Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82476 Mar 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you ask a provocative question here but it really does not have bearing on creation.
Women often evoke child bearing as an act of creation. It is a process that is completely out of the control of their cognitive understanding....but they often play on the mysticism of the process to claim that their part is more than to spread their legs and take the thrust.
Charles, are you doing something similar?
Ask yourself that clueless question.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82477 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so you think that intelligence and education is bad.
Are Atheist the only educated in the universe( earth)?
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82478 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are three verses that all can only happen on a flat Earth:
Daniel 4 10-11. Matthew 4:8. And Revelation 1:7.
Try to explain those with a spherical Earth.
This is just a start.
You have lost it man. First you cannot count and you listed 4 verses, but those verses are not what you think they are. No where does it mention a flat earth or any situation that could happen only on a flat earth.

I'm sure you are going to dream up another concocted reason to why you think you are right. I hope this time it isn't as silly as posing that two supernatural beings must be bound by the laws of physics and whatever whim you have concealed for them.

What you need to do is actually read something that isn't a comic book or the leaflets left behind by people in public restrooms. When you educate yourself a bit, you will understand literary style, hyperbole, exaggerations for effect and so on.

It seems that you put more stock into the bible then most Christians I know do. Go figure.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82479 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you have yet to ask.
What a tard.
Deflection again.. Amazing..lol. Give it up idiot. No one is buying what you are saying for any more then knowing it is your way to cope with your failing worldview. You don't even have science to fall back on now as you are completely unscientific and have been for the last dozen posts or so.

How does it feel to be such a loser and likely not know it?
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82480 Mar 24, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Are Atheist the only educated in the universe( earth)?
If you are calling yourself an atheist, then you should already know that's not true. The post I'm replying to demonstrates that you at least need more education.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82481 Mar 24, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Are Atheist the only educated in the universe( earth)?
No, but everyone who is educated and intelligent disagrees with you.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82482 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Deflection again.. Amazing..lol. Give it up idiot. No one is buying what you are saying for any more then knowing it is your way to cope with your failing worldview. You don't even have science to fall back on now as you are completely unscientific and have been for the last dozen posts or so.
How does it feel to be such a loser and likely not know it?
Projection.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#82484 Mar 24, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Ask yourself that clueless question.
Charles, I keep pointing out to you the absurdity in debating your view of creation. You don't have evidence. You have a book. There's no point to debating you.

...and I don't feel like indulging any bizarre fantasy you may have about being in and being "penetrated" within that fantasy. It's not healthy, nor does it add to this discussion. Get some real facts and stop worrying about anyone's clues. OK?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#82485 Mar 24, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>What's the name of the prehistoric squirrel in the Ice Age movies?
His name is "Scrat" and he's cool. Don't drag him into this mud slinging contest!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82486 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Deflection again.. Amazing..lol. Give it up idiot. No one is buying what you are saying for any more then knowing it is your way to cope with your failing worldview. You don't even have science to fall back on now as you are completely unscientific and have been for the last dozen posts or so.
How does it feel to be such a loser and likely not know it?
You are somewhat right. I don't expect creatards to be honest.

In everything else you are right.

Where was the deflection? adif made a stupid claim, that the ancient Hebrews did not even have word that for a sphere. I showed that he was wrong. He had to make the pathetic claim that not all balls were round, obviously referring to American footballs and Rugby balls. A pathetic dodge at best. I challenged him to show a non-spherical ball from before the year 1. He continued to dodge and brought up the idiot claim that I hadn't described sphere as anything but a ball. Why the frack should I? Would it make a difference to you tards if I did? I could always use a more mathematical description of a sphere, would that have changed the minds of you morons? I don't thin so.

He never asked, he never gave a reason that he wanted a different name. He was just being a sore loser tard.

He never responded to the three verses I listed that described the world as flat without using the word round.

Why do you think that he did that?

He did what creatards always do, he ran away.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82487 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You have lost it man. First you cannot count and you listed 4 verses, but those verses are not what you think they are. No where does it mention a flat earth or any situation that could happen only on a flat earth.
I'm sure you are going to dream up another concocted reason to why you think you are right. I hope this time it isn't as silly as posing that two supernatural beings must be bound by the laws of physics and whatever whim you have concealed for them.
What you need to do is actually read something that isn't a comic book or the leaflets left behind by people in public restrooms. When you educate yourself a bit, you will understand literary style, hyperbole, exaggerations for effect and so on.
It seems that you put more stock into the bible then most Christians I know do. Go figure.
You did fail geometry.

Actually all of those verses described a flat Earth.

How much of the Earth can you see from the tallest tree in the world? Those were the Daniel verses. And I suppose I could have said three sets of verses, but since two out of the three were single verses, three "verses" was close enough.

How much of the Earth can you see from the tallest mountain in the world?

From how much of the Earth could a person up in a cloud be seen?

If you give the correct answers you will find that the percentage of the Earth involved is very very small. One percent at best.

Why? Because our Earth is spherical.

But in those verses all of the Earth could be seen or could see the beings involved. On what sort of Earth is that possible?

