Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#89305 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a consummate bigot, Woodtick.
YOu have assumed that I am a cultist, without even knowing what my religion is.
Just because I don't worship at the feet of Charles Darwin doesn't make me a "fundie".
no...again, i clearly asked what your religion is. why can you not understand plain English?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#89306 May 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no...again, i clearly asked what your religion is. why can you not understand plain English?
My religion is (or at least should be)irrelevant to this discussion.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#89307 May 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
HEAD/DESK
HEAD/DESK
HEAD/DESK
Lol. And Lol again.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#89308 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>My religion is (or at least should be)irrelevant to this discussion.
Shit, it should be irrelevant to any sane discussion. they are all proven myths.

we are not in the stone age anymore...

so your ignorance and misinformation on science comes from where?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#89309 May 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong, I see you having some difficulty with this. Let me summarize the available information...
There are systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns and systems and cycles and patterns.
I hope this helps.
LOL!

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#89310 May 17, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Wait a minute now, I stand out in my field all the time!
So you're a farmer?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#89311 May 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So then ID is myth. That leaves you with only naturalistic causes and effects, in other words, evolution to explain speciation.
You have not falsified God.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#89312 May 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Certain beliefs can be falsified. The concept of god as a whole cannot.
Of course it is possible to show that god cannot be omnipotent nor omniscient using basic logic. Of course even the Bible implies that. Why would Satan oppose God if he were omnipotent?
I agree.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#89313 May 17, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Shit, it should be irrelevant to any sane discussion. they are all proven myths.
we are not in the stone age anymore...
so your ignorance and misinformation on science comes from where?
Disagreement with popular dogma does not make someone "anti-science".

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#89314 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, Kong.
I logically refute the article you posted, and you then go off on a tangent and attempt to insult my credentials. You apparently think that anyone who disagrees with you has an "abysmal" knowldged of science.
Why can't you defend the premises of what you claim to be science without getting so emotional? Are you that insecure? Your conduct tells me that you see evolution as more of a religion than science. Someone who is committed to scientific discovery WELCOMES debate, and when he is called out, he doesn't resort to childish insults.
You're right in one regard, I WAS mistaken about Dr. Wiens having DOCUMENTATION on his site regarding the accuracy of C14 dating techniques. He goes into detail in DESCRIBING the technique, and the different methods of calibrating C14 dating (pages 13' & '14' of the article). http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html

He DOES reference some graphs that further illustrate C14 dating accuracy -- and those graphs ARE documented ("Tree-ring data are from Stuiver et al.,
Radiocarbon 40, 1041-1083, 1998; stalactite data are from Beck et al., Science 292, 2453-2458, 2001."). There are other links at the bottom of the article where you could have gone to get additional information on C14 dating, but hey...

But I was mistaken in that I thought I remembered from earlier readings of the Wiens paper that he DID have ALL the required documentation for his explanation(s),-- he did not (but he DID have some). But let's say that this is moot, and there was NO further refererence from THAT ONE SITE to back up the accuracy of C14 dating data.

Many reputable science sites can clarify any questions you might have regarding the range, calibration and accuracy of C14 dating methods. It's not difficult to locate on your own and acutally LEARN something about that which you're attempting to argue against.(note: AIG and Discovery.org are the NOT "reputable science sites").

Oh, and btw, were I really "scraping the bottom of the barrel", you would still have me to look up to, "Doctor".

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#89315 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have not falsified God.
I thought you said you did not want to bring religion into this? You have no evidence supporting any god.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#89316 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have not falsified God.
no, the religious cults falsified their own man made gods. no other god , gods or goddesses have yet to show any shred of evidence to even suggest the possibility that may possibly exist, so that discussion cannot even start yet.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#89317 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Disagreement with popular dogma does not make someone "anti-science".
It does if all he has to oppose this so called "dogma" is idiocy.

So far you are anti-science. You won't even bother to learn how science works. You can't be much more anti-science than that.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#89318 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Disagreement with popular dogma does not make someone "anti-science".
disagreement with proven scientific facts does...

Now if you have some actual facts to counter the verifiable facts of the science you claim to debunk, it would be nice ot hear them...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89319 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
I see that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel, Kong.
You're a habitual liar for Jesus.

Can't get much lower than that.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
I logically refute the article you posted
You have never done that to anyone.

Ever.

All you have is to claim our position is based on assumptions which you in turn counter with your assumptions that reality MIGHT have been different in the past...

... just because.
HTS wrote:
and you then go off on a tangent and attempt to insult my credentials.
You have zero credentials to insult. But you do have a wonderfully massive fundie ego which is incredibly sensitive to bruising.

>:-)
HTS wrote:
You apparently think that anyone who disagrees with you has an "abysmal" knowldged of science.
In your case he is 100% correct, period.

This is not an exaggeration. This is merely a we established fact.
HTS wrote:
Why can't you defend the premises of what you claim to be science without getting so emotional? Are you that insecure?
Irony meter go boom.
HTS wrote:
Your conduct tells me that you see evolution as more of a religion than science.
No, your ignorance told you that before you started posting.
HTS wrote:
Someone who is committed to scientific discovery WELCOMES debate, and when he is called out, he doesn't resort to childish insults.
Sure we welcome debate.

We've been WAITING for you to come up with a viable scientific alternative for YEARS. We've been WAITING for you to actually address the content of our posts instead of constantly dodging, whining and spewing baseless and dishonest rhetoric.

So when are you gonna start?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89320 May 17, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text> You claim there is no God, but you quote one of his commandments...a touch of irony?(SHRUG)haha
Please provide the quote where I have claimed there is no God.

