Quick creationists! Come up with something!

[RandomGuy]

(crickets)

Man, can I kill an emotional debate or what?

No one tried to answer my questions...

[ChumpDumper]

(crickets)

Man, can I kill an emotional debate or what?

No one tried to answer my questions...

You'll never get anything more than a drive-by from mouse.

As for posters like z0sa, they tend to clam up after enough uncomfortable questions are asked. I know it ultimately all comes down to faith with either side of the argument whether the proponents want to admit it or not. I just like to find the point where that happens.

[atxrocker]

these threads never get old

[Alex Jones]

Observation:

Radioactive isotopes of element X are observed to decay at the following rate:
1/2 of any given sample decays in 1 year.

Half life of this sample is then given as one year.

If you manufacture 100 lumps of pure isotope X of 16 grams, and come back after a certain period and find that 98 of those lumps now consist of 4 grams of that isotope and 12 grams of the inert decay product...

How much time has elapsed?

You think because you toss out all these large numbers your going to convince the masses we evolved from snails? I like how the Darwin lovers try to throw you off with large numbers. 4 Billion years ago this.....25 Million years ago that...Look pal if i could add and subtract like your UTSA ass can you think I would be at home all day wouldn't i be working for AT&T?

You can save your math smack for the others I like to keep it simple so here is a simple question if the earth is 4 billion years old? why is the oldest tree less than 10,000 years old?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...dest-tree.html



More bull lies in the text books.....V

[ChumpDumper]

why is the oldest tree less than 10,000 years old?

How long should all trees live?

[RandomGuy]

Observation:

Radioactive isotopes of element X are observed to decay at the following rate:
1/2 of any given sample decays in 1 year.

Half life of this sample is then given as one year.

If you manufacture 100 lumps of pure isotope X of 16 grams, and come back after a certain period and find that 98 of those lumps now consist of 4 grams of that isotope and 12 grams of the inert decay product...

How much time has elapsed?

[I don't like large numbers.]

I used no number larger than 100 in my example.

You did not answer my question.

[RandomGuy]

why is the oldest tree less than 10,000 years old?

Trees are not the oldest living things. There is one colony of Posidonia Oceanica that is approximately 100,000 years old.

[Alex Jones]

All this bull about natural selection? Why would man evolve from ape? I thought Darwin said creatures evolve to better themselves?

Why would an ape want to lose fur to stay warm, and who wants to lose 90% of your strength, and have thin skin where you can't walk barefoot? it makes no sense, Maybe Man to ape sound much more believable

In fact there are many times I wish I still had my tail.

Think of all the great things you can do? You can text someone while holding your drink and still drive your car. Not to mention opening doors.

[RandomGuy]

You'll never get anything more than a drive-by from mouse.

Actually what mouse does is desperately try to change the subject when the answer gets too simple and obviously contradictory to his dogma. I know this already, but it is fun to get to the really basic parts to see how much you really have to twist, ignore or simply lie about to hold onto the set of beliefs that the world is only 10,000 or so years old.

[z0sa]

You think your goat is your genitalia or something?

Don't flatter yourself.

I still don't know what the getting someone's goat is

Not that great a challenge for the reasons stated.

So we have tons of fossil fuels from the past few hundred million years, and none from before.

Again, you have no answer, just admit it and be through with it. Maybe years down the road when you've trolled for 200,000 posts you will understand that concession makes for good debate.

Can you say with any certainty all the conditions necessary existed in these times and occurred in large enough quan ies that it could be easily found, isolated and measured billions of years later?

Can you say with certainty they were not? Indeed, this is the entire point I intended to make of your stupid leading questions - you don't know and in fact, the evidence indeed proves that incredible biodiversity, in lesser forms (which would not affect our fossils/fuels), must have existed for a very long time before our earliest fossil fuels.

You have no rebuttal, I understand.

You still haven't admitted you assumed mine.

Your only points are to relate Toros info and troll.

Nah, I know what you are trying to do. It's not my fault I'm ahead of you.

Ahead of me? You trolled me before I could even begin on the pterodactyls. How would you know what point I was going to make when you're the one who decided to start an unrelated argument about fossil fuels when you criticized my questioning?

I just gave you the reasons.

If dating methods prove creatures were becoming fossil fuels around the Cambrian era, it must be concluded according to evolutionary theory that said creatures were also becoming fossil fuels long before hand during their extended evolution.

As am I. Give me all your evidence that widespread fossil fuel processes should have taken place four billion years ago.

I've simply made a point - a strongly supported challenge - that is debatable. I know you don't know jack about debating, so I will forgive you're inability to understand what I've done.

Have I mentioned anything about pterodactlys specifically? I don't really care about one fossil, we're taking big picture here.

I'm far more interested in the OP article and its ideas/contentions than a random, though good point you made for me (that there's not enough fossil fuels).

And the decay of radioactive elements, etc. What do you have to determine the age of the earth?

it was a joke, because creatures didn't exist on a forming earth 4 billion years ago and that was never my argument. See? You really don't understand my argument.

