point was refuted, and by whom and how?

[lawilson200]

Cat fight!

Let's try this again. If the CRB is the product of a global flood, how come you only have small pockets of pillow basalts? What you have instead is large sections of columnar basalts. By your own admission, basalt behaves differently under water, so if Oregon was under water when CRB was running strong, where is the pillow basalts to support your conclusion?

[wazooloo]

Apparently you're not aware that flood basalts forming underwater do not necessarily produce pillow basalts. I am not going to waste my time here, rather, I will go into detail in the final video, showing the world these "paleosols", the pillow basalts, and why ALL the CRB (including the columnar basalts) were laid down under *salt water*. I said the pillow basalts were scattered *throughout* the CRB. You are the one who put words in my mouth and made a straw man.

[lawilson200]

A new excuse and I sure (with your extensive geologic background - hehe) that you were told that.

Actually, you are incorrect. Read Maley for a start. I have more resources at home and they will just have to wait.

The fun part with straw man arguments, they do not need much time to tear apart.

[lawilson200]

PS on this one. Are you telling me you know more than a USGS geologist working at the Cascade Volcano Observatory? I happen to know the people who did the studies. I am certain they will get a good laugh.

Tell me, where did you published your findings? CRSQ is hardly an accepted peer reviewed publication. I am certain this explanation will be good in your response video. Look's like it is time to bring out more popcorn.

[wazooloo]

A quick note to viewers: I will be compiling one last video at the end of this series, "Answering the detractors." There has been repeated, pitiful attempts to distract away from the evidence with obfuscation, while ignoring the evidence presented in these videos.

So - continue to post your questions and critiques here on youtube, I will compile them and make a video specifically to address the arguments.

[lawilson200]

I am sure it will just as funny as your other video.

[lawilson200]

I see you are still misleading people about the law of uniformity.

Your straw man argument assumes an extreme version of gradualism that does not factor changing geographic conditions, changes in geologic forces and changes in geologic processes. This version of gradualism was discredited more then a century ago and it is disappointing that you are presenting this version as though it is the geologic standard applied today....

[lawilson200]

...

Uniformity does operate on the view that the laws of nature (chemical and physical) are the same today and they were 4.5 gya (the present is the key to the past). But it says nothing about rates of change or changes to geologic processes.

We do live on a dynamic planet and the geologic record does tell a fascinating story of our home world. To bad, you must ignore most of it to justify a flawed and bad interpretation of scripture.

[wazooloo]

Apparently you do not recognize the consequences of your claims. We're talking MILLIONS of years - where's the evidence for it? It's completely absent. There should be remnants of it, no matter what your views about the past are, and regardless of whether or not uniformity is indeed, uniform!

Where's the evidence??? Even with catastrophes allowed, you still have no explanation for the missing evidence.

[lawilson200]

"Apparently you do not recognize the consequences of your claims. We're talking MILLIONS of years"

Yes we are!

I suppose you are demonstrating that you live by the straw man you create and in your case, die by it.

I am sorry though, I am not going to argue your straw man definition and I have tried on several occassion to address actual field evidence with you, which seemed to have little or no effect.

As for the claim of missing evidence, be more specific.

[lawilson200]

Are you referring to the unconformities in the Grand Canyon? Are you suggesting another geographic region?

[wazooloo]

No - you are the one who needs to be specific. I have spent hours presenting evidence, which you simply ignore and make opposing claims - without providing a shred of evidence. Where is your evidence of millions of years? Don't give me this crock about straw men; if there's been millions of years, there should be ample evidence. It's absent. I even specifically addressed your claims about "paleosols" and other fabrications, you ignored them. Show us your evidence!

[lawilson200]

LOL! I defeated your presentation three videos ago when we talked about the evidence from the Columbia River Basalt. Please don't give me this bull that i have not presented any evidence.

However, I do not respond to generalities. If say something is missing, then name the location and we will talk.

If you want to go over radiometric dating, I am game too.

But don't give me this crock that based on your strawman arugment, sedimentary features need to be thicker (when they arn't)...

[wazooloo]

Radiometric dating is coming up; You didn't defeat my presentation, you ignored it. I blasted the old earth so far into space you can't see it with a telescope - and yet strangely, you stand here with your eyes closed, pretending you still have a case! Nevertheless, I will go into more detail on the CRB and show the world why you are wrong and why the CRB was all laid down underwater - evidence you're apparently not aware of.

[lawilson200]

No, I have watched each of your presentations and I even enjoyed the popcorn.

So far, I find you a common YECer. All straw man and no brains. Everything you have presented so far does not address actual geology. You will wake me up, when you have real evidence to present will you?

As for your Paluxy Footprints, the only reason I have not touched that is because it's been talked about already and I am bored with that subject. They were fakes 70 years ago. They are fakes today!

[lawilson200]

...

And therefore, this is somehow missing. This is your straw man definition speaking. Not the acutal evidence.

[Johannes9126]

Hahaha! PRATT. Point refuted a thousand times.