Quick creationists! Come up with something! [Archive] - Page 2

spursncowboys

10-16-2009, 09:00 PM

“There is an argument, ad hominem, by which this discussion might, with strict justice, be closed. If materialism is true, then the pretended philosopher who teaches it is a beast, and we are all beasts. Brutes are not amenable to moral law; and if they were, it is no murder to kill a beast. But brutes act very consistently upon certain instincts of self-preservation. Even: they learn something from experience. But this teaches us that the propagator of these atheistic ideas is preparing intolerable mischief; for, just so far as they have prevailed, they have let loose a flood of misery upon mankind. Now, then, these teachers are venemous. The consistent thing for the rest of us animals, who are not serpents or beasts of prey, is to kill them as soon as they show their heads; just as whenever the stags see a rattlesnake, they cut him in pieces with the lightening thrusts of their keen hoofs. Why is not this conclusion perfectly just? The only logic which restrains it is, that Christianity, which says that we shall not shed man’s blood, ‘because in the image of God made He man;’ but which these men flout. The only reason we do not justly treat atheists thus is, that we are not, like them, atheists.”
-R. L. Dabney

jman3000

10-16-2009, 09:00 PM

Am I getting warmer?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.

Wild Cobra

10-16-2009, 09:09 PM

About as long as it takes you to answer my tree question. I already told you save your math smack for the others,
not only are you looking desperate but if I have to repeat myself over and over only confirms you may still have primate DNA in you.

No, he clearly proved you don't understand the concept. It's a very simple math question.

If you don't understand the concept, how can you understand what you quote of more complex things? It appears you are relying on other peoples work who may or may not be right.

spursncowboys

10-16-2009, 09:19 PM

Yeah because this is so much more logical.
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2008/09/14/1111117/484132-church-says-sorry-to-charles-darwin-over-his-evolution-theory.jpg

spursncowboys

10-16-2009, 09:24 PM

Non-living chemicals cannot become alive on their own. The cell is a miniature factory with many active processes, not a simple blob of “protoplasm” as believed in Darwin’s day. Lightening striking a mud puddle or some “warm little pond” will never produce life. This is another view of the core issue of information as the simplest living cell requires a vast amount of information to be present. The “Law of Biogenesis” states that life comes only from prior life. Spontaneous generation has long been shown to be impossible (by Louis Pasteur in 1859). Numerous efforts to bring life from non-life (including the famous Miller-Urey experiment) have not succeeded. The probability of life forming from non-life has been likened to the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a working 747 airplane. The idea that life on earth may have been seeded from outer space just moves the problem elsewhere.
Why Abiogenesis is Impossible (http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html), Jerry Bergman, CRS Quarterly, Volume 36, March 2000

Alex Jones

10-16-2009, 10:59 PM

No, he clearly proved you don't understand the concept. It's a very simple math question.

If you don't understand the concept, how can you understand what you quote of more complex things? It appears you are relying on other peoples work who may or may not be right.

ok I don't have a GED I can't figure out numbers. There I said it! Now feel free to avoid the tree question for another 4 hours.

Hurry I want to ask about.....

Niagara Falls erosion rate

The rate of erosion at Niagara Falls is four to five feet per year. Given the distance it has traveled during its history, it could not be more than 10,000 years old,

mouse

10-16-2009, 11:43 PM

The lies Evolutionist's spread everyday!

Ancient Ice

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/Ice%20Layers%202.jpg

Most scientists today believe that various places on this planet, such as Greenland, the Antarctic, and many other places, have some very old ice. The ice in these areas appears to be layered in a very distinctive annual pattern. In fact, this pattern is both visually and chemically recognizable and extends downward some 4,000 to 5,000 meters. What happens is that as the snow from a previous year is buried under a new layer of snow, it is compacted over time with the weight of each additional layer of snow above it. This compacted snow is called the “firn” layer. After several meters this layers snowy firn turns into layers of solid ice (note that 30cm of compacted snow compresses further into about 10cm of ice). These layers are much thinner on the Antarctic ice cap as compared to the Greenland ice cap since Antarctica averages only 5cm of "water equivalent" per year while Greenland averages over 50cm of water equivalent. 1,2 since these layers get even thinner as they are buried under more and more snow and ice, due to compression and lateral flow (see diagram), the thinner layers of the Antarctic ice cap become much harder to count than those of the Greenland ice cap at an equivalent depth. So, scientists feel that most accurate historical information comes from Greenland, although much older ice comes from other drier places. Still, the ice cores drilled in the Greenland ice cap, such as the American Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2) and the European Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP), are felt to be very old indeed - upwards of 160,000 years old.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/ancien4.jpg

http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/tinsley1/drilling.jpg

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/kennedy(2006)-fig.gif

http://www2.cnrs.fr/sites/en/image/1998d00646hd.jpg

Like the coelacanth fish from the previous page. This is another claim made that has been proven wrong. The assumption was that for every light and dark area found in ice, in either the north or south pole. Would represent 1 passing year. And because science has basically cornered the market of doing ice core drills. They figured no one would ever prove them wrong. They basically made this statement about the different colors found in ice cores, without really testing it to make sure. So it was a guess based on a theory (evolution, and the time required for it to happen) that they wanted to support. A theory that was starving for supporting evidence. So evolutionists stuck their foot in their mouth on this one, and are unwilling to admit their mistake. And this mistake is still being taught in every science-evolutionist class in both high school, and college. It is even in the school text books.

Just like the Ernest Haeckel fraud , which by the way will be reprinted and taught again (what next, Piltdown man?). Science refuses to remove the information, unless someone makes them. And like the Stanley Miller experiment. The problems are not mentioned, so that the theory of evolution can for the most part, always go unchallenged.

Just in case some of you still are in the dark scientist claim the layers of each core show how many years the ice is and the rings are solid proof the earth is Billions of years old.

You see these shows on the Discovery channel all the time.

Now for the truth.

BTW The next sound you may hear is the sound of ass cheeks puckering up as the Evolutionist's in this forum know what's coming next..... as I expose this retarded theory they love to teach the children in the classrooms.

http://yecheadquarters.org/images/creation/Slide513_ice_cores.jpg

At first glance you have no reason to doubt the scientist after all how many of you dig in the polar caps for ice? We must take their words as gospel, truth,and facts. what choice do we have?

You do have a choice now. You see in 1941 a plane was lost and 48 years later is was found , are you ready?......................

Under 263 feet of ice! which by the way kills any bullshit Ice core method of dating how old the earth is. So much for your ice ring lies Pat-Na!

I give you ........................

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aaaaa.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aaaa.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aaa-1.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa-1.jpg

mouse

10-17-2009, 05:31 AM

I wouldn't call a five hour wait for a response just a drive by anymore.

You still think the tail bone on a human is a vestigial structure ?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-264855-1.png

mouse

10-17-2009, 05:37 AM

You Vato's that still think your great great grandfather was a snail?

your.........................

itEytND-98E

Wild Cobra

10-17-2009, 10:18 AM

That's cool about the P-38.

They restored her, and flew her again, calling her Glacier Girl (http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-continued.htm):

-4OthQ3td_E

Wild Cobra

10-17-2009, 10:32 AM

mouse

10-17-2009, 01:43 PM

Mouse, as for your pointing out the annual rings...

they have known for years that there is more to determining the age of the ice other than the rings. I notice your article is conveniently silent of this fact, but readily points out older beliefs long ago proven wrong.

Feel free to show me the link that shows this! Show me a video where they mention the fact that ice does accumulate allot faster than they previously thought. Even if I am wrong and you are right? This shit is still in the text books in school, they still have the information. The discovery channel the History channel still show these scientist pulling out ice cores and saying each layer is a year. Some shows say a they can go back 1000 of years with a 5 foot long piece of ice core, WTF?
Look I really don't care who in here wants to believe they evolved from some hot rock or Evolved from a frog just don't try and tell me the earth is a billion years old and for the love of true Science get it out of the text books, why is that such a big deal around here?

GBwXFBBXcS0

mouse

10-17-2009, 02:22 PM

Who needs the comedy channel anymore? :lmao

TscYUV06I60

Come on ST wake up! Thaw out your minds from the frozen Evolution theories the teachers brainwashed you with.

fNEmGaAplgI

[youetube]fNEmGaAplgI[/youtube]

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 02:25 PM

Look I really don't care who in here wants to believe they evolved from some hot rock or Evolved from a frog

Come on ST wake up! Thaw out your minds from the frozen Evolution theories the teachers brainwashed you with.I thought you didn't care.

mouse

10-17-2009, 02:27 PM

I thought you didn't care.

You can still drive an ambulance even if you don't care if the person dies or not.

I do care about lies in the text books not your personal agendas.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 02:29 PM

You can still drive an ambulance even if you don't if the person dies or not.The ambulance driver gets paid.

mouse

10-17-2009, 02:38 PM

The ambulance driver gets paid.

You sure about that?

http://www.wvac11357.com/homepage/logo3e.gif

The real question is how much the Government pays you to silence 9/11 theories and for you to pimp out your Evolution propaganda. What ever it is it's not enough.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 02:40 PM

You sure about that?Volunteers care.

mouse

10-17-2009, 02:42 PM

Volunteers care.

You wouldn't know about caring for shit the way you belittle anyone who questions 9/11 or Darwin. Your just using me to warm up for Zosa I am sure you love pushing his buttons.

over 12 hours no answer to my tree question.....

mouse

10-17-2009, 02:45 PM

http://image.volunteersolutions.org/images/cache/000/010/278/312/10278312349.gif

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 02:46 PM

The real question is how much the Government pays you to silence 9/11 theoriesWhat theories?

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 02:47 PM

You wouldn't know about caring for shit the way you belittle anyone who questions 9/11 or Darwin.I'm an equal opportunity belittler.

over 12 hours no answer to my tree question.....My answer to that is "Because trees die."

mouse

10-17-2009, 02:50 PM

Well since your here and it's seems to be slow at wall mart, here is a question....

At the present rate that volcanoes add crustal material, the entire earth's crust could be formed in 20 million years, far younger than the 4.5 billion years which geologists claim as the age of the earth. Why is that?

mouse

10-17-2009, 02:52 PM

I'm an equal opportunity belittler.

My answer to that is "Because trees die."

Show me the petrified million year old tree?

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 02:54 PM

Show me the petrified million year old tree?You were talking about, and gave a link to, the oldest living tree.

Why are you changing the subject to petrified trees?

mouse

10-17-2009, 02:55 PM

I'm an equal opportunity belittler.
"

I won't I can argue with that, and by doing so you can see I know facts for lies,
I would only wish you did also.

http://www.john.collins.name/JG/CreationismKansas.jpg

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 02:56 PM

I won't I can argue with that, and by doing so you can see I know facts for lies,
I would only wish you did also.Then tell me what your theory is about the origins of life, and give whatever evidence supporting it you have.

Nbadan

10-17-2009, 02:59 PM

:lol

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:00 PM

You were talking about, and gave a link to, the oldest living tree.

Why are you changing the subject to petrified trees?

I want to know why the earth doesn't have something you say its dead i say show me the bones what is hard to figure out?

You Darwin lovers love to pull out those old bones and fossils when you want to make your point about Evolution but the bones and fossil are not around to prove my theories?

Ummmm... interesting, the bias force seems to be strong with this one young LukeChumpDumper

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 03:02 PM

Show me the petrified million year old tree?

Will a 60 million year old tree do?

A massive 60-million-
year-old petrified tree stump, a cast of a Bison latifrons skull,
and a petroleum industry display are among the many exhibits
in the visitors’ center that interpret the prehistory and history
of McKenzie County.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 03:03 PM

I want to know why the earth doesn't have something you say its dead i say show me the bones what is hard to figure out?Trees don't have bones.

Why are you trying to change the subject to bones?

You Darwin lovers love to pull out those old bones and fossils when you want to make your point about Evolution but the bones and fossil are not around to prove my theories?Again, you asked about living trees.

Why are you trying to change your own subject?

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:13 PM

Then tell me what your theory is about the origins of life, and give whatever evidence supporting it you have.

long ago super intelligent beings found a planet with water food and air and left many human life forms in different regions of the earth to monitor them and see how well they do. Some advanced and became smart while others never did developed enough intelligence and started to believe they evolved from snails.

Proof of intelligent design?

Me being able to argue with one of these unintelligent Darwin loves miles away using a computer.

I really don't care how many apes you stick in a room with laptops over millions of years your not going to see shit for evolution, just a bunch of dumb apes tossing their shit at each other and starting trouble,
and frankly If I really waned to see that? I can visit the ST politics forum.

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 03:15 PM

long ago super intelligent beings found a planet

Did these beings just appear out of nowhere? Do you know what "origin" means?

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:18 PM

Trees don't have bones.

Why are you trying to change the subject to bones?

Again, you asked about living trees.

Why are you trying to change your own subject?

I can see this tree shit is something your not in any mood to debate.

Live tree, dead tree they are all under 10,000 years. So I will give you a pass, you can stop your circler arguing techniques.

here is an easy one.

The rim of Niagara Falls erodes at four to five feet per year, indicating that it could not be more than 10,000 years old. your thoughts?

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:21 PM

Did these beings just appear out of nowhere? Do you know what "origin" means?

That is a question you can ask them not me. I am not here to prove where you came from I am here to expose your lies. I rather believe some vato that looks like Jerry Garcia made all this than to assume we evolved from hot soup.

Wouldn't you? Don't you want to be part of outside intelligent force? or a snail?

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 03:24 PM

I can see this tree shit is something your not in any mood to debate.I am very much in the mood to debate why the oldest living tree is "only" 10,000 years old.

I say it is because trees die.

Do you disagree?

baseline bum

10-17-2009, 03:26 PM

long ago super intelligent beings found a planet with water food and air and left many human life forms in different regions of the earth to monitor them and see how well they do. Some advanced and became smart while others never did developed enough intelligence and started to believe they evolved from snails.

Proof of intelligent design?

Me being able to argue with one of these unintelligent Darwin loves miles away using a computer.

I really don't care how many apes you stick in a room with laptops over millions of years your not going to see shit for evolution, just a bunch of dumb apes tossing their shit at each other and starting trouble,
and frankly If I really waned to see that? I can visit the ST politics forum.

Wonderful circular logic.

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 03:28 PM

I can see this tree shit is something your not in any mood to debate.

Live tree, dead tree they are all under 10,000 years. So I will give you a pass, you can stop your circler arguing techniques.

Except for the countless ones that are older. Like the one I mentioned in an earlier post being 60 million years old. Moron.

