Quick creationists! Come up with something!

[Shastafarian]

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?

Oh wow. You're not really this dumb right? You're messing with us.

[ChumpDumper]

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 .

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 them

Who cares?

, and why were they grouped together?

Again, who cares?

Why did they fossilize?

Conditions were right for them to fossilize.

[Shastafarian]

And I didn't even read the journal article.

[spursncowboys]

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?

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

[Shastafarian]

Comets burn?

[Shastafarian]

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]

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]

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

Which observations?

[Shastafarian]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

It is a science based on facts.

[mouse]

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

The do entary 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.

[Shastafarian]

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

[z0sa]

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 [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?

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 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. , I'll even entertain more discussion on creationism in school.

[mouse]

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]

mouse = Sarah Palin

hilarious

[z0sa]

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]

mouse = Sarah Palin

hilarious

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