Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
The WB

Abbeville, GA

#13031 May 23, 2013
Evolution wrote:
Evolutionists generally use five different methods in determining the age of matter: salt content in the oceans, deposition of sediments, rate of soil erosion, disintegration of radioactive materials, and Libby's Carbon 14 experiment. Problems can be found with all of these methods, but the biggest problem of all is the method that they've chosen to ignore--the study of Half Lives.
This is where one figures the current rate of decay or deterioration of something and then figures backwards to see how long this process has been going. For example, if one fills his gas tank up with gas and drives for 100 miles, you can figure that he's driven 100 miles if you know how may miles his car will travel per gallon.
The dating of matter works the same way, except in science this is called the study of Half Lives. Evolutionists tend to steer away from this field of study, for it is very capable of demolishing their religious conviction that the universe and the earth is billions of years old. Let's look at a few examples:
The sun is continuously burning out at a rate of 5 feet per hour. This means that the sun would have been TWICE the size that it is now only 100,000 years ago! Only 20,000,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that it would be touching the earth! Yet evolutionists insist that the universe, including the sun, is billions of years old.
Because of meteors and meteorites, interplanetary dust falls upon the earth at a rate of at least 14 million tons per year. The evolutionists claim that the earth, the moon, and the various planets are at least 4.5 billion years old. This means that there should be a layer of space dust on the moon over 500 feet thick. However, when the astronauts landed on the moon, LESS THAN THREE INCHES of dust were found. Three inches could have accumulated in less than 8000 years.
Radioactive helium is generated by decaying uranium atoms. Dr. Melvin Cook, a former Nobel-prize nominee, says that this helium is constantly being released into our atmosphere, and that there are currently about a million-billion grams of this helium in our atmosphere. Yet, this is a very small number compared to what it would be if the earth were over 4.5 billion years old. According to Cook's measurements, the earth can't be over 10,000 to 15,000 years old.
The half life of the earth's magnetic field is believed to be less than 1400 years. That is, 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field would have been twice as strong as it is today. Only 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as the sun! WHO KNOWS what it would have been like 4.5 billion years ago!?
You see, these are the things that are commonly ignored by "serious scientists." The theory of evolution is an UNSCIENTIFIC theory, which is made up of blind guesswork and outright lying. It cannot be proven by the scientific laws of observation and experimentation. Darwin's theory is nothing more than a religious faith for high-minded people who think they're too smart for God. The Lord Jesus Christ was a Creationist (Matt. 19:4; Mark 13:19), and when we compare His life work to the life work of Darwin and his followers, we find a much better Way in Jesus Christ and in the written word of God.
Thank you for speaking truth.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13032 May 23, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhmmm, even without knowing who the author is my first impression was why is only the cost of union labor the source of this problem, why are management salaries and compensation not part of the equation. Then we learned who the author is and it all became very clear.
What do you think has more impact on the cost of something, management salaries/compensation or "worker" salaries/compensation?

Does it really matter who the author is? Can you refute/debate the points? No, I didn't think so...

Have you EVER been in a position where you could analyze both of the items in the first paragraph? Perhaps you're the typical "non-management" person complaining about "management" because you can't "get there"...
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13033 May 23, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
Now let's think about this --

Would Bain Capitol be pro or anti union?

Union contracts might interfere with firing people for no reason before you send their jobs off to Indonesia.

On the other hand, Union Contracts might make it harder to fire people, loot the company, and claim bankruptcy and cash in the pension accounts.

So.. Bain union or anti-union?

Gee that's a head-scratcher.
Bain Capital -

Buy company with borrowed money;
Loot same;
File Bankruptcy;
Screw creditors;
Void union contracts;
Screw employees;
Dump pension liabilities on taxpayers;
Give bonuses to management;
Bankruptcy Trustee sells off remnants.

Buy company;
Repeat above.

Buy company;
Repeat above.


Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13034 May 23, 2013
Former Bain wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you care what Bain's stance is re unions? They would find it more interesting when there is someone named Chicknbut trashing them online. So, they fired people for no reason and shipped their jobs to Indonesia? Really? Bain raids pension funds? Really?
When Bain acquired a company where the employees were unionized, it was much easier for Bain to negotiate with a union rep than several hundred employees. However, corruption always seemed to come to the surface when the union rep demanded extra incentives for himself so as to get the membership to "go along". Bain would not participate in a shakedown of that nature.

There's so many posters that have never been involved in anything like the above, yet they know so much, it's laughable.