The rim of Niagara Falls erodes at four to five feet per year, indicating that it could not be more than 10,000 years old. your thoughts?You're not really that stupid are you?

That is a question you can ask them not me.I'll look for 'em.

I am not here to prove where you came from I am here to expose your lies.What lies?

I rather believe some vato that looks like Jerry Garcia made all this than to assume we evolved from hot soup. Did the superior beings evolve from hot soup?

Wouldn't you? Don't you want to be part of outside intelligent force? or a snail?
I'm secure enough so no. I guess you need that help with your psyche.

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:30 PM

Moron.
.

There went his debate street creeds.

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 03:31 PM

There went his debate street creeds.

Just stating the obvious. I'll delete it if it means you actually answer the questions. Oh and I'll delete it if you comment on the 60 million year old tree.

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:33 PM

What lies?

Are you serious? Your lazy ass can't go back two pages and see how I exposed your bullshit Ice core earth age theory? And save me the trouble show me this 60 million year old tree.

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 03:34 PM

I only ask that you answer one question.

How did the superior beings come to be?

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 03:35 PM

The rim of Niagara Falls erodes at four to five feet per year, indicating that it could not be more than 10,000 years old. your thoughts?I believe that the Great Lakes and subsequently Niagara Falls were formed as the glaciers receded after the most recent ice age, which was indeed about 10,000 years ago.

So I completely agree with you on the age of Niagara Falls. We probably differ on the age of the ground upon which the lakes and falls formed.

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:37 PM

Did the superior beings evolve from hot soup?

Not sure and don't care I am about lies in the text books please try and stay focused.

I an not Zosa.

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 03:37 PM

Are you serious? Your lazy ass can't go back two pages and see how I exposed your bullshit Ice core earth age theory? I have a bullshit Ice core earth age theory?

And save me the trouble show me this 60 million year old tree.

The base of the stump was embedded in a one foot thick
bed of lignite indicating that the tree was growing in a swamp
about 60 million years ago. The roots radiating from the
stump were carbonized and turned into lignite whereas the
stump was petrified with most of the wood replaced by
silica. The stump is probably bald cypress (Taxodium)
suggested by the nature of the bark, configuration of the
roots, associated leaf fossils found at the site, and because it
was growing in a swamp. Other petrified tree stumps, also
probably cypress, dot the landscape around the excavated
stump.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndfossil/exhibits/pdf/stump.pdf

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:37 PM

I believe that the Great Lakes and subsequently Niagara Falls were formed as the glaciers receded after the most recent ice age, which was indeed about 10,000 years ago.

So I completely agree with you on the age of Niagara Falls. We probably differ on the age of the ground upon which the lakes and falls formed.

So you believe in the Flood?

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 03:38 PM

Not sure and don't careOh so if they evolved that was ok. You wouldn't care.

I am about lies in the text books please try and stay focused.Do you own these textbooks?

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 03:39 PM

I used to think mouse was smart just a huge jackass. I guess I was only right about one of those.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 03:42 PM

So you believe in the Flood?I believe in floods.

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 03:45 PM

Just read the ice core stuff. :lol

They don't visually date the ice. They date using gas molecules.

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:49 PM

Shastafarian

Do you have any idea how they came to the 60 million number?

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:53 PM

Oh so if they evolved that was ok. You wouldn't care.

Why should I?
Is coming from snail or soup going to get me more money when income tax time comes?

I will say again, I am about science books in the "classroom" that are teaching unproven theories and lies what part of that did you miss?

Do you own these textbooks?

You bet I do my tax dollars pay for your kids to learn lies every day.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 03:55 PM

So what should they be teaching in school?

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:55 PM

Just read the ice core stuff. :lol

They don't visually date the ice. They date using gas molecules.

The bottom line they pulled out a long ice core and say on the "TV" channel we can now see how the weather was 20 million years ago and that is bullshit and I debunked it so just give me my props and lets move on to more of your half baked theories.

mouse

10-17-2009, 03:58 PM

So what should they be teaching in school?

Well how about Nursing, or how to work on jet engines? when was the last time a wall mart employee's had to know Texas history or how man came about on earth? How does any of that help kids today get to be smart?

I used to make fun of China for teaching their kids how to load an AK47 at the age of 7 years old now I envy them.

You can still teach evolution just point out the gaps and holes in the theories why so hard to do?

mouse

10-17-2009, 04:00 PM

I believe in floods.

Do you believe at one time maybe 6 to 10 thousand years ago the earth was flooded?

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 04:05 PM

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 04:06 PM

Do you believe at one time maybe 6 to 10 thousand years ago the earth was flooded?The whole thing?

Probably not.

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 04:11 PM

Shastafarian

Do you have any idea how they came to the 60 million number?

Maybe they asked the superior beings who created it.

z0sa

10-17-2009, 04:12 PM

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 04:13 PM

mouse

10-17-2009, 04:16 PM

The whole thing?

Probably not.

What regions of earth would you say was covered in water? America, UK, Africa? Any clue or personal guess on how deep?

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 04:19 PM

Why are these new findings between the time periods of long tail/short tail? In this same vein, what proof do we have concerning the time periods themselves? Why is one considered later in time than the other, and these in the middle of that timespan?

Why is one more 'advanced' than the other, while the newest find is in the middle in terms of 'advancement'?

How are their ages ascertained? Are only pterodactyls found?

What killed them, and why were they grouped together?

Why did they fossilize?Did you seriously expect all those questions to be answered in a CNN story?

I suggest you read the published journal article cited at the end if you really care that much. Something tells me you don't and these are just trolling questions.

mouse

10-17-2009, 04:22 PM

When did they leave humans here?

Good question. I can't say for sure I can only say how long the earth could sustain life forms and air water etc.. I may not know when a person first drove their car but I can kinda can almost figure out how long their car has been around.

So if you look at the evidence w/o the blinders you can see many years the earth has been here, 60,000 years, or maybe to satisfy the mases a million years?

You see I can meet you half way, It's when you say billions of years that I have to say your full of shit.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 04:25 PM

Good question. I can't say for sure I can only say how long the earth could sustain life forms and air water etc.. I may not know when a person first drove their car but I can kinda can almost figure out how long their car has been around.

So if you look at the evidence w/o the blinders you can see many years the earth has been here, 60,000 years, or maybe to satisfy the mases a million years?

You see I can meet you half way, It's when you say billions of years that I have to say your full of shit.Why is a million more acceptable than billions?

z0sa

10-17-2009, 04:27 PM

Did you seriously expect all those questions to be answered in a CNN story?

As I expected. You have no clue. You just full-frontally bought everything the article stuffed your mouth full of without a shred of hard, real details to go along with it - except for a few pictures of pterodactyl fossils :lol Good thing those scientists don't have any bias or anything.

What if the pterodactyls were discovered in the wrong type of rock? What if they were discovered with creatures from a different time period? You don't even think of these things because you're brainwashed into thinking they got it all covered without your inquiry, Dump. Hence lies the problem: we don't have enough information, and what information is given is vague and biased.

I suggest you read the published journal article cited at the end if you really care that much. Something tells me you don't and these are just trolling questions.

They're definitely leading questions - to make you question the integrity of the writer/researchers and the proposed factuality of the findings.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 04:30 PM

As I expected. You have no clue. You just full-frontally bought everything the article stuffed your mouth full of without a shred of hard, real details to go along with it - except for a few pictures of pterodactyl fossils :lol Good thing those scientists don't have any bias or anything.

What if the pterodactyls were discovered in the wrong type of rock? What if they were discovered with creatures from a different time period? You don't even think of these things because you're brainwashed into thinking they got it all covered without your inquiry, Dump. Hence lies the problem: we don't have enough information, and what information is given is vague and biased.So you haven't looked at the journal.

They're definitely leading questions - to make you question the integrity of the writer/researchers and the proposed factuality of the findings.So you aren't interested in looking at the journal.

Troll.

z0sa

10-17-2009, 04:34 PM

So you haven't looked at the journal.

So you aren't interested in looking at the journal.

Troll.

It's fairly obvious where I was leading:

If you can't answer the questions, you were facefed supposed facts without even checking the journal, Dump. You let the writer of the article form your opinion for you.

Therefore, we can assume you don't actually know shit about the subject at hand.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 04:36 PM

It's fairly obvious where I was leading:

If you can't answer the questions, you were facefed supposed facts without even checking the journal, Dump. You let the writer of the article form your opinion for you.And yet, you have done nothing to refute or even challenge anything presented in the article, much less the journal.

I only have a passing interest in the subject. It is obviously more important to you.

But all you did was troll.

z0sa

10-17-2009, 04:45 PM

And yet, you have done nothing to refute or even challenge anything presented in the article, much less the journal.

It should be easy for you to answer the questions then.

I only have a passing interest in the subject. It is obviously more important to you.

You can foresee what's about to happen, don't you?

Coward.

But all you did was troll.

Those leading questions have a purpose - unlike yours.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 04:52 PM

It should be easy for you to answer the questions then.My answer is this: I bet everything you are looking for is in the journal, since CNN articles don't usually go into such detail for anything.

You can foresee what's about to happen, don't you?Absolutely.

Coward.Nah, you haven't refuted anything yet. You aren't good at this.

Those leading questions have a purpose - unlike yours.They serve no purpose because you won't even look at the journal. You care enough to bitch and troll, but you won't even try to answer your own questions which are mostly matters of fact that are readily available to you and anyone else who purports to care so deeply about this.

Have you looked at the journal?

mouse

10-17-2009, 04:57 PM

What lies are being taught again? The ice core theory, which isn't even correctly represented, is something you yourself claim is on "TV". So what lies are being taught in school? What gaps are not being discussed?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-257267.png
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-257535.png

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/1111-1.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/11111-1.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/111111.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/1111111.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/22222.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/222.jpg

z0sa

10-17-2009, 05:00 PM

My answer is this: I bet everything you are looking for is in the journal, since CNN articles don't usually go into such detail for anything.

So you admit to not actually checking the facts behind the article.

Nah, you haven't refuted anything yet. You aren't good at this.

Then answer the questions.

You aren't fooling anyone, Dump. You've trolled your way throughout this entire thread with various questions and assertions, yet you have no actual knowledge concerning the subject.

You're simply trolling. Therefore, I humbly ask you to not respond to my replies.

They serve no purpose because you won't even look at the journal.

You haven't. We can be very sure of that, and even if you go back and look now, it won't matter. You're a phony, a troll posing as a knowledgable poster. If you have nothing to do other than troll, just admit it and be done with it.

I care enough to bitch and troll, but I won't even try to answer your own questions which, according to my ignorant ass, are mostly matters of fact that are hopefully readily available to you and anyone else who purports to care so deeply about this.

Where did I purport to care so deeply? Judging from the apparent criterion, you care more deeply, considering you have more posts in this topic than I do.

Have you looked at the journal article?

Oh yes. I studied it and several articles before even attempting to post in thread. I check my facts and develop a sort of thesis when heading in to these topics.

You have derailed my inquiry twice now, please stop troll.

mouse

10-17-2009, 05:02 PM

Why is a million more acceptable than billions?

The moon is drifting further away from the earth each year so 20,000 years can be believable, it would only bring the moon closer the earth a few miles a million years can maybe be possible, But Billions of years? That would put the earth and the Moon touching each other and not to mention the huge tides it would cause. The earth would completely food over twice a day.

Comets! they have a life span of 10,000 years. how can a comet stay burning over millions of years?

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:10 PM

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-257267.png
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-257535.pngSo the most recent example is from 1999. You're disproving "lies" from 10 years ago. Thanks.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/22222.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/222.jpgWhere are the lies in these?

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:11 PM

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 05:11 PM

So you admit to not actually checking the facts behind the article.I admit that I am not interested in doing for you what can easily be done by yourself.

Then answer the questions.I did. My answer was "You're an idiot if you can't look those things up yourself."

You aren't fooling anyone, Dump. You've trolled your way throughout this entire thread with various questions and assertions, yet you have no actual knowledge concerning the subject.Actually, you have done exactly the same thing.

You're simply trolling. Therefore, I humbly ask you to not respond to my replies.Tough shit.

You haven't.I made a point of doing so before I said it was easily found.[/quote] We can be very sure of that, and even if you go back and look now, it won't matter.[/quote]Already did and it did matter, because it proves that you are trolling and haven't looked at the journal.
You're a phony, a troll posing as a knowledgable poster. If you have nothing to do other than troll, just admit it and be done with it.I am not very knowledgeable about evolution, but I find people like you with agendas fascinating, especially when they refuse to just come out and say what that agenda is.

Where did I purport to care so deeply? Judging from the apparent criterion, you care more deeply, considering you have more posts in this topic than I do.Actually you are the one whining about getting back on topic and repeating your troll questions, wanting desperately for someone to respond.

That means you care.

Oh yes. I studied it and several articles before even attempting to post in thread. I check my facts and develop a thesis when heading in to these topics.Great. Show us exactly the issues you have with the journal.

You have derailed my inquiry twice now, please stop troll.I am talking directly about the journal now. Quit whining about me and trolling and actually reveal your agenda and your refutation of the journal.

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:12 PM

I put lies in "" because we know what embryos look like. If the text book is put together properly they have accurate pictorial representations.

z0sa

10-17-2009, 05:18 PM

http://a511.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/107/l_4c261f80dc728e580f63db84c2634a46.jpg

What you fail to understand, Dumpy, is that the answers to these questions are where my argument is made. If you refuse to actually learn the answers to these seemingly obvious questions, then you refuse also to form your own opinion on the issue. Without a defined position, you fail to qualify as a worthy opponent.

I think the real problem is, you don't have the answers to these questions (which, I assure you, are either not answered, or only partially answered, and never explained concerning the journal/articles)

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 05:23 PM

The moon is drifting further away from the earth each year so 20,000 years can be believable, it would only bring the moon closer the earth a few miles a million years can maybe be possible, But Billions of years? That would put the earth and the Moon touching each other and not to mention the huge tides it would cause. The earth would completely food over twice a day.Apparently, the prevailing theory is that the material making up the Moon was once part of the Earth and a giant impact from another body blasted that material into Earth's orbit where it accreted into the Moon.

There seem to be some problems with the theory, but it would explain the distance -- which only increases about 12 feet a year.

Comets! they have a life span of 10,000 years. how can a comet stay burning over millions of years?Who said a comet burned over millions of years?

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:23 PM

Why are these new findings between the time periods of long tail/short tail?Why are they between them? Probably because of dating.

