Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1705 Feb 7, 2013
Russell, I am going to make this short and sweet.

I am checking out your article and of course it is wrong:

1. Wrong. Bad math. Shown to be wrong with computer simulations and proper math.

2. Wrong, I debunked that one yesterday for you.

3. Wrong, just wrong. A clear misunderstanding of plate tectonics. The oldest ocean floor is about 200 million years old and the vast majority is much younger.

4. Wrong. There are processes that remove sodium that they ignored. What is fun is that different elements give different "ages" by this mistaken process. That they all give different ages is indicative that this is all wet.

5. Wrong. We have evidence that the magnetic field both decays and strengthens. They make the assumption that because it is decaying now that it has always decayed and that is not the case.

6. Wrong. Under heat and pressure, which there is A LOT of deep under the Earth rock strata bend easily.

7. I would have to look this one up too, but guess what? It is wrong too. Geologists would have noticed that.

8. Wrong. Utter nonsense, polonium haloes were debunked long ago.

9. Wrong. Helium is lost to space.

10. Wrong. Bodies decompose. Who knows when people began to bury bodies

11. Wrong. A totally baseless speculation. No evidence is given to cover up this WAG at all.

12. Wrong again, see above.

This is all nonsense and busted claims. The writers of the site know that these have been busted. That makes them liars.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1706 Feb 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, I am going to make this short and sweet.
I am checking out your article and of course it is wrong:
1. Wrong. Bad math. Shown to be wrong with computer simulations and proper math.
2. Wrong, I debunked that one yesterday for you.
3. Wrong, just wrong. A clear misunderstanding of plate tectonics. The oldest ocean floor is about 200 million years old and the vast majority is much younger.
4. Wrong. There are processes that remove sodium that they ignored. What is fun is that different elements give different "ages" by this mistaken process. That they all give different ages is indicative that this is all wet.
5. Wrong. We have evidence that the magnetic field both decays and strengthens. They make the assumption that because it is decaying now that it has always decayed and that is not the case.
6. Wrong. Under heat and pressure, which there is A LOT of deep under the Earth rock strata bend easily.
7. I would have to look this one up too, but guess what? It is wrong too. Geologists would have noticed that.
8. Wrong. Utter nonsense, polonium haloes were debunked long ago.
9. Wrong. Helium is lost to space.
10. Wrong. Bodies decompose. Who knows when people began to bury bodies
11. Wrong. A totally baseless speculation. No evidence is given to cover up this WAG at all.
12. Wrong again, see above.
This is all nonsense and busted claims. The writers of the site know that these have been busted. That makes them liars.
To which article do you refer, sleepy head
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1707 Feb 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, I am going to make this short and sweet.
I see
It was Russell Humphreys?

He has bad math, does he?
I am certain NASA would have been grateful for that information....

http://creation.com/evolutionist-debater-fail...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1709 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
To which article do you refer, sleepy head
To the article you linked for Chimney1.

They have all been debunked and that site knew it. Therefore they were lying.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1710 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I see
It was Russell Humphreys?
He has bad math, does he?
I am certain NASA would have been grateful for that information....
http://creation.com/evolutionist-debater-fail...
Creationists may have good math when they do noncreationist activities, when they engage in creationism it seems that all talent goes out the window. What lie is Humphreys responsible for?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1711 Feb 7, 2013
Ahh, Google is my friend. I found some of Humphreys' claims and how they were debunked:
Sea Salt Issue
Thomas also criticised Humphreys' idea that there is "not enough sodium in the sea" for a several billion year old sea, writing, "Humphreys finds estimates of oceanic salt accumulation and deposition that provide him the data to "set" an upper limit of 62 million years. But modern geologists do not use erratic processes like these for clocks. It's like someone noticing that (A) it's snowing at an inch per hour,(B) the snow outside is four feet deep, and then concluding that (C) the Earth is just 48 hours, or two days, in age. Snowfall is erratic; some snow can melt; and so on. The Earth is older than two days, so there must be a flaw with the "snow" dating method, just as there is with the "salt" method."[8]
[edit]Helium Problems
Geologist Kevin Henke has criticised Humphreys for stating that "zircons from the Fenton Hill rock cores... contain too much radiogenic helium to be billions of years old."[9][10] Henke wrote that the equations in Humphreys' work "are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these 'dating' equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate."[9] Humphreys has replied to Henke's criticisms.[10][11]
[edit]Earth Cooling Model
Scientists Glenn Morton and George L Murphy have dismissed Humphreys' cooling model as "wrong" because "it is ineffective, it is falsified by observational data, and it is theologically flawed." First, in a classical model for a harmonic oscillator (like a particle oscillating in a crystal), "the particle does not lose energy to the cosmic expansion." Second, Humphreys' model "is too slow to be useful to the creationist agenda." Thirdly, "there would be visible effects in the spectra of light emitted during the Flood, including those from stars a few thousand light years away in our own galaxy. A change in the energy levels of atoms (which this idea would entail) would change the frequencies at which light is emitted in a fashion that would be observable. The lack of such observations rules out Humphreys' cooling mechanism as a reasonable possibility." Lastly, they criticized it for contradicting the theological foundation Humphreys uses in another publication.[12]

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1712 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You read mine...
And....er....
I'll not read your's
http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-worl...
At least Russell was a little bit honest here.