Yet, still, they can't refute the points...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13035 May 23, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting how within about an hour of mentioning Bain Capitol in a dinky little forum like this we SUDDENLY have some new poster we've never heard from, within the hour, show up to defend Bain.
One would almost think that a registered poster logged out and is trying to defend himself under an assumed name.
One would almost think that.
/waves at Bill
Interesting "concept", I'm sure the poster has done it before, but how would I get a Dawsonville ISP? Hmmm...

BTW, I don't need another person posting to support my comments, quite contrary to you and your circle jerk friends...

Interesting that this poster still hasn't addressed the points made previously. Perhaps "Chicken" is the correct name...

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13036 May 23, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Bill not state that you wouldn't accept the book?
That doesn't make what he posted not true. You just don't agree with it. That's all. As a capitalist, I think it's totally true.
Typical response of the poster you're referencing, isn't it?

The little dogs should stay on the porch until he/she can play with the adults...
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13037 May 23, 2013
Former Bain wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you care what Bain's stance is re unions? They would find it more interesting when there is someone named Chicknbut trashing them online. So, they fired people for no reason and shipped their jobs to Indonesia? Really? Bain raids pension funds? Really?

When Bain acquired a company where the employees were unionized, it was much easier for Bain to negotiate with a union rep than several hundred employees. However, corruption always seemed to come to the surface when the union rep demanded extra incentives for himself so as to get the membership to "go along". Bain would not participate in a shakedown of that nature.
Thanks for the laugh.

Later you can explain to us all how those corrupt coal miners interfered with honest management by getting black lung disease, and sabotaging the company machinery by intentionally letting their body parts get blown into the machinery when the coal dust explosions occurred.

Or you can explain to us how those worthless factory workers in Bangladesh destroy company property by letting their skin get welded to the parts during those fires that kill a few dozen or a few hundred at a time.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13038 May 23, 2013
Synergy wrote:
<quoted text>You are absolutely clueless. No excuse. Obama owned them. He threw it away. He never had any plans. He needed an excuse and in the midterms, he got it. Case closed. Now you're mad because you are doing EXACTLY what he knew you would do....blame the republicans. HOW DO YOU GET THAT DUMB????????
Guess he wasn't doing such a great job because the republicans took the House in the midterms.
That's so educational.

And here I thought Mitch "I want the country to fail so badly I filibuster my own legislation" McConnell meant it when he bragged that the Republicans were able to stop any and all legislation.

I should have known - my bad - he's a Right Wing Wacko - and so if his lips were moving - he was lying.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#13039 May 23, 2013
And after getting through all of the posts made after I went to dinner (adding 2 to the Brewniversity count), none of the liberaces have been able to address the comments posted (copied from Ed Conard's book).

Interesting how they can attack the messenger, but not the message. Typical liberaces...

New York, NY

#13040 May 23, 2013
Evolution: Fact or Fiction?” by John Blanchard



“Origination of species by development from earlier forms, not special creation.”


The theory that in organisms of the same kind of different characteristics emerge as the result of adaptation to their particular environment.


The natural processes produce new species without limitation, and that all species can be traced back to a single common ancestor.

Natural selection

Populations of organisms develop new characteristics in reponse to ‘selective pressures’ in their environment (more simply, in order to survive) and that when these new characteristics become permanent, new species emerge.


The fossils should indicate that there were countless transitional stages between the different species. However, the lack of evidence made Darwin realize this was ‘the most obvious and serious objection against the theory [of evolution].’

Since the fossil record was not agreeing with the theory of evolution some evolutionists invented the idea of punctuated equilibrium, which suggests that millions of more or less static years (equilibrium) were occasionally interrupted by worldwide cataclysms (punctuations) that resulted in wholesale extinctions made way for radically new life-forms.

New York, NY

#13041 May 23, 2013
David Kitts, Professor of Geology at the University of Oklahoma said,“Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them.”

The Cambrian Explosion is a large amount of fossils of highly developed life forms that seem to appear suddenly. However, Cambrian Explosion deasl two damaging blows to evolution.

1. Cambrian fossils represent nearly every major group of organisms living today.
2. The scientists have been unable to trace any sign of precursor life forms in earlier layers of the earth’s crust.

Molecule to Man?

Protozoans (microscopic single-cell organisms)-> first invertebrates-> fish-> amphibians-> reptiles-> birds and furry quadrupeds-> apelike mammals.

1. 1857- Neanderthal Man, but ended up being part of the human family.
2. 1912- Piltdown Man, but ended up being a gigantic hoax (a human skull connected to an orangutan’s jaw).
3. 1922- single tooth, but ended up being from a peccary, a piglike wild animal.
4. 1959- Nutcracker Man, but ended up being the skull of an extinct ape.
5. 1974- Lucy, but has since been seen as false.