In this same vein, what proof do we have concerning the time periods themselves? Are you one of these people who doesn't believe in dating methods?

Why is one considered later in time than the other, and these in the middle of that timespan?I'd guess they based this on where the fossils were found in the strata. Also dating.

Why is one more 'advanced' than the other, while the newest find is in the middle in terms of 'advancement'?They probably used "advancement" in terms of tail advancement.

How are their ages ascertained?Dating

Are only pterodactyls found?Huh?

What killed themWho cares?

, and why were they grouped together?Again, who cares?

Why did they fossilize?Conditions were right for them to fossilize.

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:24 PM

And I didn't even read the journal article.

spursncowboys

10-17-2009, 05:25 PM

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:25 PM

Comets burn?

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:26 PM

Over 15 years ago they taught me that evolution was a fact based science.

They said "Fact based"? It's based on thousands and thousands of verified observations. I guess you can call those independent events "facts".

z0sa

10-17-2009, 05:27 PM

And I didn't even read the journal article.

So you have no frame of reference here. You simply bought everything the article had to say, without attempting to locate a source.

Your answers are incomplete and wrong, according to the very same material we both have.

Additionally, I'd like to point out you can't even answer simple questions about why the fossils died (an important one), or how they are dated.

z0sa

10-17-2009, 05:28 PM

It's based on thousands and thousands of verified observations. I guess you can call those independent events "facts".

Which observations?

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:29 PM

So you have no frame of reference here. You simply bought everything the article had to say, without attempting to locate a source.

Your answers are incomplete and wrong, according to the very same material we both have.Ok then educate us. Give us the answers to your questions.

Which observations?
All of them.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 05:30 PM

What you fail to understand, Dumpy, is that the answers to these questions are where my argument is made. If you refuse to actually learn the answers to these seemingly obvious questions, then you refuse also to form your own opinion on the issue. Without a defined position, you fail to qualify as a worthy opponent.:lmao

I do refuse to care as much as you do. I understand all this is theory and best guessing or in some cases, real reaches or even made up bs.

I think the real problem is, you don't have the answers to these questions (which, I assure you, are either not answered, or only partially answered, and never explained concerning the journal/articles)I think the real problem is you think I am taking a stand supporting the journal and its findings.

I want to know what you make of all this. You obviously have a point of view about evolution and an agenda or else you wouldn't be begging for someone to discuss the topic.

My agenda is wanting to know what your agenda here is -- ultimately what you think about evolution in general, and if you have something better for everyone to believe in.

I think that is ultimately where you are going with all this, so why troll and beg for someone to play with? Just say what you mean and be done with it.

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:31 PM

Additionally, I'd like to point out you can't even answer simple questions about why the fossils died (an important one), or how they are dated.

I didn't answer it because it's irrelevant. Unless they have determined that these individuals died because having this intermediate tail was deleterious. If you can tell my why I'll be impressed.

z0sa

10-17-2009, 05:31 PM

Ok then educate us.

Isn't that why I pay taxes?

Give us the answers to your questions.

The answers are right within the article and journal entry, according to Dump.

All of them.

Show me some good examples.

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:32 PM

The answers are right within the article and journal entry, according to Dump.Have you read the article?

Show me some good examples.Antibiotic resistance is a good one.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 05:35 PM

Over 15 years ago they taught me that evolution was a fact based science.It is a science based on facts.

mouse

10-17-2009, 05:35 PM

So the most recent example is from 1999. You're disproving "lies" from 10 years ago. Thanks.

The documentary I used was filmed in 1997, many of text books today in the schools around the country are over 15 years old. If your that hard headed and want some 2007 text books I can find them but you have to promise me you will go back to playing Zelda on your game cube and let me debate with the adults.

Where are the lies in these?

The first poster in the collage bulletin bards states there will be both sides of the debate they lied they never invited anyone from the other side to debate Evolution.

The second page lies the percentage of Evolution taught in school is higher than the page admits to.

The lies are not just about evolution.

http://lezgetreal.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Book_Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me.jpg

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:37 PM

Why don't you become a teacher and actually do something about it instead of bitching on a message board?

z0sa

10-17-2009, 05:40 PM

:lmao

I do refuse to care as much as you do. I understand all this is theory and best guessing or in some cases, real reaches or even made up bs.

Give me a moment - I'm just trying to understand why someone who doesn't care "as much as do", and has admitted only a passing interest in the issue at hand, continues voraciously posting throughout the said topic. I mean, if you think I don't have an argument, and don't have any evidence, why are you so concerned?

The answer is obvious.

I think the real problem is you think I am taking a stand supporting the journal and its findings.

I've inferred as much, though I never made any such assertion. I made quite the opposite, in fact (that you don't have enough knowledge on the subject to be more than indifferent)

I want to know what [I]you make of all this. You obviously have a point of view about evolution and an agenda or else you wouldn't be begging for someone to discuss the topic.

Begging? I'm simply throwing my questions out there to see what you guys on the other side of the fence have to say. if you find them rhetorical, simply don't answer - but don't act like I have no argument to make, either. If you don't have a clue as to what presuppositions mean in a debate about these areas, then that is not my problem.

My agenda is wanting to know what your agenda here is -- ultimately what you think about evolution in general, and if you have something better for everyone to believe in.

My beliefs and ideals are no better than anyone's. I freely admit I could be very wrong - hence why asking these supposedly harmless questions should not get your panties in such a bunch.

I think that is ultimately where you are going with all this, so why troll and beg for someone to play with? Just say what you mean and be done with it.

Say what I mean about what? About the pterosaur? About the questions I asked concerning it? About the origin of life idea I possess you desperately seek? If you have a question that's pertinent to the evidence or the article or even what I have thus far stated, I'll gladly answer. Hell, I'll even entertain more discussion on creationism in school.

mouse

10-17-2009, 05:40 PM

It is a science based on facts.

Facts like these?

Scientists Admit:
Evolution Not Supported By Facts!

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

On many campuses, any professor who admits having doubts about the "factual" nature of evolution would be laughed off the campus (and out of his job). But today, more and more courageous scientists are publicly admitting what they have known privately for years: believing in evolution requires an act of blind faith.

Does evolution square with the facts? Here are the statements of several scientific leaders as found in The Quote Book, published by Creation Science Foundation Ltd.

Evolutionists Great Con Men

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.

"...most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretation of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." (Dr. David Raup, Curator, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Quoted from "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1), 1979.)

Do Fossils Prove It?

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.

But What About Those Bones?

"...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (Dr. Greg Kirby in an address given at a meeting of the Biology Teachers Association of South Australia in 1976. Dr. Kirby was the Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University and was giving the case for evolution.)

"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.

But the World Is So Old...Isn't It?

"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.

Carbon-14 Will Tell Us...Won't It?

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

When Did Dinosaurs Really Live?

The existence of dinosaurs long before man came along has been almost a basic tenet of faith for the evolutionist. But what if the footprints of both man and dinosaur were found together?

In the Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 31, 1983, David H Milne and Steven D Schafersman tell us "Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrine of creationism and catastrophism."

Well gentlemen, not only have both man and dinosaur prints been found together in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky and Illinois, but other U.S. locations as well.

Why Do They Do It?

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)

Shastafarian

10-17-2009, 05:47 PM

mouse = Sarah Palin

hilarious

z0sa

10-17-2009, 05:50 PM

Antibiotic resistance is a good one.

If you're talking bacteria alone, their genomes are much larger than humans. This means there's an incredible expanse of 'extra' raw materials to work with, allowing for incredibly fast adaptation.

Giant Bacteria over half a millimeter long (visible to the naked eye) living in the gut of surgeonfish is found to have over 300 times more DNA (1 trillion base pairs) than humans (3 billion base pairs). I believe this is now the largest known amount of DNA in a single cell having knocked aside the previous record holder amoeba dubia at ~200 times more DNA than humans.

mouse

10-17-2009, 05:52 PM

mouse = Sarah Palin

hilarious

Psssst! reruns of saved by the bell on nickelodeon in 6 minutes! :tu

http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/screech9.jpg

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 05:55 PM

Give me a moment - I'm just trying to understand why someone who doesn't care "as much as [I] do", and has admitted only a passing interest in the issue at hand, continues voraciously posting throughout the said topic. I mean, if you think I don't have an argument, and don't have any evidence, why are you so concerned?As I said, I'd like to know what you think.

The answer is obvious.Yeah, since i told you several time, it should be obvious.

I've inferred as much, though I never made any such assertion. I made quite the opposite, in fact (that you don't have enough knowledge on the subject to be more than indifferent)You think I support the CNN article, and by extension the findings of the journal authors.

You're wrong.

Begging? I'm simply throwing my questions out there to see what you guys on the other side of the fence have to say.What side of the fence are you on?

What do you actually believe?

if you find them rhetorical, simply don't answer - but don't act like I have no argument to make, either.I have been asking for you to make your argument for days now. Why are you afraid to make it?

If you don't have a clue as to what presuppositions mean in a debate about these areas, then that is not my problem.You were trolling and begging for someone to answer.

My beliefs and ideals are no better than anyone's. I freely admit I could be very wrong - hence why asking these supposedly harmless questions should not get your panties in such a bunch.So why don't you say what you believe? Why should asking you what you believe get your panties in such a bunch?

Say what I mean about what? About the pterosaur? About the questions I asked concerning it? About the origin of life idea I possess you desperately seek? If you have a question that's pertinent to the evidence or the article or even what I have thus far stated, I'll gladly answer. Hell, I'll even entertain more discussion on creationism in school.You mean you'll quit whining about me and get on with your agenda?

OK. Finally

What is your opinion of the journal article's findings in particular and evolution in general?

mouse

10-17-2009, 05:56 PM

Why don't you become a teacher and actually do something about it instead of bitching on a message board?

If I can't teach your ignorant ass what chance do I have in public schools?

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 05:59 PM

Facts like these?The existence of fossils is a fact.

Evolution is a scientific theory that tries to explain that fact.

Evolution is based on facts.

spursncowboys

10-17-2009, 05:59 PM

I do refuse to care as much as you do. I understand all this is theory and best guessing or in some cases, real reaches or even made up bs.

It is a science based on facts.

mouse

10-17-2009, 06:00 PM

Darwin Was Wrong, Evolutionary Scientists Admit

“Darwin simply didn’t have access to the information we have,” explains William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke University Medical Center and the senior author of a new study on the appendix. “If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution.”

A few days ago the evolutionary website ScienceDaily ran a story titled “Evolution of the Human Appendix: A Biological ‘Remnant’ No More.” According to the article, “Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected.”

Parker added, “Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ.’”

Maybe, Dr. Parker? Maybe? We know how difficult it must be to finally come around to what creationists have been saying all along, but why should there be even the slightest hesitation about correcting a known mistake in biology textbooks? Creation Moments will even make it easy for textbook publishers by providing the new wording: “According to the latest scientific research, Darwin was wrong about the appendix being a vestigial organ. The appendix serves a critical function as part of the body’s immune system, as creation scientists have long asserted.”

But we won’t hold our breath. After all, Dr. Parker is still a loyal Darwinist. “We’re not saying that Darwin’s idea of evolution is wrong - that would be absurd, as we’re using his ideas on evolution to do this work,” Parker told LiveScience.com yesterday. “It’s just that Darwin simply didn’t have the information we have now.”

Our closing comment: Had Darwin known what we now know about fossils, DNA, geology, the fine-tuned universe and the complexity of what he thought were simple cells, we wonder if he would have proposed such a lame idea as the theory of evolution.

Those are our thoughts. What are yours?

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 06:00 PM

[I don't understand anything]Some people made up stuff out of whole cloth -- they are found out pretty quickly.

Is your theory of the origin of life based on facts?

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 06:03 PM

mouse

10-17-2009, 06:05 PM

The existence of fossils is a fact.

Evolution is a scientific theory that tries to explain that fact.

Evolution is based on facts.

Then explain this.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/earth-facts.jpg

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 06:06 PM

Then explain this.Explain what?

mouse

10-17-2009, 06:07 PM

My thoughts are lol.

"lame"

Well if we are going to pull out the lame card let me start on page one when you started posting.

SCIENTISTS ADMIT “SPECTACULAR BLUNDER” IN PERCEPTION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN

The September issue of Discover Magazine includes an article contains a remarkable admission of error by the modern scientific community. It appears in an article entitled “The Brain” by Carl Zimmer (see link below), and it admits that “Neuroscientists have a…mistake of their own, and it is a spectacular blunder.” The “spectacular blunder” involves how scientists have perceived the internal workings of the human brain.

Scientists have long thought that the numerous “glial cells” in the human brain were nothing more than a kind of organic “glue” which held the brain together. The article states the error and new discovery in three words: ”Even though the brain contains about a trillion glia–10 times as many as there are neurons–the assumption was that those cells were nothing more than a passive support system. Today we know the name [”glial” cell after a Greek word for “glue”] could not be more wrong. Glia, in fact, are busy multitaskers, guiding the brain’s development and sustaining it throughout our lives.” The article adds concerning the glia cells that “…they speak in a chemical language of their own. Scientists do not yet understand that language(emphasis added).” The article further reveals that scientists now realize that there are three distinct kinds of glia cells, all of which are necessary to brain functioning. In a closing statement of unusual candor for a scientific article, it states “There is something marvelous in the fact that we barely understand what most of the cells in our brains are doing.” [Emphasis added.] This is quite a confession on the part of modern science. It is also another hammer blow to evolutionary theories, because this new development reveals the human brain is far more complex and intricately-designed than anyone previously realized. It also ends permanently any argument that glia cells in the brain were some kind of “vestigial” evolutionary tissue! For decades, modern scientists have been entirely wrong about glia cells in human brains. One can only hope they will someday realize that they have also been entirely wrong about the entire intellectual foolishness called the theory of evolution. When Darwin first proposed his anti-biblical theory, scientists lacked the technology to understand how infinitely-complex and marvelously-designed the human body (and the bodies of all other species as well) really are. As new technology revealed what Darwin never grasped, scientists should have discarded evolution as a joke.

Indescribable complexity comes from creative acts, not from random chance. Does anyone think that the most modern supercomputer (complete with all peripherals) along with the electrical power plant that supplies it energy to operate all just came into existence by random chance without any outside human intelligence acting upon these things to make them come into existence? Only a blithering fool would believe such a thing! However, the “evolution” of a supercomputer and and an electrical plant by random chance is infinitely easier to believe in than the evolution of humans or any other living species. Why? Because the “evolution” of a supercomputer and a power plant would still not involve any leap from non-living substances to living organisms. Modern science “strains at gnats and swallows camels.” It would mock anyone who was dumb enough to assert a supercomputer and an electrical power plant came into existence by random chance, but it blithely opines and teaches that human beings and living organisms (entities far more complex than a supercomputer or the “bricks and mortar” of a power plant) “evolved” by random chance.

mouse

10-17-2009, 06:08 PM

Explain what?

