Why do people deny evolution?

What terminology would you use? I didn't set out to be disparaging, well maybe about the idiots who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but you've disparaged them too.

Changing a person's "Heart" has nothing to do with anything. The way you spiehl that you know what geologists "believe happened" is so full of untruth. You have NO IDEA about facts and evidence. (Which, according to you, vidence for all your "beliefs" is overwhelming). Maybe its overwhelming to you because you are easily overwhelmed by fairy tale science.

Ive nothing to say to you its apparent. You dont accept facts, repeatable experiment, and discoveries. So what more is there if you deny eucation and practice. Your in my court and youclaim to know as much when its obvious that your obtuse answers and beliefs are out of control inanity(just like Judge Jones said the the Dover court).
When you really have anything to offer, keep it to yourself because Im afaid itll be not much different than your present ones.

Gday

Thanks for your judgement and opinion....and Judge Jones opinion too.
I will file them.

Apparently, first you should try to understand them. Try reading more, its a major source of learning.

Get a chance to watch this video about the evidence for a global flood and layered strata?
The Hydroplate theory. Really a cool interpretation of the evidence. The proper interpretation I gotta say.
https://m.youtube.com/c/BryanNickel_Hydroplate

Anyone who believes that the "flood" was an actual, historical event is being moronic. Maybe not a moron by nature, but moronic by religious choice.

Why not Watch the video and critic it,instead of making such statements, which go nowhere.

To critique diction may be futile but to critique drivel is fatuous.

I watched about 15 minutes of the "Grand Canyon" segment nd found it quite creative.The announcer carefully avoids all th facts he can to mak his points. (Like the temple butte and Mauve Formational contacts). He wants you to believe that these were flood related deposits and that geologists "Got it wrong". He bases his opinions on very poor scholarship(lets take that Temple Butte zone-the TB is only weakly present at all in the Grand Canyon because its a thickening WESTWARD unit that has ample evidence of erosion contacts, as do all the "hiatus" formations above. He failed to interrelate all the OTHER information that proves him dead wrong. There are teeny fossils that were seen only present in the Temple Butte and Mauve and older. After the TB/Mauve unconformity (which demos the very thing the announcer was griping about) we no longer see these fossils (called conodonts).
WHY DO YOU CREATIONISTS DO THAT??? You should use all the evidence that is there, not cherry pick some parts so that, by ignoring the bulk of it, you can make lies sound like fact. Sorta like your P38 in the glacier as Creationism evidence of deep deposits in short time periods.


Ya wanna argue the geology of the Grand Canyon? bring it on Ill show you what your sources have ignored.

Try watching more than 15 minutes of it to get a grand picture of the Grand Canyon, instead of cherry picking? Erosional contacts, really?
Well, this statement and interpretation is better than your Abiogenesis arguments/comments haha. Always got a neatly packaged twist on the evidence, like a Jehovah witness.

Ill liten to the rest when you promise to get a better education (I think neither if them will happen).
You dont unerstand that you dont know what you dont know so that what you do know actually makes no sense, Ya know?

A ‘thickening’ westward unit.... solid rock transporting solid rock. A great blanket statement too btw.

I just love the interpretation that for hundreds of millions of years, each ‘slice of time’ produced a unique pancake of rock covering nearly all of the United States .....I am not buying it. Just as I do not buy your teaching that ocean Vents can produce a marvel engineering like bacteria.

Yes, as in your example. It all depends on how you interpret words like 'begotten' and 'created'. For me, the proper interpretation is the one that fits all the scriptures as a whole. If the whole story is not coherent, it can not be believed and understood. I'd like to get your take on this.

What does it mean when it says Jesus is the "only begotten Son of God"? Do you believe that means that God placed himself in Mary's womb as a fertilized egg and emerged as an infant child? That conflicts with many other scriptures. As you pointed out, he was before the world began. So Jesus had to have been begotten before the world/universe/time/etc. began. When Jesus asked Peter "who do you say I am" and Peter answered "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", why didn't Jesus say, "No, I am God, in the flesh".

But really, it boils down to the Trinity. I don't have a religion to tell me there is one and I don't see it in the Bible. And to accept that dogma as truth you have to believe that God has a split consciousness or persona. How could he both know and not know the day of Jesus' return? How could I trust such a God who is so uncertain of his own knowledge? If Jesus IS God, he certainly would have said so in a straight forward way and not left it to a bunch of clerics to tell us 325 years later. If God does not reveal it to me directly or I don't see any sign of it in the Bible, I just don't see any reason to accept it.