I'll give you a hint - you won't find it.

But thank you, that was a wonderful demonstration of your complete and total utter lack of observation skills.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89321 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can you never construct a coherent argument?
I have.

On numerous occasions.

You've never once addressed them.

And "Lalalala!" doesn't count.
HTS wrote:
I ask you for corroborating methodologies to validate C-14 dating
•Algal microfossil analysis (in paleolimnology)
•Amino acid racemization (L-to-D)(AAR)
•Argon40-argon39 chronometric
•Astronomical polarity time scale (APTS)
•Cation-ratio (CR)
•Chronostratigraphic (superposition, cross-cutting, intrusion)
•Coral reef annual layering
•Dendochronology (tree-ring)
•Deuterium-hydrogen stable isotope analysis
•Electron spin resonance (ESR)
•Fission track (U238-Pb206)
•Fluorine-uranium-nitrogen analysis (FUN)
•Fossil index (plant, animal, artifactual)
•Geomagnetic (archaeomagnetic/paleomagnetic ) reversal time scale (GTRS)
•Geomagnetic secular variation (around magnetic pole)
•Helium4-helium3
•Infrared-stimulated luminescence (IRSL)
•Isochron
•Isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)
•Lichenometry (lichen/thalli colony radii)
•Lutetium176-hafnium176 geochronology
•Meteorite cosmic-ray exposure (Ne21, He3)
•Microfossil paleolimnochronology
•Milankovitch cycle astrochronology
•Mitochrondrial DNA
•Neon21-helium3 dating
•Obsidian hydration analysis (OHA)
•Ocean sediment core analysis
•Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)
•Oxidizable carbon ratio (OCR)(C-total/C-oxidizable)
•Oxygen16-oxygen18 stable isotope analysis
•Paleosol chronology (in fossil soil stratigraphy)
•Patination (rock/desert varnish)
•Pigment remnant dating (in paleolimnology)
•Polar ice-sheet core
•Pollen/spore analysis (in palynology)
•Potassium40-argon40 chronometric
•Radiocarbon (14N-14C-N14/12C) by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS)
•Radioluminescence (RL)
•Radon222-lead210-lead206 chronometric
•Rhenium187-osmium187 chronometric
•Rubidium87-strontium87 chronometric
•Samarium147-neodymium143 chronometric
•Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS)
•Seriation/typological archaeochronology
•Strontium87-strontium86 chronometric
•Tephrochronology (of volcanic ash, tuff)
•Terrestrial rock cosmic-ray exposure
•Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS)
•Thermoluminescence (TL)
•Thorium232-lead208 chronometric
•Uranium235-lead207 chronometric
•Uranium238-uranium234-thorium 230-radium226-lead206 (U-series)
•Varve analysis (of glacial-lake deposits)
•Writing (back 5000 years)
•Y-chromosome DNA

However none of these hold any bearing on your position because your position is "But what if all physics worked COMPLETELY DIFFERENT when we weren't looking???"

Hence the fact that all scientific dating techniques confirm the Earth and the universe are much older than 6,000 years do not address your argument in any form.

Unfortunately for your argument is not only completely lacking evidence but is not testable. Ergo it is not scientific.
HTS wrote:
and your only reply is "all of them", follwed by aimless rambling about how me being a "contrarian"
You put forth no coherent argument in the first place, so the simple statement of facts is all that's required until then.
HTS wrote:
because I don't accept evolution on faith as you do.
You and I are both aware that I do not accept evolution on faith nor need to. You are simply in here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89322 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You know nothing of my religion, and I'm not interested in debating religion as you are.
Of course we do. You're a typical YEC. The petty details are irrelevant. Catholic? Protestant? Mormon? Muslim? Jehova's Witness? Deist? Something else? Doesn't make a blind bit o' difference.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your bigoted statements only indicate that you are a religious zealot pretending to be interested in science.
Projection. Reality is bigoted towards anti-science. You are anti-science. That's all there is to it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89323 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I won't debate my religion with you either, because you are also a religious bigot. Why do you pretend to know anything about my religion?
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck.

And boy, do you quack.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#89325 May 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If someone publishes an article claimed to be "scientific", and references corroborating dating methods such as "sedimentation rates", he should document the premises upon which those methologogies are based and particular why they should be considered rock solid. The fact remains, ANY dating method of something purported be be 45,000 years old REQUIRES unprovable assumption, because no historically proven artifact of that age exists.
You're being very disingenuous here, one of the few times you're picking your words carefully. Fact is that just because humans weren't using scientific dating techniques back then doesn't mean that we can't demonstrate that something isn't 45,000 years old (or older).

But then even if humans were making historical records back then, why would that matter anyway? All you would do is say that it's less than 6,000 years old no matter what. Especially since you claim physics worked completely different back then which renders ANY kind of evidence irrelevant.

In short the only thing you have demonstrated is your assumption that reality is wrong if it's older than your arbitrarily picked date of 6,000 years. Which JUST SO HAPPENS to be the same date erroneously assumed by Ussher with his historically flawed chronology of the Abrahamic Jewish/Christian Bible.

Not that you wanna talk about your religious beliefs of course. Just in case we laugh at you.

As if we don't anyway.(shrug)

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
7 Teens Come Home Pregnant From School Trip 11 min Spotted Girl 64
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 12 min andet1987 2,997
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) 14 min Crystal_Clear722 275
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 16 min geno 617
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 16 min Old Sam 152,698
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 17 min SLY WEST 26,725
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 20 min 75 Scorpio 4,009
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 29 min Mega Monster 7,739
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 1 hr SLY WEST 2,988
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr -Lea- 25,829
More from around the web