What do you see?

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 06:10 PM

What do you see?A picture with no context.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 06:21 PM

Hey, z0sa.
What is your opinion of the journal article's findings in particular and evolution in general?

mouse

10-17-2009, 06:37 PM

A picture with no context.

You said Evolution is based on facts. But yet this petrified tree that is lying through different layers of rock winch Scientist claim are millions of years apart blows that theory out the window.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 06:42 PM

You said Evolution is based on facts. But yet this petrified tree that is lying through different layers of rock winch Scientist claim are millions of years apart blows that theory out the window.As I said, no context.

I don't see why you guys feel you have to sneak all these things in and hope you can get away with them.

I appreciate your actually stating what you think is the origin of life, mouse, but you can't even admit you fucked up on the tree thing. People tend to take you (even) less seriously then.

mouse

10-17-2009, 06:58 PM

As I said, no context.

I don't see why you guys feel you have to sneak all these things in and hope you can get away with them.

I appreciate your actually stating what you think is the origin of life, mouse, but you can't even admit you fucked up on the tree thing. People tend to take you (even) less seriously then.

Is that your way of saying you have no comebacks and want to debate with easier posters? ok brah you get a pass but show me where I lied or fucked up!

For the rest of you who want to "continue" the debate....Scientist claim coal takes 1000s to millions of years to form and yet.......

Iron Pot Imbedded Inside Coal Lump:
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/coal2.jpg

This small iron pot was imbedded inside a single lump of coal. Such finds are not unusual, but few are fully certified and documented to be true. Here we have a notarized letter certifying the authenticity of the find. This pot is in the Creation Evidences Museum today, in Glen Rose, Texas.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 07:02 PM

Is that your way of saying you have no comebacks and want to debate with easier posters? ok brah you get a pass but show me where I lied or fucked up!You lied by omission. You just posted a picture from your photo site and said "Here's my proof!"

For the rest of you who want to "continue" the debate....Scientist claim coal takes 1000s to millions of years to form and yet.......

Iron Pot Imbedded Inside Coal Lump:
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/coal2.jpg

This small iron pot was imbedded inside a single lump of coal. Such finds are not unusual, but few are fully certified and documented to be true. Here we have a notarized letter certifying the authenticity of the find. This pot is in the Creation Evidences Museum today, in Glen Rose, Texas.At least you gave us enough to google something this time.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 07:08 PM

Hey mouse, could you tell me who certified the authenticity of the coal pot find?

mouse

10-17-2009, 07:35 PM

Hey mouse, could you tell me who certified the authenticity of the coal pot find?

I can only tell you who found it I won't certify it's authenticity since your on your lier lier pants on fire crusade.

Nov. 27, 1948
While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression, or mould of the pot in a piece of the coal. Jim Stull (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines.

signed: Frank J. Kennard

Sworn to before me, in Sulphru Springs, Arkansas, this 27th day of November, 1948.
Jullia L. Eldred N.P. My commission expires May 21, 1951 - Benton Co.

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 07:44 PM

So it's entirely possible that pot ended up in between pieces of coal that were pressed together in the process of mining or shipping.

OK.

mouse

10-17-2009, 07:49 PM

Hey mouse, could you tell me who certified the authenticity of the coal pot find?

Why are you shifting all the burden of proof on me? where are all your banana eating pals with their proofs? Why can't you post some proof that your here because of some snails?

Seriously Chump your off your game today. maybe you should take a break and come back later after you re-charged your debunker batteries.

maybe you should stick to 9/11 topics since your getting your ass kicked all up and down this topic.

just friendly advise brah! :tu

But if you want to move on here goes......

Salty seas
by Jonathan Sarfati

Our planet, Earth, is the only place in the universe known to have liquid water.1 In fact, astronauts looking at Earth’s surface from outer space see mainly water. The ocean covers 71% of the total area, and contains enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles) if the surface were completely flat.
Salinity

The ocean is essential for life on Earth, and also helps make the climate fairly moderate. However, although the ocean contains 1,370 million cubic kilometres (334 million cubic miles) of water, humans can’t survive by drinking from it—it is too salty.

To a chemist, ‘salt’ refers to a wide range of chemicals where a metal is combined with a non-metal. Ordinary common salt is a compound formed when the metal sodium combines with the non-metal chlorine—sodium chloride. This contains electrically charged atoms, called ions, that attract each other, resulting in a fairly hard crystal. When salt dissolves, these ions separate. Sodium and chloride ions are the main ions in seawater, but not the only ones. The salty seas benefit man, because the ocean provides many useful minerals for our industries.

The salinity of the oceans is a strong evidence that they, and the Earth itself, are far younger than the billions of years required for evolution, and is consistent with the age of about 6,000 years. It is also far younger than the evolutionists’ ‘dates’ for many marine creatures.

In short, the sea is not salty enough to suit the taste of evolutionists! Of course, all such calculations depend on assumptions about the past, like the starting conditions and constant rates of processes. They can never prove the age of something. For that, we need an eye-witness The point of such calculations is to demonstrate that even under the evolutionists’ own assumptions about the past, the Earth is far younger than is usually claimed.

mouse

10-17-2009, 07:57 PM

So it's entirely possible that pot ended up in between pieces of coal that were pressed together in the process of mining or shipping.

OK.

If you say so, then I have no problem with that, In fact there are many more questions out there. Also what about Mount St. Helens the trees that were buried are coal already! How can that be in such little time?

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 07:57 PM

Why are you shifting all the proof on me?Because you keep bringing these things up. If you can't do it just say so.
where is all your banana eating pals with there proof? Why can't you post some proof your here because of some snails?What proof do I need?

I don't think the evolutionary theory is perfect -- but all you are doing is taking potshots at it that end up being DOA. Meanwhile, you present your theory with zero evidence to back it up. It's funny.

Seriously Chump your off your game today. maybe you should take a break and come back later after you re-charged your debunker batteries.Actually, I can tell I'm doing well since you are changing subjects and starting in with rapidfire ad hominems.

maybe you should stick to 9/11 topics since your getting your ass kicked all up and down this topic.

just friendly advise brah! :tuOK, what do you think really happened on 9/11?

But if you want to move on here goes......

Salty seas
by Jonathan Sarfati

Our planet, Earth, is the only place in the universe known to have liquid water.1 In fact, astronauts looking at Earth’s surface from outer space see mainly water. The ocean covers 71% of the total area, and contains enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles) if the surface were completely flat.
Salinity

The ocean is essential for life on Earth, and also helps make the climate fairly moderate. However, although the ocean contains 1,370 million cubic kilometres (334 million cubic miles) of water, humans can’t survive by drinking from it—it is too salty.

To a chemist, ‘salt’ refers to a wide range of chemicals where a metal is combined with a non-metal. Ordinary common salt is a compound formed when the metal sodium combines with the non-metal chlorine—sodium chloride. This contains electrically charged atoms, called ions, that attract each other, resulting in a fairly hard crystal. When salt dissolves, these ions separate. Sodium and chloride ions are the main ions in seawater, but not the only ones. The salty seas benefit man, because the ocean provides many useful minerals for our industries.

The salinity of the oceans is a strong evidence that they, and the Earth itself, are far younger than the billions of years required for evolution, and is consistent with the age of about 6,000 years. It is also far younger than the evolutionists’ ‘dates’ for many marine creatures.

In short, the sea is not salty enough to suit the taste of evolutionists! Of course, all such calculations depend on assumptions about the past, like the starting conditions and constant rates of processes. They can never prove the age of something. For that, we need an eye-witness The point of such calculations is to demonstrate that even under the evolutionists’ own assumptions about the past, the Earth is far younger than is usually claimed.OK, what are their calculations compared to those of the supporters of evolution?

ChumpDumper

10-17-2009, 08:07 PM

If you say so, then I have no problem with that, In fact there are many more questions out there.Great. That's settled.
Also what about Mount St. Helens the trees that were buried are coal already! How can that be in such little time?You mean the "peat"?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html

Seems like a dubious claim at best.

You're using the same tactic you do in the 9/11 threads, post a crapload of links, pictures and videos hoping something something sticks -- but you never give any positive support to your own theory, if you even have one.

LnGrrrR

10-17-2009, 09:57 PM

mouse

10-18-2009, 12:21 AM

OK, what are their calculations compared to those of the supporters of evolution?

Let me get back to you my mom just left and you talk about debating someone she is the master.

I need a BC powder.....

mouse

10-18-2009, 12:26 AM

I knew this thread would end up full of win!

For those who think evolution is fake, or whatever:

Do you believe in so-called "micro-evolution"? If so, where do you draw the line on evolution? Like, can species change, but genus can't? Or maybe family? Where's the line?

Micro evolution is real. you can get a Liger with a tiger and lion, you can get a horse and zebra to make strange shit you can get a bird to make a strange bird as long as the species stays within its own kind your ok.

I don't think the creationist dispute micro evolution. in fact the atheist use micro evolution to sneak in macro evolution. you don't get a dog from a turtle you don't get a monkey from a woodpecker. so it's hard for me to believe that there are still people in this topic that actually believe they came from molted rocks.

mouse

10-18-2009, 12:29 AM

You're using the same tactic you do in the 9/11 threads, post a crapload of links, pictures and videos hoping something something sticks -- but you never give any positive support to your own theory, if you even have one.

So then tell me when I am wrong, I will say your right and then we can continue. It's Chumps way or the highway?

You never told me about the moon drifting further from the earth each year, how does that fit in your 4 Billion year old theory?

mouse

10-18-2009, 12:33 AM

The Dead Sea:
The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.

mouse

10-18-2009, 12:46 AM

The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America. It runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco. It is said to move from 1/2 to 2 inches per year. 85 How long has it been moving for? The answer varies greatly. Some say it has moved for tens of miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The evidence is highly questionable.86 There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved 12,000 feet;87 however this too is questionable since the origin of granite itself is uncertain. Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 88 If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up out of the ground.

One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of the Pt. Reyes area, one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 89 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all. This evidence suggests that this fault is quite young -- on the order of a few thousand years old. See also Continental Drift.

Blake

10-18-2009, 12:59 AM

And proud of it! who hasn't?

me in debate threads

Do you tell your Mother you masturbate while watching Hanna Montana?

I dont do that. why would you even conjure up that thought?

Trust me I rather people know I can admit I lied like we all do in our lives then to try and come across like I am the only human on earth who has never lied and only tells the truth like you claim to.

you lie in these debate threads. you twist things around and put them out there as truth.

so which is it going to be Blake. your going to admit you have lied also , or are you going to again make a fool of yourself and say you have never lied?

I'd be lying if I said you were brilliant.

Either way your foot will surely end up deep in that nasty man chowder dripping hole you call a mouth.

nope. I don't purposely tell non-truths in these types of threads like you.

Feel free to dig up my posts to try to burn me.......but you won't be able to.

You lose again.

Blake

10-18-2009, 01:25 AM

We on the message board. Everyone is watching your little tantrum.

you really got his goat.

Blake

10-18-2009, 01:26 AM

:stfu

you lost your goat on your own

Blake

10-18-2009, 01:59 AM

I won't I can argue with that, and by doing so you can see I know facts for lies,
I would only wish you did also.

I can see you exchange facts for lies.

I would only wish you didn't.

mouse

10-18-2009, 03:07 AM

I don't purposely tell non-truths in these types of threads like you.

Feel free to dig up my posts to try to burn me.......but you won't be able to.

You lose again.

Didn't you once say your not Gay? thats lie #1 right there!

mouse

10-18-2009, 03:11 AM

you twist things around and put them out there as truth.
.

Isn't that the right wing way?

http://culturekitchen.com/files/images/rice.cheney.bush.rumsfeld.jpg

mouse

10-18-2009, 03:13 AM

I can see you exchange facts for lies.

I would only wish you didn't.

Your walking on water act is getting old can't you just go and heal the blind or turn water into wine? Your not adding to this debate.

mouse

10-18-2009, 03:19 AM

me in debate threads

I hate to break it to you brah but in a debate thread someone has to be lying if not then both sides are right and how can that be?

It must be so cool to be Blake the master of every debate a man who never lies your so much of a saint I almost want to touch the hem of your garment please go to the next ST gtg. I want to be able to tell my grand kids I once touched a living God, the man they call Blake, the purist human on planet earth.

mouse

10-18-2009, 03:25 AM

The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/c14Mollusk.jpg

mouse

10-18-2009, 03:26 AM

Volcanic ash has also been known to give dates much older than they actually were .

Lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand gave erroneous dates (from K-Ar analyses) ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years old. These rocks were "observed to have cooled from lavas 25-50 years ago".("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

The equipment was checked and the samples were run again to exclude the possibility of lab error but similar results were obtained.("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

Because the actual age of these rocks is known to be less than 50 years old, it is clear that these K-Ar ‘ages’ are due to ‘excess’ argon which was inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth.("Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years" by Andrew Snelling published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 22(1):18-21 December 1999 - February 2000)

See also the video: Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe Dr. Steve Austin

mouse

10-18-2009, 03:32 AM

We are often taught that it takes millions of years for an animal to fossilize.
Just because something is 'fossilized' does not mean that it is millions (or even thousands) of years old. When the conditions and materials are right, a bone can become filled with minerals fairly quickly ... Researchers have found that chicken bones and wood can be replaced with minerals in just five to ten years"

Here is a picture of a clock embedded in rock. Clocks have not been around for millions of years, so it is easy to see that fossils do not always take long periods of time to form.
Did it take millions of years for this to fossilize?
No, of course not.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/fossil_clock.jpg

mouse

10-18-2009, 03:42 AM

I don't purposely tell non-truths in these types of threads like you.

Feel free to dig up my posts to try to burn me..

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/nnn.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/nnnn.jpg

You lecture others on telling the truth then you make fake quotes? You proved to be a lier!

ChumpDumper

10-18-2009, 03:47 AM

So then tell me when I am wrong, I will say your right and then we can continue. It's Chumps way or the highway?I'll basically give information that explains or contradicts whatever you post, and you will pretend you never posted it in the first place.