Since the missing-link did not work, scientists began trying to establish the evolutionary model by highlighting the similarities in the DNA of the various species. DNA has four basic elements: adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. Apes and humans have similar DNA. However, there are confusing evidence when this is applied to other animals. They found that crocodiles were more closely linked to the chickens than their fellow reptiles, or that camels and nurse sharks has identical protein on the cell wall.

Homo sapiens are separated from all other species by characteristics that cannot be explained by evolutionists:
1. We have vastly superior intelligence.
2. We have self-awareness.
3. We can look beyond our own immediate and direct experience.
4. We use propositional language.
5. We are capable of complex reasoning.
6. We have mathematical skills.
7. We have an aesthetic dimension.
8. We have a moral dimension.
9. We have a spiritual dimension.

Many scientists say that the first organisms could have arisen in this way from a sea of lifeless ‘soup’ on the early earth. However, the Mycoplasma genitalium, which is the baterium with the smallest amount of genetic material, is still 580,000 base pairs on its 482 genes. That is staggering enough, image a human being who still needs over 200 bones, 600 muscles, 10,000 auditory nerve fibers, two million optic nerve fibres, 100 billion brain-cell nerves, and much more. What is the chance of this primordial soup producing a living cell…1 in 10 to the 161 power.

New York, NY

#13042 May 23, 2013
Where Did All This Matter Come From?

We have three possiblities:
1. The entire universe is infinite and eternal. This idea has ben abandoned by virtually everyone.
2. The universe is self-created. However, we know that Ex nihilo, nihil fit (‘Out of nothing, nothing comes’).
3. The universe had a beginning, it must therefore have a transcendent, eternal and self- existent cause. GOD!

The first two possibilities break two fundamental scientific laws. These have to do with energy and entropy. In the context of these laws, everything in the natural world is one form of energy or another, while entropy is the measure of a system’s lack of available energy to do or perform work. This is the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law states that in any given system neither matter nor energy can be self-created or destroyed. This rules out the contention that the formation of the natural world began spontaneously by natural process. The Second Law implies that over time any closed physical system becomes less ordered and more random–entropy increases. This means that the universal tendency is towards decay and death, but the theory of evolution claims exactly the opposite.


People began to realize that the general theory of evolution was running out of steam, so they began to say that maybe the genes underwent radical alterations, or mutations. Then natural selection could make use of these improved genes, and with sufficient time, result in new and better species. The reasons this does not work is:

1. Mutations occur extremly rarely, something like once in every ten million duplicattions of a DNA molecule.
2. Virtually all mutations (999 our of every 1,000) are harmful, weakening the organism or destroying it altogether.
3. Beneficial mutations leading to improved species would entail a massive increase in the gnome’s information, no such increase has ever been observed.
4. Any new, functional organ to be effective it would have to arrive on the scene all at once, as a complete, operating entity–but evolutionists say that mutation takes place in microscopic increments, each of whihc achieves almost nothing in and of itself.
5. No plant or animal lives long enough to allow the millions of micro-mutations that would be needed to transform it into a different,‘improved’ species.

In the end, natural selection destroys unfit organisms, mutations result in a loss of genetic information, and time inevitably leads to decay and death.


There are two reasons why we should resist holding to macro-evolution:
1. Science is not a finished product, but an ongoing search for truth, a process of learning in which from time to time things previously said to be true are found to be false.
2. There are many things beyond the reach of science.

Evolution leaves too many unanswered questions.

Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#13043 May 23, 2013
ChicknButt wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting how within about an hour of mentioning Bain Capitol in a dinky little forum like this we SUDDENLY have some new poster we've never heard from, within the hour, show up to defend Bain.

One would almost think that a registered poster logged out and is trying to defend himself under an assumed name.

One would almost think that.

/waves at Bill
We should thank him for allowing normal Americans to exploit him to show how dangerously disturbed Right Wing Wackos truly are.

Defending Bain Capital, is like defending child molesters selling crack to handicapped children at an orphanage.

Douglasville, GA

#13044 May 23, 2013
Evolution wrote:
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." (Romans 1:20-23)
These inspired words of God ..........
Those aren't the words of God. They're the words of either Paul or Tertius, it's not absolutely sure which. And they aren't the direct words - they're the words after 2000 years of translation, many times by hand, and sometimes with agendas as the books of the bible were assembled of the years.

Not the words of God.

Since: May 13

Ellijay, GA

#13045 May 23, 2013
You are tenacious Evolution!

I'm a stick in the mud, so the subject isn't really on my reading list.
But I am skimming your posts and find some interesting points that hold my attention.

