Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#42 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm getting tired of this crap, aren't you? Have some respect for yourself and stop showing such brainlessness in a public forum. Your students will read this you know & it might just come to light that you are not worth your sociology so-called degree.
In at case you wouldn't have ANY problems refuting it, don't you?
Learn:
1) science
2) debating
3) how to answer questions properly
4) substantial reasoning.

Please your methodology of experiments.
We are ALL very curious about your understanding of it.

Added to my ever growing list of unanswered questions.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#43 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's put in plainly & simply, you listen carefully to this: I know more about science than you. Try me.
Besides, you think "4+4=6".

Let's see how that works out for you.
In Six Days

Preston, UK

#44 Jul 22, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
If you *DO* know more about science than I, you have yet to exhibit it.
And you worship a BOOK about God. Not God Himself.
That puts us on equal ground from a theological standpoint.
Make my day, ask me a scientific question.

I worship God.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#45 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Make my day, ask me a scientific question.
I worship God.
What scientific evidence supports a young Earth?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#46 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Make my day, ask me a scientific question.
I worship God.
Explain Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), and how they only "appear" (in a Creationist's interpretation) to support the Theory of Evolution, and how the nested hierarchy of ERVs are (again, in a Creationist's interpretation) are only an illusion.

No looking it up on pseudoscience websites....we know them all.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#47 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's put in plainly & simply, you listen carefully to this: I know more about science than you. Try me.
LOL LOL LOL LOL!

"Try me", you did say?

Well:
1) can you give a short summary of the essential conclusions to be drawn from the observation of the geological record from the Grand Canyon?
2) do you know which basic features are used to identify geological formations? Those features are to be used when answering question 3)
3) Can you list at least 7 different geological formations found in the Grand Canyon and describe shortly their composition and origin?
4) Describe the fossils found in the deepest formation of the Grand Canyon.
5) Describe in which formation of the Grand Canyon the first multicellular life appears.
6) How many formations do we count between the deepest formation of the Grand Canyon mentioned in 4) and the formation mentioned in 5)
7) Describe in which formation of the Grand Canyon the first land animal appear.
8) How many formations we count between the first formation where multicellular life appear as mentioned 5) and the formation where land animals appear for the first time in the geological record of the Grand Canyon, as mentioned in 7)?
9) How many RESPECTIVELY DIFFERENT formations do we distinguish in the geological record of the Grand Canyon that represent former sea beds?
10) How do we know that these are former sea beds indeed?
11) The Fort Union formation of the Grand Canyon consists of coal and are 300 feet (90 meters) thick. How long do you think a forest will take to produce a layer that thick? Please also reason how you got to the answer.
12) how many different dating techniques are used in geology? Mention the 7 main groups.

As you said that the Flood story matches the geological record, you seem to know a lot of it.
It should be no problem at all for you to answer this. I know the answers almost by heart.

Prediction: this questions will NOT be answered.
In Six Days

Preston, UK

#48 Jul 22, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL LOL LOL LOL!
"Try me", you did say?
Well:
1) can you give a short summary of the essential conclusions to be drawn from the observation of the geological record from the Grand Canyon?
2) do you know which basic features are used to identify geological formations? Those features are to be used when answering question 3)
3) Can you list at least 7 different geological formations found in the Grand Canyon and describe shortly their composition and origin?
4) Describe the fossils found in the deepest formation of the Grand Canyon.
5) Describe in which formation of the Grand Canyon the first multicellular life appears.
6) How many formations do we count between the deepest formation of the Grand Canyon mentioned in 4) and the formation mentioned in 5)
7) Describe in which formation of the Grand Canyon the first land animal appear.
8) How many formations we count between the first formation where multicellular life appear as mentioned 5) and the formation where land animals appear for the first time in the geological record of the Grand Canyon, as mentioned in 7)?
9) How many RESPECTIVELY DIFFERENT formations do we distinguish in the geological record of the Grand Canyon that represent former sea beds?
10) How do we know that these are former sea beds indeed?
11) The Fort Union formation of the Grand Canyon consists of coal and are 300 feet (90 meters) thick. How long do you think a forest will take to produce a layer that thick? Please also reason how you got to the answer.
12) how many different dating techniques are used in geology? Mention the 7 main groups.
As you said that the Flood story matches the geological record, you seem to know a lot of it.
It should be no problem at all for you to answer this. I know the answers almost by heart.
Prediction: this questions will NOT be answered.
F. off!
In Six Days

Preston, UK

#49 Jul 22, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), and how they only "appear" (in a Creationist's interpretation) to support the Theory of Evolution, and how the nested hierarchy of ERVs are (again, in a Creationist's interpretation) are only an illusion.
No looking it up on pseudoscience websites....we know them all.
That's easy. They appear to support evolution if you assume common ancestry but even this breaks down. For example, one was found in chimps, bonobos & gorillas, not humans. Yet if chimps, bonobos & gorillas share common DNA so must humans & the retro should be in all 4. It isn't.

Again another such virus is found in several primates but not in chimps or gorillas. If you plot all retroviruses against primates you get no pattern, just a haphazard mess. The ones that fit fit and the ones that don't fit, don't fit. That's the evidence for evolution in a nutshell, a mess.
In Six Days

Preston, UK

#50 Jul 22, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What scientific evidence supports a young Earth?
Science cannot tell us how old the earth is so there is no scientific evidence for a young or an old earth.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#51 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Before the laws of nature, God. After the laws of nature, God. What you call nature & everything in it is contingent on God. God maintains it as stated (I paraphrase) in Colossians 1:1-18, in Him everything holds together. You would call that zero-point energy.
Yes, I know your mythology. Now what evidence do you have that it is correct? None? I thought so.
You can make all observations and tests you want but the past is forever inaccessible to you & you can never test nor observe it. You need time travel which of course is fantasy. This a dead horse, stop flogging it.
And this is wrong. because of causal relations, the observations done today can be used to deduce what happened in the past. This is nothing unusual. The same thing is done at crime scenes: the evidence collected now is used to determine what happened in the past. The horse is alive and kicking and running around. Your blindness is the only thing standing in your way of seeing it.
My evidence of how the universe came to be us very simple. It comes from the guy who made it & to authenticate His claims He rose from the dead.
Sorry, that isn't evidence. It is a claim with no supporting observations. What evidence do you have that the claim was actually made by the 'guy who made it'?
Try getting one of your top toppest scientists to pull that one off. He'd be as dead as a door nail & remain dead. Where's Einstein? Dead.
So is Jeshua ben Joseph.
You are going on about that fusion of elements in the stars again. It's just a story someone made up, I'm sorry to say this but that's all it is. Give it a few decades & when holes start to appear in it they'll change it saying they've got better or more accurate instruments. It's been the same script for centuries & only the detail changes. I too was taught stars cook up elements from H2 to heavier ones & then they explode with special effects. Waal, you've gotta have the fireworks to make it convincing.
We know the conditions required for fusion. We know that those conditions happen inside of stars. We know that the neutrinos we detect from the sun came from those fusion reactions. We know supernova happen. We know the energetics of supernova because we have observed many of them. We know that heavier elements are formed in supernova because we actually see their spectra in the remains (and not in the progenitor stars).

You are simply a denialist with no evidence to back up your claims and a faulty understanding of what evidence is. Your myths have blinded you to the facts. Open your eyes and you shall see.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#52 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Science cannot tell us how old the earth is so there is no scientific evidence for a young or an old earth.
Sure it can. Or at the very least it can give us a minimum date for the Earth. It is called radiometric dating. You should learn about it sometime.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#53 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Science cannot tell us how old the earth is so there is no scientific evidence for a young or an old earth.
Your denial of the evidence doesn't make it go away.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#54 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
That's easy. They appear to support evolution if you assume common ancestry but even this breaks down. For example, one was found in chimps, bonobos & gorillas, not humans. Yet if chimps, bonobos & gorillas share common DNA so must humans & the retro should be in all 4. It isn't.
Again another such virus is found in several primates but not in chimps or gorillas. If you plot all retroviruses against primates you get no pattern, just a haphazard mess. The ones that fit fit and the ones that don't fit, don't fit. That's the evidence for evolution in a nutshell, a mess.
Interesting that the refutation of the Endogenous Retrovirus patterns of primates seems to have been overlooked in the scientific literature.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what area of biology you received your doctorate degree in, and where you published your findings?

Meanwhile, we're stuck with all this (apparently now worthless) literature saying just the opposite.

(for example)

http://jvi.asm.org/content/63/11/4982.short

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#55 Jul 22, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
F. off!
Now, now. The fact that you cannot support your claims doesn't mean you can be nasty, even if you are a Christian. Just politely admit you were wrong and move on.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#56 Jul 22, 2014
If everything began and existed from the same amount of time as the Bible claims, then all matter is really the same age. The idea of the amount of time it took for matter to branch out and become what it was ordered to become is the catching point in this discussion. Most Creationists do not believe the beginning took Billions of years to occur, because the power of God made it happen.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#57 Jul 22, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
If everything began and existed from the same amount of time as the Bible claims, then all matter is really the same age. The idea of the amount of time it took for matter to branch out and become what it was ordered to become is the catching point in this discussion. Most Creationists do not believe the beginning took Billions of years to occur, because the power of God made it happen.
But they are demonstrably wrong in that belief. Unless you believe in a dishonest God.

We know there was no Flood since all of the evidence out there says that there was no flood. Genetic evidence alone says there was no Adam and Eve or Noah and family only a few thousand years ago.
In Six Days

Blackpool, UK

#58 Jul 22, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I know your mythology. Now what evidence do you have that it is correct? None? I thought so.
<quoted text>
And this is wrong. because of causal relations, the observations done today can be used to deduce what happened in the past. This is nothing unusual. The same thing is done at crime scenes: the evidence collected now is used to determine what happened in the past. The horse is alive and kicking and running around. Your blindness is the only thing standing in your way of seeing it.
<quoted text>
Sorry, that isn't evidence. It is a claim with no supporting observations. What evidence do you have that the claim was actually made by the 'guy who made it'?
<quoted text>
So is Jeshua ben Joseph.
<quoted text>
We know the conditions required for fusion. We know that those conditions happen inside of stars. We know that the neutrinos we detect from the sun came from those fusion reactions. We know supernova happen. We know the energetics of supernova because we have observed many of them. We know that heavier elements are formed in supernova because we actually see their spectra in the remains (and not in the progenitor stars).
You are simply a denialist with no evidence to back up your claims and a faulty understanding of what evidence is. Your myths have blinded you to the facts. Open your eyes and you shall see.
Let me simplify. I deny all the assumptions behind your methods, this saves much time.

Of course you cobble up things together today then try to deduce the past. 100% for effort. But deductions are not measurements, deductions depend on assumptions and you have no way but faith of knowing that any of the assumptions are true except doggedness.

You have no idea what happens inside any star, you believe you do. I admire your blind faith, the indoctrination obviously worked chapter and verse. I memorised those verses too but I can see right through them.
In Six Days

Blackpool, UK

#59 Jul 22, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, now. The fact that you cannot support your claims doesn't mean you can be nasty, even if you are a Christian. Just politely admit you were wrong and move on.
No, you are wrong & let's move on.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#60 Jul 22, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
But they are demonstrably wrong in that belief. Unless you believe in a dishonest God.
We know there was no Flood since all of the evidence out there says that there was no flood. Genetic evidence alone says there was no Adam and Eve or Noah and family only a few thousand years ago.
You think you know what you think you know, or else you are just trying to make everyone think you have all the facts. The truth is that science today is proving the Bible is correct, but it is never admitted by your side.
In Six Days

Darwen, UK

#61 Jul 22, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting that the refutation of the Endogenous Retrovirus patterns of primates seems to have been overlooked in the scientific literature.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what area of biology you received your doctorate degree in, and where you published your findings?
Meanwhile, we're stuck with all this (apparently now worthless) literature saying just the opposite.
(for example)
http://jvi.asm.org/content/63/11/4982.short
"constructing Primate Phylogenies From Retrovirus Sequences," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -96(1999):10254-60. Johnson W & Coffin J.

My biology doctorate is in how to use your brain & not believe that a doctorate thinks for you. It's from the university of life & common 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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 23 min dirtclod 154,640
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 2 hr Chimney1 901
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 178,093
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Dogen 17,917
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Thu Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Thu MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Wed Paul Porter1 1
More from around the web