You never told me about the moon drifting further from the earth each year, how does that fit in your 4 Billion year old theory?Centrifugal force explains that no matter what the age.

Now you can pretend you never posted about the moon.

LnGrrrR

10-18-2009, 07:46 AM

Micro evolution is real. you can get a Liger with a tiger and lion, you can get a horse and zebra to make strange shit you can get a bird to make a strange bird as long as the species stays within its own kind your ok.

I don't think the creationist dispute micro evolution. in fact the atheist use micro evolution to sneak in macro evolution. you don't get a dog from a turtle you don't get a monkey from a woodpecker. so it's hard for me to believe that there are still people in this topic that actually believe they came from molted rocks.

Ok, so where is the stopping point? I mean, if micro evolution is true, then what explicitly stops an animal from continuously evolving over millions of years, until it looks nothing like the original animal? Where does evolution stop?

Shastafarian

10-18-2009, 10:08 AM

Ok, so where is the stopping point? I mean, if micro evolution is true, then what explicitly stops an animal from continuously evolving over millions of years, until it looks nothing like the original animal? Where does evolution stop?

Obviously it stops when the superior beings want it to stop. Duh!

Wild Cobra

10-18-2009, 11:55 AM

Blake

10-18-2009, 04:20 PM

Didn't you once say your not Gay? thats lie #1 right there!

no, you are lying again.

Blake

10-18-2009, 04:20 PM

Isn't that the right wing way?

http://culturekitchen.com/files/images/rice.cheney.bush.rumsfeld.jpg

are you saying you are right wing now?

Blake

10-18-2009, 04:21 PM

Your walking on water act is getting old can't you just go and heal the blind or turn water into wine? Your not adding to this debate.

your lies subtract from debates like this

Blake

10-18-2009, 04:26 PM

I hate to break it to you brah but in a debate thread someone has to be lying if not then both sides are right and how can that be?

If you post something that you believe to be true, it's not lying.

You have twisted facts around on purpose. You are a proven liar.

It must be so cool to be Blake the master of every debate a man who never lies your so much of a saint I almost want to touch the hem of your garment please go to the next ST gtg. I want to be able to tell my grand kids I once touched a living God, the man they call Blake, the purist human on planet earth.

you are lying again.

Blake

10-18-2009, 04:31 PM

You lecture others on telling the truth then you make fake quotes? You proved to be a lier!

since the real post is seen by simply scrolling up the page added to the fact that I did not post anything, it is clear that I am just decoding the hidden message in posts like yours.

If by definition you see that as lying, so be it.....

in regards to facts about evolution, 9/11 and any other topic, I don't pull arguments out of my ass and twist them around as fact like yourself.....which in effect is lying.

101A

10-18-2009, 04:41 PM

So you say. Your word, however, does not constitute a proof alone, anymore so than you denying my Flying Spaghetti Monster* makes you easy to dismiss.

*Bless his noodly appendages

I realize this response is pages behind; but I was responding to a believer in my post; so we already agree on the existence of God, I was making a point to him.

PixelPusher

10-18-2009, 04:47 PM

Sucks to be 101A right now...started this thread intending to be the heroic, scientifically literate believer, smacking down athiestic and agnostic strawmen left and right. The those strawmen turned into real live human beings named spursncowboys and mouse.

Laker Lanny

10-18-2009, 05:26 PM

:lmao @ Blake you sure live up to the ignorant Evolutionist theories! :tu

Laker Lanny

10-18-2009, 05:29 PM

Funny how you keep citing science that is otside the norm, so you cannot expect to get the same results.

That carbon 14 cartoon is pathetic. It shows that people don't understand what they are trying to disprove! Nobody used 14C for very old specimens.If you don't understand why this is the expected results, you have no business arguing these points.

So you have to be an expert in order to debate around here? How else do people find things out if they don't debate or ask questions? If your so smart why not save us 10 pages of bullshit and show us proof we evolved from space snot.

mouse

10-18-2009, 06:50 PM

All I see in this topic is Intelligent designer's and Creationist posting links,videos, and proof of their theories, and a bunch of Atheist's finger pointing and slinging insults mixed in with some very cheesy re-fried 1992 smack from Blake.

If you guys spent 1/2 the time you do insulting others and calling them lier's you may be bale to prove we came from snails but I have yet to see it.

someone PM me when some real debaters enter this topic............

mouse

10-18-2009, 06:50 PM

Don't you think it's a bit odd that there are virtually NO Public debates between evolution-believing scientists and Creation scientists? And considering the fact that roughly half of all scientists (and 90 % of the public) believe in (either spontaneous or slow) Creation this is even more astounding.

What are evolution-believing scientists and the mass media so afraid of? In other words: IF the theory of evolution is anywhere near as sound as they (want us to) believe, then why not have some publicly televised debates on this issue?

And why are virtually all media "reporters" afraid to give Creationist Scientists ANY of their time? Are they simply afraid that the facts might upset their "faith" (or lack of it), or are they afraid that their liberal bosses and co-workers won't approve of what they might Discover: that is, IF they were to actually report on what they found? And that is a mighty BIG IF isn't it?

Shastafarian

10-18-2009, 07:27 PM

All I see in this topic is Intelligent designer's and Creationist posting links,videos, and proof of their theories,Someone has proof of an invisible supreme being created the universe and all life in it? I must have missed that post.

Don't you think it's a bit odd that there are virtually NO Public debates between evolution-believing scientists and Creation scientists? What is there to debate? A creationist has one caveat that is both unprovable and a dead end. "Well God did it" or "god has a plan". What idiots like you fail to understand is there is no "debate" with creationists.

And considering the fact that roughly half of all scientists (and 90 % of the public) believe in (either spontaneous or slow) Creation this is even more astounding. lol roughly half? Where are you getting that number?

What are evolution-believing scientists and the mass media so afraid of? Dangerous idiots.

In other words: IF the theory of evolution is anywhere near as sound as they (want us to) believe, then why not have some publicly televised debates on this issue? Televised debates on the issue? Are you serious? You seem to love talking about what is being taught in schools. Maybe you should attend a lecture on evolution and ask some questions.

And why are virtually all media "reporters" afraid to give Creationist Scientists ANY of their time? Because we already know what they think and again, their view is not debatable.

Are they simply afraid that the facts might upset their "faith" (or lack of it), or are they afraid that their liberal bosses and co-workers won't approve of what they might Discover: that is, IF they were to actually report on what they found? And that is a mighty BIG IF isn't it?
What facts? Are we talking about this post that proves there's a god again?

mouse

10-18-2009, 07:39 PM

^ prefect example in the post above, People who can't grasp the fact the Evolutionist hide and don't want public debates. And after his quotes no evidence to support his Snail to man half baked theories.

Intelligent Design 10

Darwin lovers 0

Helium in the Atmosphere:
Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238. As uranium decays, the helium produced escapes from the earth's surface and accumulates in the atmosphere. As time passes, the amount of helium in the atmosphere increases. Scientists have estimated the amount of uranium in the earth's crustal rocks. From this they estimate the amount of helium that should be produced, and from these they can calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time. They also know how much helium is in the atmosphere.

If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make (i.e.: no initial daughter/byproduct -- in this case helium -- in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium), then the earth's atmosphere is at most 1.76 million years old. 16,17 Other estimates say it is much less (or a maximum of only 175,000 years). 18
For a much more detailed discussion see: Helium Evidence for a Young World Remains Crystal Clear, and Helium Evidence for A Young World Overcomes Pressure, by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.

Shastafarian

10-18-2009, 07:42 PM

^ prefect example in the post above, People who can't grasp the fact the Evolutionist hide and don't want public debates. And after his quotes no evidence to support his Snail to man half baked theories.

Intelligent Design 10

Darwin lovers 0I realize you're just trolling. But I think you actually believe some of the shit you've been posting. Can't say I'm shocked.

Alex Jones

10-18-2009, 08:56 PM

I realize you're just trolling. But I think you actually believe some of the shit you've been posting. Can't say I'm shocked.

^ Nice evidence of Evolution please post more! :tu

Darwin lovers 0

mouse 11

Alex Jones

10-18-2009, 08:57 PM

What Are They Thinking?
Paleontology and especially Anthropaleontology are rife with fuzzy thinking and this story wins the prize for evolutionary fiction. Paleontologist Dan Gebo of Northern Illinois University reported the finding of a “missing link” between lower and higher primates. They reported their research in the Journal of Human Evolution (London) April, 2000.

They found the fossil in tons of muddy rubbish from a limestone quarry 100 miles west of Shanghai. The limestone was dated as Triassic rock some 220 million years old. This was much too old for primates as it was supposed to be right at the age of the beginning of the dinosaurs, so they assigned the fossil to a more acceptable 45 million years because the limestone had some “fissures” that dated to that age.

The article “Researchers Discover Fossils of Tiny, Thumb – Length Primates?” goes on to quote: “The researchers say the tiny primates were tree dwellers that relied on a steady diet of insects, fruit and nectar to fuel their high metabolisms. Unlike contemporary higher primates, the tiny primates were nocturnal and solitary creatures.”

“The implications are staggering’ Gebo said. ‘You would think that early higher primates would have a lot of characteristics of later higher primates, which were social creatures that occupied a daytime niche. It probably means we’re getting close to the transition between higher and lower primates.’”

The bones the researchers were excited about were a few heel bones of the primates that were about the size of a grain of rice. What is truly staggering here is the fantasy made up by Gebo based on such flimsy evidence. This is wishful thinking on a flight of fancy. How did he “know” all this evidence? He wanted it to be so to support his evolutionary ideas and he looked at it all through his evolutionary glasses.

This is not an isolated incident. Paleontology is rife with such leaps of logic, false deductions and wishful thinking.

Alex Jones

10-18-2009, 08:58 PM

Saturn's Rings The planet Saturn has rings around it but the rings are moving away from the planet, they are gradually expanding out. They cannot be billions of years old; they would have been gone by now. When voyagers sailed to one of the rings of Saturn, they said it looked like it was braided. They said Man, all these particles are in motion. You cannot keep that finely, braided texture from millions of years. Probably less than 10,000 years is a reasonable estimate.

Shastafarian

10-18-2009, 09:02 PM

If you're talking bacteria alone, their genomes are much larger than humans. This means there's an incredible expanse of 'extra' raw materials to work with, allowing for incredibly fast adaptation.So they evolve. Thanks.

^ Nice evidence of Evolution please post more! :tu

Darwin lovers 0

mouse 11trolling from two different screen names :lol

Saturn's Rings The planet Saturn has rings around it but the rings are moving away from the planet, they are gradually expanding out. They cannot be billions of years old; they would have been gone by now. When voyagers sailed to one of the rings of Saturn, they said it looked like it was braided. They said Man, all these particles are in motion. You cannot keep that finely, braided texture from millions of years. Probably less than 10,000 years is a reasonable estimate.
So they're not billions of years old. What's your point mouse?

LnGrrrR

10-18-2009, 10:27 PM

I realize this response is pages behind; but I was responding to a believer in my post; so we already agree on the existence of God, I was making a point to him.

Ah, my bad. Uhm... peace be with you. :)

Blake

10-19-2009, 12:28 AM

:lmao @ Blake you sure live up to the ignorant Evolutionist theories! :tu

how so, mouse?

DMX7

10-19-2009, 02:37 AM

I am very much in the mood to debate why the oldest living tree is "only" 10,000 years old.

I say it is because trees die.

I love how creationists believe the world is 6,000 years old and cite a 10,000 year old tree as evidence.

xellos88330

10-19-2009, 03:10 AM

Why even argue this. We are all here. That is all that matters.

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 08:01 AM

I love how creationists believe the world is 6,000 years old and cite a 10,000 year old tree as evidence.

mouse is not a creationist but you would know that if you took the time to read his replies.. also mouse knows trees die but the dead ones don't have any rings past 10.000 years. why is it all trees around the world know exactly when to die? (don't bother to answer you evolutionist just insult never post proof)

Second: don't talk about love, that is an area you know nothing about. your an atheist you came from a snail what do you know from love?
love is an emotion that requires you have a soul or a spirit how can you have one without a creator?

Slowing Earth Another factor. The earth is spinning - we are turning around. How many knew [sic] that already? We are turning around. You know the earth is going a little over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator, but the earth is slowing down. It is actually slowing down 1000th of a second everyday. Pensacola News Journal, 1990, said on December 6, “Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June will be one second longer than normal. The earth is slowing down 1000th of a second every day.” Astronomy magazine announced, 1992 in the June edition, “Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June is going to be one second longer than normal.” We will have to have a “leap second.” A leap second? Most people have heard of leap year, but lots of folks have never heard of leap second. Did you know we have a leap second about every year and a half now because the earth is slowing down.

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 08:04 AM

Why even argue this. We are all here. That is all that matters.

because mouse wants the lies out of the children's text books. Would you want your kids text books to show it was really a bunch of black guys from Harlem who defended the Alamo?

Come on people think.

Sahara Desert Did you know the Sahara Desert has what is called a prevailing wind pattern? The wind almost always blows the same direction. But that creates a problem because as the ground dries out and turns to desert, it keeps spreading. [The] Sahara Desert is growing. Now people living along the edge are speeding up the process, but even without people the desert would grow. Right now it is growing 4 to 5 miles a year. Well, [the] Sahara Desert is only 1300 miles north to south. It can only be a few thousand years old. Now, that does not prove the universe is a few thousand years old, I understand all that, but it is interesting [that] it fits what the Bible says. See the Bible says God created the world about 6,000 years ago. 4400 years ago there was flood. It is pretty hard to have a desert under a flood and so the desert had to start forming after The Flood was gone. Common sense? So if the earth is billions of years old, why do we not have a bigger desert some place? Why is it only a few thousand years old? Interesting!

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 08:08 AM

how so, mouse?

You insult people and have yet to post any evidence. No wonder you claim you never lie how can you? you don't really do any debating.

Oil Pressure .. The oil is under incredible pressure down there; it will come squirting up out of the ground like a big zit, because oil wells sometimes have 20,000 pounds per square inch. Put that in your back tires and watch what happens! 20,000 psi! The guys who study the rocks on top of the oil, say you know that rock cannot handle that pressure for more than probably 10 or 15,000 years. The rock should have cracked; the pressure should have leaked off. Okay, well than I have two obvious questions. Where did the oil come from and why is it still under pressure? If the pressure can only last 10,000 years, why is there still pressure down there? ...

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 08:14 AM

So they evolve. Thanks.

trolling from two different screen names :lol

So they're not billions of years old. What's your point mouse?

How close is your nose to your taint? This whole topic is about proving evolution does, or does not exist and mouse proved the solar system is not 4 billion years old and you say "so" "what does that prove?"

And since yo took on the role of stand up comedian of the topic how about taking 4 minutes of your lonely so sex getting life and start posting some facts yo help out your buddy Blake?

Mississippi Mud ..... Did you know 80,000 tons of mud every hour comes down the Mississippi and dumps off in New Orleans? The Delta is growing larger and larger and larger. Nobody argues about that. But, they studied the Delta because they drill through it all the time looking for oil down there; they know the thickness of the mud, that is not a problem. Based on the amount of mud that comes down every year, they say the Delta probably formed in less than 30,000 years. That is pretty old, but I have a question. If the earth is millions of years old, why isn’t the whole Gulf of Mexico full of mud by now? .....

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 08:15 AM

I'm still waiting for an answer at where evolution stops. If animals can micro evolve, where does that specifically stop?

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 08:16 AM

Mississippi Mud ..... Did you know 80,000 tons of mud every hour comes down the Mississippi and dumps off in New Orleans? The Delta is growing larger and larger and larger. Nobody argues about that. But, they studied the Delta because they drill through it all the time looking for oil down there; they know the thickness of the mud, that is not a problem. Based on the amount of mud that comes down every year, they say the Delta probably formed in less than 30,000 years. That is pretty old, but I have a question. If the earth is millions of years old, why isn’t the whole Gulf of Mexico full of mud by now? .....

You are aware of tectonic plate movement, continental drift, etc etc? Or are you discounting those as well?

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 08:17 AM

I'll basically give information that explains or contradicts whatever you post,

Translation: I rather be like Blake and Shaterfan and come up with lame comebacks rather than post any evidence that proves man evolved from hot soup.

Stalactites and Stalagmites How many have ever gone into a cave and the guide said "Don’t touch the stalactites, they take millions of years to form." You ever heard that? You go to Carlsbad Caverns, they will say it took 250 million years to make this cavern. They say it takes 1,000 years to grow one inch of stalactite. I do not think so! There is a bat covered up with flowstone before he could rot from National Geographic. Don’t you think the bat would rot in less than a few thousand years; preserved on top of a stalagmite, they grow even slower. There are 50-inch long stalactites growing under the Lincoln Memorial. It was built in 1922; did Lincoln die 50,000 years ago? ....

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 08:23 AM

You are aware of tectonic plate movement, continental drift, etc etc? Or are you discounting those as well?

I don't care what plates or continental drift you bring up there is no evidence the Missipppii can be as old as your Atheist's friends claim the earth is. and really am glad you pulled out the continental drift card, please answer this....

The San Andreas Fault:
The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America. It runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco. It is said to move from 1/2 to 2 inches per year. 85 How long has it been moving for? The answer varies greatly. Some say it has moved for tens of miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The evidence is highly questionable.86 There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved 12,000 feet;87 however this too is questionable since the origin of granite itself is uncertain. Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 88 If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up out of the ground.
One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of the Pt. Reyes area, (http://www.earthage.org/continentaldrft/cdrift.jpg) one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 89 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all. This evidence suggests that this fault is quite young -- on the order of a few thousand years old. See also >>>Continental Drift. (http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Continental_Drift%20and%20the%20Age%20of%20the%20E arth.htm)<<<

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 08:35 AM

I'm not a scientist, so I can't speak to geologic shift much. However, I do know that 99% of scientists believe in tectonic plate movement, and that's good enough for me, honestly.

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 08:37 AM

I'm still waiting for an answer at where evolution stops. If animals can micro evolve, where does that specifically stop?

(micro evolution) doesn't have to stop. birds and insects all over the world are always changing to adapt to their surroundings. No one here has ever disputed (micro) evolution does not exist ("with in" each species.)

You can get Doodle if you keep mating a Doberman with a poodle. You can't get a Dog or a bird from a rat fucking an armadillo.. According to insult master Blake and your wise friend Sahsafan who is so educated. man evolved from snails billions of yours ago. And I am still waiting for the proof.

In case this is to far advance for your limited thinking....micro evolution is like Toyota taking over and building motorcycles and wheel chairs. They don't make apple pies and Chopped beef sandwiches that is the where the line is,that is where they stop.

I hope some of this is helping you I can see your a lost man and in bad need of education. just remember you can agree with mouse and not have to admit there is a God. That seems to be why many here pick sides they forget about the third option. Alternative design.

The Big Bang Theory is in Big Trouble
Part Three of a Five-Part Series on The Age of the Earth.

Another pillar on which Old Earth beliefs rest is the Big Bang, and the proposed slow expansion of the Universe. However, recent discoveries are suggesting that something is wrong with the Big Bang theory itself and the way it has been portrayed to the public. That's because astronomers and cosmologists really DON'T have it all figured out yet: and not only this, but they may not even be on the right track. For example, it has been said that:

"The currently popular cosmological model is subject to many doubts based upon observational data which suggest that, perhaps, there never was a Big Bang." 1
This statement came from three highly respected astronomers and was published in a prestigious scientific journal in 1990. More recently though, another science article carried the following introductory headline:
"There's not one crisis but two: the universe seems to be younger than the stars in it, and a huge chunk of it is headed in the wrong direction, fast. As cosmologists scramble for answers, no theory is safe anymore." 2
The theory of the Big Bang was first conceived as a result of the work of American astronomer, Edwin Hubble. Hubble was the first to propose the idea of an expanding Universe. 3 If he is correct, and if we could travel back into the past, to the beginning of time, before it all expanded (or so the theory goes), then there must have been a time when everything was clumped together into one tiny ball of matter. And then we are told that something happened...
All of the sudden, this tiny clump of matter is supposed to have exploded into a Big Bang, and then Vwuallah! Seven to 20 billion years later (depending on whom you ask, and what year you asked them), here we are... without any sort of Intelligence to plan out, or act upon any of that matter. And as preposterous as this is to the laws of nature, and logic, and common sense itself, it is still the ONLY viewpoint that is allowed to be taught in public school classrooms today: for any viewpoint that even HINTS at the (STRONG) probability of a Creator being involved is said to be off limits (to so-called "science" and logic), and out of the realm of "science", and therefore should not be allowed to be examined and explored, much less even mentioned to our curious kids: who (we are supposed to believe) shouldn't be exposed to logic and common sense, but rather ONLY to progressive liberal fantasies that don't make sense.
Those who promote this theory also usually speculate that this small clump of matter, that contained all the matter in the universe, was no larger than a golf ball.
In other words, the Big Bang theory speculates that out of a great chaotic explosion came all of the order and complexity that we see around us today, with no intelligence required to plan out, design or build anything. In reality though, this theory is nothing more than an attempt by men (whose knowledge is quite limited) to try and explain how they think we might have been created without a Creator. For this reason, the Big Bang theory goes hand in hand with the theory of evolution, which is an attempt to do likewise. Small wonder that those who promote the Big Bang are also, more often than not, believers in evolution.
In reality though, astronomers are not even sure that the Universe is expanding. 4,5,6 That's because no one has ever seen it doing so. Rather the expansion of the Universe (theory) is based on indirect evidence, such as the red shift of many stars and galaxies.
Some scientists are also trying to tell us that the cosmic microwave background radiation (or CMB) also supports the belief in an expanding Universe; however, as we shall see, the actual data appears to contradict it.

RandomGuy

10-19-2009, 08:46 AM

So is your theory that in the near future there will not be anymore apes? They will all be humans? Will another species evolve to apes, and then that species will be extincted? At some point in the future will there no longer be certain bottom species because of evolution?

That isn't what the theory of evolution says.

Modern apes and humans actually have a common ancestor. Man did not evolve from apes. The relationship is more like us being cousins than anything else.

Species only really become extinct because something moves into their ecological niche and outcompetes them for food or the environment for which they have adapted changes.

Phytoplankton evolved billions of years ago, but they are still around, as are sulphur-eating bacteria at the bottom of the ocean.

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 08:47 AM

I'm not a scientist, so I can't speak to geologic shift much. However, I do know that 99% of scientists believe in tectonic plate movement, and that's good enough for me, honestly.

99% of ST said Manu needed to be traded. Are you that shallow to just go with the flow?

Did you know your hero's the scientist told the public at one time asbestos is good for you, and cigarette's also?

You believe what you want just don't put lies in the text books and you will be ok my friend.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/lies.jpg

boutons_deux

10-19-2009, 08:49 AM

"in the near future there will not be anymore apes"

All large mammals are under pressure for the World Champion Killer Mammal. Predictions are that most large mammals will be wiped out in the natural habitats and exist only in the zoos of World Champion Killer Mammal.

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 08:52 AM

. Man did not evolve from apes. The relationship is more like us being cousins than anything else.
. :lmao

What up cuz?

Cooling Planets The universe is falling apart, that is for sure; some of the planets are cooling off rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. You cannot keep cooling off till pretty soon you are cooled off. .....and yet scientist claim some planets are getting hotter?

If you put a hot cup of coffee on a table and come back 4 billion years later it doesn't get hotter it cools down. If the solar system was 1/2 the age scientist claim it is the sun should be as cool as the back of a Eskimos ass by now.

Shastafarian

10-19-2009, 09:00 AM

How close is your nose to your taint? This whole topic is about proving evolution does, or does not exist and mouse proved the solar system is not 4 billion years old and you say "so" "what does that prove?"The rings are less than 4 billion years old. What does that prove? I'm waiting intently on this answer.

And since yo took on the role of stand up comedian of the topic how about taking 4 minutes of your lonely so sex getting life and start posting some facts yo help out your buddy Blake?You mean facts like they have found dead trees that are around 60 million years old? Or the simple fact that antibiotic resistance occurs? Those types of facts?

Mississippi Mud ..... Did you know 80,000 tons of mud every hour comes down the Mississippi and dumps off in New Orleans? The Delta is growing larger and larger and larger. Nobody argues about that. But, they studied the Delta because they drill through it all the time looking for oil down there; they know the thickness of the mud, that is not a problem. Based on the amount of mud that comes down every year, they say the Delta probably formed in less than 30,000 years. That is pretty old, but I have a question. If the earth is millions of years old, why isn’t the whole Gulf of Mexico full of mud by now? .....
lol at people who think rivers have always been where they are now.

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 09:09 AM

The rings are less than 4 billion years old. What does that prove? I'm waiting intently on this answer.

Ok I will try once again maybe this time it will take....

if the rings of Saturn are not 4 billion years old how can earth be 4 billion years old? are you saying there was another little bang after the big bang? :lmao

You mean facts like they have found dead trees that are around 60 million years old? Or the simple fact that antibiotic resistance occurs? Those types of facts?

You all claim the rings of the trees count the years how old it is. "dead or alive" where are the rings that show these old trees? All the trees on the planet decided to die at the same time so ST could have something to debate about? where is the 100.000 years old stump? and how come some trees are found inside layers of rock? I thought each layer of rock was a time line to show millions of years? If the tree survived long enough to allow millions of years of dirt to settle around it shouldn't the tree have a million rings?

this is not rocket science my friend.

lol at people who think rivers have always been where they are now.

These are the same rivers you all find your billion year old fossils so i wouldn't "lol" so fast, your going to a paint yourself into a corner. and then I will lol at you!

RandomGuy

10-19-2009, 09:09 AM

About as long as it takes you to answer my tree question. I already told you save your math smack for the others,
not only are you looking desperate but if I have to repeat myself over and over only confirms you may still have primate DNA in you.

It was a simple question, designed to simplify some of what the underlying premise of radiometric dating.

To which you have a ready made copy and pasted response that you probably didn't really read. Bravo.

Evolutionists do play with the figures at times too. When a radiometric “date” is out of line with their premise it is rejected and another found. For instance, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil bearing strata give dates of 23 Ma or 23 million years by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old’, according to their beliefs about the place of fossils in their evolutionary scheme. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get a more acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other samples gave much older dates but the authors decided they must have been contaminated and discarded them.
G. WoldeGabriel et al., ‘Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,’ Nature, 371:330-333, 1994

Radiometric Dating is not Evolution’s Friend

Radiometric dating is a very plausible and understandable premise. In fact many good dates can come from it if the data is interpreted correctly. But with some technical issues and the evolution world view pressure radiometric dating is part of the propaganda of the evolutionists that is not friendly to evolution.

What is Radiometric Dating?
Radiometric dating is based on the premise that there are radioactive isotopes in nature that decay at a regular rate from the parent element to the daughter element. If we know three things we can use them to date items that contain those isotopes.

The original concentration of the parent isotope.
The concentration of the daughter element or isotope
The beta decay rate

For instance all living things contain carbon-14, or 14C, or radio carbon that decays to normal carbon 12C. 14C decays to 12C at a particular rate defined as half-life. One half-life of 14C is 5,730 years or half of the 14C is 12C in that amount of time. In 11,460 years another half will be gone leaving only a quarter of the 14C and so on. Because of the speed of 14C decay rate the range of dates that can be derived before any detectable 14C is left, is about 50,000 years. Anything over that has a bit of speculation built in.

There are other radiometric dating methods too. For example potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. All these methods are used in igneous rocks and are normally given as the time since solidification.

But these methods are not as infallible as the evolutionists would have us think. Let us look again at the three things we need to know to set a date.

The original concentration of the parent isotope. We must know how much of the parent was originally there and that there was no parent injected in during the time we are measuring.
The daughter concentration must not be compromised by an injection of daughter element or isotope during the time line.
The decay rate must be constant.

But evidence proves that all these assumption are fraught with error. It is well know that argon gas does intrude into igneous rock and skew dates in the most popular K-Ar dating method. In fact all the parent and daughter elements are water soluble and are known to leach into and out of igneous rocks thus potentially skewing the dates derived from their ratios.

All fairly reasonable points. All of these potential faults, however, are known and can be compensated for.

In statistics, when you have 99 results within a certain range and 1 result far outside of the others, you call this lone result an "outlier". This result tends to get ignored for the reason that it is likely not, for some unknown reason, indicative of the underlying data.

If I want to know what the average income of a given town is, I will go places and ask people how much money they make. Now, I walk into businesses and get 999 responses of fairly representative people and get an overall average of $49,000 per year, and then for my 1000th person, run into Bill Gates picking up his dry-cleaning, should I then conclude that, on average, everybody in the town makes $467,000 per year?

The method of overcoming the critiques in your copied-and-pasted critique is to simply take as many samples as possible, which has been done.