Just wanted to acknowledge your effort and research :)

Douglasville, GA

#13046 May 23, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to realize that the liberaces will respond to different questions or avoid answering questions/comments when they are nailed to the wall.
Bam, liberace down...
That was just a sad, sad little pathetic response.

Douglasville, GA

#13047 May 23, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
We get a lot of that around here. The hypocrisy and irony is amazing...
Perhaps if you posted a bit less that problem would be solved?

New York, NY

#13048 May 23, 2013
In Utah, like many other places in America today, a firestorm has erupted over what can be taught in the state’s public schools concerning evolution.1 The Utah legislature is currently considering a bill requiring public school teachers to inform students that the state does not endorse a particular theory of human origins.

A writer for the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper declared that scientists believe there are “no legitimate contenders”(meaning evolution is supreme) and that the debate concerning evolution is really about how it happened, not that it happened.2

The writer then discussed problems with the definitions of the word “theory” as understood (or misunderstood) by the general public vs. what scientists say:“Scientists reserve the word theory for a hypothesis, or idea, that has withstood rigorous examination to explain something that can be observed”(emphasis added). Later in the Tribune piece, a scientist is reported as saying that “Science demands testable explanations for observable occurrences”(emphasis added). The key word in both quotes is “observed/observable.”

There is a general misunderstanding of the differences between “origin science” and “operation science.” Origin science is based on events which happened in the past and are, therefore, not observable today. Operation science, though, is based on science currently being done in laboratories that is observable today. While it is true that operation science can help us understand what may have happened in the past, it is an extrapolation or best guess based on the evidence that we observe today.

Scientists are biased just like everyone else in that they bring their preconceived ideas about the past and how life originated into their research. For example, if a scientist’s presupposition is that God does not exist and that living organisms are the result of evolution over millions of years, then his interpretations of the outcome of operation science will seem to support his view of the past. When a scientist’s presupposition, however, is that God exists and that living organisms are the result of His creative powers within a six-day period, he can use this to properly interpret the results of operation science which support the Bible's claims. Because all scientists are working with the same data, the battle is not over the evidence but rather the interpretation of that evidence in light of the scientist’s presuppositions. Origins science, because it is not testable, tends to be more influenced by a scientist's bias, and therefore tends to be more subjective rather than objective.

Douglasville, GA

#13049 May 23, 2013
Bill in Dville wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the points made by the author change anything based on where he used to work (or perhaps still does)?
Absolutely it does. In a huge significant way.

David Koch: "Climate Change isn't real. Buy my coal and oil". Sure - whatever Mr. Koch.

Even you aren't so dense that you can miss that hugely obvious point.

New York, NY

#13050 May 23, 2013
Human and chimp similarity?

The Tribune article then touched on the often-cited similarity of the human and chimp genomes as evidence from operation science that supports the presupposition of molecules-to-man evolution/millions of years. One University of Utah biologist who was quoted declared that human/chimp similarity is “absolutely, completely, totally convincing. It is proof [of evolution].” This is an astonishing statement, for nothing in science ever proves or disproves a theory. The evidence either supports or does not support a theory; proof is too strong of a word, and instead the word support is always preferred. This same scientist then went on to say that,“Anyone who has examined the evidence can see that the similarities point toward an ancient common ancestor that links all species.”

I am a scientist, a molecular geneticist, and I have examined the same evidence, and I believe the similarities point towards a common Designer that created animal kinds and man.

And how similar are the human and chimp genomes really? The often-quoted numbers of 96–99% similarity are only for regions of the DNA (DNA is the molecule of heredity) that code for proteins. If a particular protein serves a function in one organism and the function was needed in another organism, wouldn’t we expect to find the same protein?

In addition, the remainder of the genome consisting of “junk” DNA and highly repetitive sequences has not been examined for similarity. Why? Because in the evolutionists’ mind, they are not important.

“Junk” DNA, for example, is thought of as an evolutionary leftover. However, there is increasing evidence to support a role for so-called “junk” DNA. It may serve a role in regulating how much protein is eventually expressed from the DNA.“Junk” DNA may also serve as a spacer between genes (protein coding sequences) much like the function of the spaces between the words in this article—without them the letters wouldn’t make any sense.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dasher Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
maga 14 min STM 859
Can we talk about the new federal lawsuit? 51 min Victims of JFA 14,130
Random one sentence thoughts > (Jul '16) 4 hr SweetBart 178
Good News Thread (Jan '16) 8 hr DiscoBart 2,143
crooked trump 16 hr JustTookAhugeTrump 163
Have you heard...Trump is an idiot 16 hr JustTookAhugeTrump 153
News Ga. Teens Arrested in School Bus Sex Act (Dec '10) 20 hr big 125

Dasher Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Dasher Mortgages