Only on a flat Earth.

As I said, those verses all describe a flat Earth without using the word "round". I even gave you a very strong hint that the answer involved geometry. And you have shown that you failed geometry.

Your Bible describes a flat Earth, it does not describe a spherical Earth.

Now, I have given verses that could only occur on a Flat Earth. Where are yours that describe the Earth as a sphere?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82488 Mar 24, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>" Creationism.org "? Really?

And Steve Austin? The ONLY people who use him as a source are his fellow creationist nutters.

I meant a real source.
That source does have the documentation that backs up the dating errors.

Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]

Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]

Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]

How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]

http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82489 Mar 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
His name is "Scrat" and he's cool. Don't drag him into this mud slinging contest!
Well, the animators are cool, Scrat is a fool continually chasing a nut he'll never get, and even harming himself and others in his chasing after an unattainable myth...much like langoliers, as I pointed out...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#82490 Mar 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>You know I think that 'problem' with the age of rocks top and bottom was resolved pretty quickly, by geologists, after creationists brought it up
"Why does radiometric dating repeatedly result in very old dates (such as billions of years)? While one explanation is that these dates show the specimens’ true age, another is that one or more of these large assumptions associated with this method of dating is wrong.

Scientists have dated lava rock samples from various active volcanoes with the radiometric method. Because the formation of these rocks has recently been observed, radiometric dating should not give them an age of millions of years.[72] Yet there are many such examples. Consider the following:

Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]

Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]

Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]

How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]

One explanation given by scientists for some of these incorrect dates is that excess argon was retained in the rocks when they solidified from a molten state. According to the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences,“It is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.... The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.”[77]

But if excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should this dating method be trusted for rocks of unknown age? "

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82491 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
That source does have the documentation that backs up the dating errors.
Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]
Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]
Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]
How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....
why does everyone else in the world use these techniques properly?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82492 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>If you are calling yourself an atheist, then you should already know that's not true. The post I'm replying to demonstrates that you at least need more education.
Look before you leap!
Just an advice. She asked a question about education and i gave her what she deserves. Both Atheist and Theist are educated, are you against that?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82493 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but everyone who is educated and intelligent disagrees with you.
No. True educated Christians in the field of sciences, arts, social and management sciences, will never disagree to that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82494 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
That source does have the documentation that backs up the dating errors.
Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]
Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]
Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]
How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....
No, that is a lie.

They do not have links to proper sources. At least not for the first claim that I checked out. The claim about the Mt. St. Helens dome quoted an article for Answers in Genesis. That is not a valid scientific source.

For an article to e valid it must ultimately link to the peer reviewed science that it is based upon.

Your article made another error. It said the the amount of daughter product had to be known when the rock solidified. That is not true for all dating methods. The lead isochron method of dating allows rocks that had an indeterminate original level of lead to be dated.

If possible rocks are usually dated with more than one means. Rarely is there a disagreement. You do not base science upon explainable anomalies. You base it upon the repeatable science. Occasionally you will get an obviously wrong answer when using a dating method. The thing to do then is to see why the dating method is wrong and if it applies to all materials that have been dated. That has found not to be the case.

For example if you look at the cases where a rock has "excess argon
usually you will see that phenocrysts are involved. Pehnocrysts are large crystals that had previously cooled and were carried by the magma. You can have two different dates for a rock if you date it carefully. The mass in the background that carried the larger crystals always dates as younger than the phenocrysts, which could have crystalized long ago in another event.

Without links to the original works that they got their claims from there is no way to tell why the date was off, or if they were even telling the truth in the first place.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82495 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but everyone who is educated and intelligent disagrees with you.
Then atheist would have been the only educated in the earth.
You and some others here are liars.
Theist are also very educated and intelligent.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82497 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why does radiometric dating repeatedly result in very old dates (such as billions of years)? While one explanation is that these dates show the specimens’ true age, another is that one or more of these large assumptions associated with this method of dating is wrong.
Scientists have dated lava rock samples from various active volcanoes with the radiometric method. Because the formation of these rocks has recently been observed, radiometric dating should not give them an age of millions of years.[72] Yet there are many such examples. Consider the following:
Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]
Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]
Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]
How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]
One explanation given by scientists for some of these incorrect dates is that excess argon was retained in the rocks when they solidified from a molten state. According to the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences,“It is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.... The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.”[77]
But if excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should this dating method be trusted for rocks of unknown age? "
have you read any of the critiques about those datings of Austin and the lab that did them and the equipment they used?

I know others have pointed them out to you previously, yet you continue to post these lies. why do you have to lie for your cult?

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 3 min andet1987 5,145
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 8 min andet1987 30,284
how to forget a person u love but has hurt u? (Apr '11) 9 min Life after Love 286
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 9 min eschew on this 25,419
Trish David James is Ferrermen 11 min Life after Love 6
True or False Game 11 min Princess Hey 1,241
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min Sublime1 152,342
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 39 min Shaddup 37,714
Merry Christmas Topix, Thanks For,...? 3 hr chortle 68