We have been dating rocks in this manner for decades and drawn so many samples that we can arrive at some pretty good conclusions.

We can also use the same types of dating to date meteorites which, according to modern understanding of how our solar system formed should have roughly the same age as the oldest rocks we can find.

Meteorites, by the way, have not been exposed to "water-soluable" isotopes, having been in the coldness of space for their entire existance.

Shastafarian

10-19-2009, 09:11 AM

Ok I will try once again maybe this time it will take....

if the rings of Saturn are not 4 billion years old how can earth be 4 billion years old? are you saying there was another little bang after the big bang? :lmao
:lol You know nothing about physics I see.

You all claim the rings of the trees count the years how old it is. No we didn't.

"dead or alive" where are the rings that show these old trees? All the trees on the planet decided to die at the same time so ST could have something to debate about? where is the 100.000 years old stump? and how come some trees are found inside layers of rock? I thought each layer of rock was a time line to show millions of years? If the tree survived long enough to allow millions of years of dirt to settle around it shouldn't the tree have a million rings?

this is not rocket science my friend.You're right. And yet you still don't get it.

These are the same rivers you all find your billion year old fossils so i wouldn't "lol" so fast,Wait, you think fossils are found in Rivers?

your going to a paint yourself into a corner. and then I will lol at you!You already have because you're just a troll. But in case people reading this actually believe your bullshit, I'd like to be here to disspell it.

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 09:12 AM

99% of ST said Manu needed to be traded. Are you that shallow to just go with the flow?

Did you know your hero's the scientist told the public at one time asbestos is good for you, and cigarette's also?

You believe what you want just don't put lies in the text books and you will be ok my friend.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/lies.jpg

Yes, and back then I would've believed they were ok because I probably would've have been a scientist myself.

I'm ok with going with the majority of scientists on issues like this, because I don't have the training to perform experiements/analyze myself, and it doesn't affect my life in any real way.

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 09:13 AM

I love how creationists believe the world is 6,000 years old and cite a 10,000 year old tree as evidence.

I love how Atheist believe the earth is billions of years old and cite fossils found still alive to day as evidence.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-243345.png

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 09:21 AM

you're just a troll.

So Shatafaian is the name on your drivers license? I hope so if not?
that make you a troll also.

But in case people reading this actually believe your bullshit,these are facts all over the world and some are even found on the www (who knew the www was more than just porn?)

please your giving me way to much credit! But it's entertaining so do what you do best i guess.

I'd like to be here to disspell it.Then you can start now... how is it this fossilized tree was found growing though layers of (billions of year old) stone?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/earth-facts.jpg

Please answer that it looks like ChumpDumper never wanted to. and I hope you do I have many other examples I am sure you can't wait to "disspell" them as you call it.

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 09:28 AM

I'm ok with going with the majority of scientists on issues like this, because I don't have the training to perform experiements/analyze myself, and it doesn't affect my life in any real way.

Then why create the topic?

Population Growth In 1985, the world population had 5 billion people in it. In 1800, there was only one billion. Just 200 years ago, only one billion people. Population is growing rapidly, nobody argues about that. Everybody agrees that about 1800 there was one billion people in the world. I have never seen anybody disagree with this. All the textbooks and population statistics indicate about 1800 there was one billion people in the world. What they do not do, though, is put it into perspective and say wait a minute, the earth cannot be billions of years old, there are not enough people here.

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 09:34 AM

Then why create the topic?

Because A) I think the evidence for evolution is much greater than the evidence that animals were just created in a certain way, and are static, and B) I knew it'd be an interesting thread.

Blake

10-19-2009, 09:34 AM

You insult people and have yet to post any evidence. No wonder you claim you never lie how can you? you don't really do any debating.

You copy and pasting "info" from a young earth website and then moving on to another "topic" after it's been debunked is not debating.

Let's use this for an example:

you say:

Oil Pressure .. The oil is under incredible pressure down there; it will come squirting up out of the ground like a big zit, because oil wells sometimes have 20,000 pounds per square inch. Put that in your back tires and watch what happens! 20,000 psi! The guys who study the rocks on top of the oil, say you know that rock cannot handle that pressure for more than probably 10 or 15,000 years. The rock should have cracked; the pressure should have leaked off. Okay, well than I have two obvious questions. Where did the oil come from and why is it still under pressure? If the pressure can only last 10,000 years, why is there still pressure down there? ...

I or someone else will easily answer your question like so:

The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates that the oil and gas have been effectively trapped. The initial, slow accumulation of oil and gas from the source area (primary migration) would hardly have had a chance to build up great pressure if the trapping rock were leaking like a sieve!

Oil and gas do a lot of migrating, and the oil accumulated in a given reservoir may have recently migrated there from another reservoir. Thus, a given pool of oil may or may not have been there for millions and millions of years. A recent geological shift in the rocks might also increase the leakage of the primary oil pool, which had been hitherto sealed for millions of years. Thus, the mere existence of leaky trapping rocks does not prove that a pool of oil and gas was recently created.

The primary migration of oil from 1 to 5 kilometers deep in the earth, where it is produced under a combination of pressure and heat acting on organic matter, probably goes hand in hand with water migration. Certainly, oil and water are often found together, the oil floating on top of the water within permeable rock. The water is squeezed out as the source sediment experiences more and more pressure. Thus, it may interest you to know how fast water migrates down there.

"Some idea of the extremely slow speed of fluid motion to be expected can be gained by considering the movement of ground water at shallow depths in dense clays, classed as "impermeable." Under a moderate hydraulic gradient and a reasonable value of permeability for clay, we come up with flow speeds of ground water on the order of 2 to 3 million years per kilometer [3.2 to 4.8 million years per mile]. Yet the permeability of source shales of petroleum is rated at only one-thousandth as great as for clays tested in the surface environment" (Wszolek and Burlingame, 1978, p. 573).

Thus, the primary migration of oil from its place of origin will take far longer than the mere 6000 years or so creationists allow for the age of the earth. Creationists have tried to dance around that figure by quoting special cases of secondary migration or by simple smoke screen tactics, but the problem remains (Strahler, 1987, pp.237-238).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html

and instead of a rebuttal, you will copy and paste something similar to this:

oh yeah? Topsoil takes only a few thousand years to form. The present thickness of topsoil indicates a young earth.

..while mixing in a "you ignorant Evolutionist" crack along with it, and round and round you go.

Weeeeeee

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 09:43 AM

Because A) I think the evidence for evolution is much greater than the evidence that animals were just created in a certain way, and are static

where is the evidence?

I knew it'd be an interesting thread.what part is interesting? I have yet to see, wild Coba,ChumpDumper, Cry havoc, sasfasfan or Blake post anything worth reading, Blake and others are happy to just using this topic as some sort of poster pinata so they can maybe try out their witty 1995 style of smack they have been practicing to ready themselves for the up coming spurs season.

All I see is myself and mouse posting fats after facts and getting nothing worth debating on in return , your not here to learn anything you just want a topic with many pages, I won't sit here and be your dog and pony show i have a job, your topic is one sided and your friends are bias, and to be honest it's really a waste of my time............

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 09:47 AM

where is the evidence?

The majority of scientists, evidence for that, etc etc. I'm not going to go through and list every specific bit of evidence, anymore so than you're going to give me useful evidence of some unspecific creator.

what part is interesting? I have yet to see, wild Coba,ChumpDumper, Cry havoc, sasfasfan or Blake post anything worth reading, Blake and others are happy to just using this topic as some sort of poster pinata so they can maybe try out their witty 1995 style of smack they have been practicing to ready themselves for the up coming spurs season.

All I see is myself and mouse posting fats after facts and getting nothing worth debating on in return , your not here to learn anything you just want a topic with many pages, I won't sit here and be your dog and pony show i have a job, your topic is one sided and your friends are bias, and to be honest it's really a waste of my time............

Hey, it's a free country. If you want to leave, by all means, do so. Maybe you're right, and the Young Earthers are the Galileo of this generation. I highly doubt it, though.

Mainly because the Creationist theory isn't really falsifiable, is it? Tell me, how would one disprove a theory based on creationism?

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 09:50 AM

and round you go.

Weeeeeee

feel free to post some evidence when your done doing stand up. Your the main reason this topic went to shit, I hope your proud.
good day sir.

For the rest of you banana eating Darwin lovers when your not surfing for porn, read this, you may learn something.

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

(Zosa they are all yours now do as you wish)

911

10-19-2009, 10:02 AM

The majority of scientists, evidence for that, etc etc. I'm not going to go through and list every specific bit of evidence, anymore so than you're going to give me useful evidence of some unspecific creator.

When did Alex Jones claim there is a creator.

Hey, it's a free country. If you want to leave, by all means, do so.
Mainly because the Creationist theory isn't really falsifiable, is it? Tell me, how would one disprove a theory based on creationism?

mouse and Alex Jones are not creationist and they don't debate creationism they point out shit that doesn't make sense and why the text books in schools refuse to change. maybe you should re-read their postings.

mouse is the co-founder of AD (alternative design) he doesn't believe in the Bible so save your good material for Zolsa and the others! :tu

And since your the creator of this topic? "please" Do us all a favor and have some of your Evolutionist buddy's spamming this topic with cheap insults to maybe answer the tree in the stone question and other shit Alex and Mouse posted. I am really waiting to find out how they respond to real questions, maybe you can save this topic.

Thank you.

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 10:06 AM

When did Alex Jones claim there is a creator.

Well, they obviously don't believe in evolution. Is there an alternate theory other than evolution or creationism they espouse?

911

10-19-2009, 10:09 AM

Well, they obviously don't believe in evolution. Is there an alternate theory other than evolution or creationism they espouse?

It used to be called Intelligent design but the creationist used it to get Bible shit put in the text books and fucked it up for the rest of us so mouse created AD.

z0sa

10-19-2009, 10:10 AM

911

10-19-2009, 10:14 AM

Dude your wasting your time .I have yet to see an Atheist in this topic actually talk like they give a shit about facts. I do think in this LnGrrrR (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14319) fella may come around. he looks promising.

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 10:24 AM

It used to be called Intelligent design but the creationist used it to get Bible shit put in the text books and fucked it up for the rest of us so mouse created AD.

Alternative design? I'm intrigued. Care to give me a quick primer?

911

10-19-2009, 10:37 AM

Alternative design? I'm intrigued. Care to give me a quick primer?

AD is exactly what it says. Alternative design It's for people who don't want to believe they evolved from a snail and don't want to use God as the reason.

Your able to talk about facts and not have to be called a bible thumper.
Why can't someone ask questions why the earth doesn't look 4 billion years old w/o being called a creationist?

why can't a person support some part of evolution and not be called an Atheist?

Why should a student in school be taught they came from a fish and not have nay other choice? And why do the text books have to use 4 Billion when talking about the earth and 25 million when talking about dinosaurs?

Why can't the text books in school at least show that evolution has many flaws? why can't carbon dating mistakes be shown to the students?

You know why Alternative design won't be accepted?

because no matter how smart an Achiest is their little brains they cannot accept the fact that there could be an outside force out their that had a hand in how we came about and that sounds to much like God. A person they despise with a passion.

So the bottom-line is AD is the answer to those who don't buy into Evolution and don't have to support the Bible. they are the few Intelligent species left on earth.

Wild Cobra

10-19-2009, 10:45 AM

So you have to be an expert in order to debate around here? How else do people find things out if they don't debate or ask questions? If your so smart why not save us 10 pages of bullshit and show us proof we evolved from space snot.
Don't have to be an expert, but if you don't understand what you are posting, then that person should ask, and not waste everyone's time with bullshit material and propaganda.

All I see in this topic is Intelligent designer's and Creationist posting links,videos, and proof of their theories, and a bunch of Atheist's finger pointing and slinging insults mixed in with some very cheesy re-fried 1992 smack from Blake.
WTF was that cartoon about that you posted? Then your words:
The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years
Nothing in the sea gives reliable carbon dating. Only plants that take CO2 from the atmosphere, and vegetarian creatures that eat those plants. Carbon 14 ratios in the sea are dependent on too many factors for reliable carbon dating. The calcium carbonate that mollusks take from the sea is already there for countless years.

If you guys spent 1/2 the time you do insulting others and calling them lier's you may be bale to prove we came from snails but I have yet to see it.
There is no proof. It boils down to opinion. It sure doesn't help when people like you keep posting other people's agenda and lies.

someone PM me when some real debaters enter this topic............
Just stay gone if you have no good material.

where is the evidence?

what part is interesting? I have yet to see, wild Coba,ChumpDumper, Cry havoc, sasfasfan or Blake post anything worth reading, Blake and others are happy to just using this topic as some sort of poster pinata so they can maybe try out their witty 1995 style of smack they have been practicing to ready themselves for the up coming spurs season.
I have little to say on the topic except to swat down those projecting lies about the subject matter. I have already offered my opinions, but none of us have any decent proof. What's the point?

All I see is myself and mouse posting fats after facts and getting nothing worth debating on in return , your not here to learn anything you just want a topic with many pages, I won't sit here and be your dog and pony show i have a job, your topic is one sided and your friends are bias, and to be honest it's really a waste of my time............
Mouse has been posting agenda related lies and misdirection. I haven't looked closely at yours. Is it the same?

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 10:47 AM

Your able to talk about facts and not have to be called a bible thumper.
Why can't someone ask questions why the earth doesn't look 4 billion years old w/o being called a creationist?

Mainly because those are the two prevailing views.

Why should a student in school be taught they came from a fish and not have nay other choice? And why do the text books have to use 4 Billion when talking about the earth and 25 million when talking about dinosaurs?

Because it's the majority scientific consensus. Otherwise, every crackpot could insist that their theory must have equal time as well. Children only have so much time at school; I'm ok with them learning the majority basis.

Why can't the text books in school at least show that evolution has many flaws? why can't carbon dating mistakes be shown to the students?

I'm ok with books pointing out possible flaws.

You know why Alternative design won't be accepted?

Because it's hard to falsify?

because no matter how smart an Achiest is their little brains they cannot accept the fact that there could be an outside force out their that had a hand in how we came about and that sounds to much like God. A person they despise with a passion.

Most older atheists, I find, don't despise God. They just don't believe in him, and may despise some of the beliefs his followers have or attribute to him.

I agree that many atheists tend to be independent.

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 10:50 AM

To answer the most important question: When does microevolution "stop":

Microevolution isn't that. It's a misnomer. It's simply animals adapting to their environment - properly termed "adaptation." All adaptations allowable are precoded - mutations RARELY, if EVER, occur during microevolution AKA adaptation. If mutations don't even occur, how can many pile up?

And to address those mutations which do occur, even the most basic cell repairs its DNA - mutations are considered undesirable by the cell. Besides, do defects on preexisting code = more code? How does the fish gain the DNA needed to become an amphibian?

What of this blurb in the following article? http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/19-dna-agrees-with-all-the-other-science-darwin-was-right/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=

These are remnants that are no longer used, and the integrity of the genetic text starts to erode. One of my favorite stories concerns the ice fish of Bouvet Island (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/sep/carrollinterview). These creatures live in the cold waters of the Antarctic. They are the only vertebrates without red blood cells to carry oxygen to nourish their tissues. If you look at the genes for hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying proteins in red blood, one of those genes is completely gone and another is a broken remnant, rotting away. From this we understand that the ancestors of these fish had red blood, but these guys have left that red-blooded lifestyle behind.

Would that be an adaptation, I'm assuming?

z0sa

10-19-2009, 10:55 AM

Would that be an adaptation, I'm assuming?

Why is it that when a creationist pulls up unique anomalies as a challenge, its cherry picking from biased sources but you bring up one and its some hard, undeniable proof?

Let's just be frank: for all the assumed philogeny in the world, the hard evidence we can OBSERVE clearly dictates macroevolution is sufficiently impossible. Only when one decides to distort the evidence, and dub animals changing (precodedly, so to speak) to meet their environment do we get any REAL evidence concerning evolution.

You've changed the facts to fit your theory.

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 11:13 AM

Why is it that when a creationist pulls up unique anomalies as a challenge, its cherry picking from biased sources but you bring up one and its some hard, undeniable proof?

I just merely provided one example, and was curious if you would consider that an adaptation or not. I assumed you would, since it is a seeming loss of genetic code, as you stated.

I believe there are also examples of other animals that have adapted to their world over time and are missing genetic info, such as snakes with vestigial legs, eyes that no longer see, etc etc.

Let's just be frank: for all the assumed philogeny in the world, the hard evidence we can OBSERVE clearly dictates macroevolution is sufficiently impossible. Only when one decides to distort the evidence, and dub animals changing (precodedly, so to speak) to meet their environment do we get any REAL evidence concerning evolution.

Given that macroevolution is usually considered to take, at least, thousands of years, I would say it's not very surprising that we haven't seen an example of macro evolution.

What of animals with mutations, where those mutations betray curious genetic structure? For instance, mutant whales being born with legs? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

Or did this creator just use the same building blocks for all life, and so there is a small chance that ANY genetic defect/mutant might take on aspects of a creature it normally wouldn't?

Also, I'm curious. What evidence would lead you to change your stance, and believe in macro evolution?

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 11:17 AM

What of this evidence that shows bacteria evolving a new ability?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

z0sa

10-19-2009, 11:33 AM

What of this evidence that shows bacteria evolving a new ability?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

I touched on this earlier - bacteria have far more 'raw materials' to work with in their genomes. Many, if not most, other bacterium may process citrate - the e. coli over tens of thousands of generations of feeding on the same substance activating a similar ability does not sound odd or damaging. Incredible abilities, including incredibly fast adaptation, are simply innate features of microorganisms.

Shastafarian

10-19-2009, 11:41 AM

To answer the most important question: When does microevolution "stop":

Microevolution isn't that. It's a misnomer.This is gonna be good, I can tell.

It's simply animals adapting to their environment - properly termed "adaptation." All adaptations allowable are precodedSo all organisms have these precoded mutations. Only some choose to express it. Is that right?

- mutations RARELY, if EVER, occur during microevolution AKA adaptation. If mutations don't even occur, how can many pile up?That's just flat out wrong. Mutations do occur and they've been shown to be the root cause of antibiotic resistance.

And to address those mutations which do occur, even the most basic cell repairs its DNA - mutations are considered undesirable by the cell.$100 if you can name the enzyme that repairs DNA without looking it up.

Besides, do defects on preexisting code = more code?Do you know what a codon is?

How does the fish gain the DNA needed to become an amphibian?I could teach you but "isn't that what I pay taxes for"?

Shastafarian

10-19-2009, 11:43 AM

I touched on this earlier - bacteria have far more 'raw materials' to work with in their genomes. Many, if not most, other bacterium may process citrateIs that why there's a specific test in the lab to determine which organisms process citrate and which don't?

- the e. coli over tens of thousands of generations of feeding on the same substance activating a similar ability does not sound odd or damaging.I wish this made sense so I could deconstruct it.

Incredible abilities, including incredibly fast adaptation, are simply innate features of microorganisms.Define adaptation in this sense for us please.

Shastafarian

10-19-2009, 11:49 AM

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/earth-facts.jpg

What page in thread has the link to the information? I'd guess that the tree simply grew into the rock.

z0sa

10-19-2009, 11:49 AM

I admit its good evidence for your cause. I just think that this is more an isolated ability.

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 11:53 AM

Mainly because those are the two prevailing views.

That is way AD gives you the 3rd option.

Because it's the majority scientific consensus.So if the majority of girls in school are pregnant then it's ok for your 16 year old to give birth also?

Don't be such a sellout. Besides before Darwin wrote his book this shit was not even in the schools. Scientist had to suck on their hairy monkey cocks until their savior Darwin appeared, and you must remember at one time the majority of schools taught students if you bleed someone to death it will help get rid of their headaches, don't be afraid of change.

If your so willing to go with the majority why even make this topic go watch fox news along with the "majority" of the Sheeple in this country.

Otherwise, every crackpot could insist that their theory must have equal time as well.

Kinda like what Darwin wanted? You didn't seem to have a problem bringing him into the schools! And why is new evidence being a "crackpot"?
And how hard is it to add a few pages of Intelligent design to a book? Oh wait your kids are much to busy with other things in school.

http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/images/set3/w72407KidsCellPhones1MR_1185515019.jpg

Children only have so much time at school; I'm ok with them learning the majority basis.

http://www.prepaidreviews.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/kidscell.jpg

http://www.topnews.in/files/smoking_0.jpg
http://www.ashbyschool.org.uk/news/images/virtual%20babies%2008%20004.jpg

yep those kids have no time to learn shit theses days......
http://decoder.drugfree.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/videogame2jpg2.jpg

I'm ok with books pointing out possible flaws.

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1654/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1654R-22568.jpg

Because it's hard to falsify?you mean like the 100's of fake fossil that come out of China?
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats20766_DesignerDragon.jpg

or the fake charts still in the text books?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-257267.png

Most older atheists, I find, don't despise God.
Translation: the old farts closer to death that are now worried about their souls.

They just don't believe in him, and may despise some of the beliefs his followers have or attribute to him.
Then what about the assholes in this topic what are their excuses for bashing the creationist?

I agree that many atheists tend to be independent.
Do they have a choice?

Alex Jones

10-19-2009, 12:13 PM

What page in thread has the link to the information? I'd guess that the tree simply grew into the rock.

I'm not sure I still want to converse with your mountain dew educed mind, maybe today is a school holiday so your here to ask silly questions but If I do show you the links you so desperately crave since your really into leaning and not just here to pick fights, then you need to start posting some shit that shows me you and Blake evolved from snails or at least comment on past postings I made. stop trying to avoid answering questions with questions of your own its an old trick.

First off the point of the picture is to show you Trees don't grow thorough rocks that there must have been a huge flood in order to bury all those trees in layers of soil.

Second: the tree and the "rings" show that you can't date the earth by rings in the rocks. You can't have it both ways use the rings in the earth and rocks to say the earth is billions of years old and at the same time say that rings don't prove shit. get off the fence.

http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html

Polystrate fossils are a problem for those who believe rock layers take millions of years to form. Look at the picture at the right for example. If each of these layers of rock formed over millions of years, then why are there trees standing straight up through several different layers?
A tree would have died, fallen over and rotted in just a short time. It is clear that the layers were laid down and hardened in a short period of timehttp://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/polystrata_tree.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/PolystrateTree-Article.jpg

Shastafarian

10-19-2009, 12:24 PM

First off the point of the picture is to show you Trees don't grow thorough rocks that there must have been a huge flood in order to bury all those trees in layers of soil.Alright there was a flood. Floods happen all the time.

Second: the tree and the "rings" show that you can't date the earth by rings in the rocks. You can't have it both ways use the rings in the earth and rocks to say the earth is billions of years old and at the same time say that rings don't prove shit. get off the fence.If you think the two processes are the same then I've been conversing with a complete moron.

The Institute for Creation Research

Our website is currently being updated.

Please come back soon.

Thank you for your patience.
Do you have an actual link to the discovery or just clipped and edited newspaper articles?

ElNono

10-19-2009, 12:36 PM

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/earth-facts.jpg

Polystrate_fossil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil)

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 12:40 PM

I touched on this earlier - bacteria have far more 'raw materials' to work with in their genomes. Many, if not most, other bacterium may process citrate - the e. coli over tens of thousands of generations of feeding on the same substance activating a similar ability does not sound odd or damaging. Incredible abilities, including incredibly fast adaptation, are simply innate features of microorganisms.

It's your contention though that animals can't create new genetic material or gain new information, yet these bacteria seem to have done so. Am I incorrect?

Or is your theory like quantum physics, where extremely small items can have unusual properties?

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 12:41 PM

I admit its good evidence for your cause. I just think that this is more an isolated ability.

:toast

LnGrrrR

10-19-2009, 12:48 PM

Then what about the assholes in this topic what are their excuses for bashing the creationist?

Given that you call them assholes, is it any surprise that they might be negative towards you?

Darwin made predictions that seem to have been borne out by scientific findings (ie, finding animals in certain strata, DNA, etc etc)

If I was around when they bled people using leeches, I probably would have thought that was correct. I doubt I would have had the training to know otherwise.

101A

10-19-2009, 12:52 PM

101A

10-19-2009, 12:52 PM

And it NEVER sucks to be me.

DMX7

10-19-2009, 12:53 PM

why is it all trees around the world know exactly when to die? (don't bother to answer you evolutionist just insult never post proof)

Evolutionists don't post proof... this coming from a creationist? LMFAO :lol

Second: don't talk about love, that is an area you know nothing about. your an atheist you came from a snail what do you know from love?
love is an emotion that requires you have a soul or a spirit how can you have one without a creator?

Actually, love doesn't require a soul. It requires biology, i.e., a brain and a penis. Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.

PixelPusher

10-19-2009, 01:13 PM

And it NEVER sucks to be me.

:lol :toast

911

10-19-2009, 01:20 PM

Given that you call them assholes, is it any surprise that they might be negative towards you?

someone knocks on your door and calls your wife a ho I think after 6 days your allowed to call them an asshole why don't you start on page one work your way here with a Talley of name calling see what the score is.

once again avoid evolution debate and don't post any proof your fitting right in brah! :tu

Shastafarian

10-19-2009, 01:21 PM

Why do you keep switching screen names? Are you that ashamed of your "mouse" moniker?

101A

10-19-2009, 01:25 PM

Why do you keep switching screen names? Are you that ashamed of your "mouse" moniker?

:lol

We need a Mouse Wiki.

911

10-19-2009, 01:26 PM

Evolutionists don't post proof... this coming from a creationist? LMFAO :lol

Where did I post I am a creationist?

Actually, love doesn't require a soul. It requires biology, i.e., a brain and a penis.

That's called sex, it's what two dogs did for you to be here laughing.

Love involves feelings. Something you never learned about bouncing around from orphanages to halfway houses all your life.

Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you.

I am not sorry to have to bring up your past,you deserve to learn the truth.

once again avoid evolution debate and don't post any proof your fitting right in brah!

Shastafarian

10-19-2009, 01:28 PM

There is plenty of "proof" in the thread. You just choose to keep ignoring it.

911

10-19-2009, 01:45 PM

Why do you keep switching screen names? Are you that ashamed of your "mouse" moniker?

once again work on avoiding the evolution debate, and never post any proof we evolved from snails. your fitting right in brah!

mouse

10-19-2009, 01:51 PM

Why do you keep switching screen names? Are you that ashamed of your "mouse" moniker?

Did you know Kori and Lj the folks that run this site that allows you to be an ass 24/7 have many other screen names also. are you saying they are ashamed also?

heads up brah! screen name smack is a lame as spelling smack it went out with "da bomb!" back in 1999.

I won't lie to you if there ever was a screen named that I would be ashamed to use it would be Shastafarian

dude your kicking your own ass and can't even feel it keep posting your making my job that much easier.

Once again another response to this topic with no proof man evolve from the snail.

mouse

10-19-2009, 01:54 PM

There is plenty of "proof" in the thread. You just choose to keep ignoring it.

maybe I missed it.
quote? link? how about you post your own proof? come on!...you know,...for shits and giggles!
humor us with your knowledge.

once again another response to this debate with no proof man evolve from snails

DMX7

10-19-2009, 01:54 PM

That's called sex, it's what two dogs did for you to be here laughing.

Love involves feelings.

You still don't get it. Feelings are a biological process.

Last Comic Standing

10-19-2009, 02:02 PM

You still don't get it. Feelings are a biological process.

Then how does it feel to have mouse's biological foot up your biological ass?

RandomGuy

10-19-2009, 02:04 PM

It's your contention though that animals can't create new genetic material or gain new information, yet these bacteria seem to have done so. Am I incorrect?

Or is your theory like quantum physics, where extremely small items can have unusual properties?

A couple things about mutations:

The majority of mutations are fatal.
The majority of the mutations that aren't fatal have been found not to "add" new genes, but simply to slightly alter the expression of existing genes.

There was a scientist studying thumbs in humans and chimpanzees. Just thumbs, nothing else.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94290404

He isolated the genes for thumb development in humans and chimps and discovered, lo and behold that humans and chimps have the same genes for thumb development, but the only difference was when the development turned on and off, i.e. in humans the genes for developing the thumb are just turned on for slightly longer than the chimps.

No real information has to be added, all one has to do is simply move the on/off switches a few thousand rungs down the DNA ladder.

It does seem that viruses can inject DNA into host organisms, as many higher mammals have readily identifiable strings of "junk" DNA from past viral infections.

So one doesn't really need for mutations to "add" genes for animals to change over time.

One also has to remember that bacteria change so quickly because they reproduce so quickly. Animals with longer cycles of fucundity (ability to produce offspring) change/adapt/evolve at a rate consistant with how long that cycle is.

If the principle holds true for bacteria, it must, by logical extension, hold true for larger organisms.