You're a coward l0sa

You throw that poo, Dump.

Are they they so ridiculous that you are ashamed and frightened to post them?

I stated my reasoning. It is the be all, and end all of why I will not relate them. Further inquiry can only produce the same results.

We can only conclude the answer is yes.

Who is we? The 'royal' we? The editorial 'we'? lol

Good talk.

Thanks for the insults and lack of perspective. Let's not do this again.

[RandomGuy]

Observation:

Radioactive isotopes of element X are observed to decay at the following rate:
1/2 of any given sample decays in 1 year.

Half life of this sample is then given as one year.

If you manufacture 100 lumps of pure isotope X of 16 grams, and come back after a certain period and find that 98 of those lumps now consist of 4 grams of that isotope and 12 grams of the inert decay product...

How much time has elapsed?

[I don't like large numbers.]

I used no number larger than 100 in my example.

You did not answer my question.

[RandomGuy]

All this bull about natural selection? Why would man evolve from ape? I thought Darwin said creatures evolve to better themselves?

Why would an ape want to lose fur to stay warm, and who wants to lose 90% of your strength, and have thin skin were you can't walk barefoot? it makes no sense, Maybe Man to ape sound mush more believable

In fact there are many times I wish I still had my tail.

Think of all the great things you can do? You can text someone while holding your drink and still driver your car. Not to mention opening doors.

Humans and apes evolved in areas that were warm. There is no detriment to losing insulating fur in warm environments. Evolution does not take place because a species "wants" to do anything, it takes place because natural selection will pick adaptations that give reproductive advantages.

Given two sets of traits:
the ability to use tools, be relatively weaker physically, and be able to conceive and communicate complex ideas
or
being physically strong, but have no ability to use tools, no complex concepts/language

We can run to otherwise identical populations through the passage of time.

Given that intelligence and tool usage has allowed human beings to thrive in every climate on the planet, from deserts, to jungles, to plains, to forests, to arctic tundra, to mountains, to coasts, one could conclude that such a combination of traits quite easily provides a reproductive and survival advantage.

Losing fur and strength do not matter to tool users who can more than compensate for the lack of either. That is quite within evolutionary theory.

[spursncowboys]

Humans and apes evolved in areas that were warm. There is no detriment to losing insulating fur in warm environments. Evolution does not take place because a species "wants" to do anything, it takes place because natural selection will pick adaptations that give reproductive advantages.

Given two sets of traits:
the ability to use tools, be relatively weaker physically, and be able to conceive and communicate complex ideas
or
being physically strong, but have no ability to use tools, no complex concepts/language

We can run to otherwise identical populations through the passage of time.

Given that intelligence and tool usage has allowed human beings to thrive in every climate on the planet, from deserts, to jungles, to plains, to forests, to arctic tundra, to mountains, to coasts, one could conclude that such a combination of traits quite easily provides a reproductive and survival advantage.

Losing fur and strength do not matter to tool users who can more than compensate for the lack of either. That is quite within evolutionary theory.

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?

[ChumpDumper]

I still don't know what the getting someone's goat is

Yes, that is laughable.

So we have tons of fossil fuels from the past few hundred million years, and none from before.

Again, you have no answer, just admit it and be through with it. Maybe years down the road when you've trolled for 200,000 posts you will understand that concession makes for good debate.

I have agreed that there are no recorded fossil fuels from that time and given reasons why that could be so.

Can you say with certainty they were not? Indeed, this is the entire point I intended to make of your stupid leading questions - you don't know and in fact, the evidence indeed proves that incredible biodiversity, in lesser forms (which would not affect our fossils/fuels), must have existed for a very long time before our earliest fossil fuels.

You have no rebuttal, I understand.

I can't prove a negative. My rebuttal was and is that life at a certain time does not necessarily lead to fossil fuels from the same time.

You have no rebuttal for this, I understand.

Your only points are to relate Toros info and troll.

Nah, I like getting to the heart of someone's argument. Often, as you have done, the person I ask gets butthurt and pissy, and starts to change the subject and bring up Toros smack or something similar.

Your act is not a new one around here.

Ahead of me? You trolled me before I could even begin on the pterodactyls. How would you know what point I was going to make when you're the one who decided to start an unrelated argument about fossil fuels when you criticized my questioning?

As I said, way ahead of you. I like to cut through the crap, but people like you want to throw up more crap. It happens.

If dating methods prove creatures were becoming fossil fuels around the Cambrian era, it must be concluded according to evolutionary theory that said creatures were also becoming fossil fuels long before hand during their extended evolution.

Nah, you need to prove the conditions for widespread fossil fuel process existed at all those times. it is quite possible those conditions did not exist. I mean, what could your evidence be other than actual fossil fuels?

I've simply made a point - a strongly supported challenge - that is debatable. I know you don't know jack about debating, so I will forgive you're inability to understand what I've done.

You made a point that is rather easily countered. Then you got upset that it wasn't as string a point as you thought. Get over it.

I'm far more interested in the OP article and its ideas/contentions than a random, though good point you made for me (that there's not enough fossil fuels).

Now that your butt hurts, I can imagine you would want to change the subject.

You throw that poo, Dump.

You did it first.

I stated my reasoning. It is the be all, and end all of why I will not relate them. Further inquiry can only produce the same results.

You're a coward.

Who is we? The 'royal' we? The editorial 'we'? lol

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

Thanks for the insults and lack of perspective. Let's not do this again.

What is your theory on the origin of life?

The fact that you refuse to answer a question like this when you clearly have a theory makes you no better than a truther in my opinion.

I have great respect for people of faith, but little respect for people who are afraid to post what they believe on a message board because they think someone might make fun of them. It's easy to draw the conclusion that your faith isn't quite what you thought it was.

Prove me wrong.

[Alex Jones]

Observation:

Radioactive isotopes of element X are observed to decay at the following rate:
1/2 of any given sample decays in 1 year.

Half life of this sample is then given as one year.

If you manufacture 100 lumps of pure isotope X of 16 grams, and come back after a certain period and find that 98 of those lumps now consist of 4 grams of that isotope and 12 grams of the inert decay product...

How much time has elapsed?

.

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.


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.




Maybe you need to get out more?

[spursncowboys]

Yes, that is laughable.

I have agreed that there are no recorded fossil fuels from that time and given reasons why that could be so.

I can't prove a negative. My rebuttal was and is that life at a certain time does not necessarily lead to fossil fuels from the same time.

You have no rebuttal for this, I understand.


Nah, I like getting to the heart of someone's argument. Often, as you have done, the person I ask gets butthurt and pissy, and starts to change the subject and bring up Toros smack or something similar.

Your act is not a new one around here.


As I said, way ahead of you. I like to cut through the crap, but people like you want to throw up more crap. It happens.

Nah, you need to prove the conditions for widespread fossil fuel process existed at all those times. it is quite possible those conditions did not exist. I mean, what could your evidence be other than actual fossil fuels?

You made a point that is rather easily countered. Then you got upset that it wasn't as string a point as you thought. Get over it.

Now that your butt hurts, I can imagine you would want to change the subject.

You did it first.

You're a coward.

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

What is your theory on the origin of life?

[z0sa]

Yes, that is laughable.

I have agreed that there are no recorded fossil fuels from that time and given reasons why that could be so.

I can't prove a negative. My rebuttal was and is that life at a certain time does not necessarily lead to fossil fuels from the same time.

You have no rebuttal for this, I understand.


Nah, I like getting to the heart of someone's argument. Often, as you have done, the person I ask gets butthurt and pissy, and starts to change the subject and bring up Toros smack or something similar.

Your act is not a new one around here.


As I said, way ahead of you. I like to cut through the crap, but people like you want to throw up more crap. It happens.

Nah, you need to prove the conditions for widespread fossil fuel process existed at all those times. it is quite possible those conditions did not exist. I mean, what could your evidence be other than actual fossil fuels?

You made a point that is rather easily countered. Then you got upset that it wasn't as string a point as you thought. Get over it.

Now that your butt hurts, I can imagine you would want to change the subject.

You did it first.

You're a coward.

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

What is your theory on the origin of life?

The fact that you refuse to answer a question like this when you clearly have a theory makes you no better than a truther in my opinion.

I have great respect for people of faith, but little respect for people who are afraid to post what they believe on a message board because they think someone might make fun of them.

I can't believe I actually got to this forum's best troll.

[ChumpDumper]

What is your theory on the origin of life?

I can't believe I actually got to this forum's best troll.

I can believe I got to you.

[Alex Jones]

You'll never get anything more than a drive-by from mouse.

Have you ever tried to use a laptop with 5mb of free WiFi while taking care of costumers at the Bill Millers drive through?

just be glad you get what you do now. I have to flush this HD and put XP back in so don't freak out if I don't return until around 9ish!

[spursncowboys]

What is your theory on the origin of life?

Book of Genesis

[z0sa]

I can believe I got to you.

You seem so sure. Please relate this information, then, with quotes to prove your stance:

1) Relate where the first insult was thrown.

2) Relate which of your responses caused me to be "butthurt." Follow up with your reasoning why I would become "butt hurt."

3) Relate why withholding personal information from an obvious troll, or any anonymous internet figure, is cowardice.

4) Prove I even have a belief system, or am not an atheist who simply finds evolution an unsatisfactory explanation.

[ChumpDumper]

4) Prove I even have a belief system, or am not an atheist who simply finds evolution an unsatisfactory explanation.

Are you an atheist?

[z0sa]

Are you an atheist?

Are you a troll? Answer honestly.

[Strange Love]

[ChumpDumper]

Are you a troll? Answer honestly.

I probably am in some cases.

Are you an atheist? Answer honestly.