The usual argument for the Trinity is that if you don't accept it, you are denying the divinity of Jesus. My answer is - How is being the Only Begotten Son of God, begotten before the universe began, given all his Father's authority on Earth, and to be seated at the right hand of God after his return, how the hell does that make him anything less than divine?

And how does one sit down at one's own right anyway? Dogma makes such a contradictory mess of things.

The JW's have got a lot of beliefs that are way off base as far as I can tell, but I agree with them on the Trinity.

The dogma people are fair game (me too for that matter) but I'm more sensitive about my invisible friend. You called him "a senile god", and while the religious have some very strange ideas about what he's all about, I give the benefit of the doubt that most are seeking the same God I do.

I dont know where you got that belief about geology. Huttonand Strata Smith were probably the only two who felt that "time unit stratigraphy " was universally present.

There is a book by Thomas Eardly that jut shows the sediment stratigraphy or the US (only) at each time in the geologic record.

Jurassic sediments in the far west were mostly marine bottom and beach deposits. Other places showed stream deposits and sand dunes and over a large part, there were NO JURSSIC sediments because it was a big erosion surface.

We construct stratigraphic "nets" that depict, based on the information of the seds, the fossils, the ash beds intermingling, (Ytterbium phosphate deposits -which allow us radionuclide decay timing from sediments of an age) and colors imosed on certain minerals and fossils which depict depths of burial and hardening (A process we call diagenesis).
Also we can tie it up with a nice bow based on the declination and inclination of a wanderingmagnetic north and the "switching of poles".
Quartz alone gives us many chemical realms that we can use to interpret evidences.


I worry about how simplistically guys like gungasnake and this new guy "Hello and Goodbye" actually think. The US has become probably the worlds largest fossil fuel producer primarily based on our geology skills. Wed still be popping holes all over Tulsa if we didnt lern things in the last 150 years or so.
My challenge still holds to anyone who wants to take it up.. tell me of ONE thing that Creationist/or ID thinking has provided us in knowledge or (mostly) resources .

The main Piece of the puzzle, or verse which explains why Jesus said he does not know the hour of his return is Philippians chapter 2. I gave the link below. *‘He emptied himself.’
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-know-return.html

Yeah, he definitely claimed to be the great ‘I AM.’
Begotten before/outside of time.
Maybe an over simple analogy is like our sun automatically generating heat and light. The father, who is the source , produced the son and the Holy Spirit, eternally, all 3 co-existing outside of time.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/157977-we-don-t-use-the-words-begetting-or-begotten-much-in

I can remember reading a C.S. Lewis book, and how he illustrated a 3 demensional being trying to explain and reveal things to a 2D being....Hard to wrap our heads around.

https://www.biblehub.com/philippians/2-7.htm

No No No, the units are either deposited in areas of stream deposites that cut into the lower unit , are actually erosion surfaces of the previous sediment, or are gradual deposition changes to the west. (Eg, in the East the deposit is very thin because its mostly an erosion surface, then its a deposit of stream deposits , then further west its a beach deposit then marine to the far west and becomes a coral bed that thickens to the Santa Cruz cliffs.

think of stratigraphy as thicker layers over here made of cream cheese, thinner layers over there made of grit ald a huge layer of cement to the west where the pavement is taking over.

A stratigraphic unit is one that follows the rules of the (International
Subcommission on Stratigraphic Classification 1994, p14). A time unit is not exactly a tratigraphic unit even though the adjacent rock types may have been deposited in the same time sequence.

The ISSC

Quote: ‘think of stratigraphy as thicker layers over here made of cream cheese, thinner layers over there made of grit ald a huge layer of cement to the west where the pavement is taking over.’

OR....Liquefaction.....For The origins of layered Strata.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Liquefaction.html
(You can click the button in the bottom right corner to flip pages in the online book.)

This article explains the general consensus now for the Grand Canyon is about 5 million years, but apparently new evidence is suggesting up to 70 million years 🤷‍♂️😳
So many different Interpretations. This does say a lot.
https://www.livescience.com/27489-grand-canyon.html
OR.... The Hydroplate theory.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ4eVMd3_PE

I, Judge H&G so far conclude Liqiefaction and the hydroplate theory Best explain the evidence for the origins of these two things. 👍

liquefaction was known by foundation engineers for 125 years. It doesnt cause the problem. Liquefaction is a result of energy of motion played out on susceptible strata. Also, liquefaction zones dont lie all over some formations. The formations are there first, and the liquefaction zones are relatively limited. Your guy wants em responsible for stratigraphy.

If I get senile enough that I sink to your intelligence level, I hope I have someone to take me out of the genepool.

You really do need to watch the video and read the book, and then some. Too much info to just post Word for Word on this forum