Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1829 Feb 6, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Mitch, it is clear I have pissed you off. Your assumption of my identity is evidence that I have gotten to you. I feel good about that. Thank you for confirming it.
Human evolution still stands. You have just misunderstood the meaning of those reports. Of course you don't understand science and aren't that bright, so no surprise there.
Your are funnier still, I find it hard to be pissed when laughing.

Your snide, short, sophomoric replies tell me it's obvious that I piss you off.

Your faith in man is funniest of all.
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1830 Feb 6, 2014
Dan, I wish you well..so blind..

Kong, I bet you miss Katie' s hand up your ass, it was funny watching you faun over every pompous word she said...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#1831 Feb 6, 2014
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Your are funnier still, I find it hard to be pissed when laughing.
Your snide, short, sophomoric replies tell me it's obvious that I piss you off.
Your faith in man is funniest of all.
Yeah, I have definitely gotten to you. Thanks again for the verification.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#1832 Feb 6, 2014
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, do you miss Katie, her hand up your as- you little puppet you
Tell me why the different forms of determining age of an item, if applied to one item, produces different ages of that item?
As I said and the different techniques of dating corroborate each other. You have not bothered to read actual science regarding this.

You are just a parrot, repeating misinformation. Show us the evidence that supports your assertion.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1833 Feb 6, 2014
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, do you miss Katie, her hand up your as- you little puppet you.
I admit to having certain sapiosexual tendencies (look it up). But I am nobody's 'puppet'.
Certainly not yours.
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>Tell me why the different forms of determining age of an item, if applied to one item, produces different ages of that item?
When properly and carefully applied, radiometric dating has been shown to be VERY reliable. There are over 40 different radiometric dating methods, and several NON-radiometric dating methods.

Guess what?

They all confirm each other, with many methods overlapping in their dating ranges.
However, if you were to MISAPPLY dating techniques, using an inappropriate radiometric method, you will get ridiculous results.

For example: Carbon-14 dating will ONLY be applicable for objects that (a) are organic in nature (not a rock, or a fossil), and thought be about 80,000 years old or less.

If you were to use a Rubidium-87 dating method, which has can only provide reliable dating results of 10 million years or more, to a test piece that should have been appropriate for Carbon-14, then you will get an incorrect result of 10 million years for a 80,000 year old object.

Then we see the folks at ICR and Answers in Genesis jumping around gleefully, pointing fingers at the REAL scientists, and saying "SEE? I TOLD YOU!".

ICR is SPECIFICALLY guilty of sending test pieces to a lab that they KNEW specializes in radiometric methods that would give errors as the above example reflects. They were dishonest in their intentions.

The "RATE study" is a lesson in their tactics of lying.

BTW, did you see where even PAT ROBERTSON thinks Ken Hamm is an idiot for Young Earth Creationism?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1834 Feb 7, 2014
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, do you miss Katie, her hand up your as- you little puppet you
Tell me why the different forms of determining age of an item, if applied to one item, produces different ages of that item?
They don't. Unless you don't know how to use that method.

Creationists don't know how to use any method. Which is why they get wrong answers.

Besides Mitch old boy, evidence is irrelevant to creationism. Doesn't matter what the evidence looks like because Goddidit no matter what.

So why are you pretending to complain about evidence when all you're really complaining about is that reality doesn't match your theology?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#1835 Feb 7, 2014
Mitch wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, do you miss Katie, her hand up your as- you little puppet you
Tell me why the different forms of determining age of an item, if applied to one item, produces different ages of that item?
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them.

It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago.

Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers.

Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent.

Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today.

This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#1836 Feb 7, 2014
Mitch wrote:
Nye celebrates the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which he believes to be a successful prediction for the Big Bang and billions of years of history. However, cosmic microwave background radiation is actually a huge problem for the Big Bang model; see Recent Cosmic Microwave Background data supports creationist cosmologies. There has been years of work in creation cosmology; for more information see Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers.
Nye appeals to radiometric dating, specifically rubidium/strontium, as evidence supporting billions of years. However, different dating methods give different dates for the same rocks, and some dating methods cap the age of the earth at thousands of years, so scientists must pick whichever dating method agrees with their presupposition. Ham gave a slide with a list of such methods; a similar list appears at Age of the earth.
It appears your people do a lot of guessing that can easily debunked.
Nye kicked Hambone!!! Deal with it!!!
Bob

Savage, MN

#1837 Mar 26, 2014
Did you know that Darwin upon his death knew less than an average sixth grader does today?

The man that is the foundation of your arguments called a cell a blob.

You guys should redirect your faith
Bob

Savage, MN

#1838 Mar 26, 2014
You evolutionists are to funny, snide, but funny
Mitch

Savage, MN

#1839 Mar 26, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Nye kicked Hambone!!! Deal with it!!!
That coming from a person who calls himself hambone

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#1840 Mar 26, 2014
Bob wrote:
Did you know that Darwin upon his death knew less than an average sixth grader does today?
Got any proof of that? Or just your say so.
Bob wrote:
The man that is the foundation of your arguments called a cell a blob.You guys should redirect your faith
Not faith. Evidence, investigation, theory. We call it science. You might look into it sometime.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#1841 Mar 26, 2014
Bob wrote:
Did you know that Darwin upon his death knew less than an average sixth grader does today?
The man that is the foundation of your arguments called a cell a blob.
You guys should redirect your faith
Oh look, Mitch is back. Means we ain't missing much.(shrug)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1842 Mar 26, 2014
Bob wrote:
Did you know that Darwin upon his death knew less than an average sixth grader does today?
The man that is the foundation of your arguments called a cell a blob.
You guys should redirect your faith
You dumbass. Darwin died 132 years ago.

EVEN YOU -- the dumbass you are -- know more (about SOME things) than most people did 132 years ago.

Darwin was spectacularly enlightened for a person of his era.
YOU, on the other hand, are an idiot of the ages.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1843 Mar 27, 2014
Bob wrote:
Did you know that Darwin upon his death knew less than an average sixth grader does today?
The man that is the foundation of your arguments called a cell a blob.
You guys should redirect your faith
I am so glad you said average, because surely you reduce that average knowledge quotient by several percentage points

Have you ever examined a cell under a microscope? Chances are not, you have neither the will or the requirement. You are stuck with your bronze age jew magic and do not have the intellect to learn past that point.

The prevailing scientific knowledge of the time understood the cell as a “homogeneous globule of protoplasm”. The only references that I can find to Darwins “blobs” are from Casey Luskin, that prominent member of the much discredited and academically mocked discovery institute and Nancy Pearcey, that fine and upstanding evangelist godbot, IDer, limiter of children’s education and yet another member of the discovery institute

It seems their source of the deliberately disparaging and misleading term “blob” was a misrepresentation of a speech given by that other fine discovery institute liar (oops, member) Michael Behe who once commented “To Darwin, then, as to every other scientist of the time, the cell was a black box.”

150 years of research can work wonders for scientific advancement, Just consider that Einstein came up with the equation E=MC^2 in 1905 and only 40 years later the first atomic bomb was tested. The sub atomic electrical characteristics of germanium were first researched in the late 1940s, the first commercial fully transistorised computer was on sale 10 years later. And now evolution is not just an idea based on observation, a theory but is repeatedly proven beyond doubt by many independent and unrelated sources.

Redirect to what, a bronze age myth of god dun it with magic? Sorry buddy, I grew out of fairy stories when I became a teenager, I’ll stick with my knowledge and understanding of the modern world, but you are welcome to your gullibility, faith healing and donating your hard earned dollars to scam evangelists if that how you get you kicks.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#1844 Mar 27, 2014
Bob wrote:
Did you know that Darwin upon his death knew less than an average sixth grader does today?
The man that is the foundation of your arguments called a cell a blob.
You guys should redirect your faith
So, even if your assertion is true - which I do not concede - he still knew more about the subject than your average fundy does today, then, eh?
Danfromsmithvill w

Savage, MN

#1845 Mar 28, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>As I said and the different techniques of dating corroborate each other. You have not bothered to read actual science regarding this.
You are just a parrot, repeating misinformation. Show us the evidence that supports your assertion.
Dan if I am a parrot, what does that make you posting and regurgitation bad information?
A puke?
Danfromsmithvill w

Savage, MN

#1846 Mar 28, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Got any proof of that? Or just your say so.
<quoted text>
Not faith. Evidence, investigation, theory. We call it science. You might look into it sometime.
He called cells blobs? Where is your evidence of evolution?

Your funny mike
Danfromsmithvill w

Savage, MN

#1847 Mar 28, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You dumbass. Darwin died 132 years ago.
EVEN YOU -- the dumbass you are -- know more (about SOME things) than most people did 132 years ago.
Darwin was spectacularly enlightened for a person of his era.
YOU, on the other hand, are an idiot of the ages.
But he called a cell a blob, 6 graders are smarter than him and you puppet...
Danfromsmithvill w

Savage, MN

#1848 Mar 28, 2014
Hay kong, there is another woman in the room, fawn over her every word, she to is a moron.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 27 min Aura Mytha 69,957
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 161,437
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 5 hr Subduction Zone 95
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr 15th Dalai Lama 30,111
G-d versus Evolution? 6 hr 15th Dalai Lama 12
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 11 hr yehoshooah adam 3,779
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 16 hr Subduction Zone 1,969
More from around the web