He admitted that he would ignore the facts that blew his false calims away. It is the famous creatard Ostrich defense against evolution. He figures if he hides his head in the sand the evidence that he is wrong will go away.

Foolish, foolish, Russell.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1713 Feb 7, 2013
So why is it on the nights that I am willing to argue with Russell that he runs away? Only when I tell him that I must go to sleep does he hang around.

He wouldn't be afraid of me, would he?

Oh well, good night all.

Russell it is safe for you to come out now.
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#1714 Feb 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Ahh, Google is my friend. I found some of Humphreys' claims and how they were debunked:
<quoted text>
Why do you need Google...
You sounded so confident in the last post where you CONFIDENTLY "debunked" and trashed everything...

You are a nutter
And have provided no references for anything...
No reasons, no rationale...

Just like The Don Quixote Dude...

"You're wrong, you're wrong, you are oh so wrong....."

How so, Bud?
How so?

Wakey wakey...

You have done this before
Trashing Dr Sarfati's math...assuming it was mine

And then fell in a big black hole
That was a shocker

So
Based on past experience...

You got nuthin'
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#1715 Feb 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
So why is it on the nights that I am willing to argue with Russell that he runs away? Only when I tell him that I must go to sleep does he hang around.
He wouldn't be afraid of me, would he?
Oh well, good night all.
Russell it is safe for you to come out now.
You're asleep ALL the time, Bud

'Never' is a good time for you...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1716 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you need Google...
You sounded so confident in the last post where you CONFIDENTLY "debunked" and trashed everything...
You are a nutter
And have provided no references for anything...
No reasons, no rationale...
Just like The Don Quixote Dude...
"You're wrong, you're wrong, you are oh so wrong....."
How so, Bud?
How so?
Wakey wakey...
You have done this before
Trashing Dr Sarfati's math...assuming it was mine
And then fell in a big black hole
That was a shocker
So
Based on past experience...
You got nuthin'
I know to a fool like you it may seem like I am a super genius, but it is mostly experience. We have all seen all of these arguments before and they were busted when we first saw them. Yes, you may have found someone who is fairly intelligent to propose them, but guess what, he is still wrong.

I had to Google Humphreys since you did not tell me which arguments were his. When I did I found not only which ones he made, but at the same time how they were debunked. It was a nice surprise killing two birds with one stone.

And I see that you did wait until I went to bed before visiting the forum after I answered you questions.

What is the matter? Are you afraid of me?

Seriously, I will only call you an idiot when you are acting like an idiot, but if you want to learn I am happy to help you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1717 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You're asleep ALL the time, Bud
'Never' is a good time for you...
Uh huh. Right. A nice claim from a chichenshit that runs away from all challenges.
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#1718 Feb 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh huh. Right. A nice claim from a chichenshit that runs away from all challenges.
So, from sleeping all the time....to cant sleep...

Sucks to be you
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#1719 Feb 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
At least Russell was a little bit honest here.
He admitted that he would ignore the facts that blew his false calims away. It is the famous creatard Ostrich defense against evolution. He figures if he hides his head in the sand the evidence that he is wrong will go away.
Foolish, foolish, Russell.
Nope

I am terribly fussy about what I read or watch

I detest badly written nonsense and poor research...

I prefer professional, scientifc, crisp and effective writing by people who know what they are talking about

Like....

Er,...let's see

...Ummm

There must be some example I can quote...

Er...

I KNOW!

Creation.com

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#1720 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
Creation.com
You betcha.

http://creation.com/about-us

The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called ‘progressive creation’), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution.

The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1721 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope
I am terribly fussy about what I read or watch
I detest badly written nonsense and poor research...
I prefer professional, scientifc, crisp and effective writing by people who know what they are talking about
Like....
Er,...let's see
...Ummm
There must be some example I can quote...
Er...
I KNOW!
Creation.com
You lost again tard.

If you like real science why do you only quote from sites that don't use it?

You are such a complete idiot that you don't even know why the site you use is garbage. As much of a head up her own ass that Maz was at least she knew that your sites are of no use at all.

So, you turned down my offer to help, you will not read articles sited by others that show yours to be idiotic ridiculousness. That shows that not only are you a chicken and an idiot. It shows that deep down inside. Deep down where it really matters, you KNOW that you are wrong.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1722 Feb 8, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You betcha.
http://creation.com/about-us
The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called ‘progressive creation’), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Your point?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1723 Feb 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, I am going to make this short and sweet.
I am checking out your article and of course it is wrong:
Truncated to avoid intense boredom..

And FURTHERMORE

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

It just gets worse for you...
http://creation.com/young-universe-evidence

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1724 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point?
You couldn't understand it? Well, I guess that is reasonable. His point is that you are an idiot. And you just confirmed it by asking what his point was, thank you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1725 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Truncated to avoid intense boredom..
And FURTHERMORE
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
It just gets worse for you...
http://creation.com/young-universe-evidence
You need some new jokes Russell. We have all heard these before.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min Dogen 127,903
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 min Dogen 139,548
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Charles Idemi 93
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,578
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 19 hr DanFromSmithville 175,466
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Wed The Dude 64

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE