Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100511 Oct 4, 2013
Okay, I guess I will try to sleep again.

“Move into the light.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#100512 Oct 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Except those are not the oldest land masses. Those are some of the oldest indicators of life, not land. There are 4.1 billion year old granites in the Canadian shield, and those are continental, not oceanic rocks.
The Canadian find is oceanic rock.
It is literally the basaltic and some has other properties, but is the first crust that formed as the Earth cooled and water condensed creating the shallow seas. And greenstone

The deformed volcanic sequences that form greenstone belts in the Canadian Shield contain hyaloclastite and pillow lavas, indicating these areas were once below sea level and the lava was rapidly cooled underwater. Pillow lavas more than two billion years old indicate large submarine volcanoes existed during the early stages of the Earth's formation.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanology_of_C...

The pillow lava pushed up the older oceanic crust in this case, the part we thought was gone forever from subduction.

http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2007/0...

The oldest rocks on Earth are 4.28 billion years old - the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt, exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay, northern Quebec, Canada. With an age of about 4.28 billion years, it is the only portion of the Earth's crust known to have formed during the Hadean eon. In this greenstone belt the oldest dates came from rocks called "faux amphibolite," which are thought to be ancient volcanic deposits. These beat the previously oldest known rocks, which are about 4.03 billion years old and come from the Acasta Gneiss formation in Canada's Northwest Territories. The only older crustal material is from isolated mineral grains called zircons, which are highly resistant to weathering and geologic processes. The Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt gives researchers a fresh perspective on the early separation of Earth's mantle from the crust. It is thought that a shallow ocean had already existed 300 million years after the Earth's formation. It raises puzzling questions as to ancient bacteria, as they are thought to be needed to precipitate iron availability for the formation of this type of rock. It might very well be that this rock may also contain traces of the oldest form of life in some way.

http://www.sciencemall-usa.com/nugrbe.html

Interesting that they think life maybe found in it too.



“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#100513 Oct 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I am not trying to insult your intelligence, I am straight out questioning it!!!
Second, I have not invoked any God or deity. Fail!
I did not expect you would be willing to commit to that definition,
So to be clear, you claim that DNA carries (genetic information), right?
Let me spell it out to you –“Another clueless troll...”– your words… If you cannot understand your deliberate insult then I feel sorry for you. But hey, you could very easily be a fundy christian and making such abusive and ignorant comments are just everyday talk for one of such belief.

You have no need to invoke any god, your post make your funnymentalist beliefs abundantly clear. Once again you are making the common fundy mistake of assuming that other people are as stupid as you. And then you act all innocent, shocked and surprised when it all comes back and kicks you in the teeth

I claim no such thing, the definition makes the claim, just because you don’t agree with the definition is no ones fault but your own.
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>Great let us look at silt layers...
Where would you expect to find silt layers?
Does the rate of water flow effect the silt layers?
I am not here to tech you archaeology, it is up to you to chose to educate yourself but I would suggest you look start in the geological column.

Again I am not here to teach you, this time fluid dynamics however are you suggesting that given water is self levelling and it is claimed that there was enough water to cover the earth to a depth greater than the highest mountain that world wide currents would ensure no silt layer would be deposited - anywhere? Go figure…
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
First, how was the dating done? What was dated, the cave or the fossils?
Next, what EVIDENCE would you expect to see if there was no flood? We would find all kinds of transitional fossils all over the place, but guess what? NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS.
I was not involved in the dating however it was done, as is usual, in several different ways (unlike the fundy belief that only one [estimated] dating method is used). Using both incremental and radiometric techniques on the fossils, the burial artefacts, the surrounding detritus accuracy can be better than 50 years in 50,000.

Who said it was a cave?

Wrong, ALL fossils are transitional, this is the very reason I study cro magnon, because they are 100% human and classified as modern human yet show marked differences in both skeletal structure and cranial capacity to humans of today. The skull I use as my avatar is one such example of what you claim does not exist, a transitional fossil. That my dear puts paid you your argument, however you could not possible consider that a fact because it screws up your belief that goddidit by magic one October day 6000 years ago so of course you are welcome to prove your ignorance by ignoring the fact.
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure I would be glad to prove it.
Just provide your mathematical calculations and I'll show you all the proof you want.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Based on figures supplied by science and the US government (but hey you could just as easily, without evidence of any sort claim them to be liars too, after all, you are christian and lying for your god is what christians are bets at)

Plus a few year 5 calculations of the volume of spheres.

Over to you…

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100514 Oct 4, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I know I am going to step on my own @ss here but hey, I don't care. For all we know these stories of a flood and such could have been around for 100's of thousands of years back when man/pre-man did not/could not write or kept track of days or years but yet passed on the stories down through the generations until they eventually learned to write and such. So when they learned to write and keep dates they may have been off by many years. None of us know or will ever know and if any one says the do for sure, they are liars, point blank period. Science is a good tool and has helped us in may ways but science itself is not free from fault. Back when Mt. St. Helens blew science dated a rock from that eruption at or over 150,000 years old. Nothing is perfect, not even science. So what I am saying is if we were not there we will never know and if you think science is perfect, you are a fool. Science is great for what is going on now and will be great for what we are facing but science is not a perfect past predictor as many think.
That wasn't 'science', that was Steve Austin. And it was nonsense.

http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens...
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#100515 Oct 4, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me spell it out to you –“Another clueless troll...”– your words… If you cannot understand your deliberate insult then I feel sorry for you. But hey, you could very easily be a fundy christian and making such abusive and ignorant comments are just everyday talk for one of such belief.
You have no need to invoke any god, your post make your funnymentalist beliefs abundantly clear. Once again you are making the common fundy mistake of assuming that other people are as stupid as you. And then you act all innocent, shocked and surprised when it all comes back and kicks you in the teeth
I claim no such thing, the definition makes the claim, just because you don’t agree with the definition is no ones fault but your own.
<quoted text>
I am not here to tech you archaeology, it is up to you to chose to educate yourself but I would suggest you look start in the geological column.
Again I am not here to teach you, this time fluid dynamics however are you suggesting that given water is self levelling and it is claimed that there was enough water to cover the earth to a depth greater than the highest mountain that world wide currents would ensure no silt layer would be deposited - anywhere? Go figure…
<quoted text>
I was not involved in the dating however it was done, as is usual, in several different ways (unlike the fundy belief that only one [estimated] dating method is used). Using both incremental and radiometric techniques on the fossils, the burial artefacts, the surrounding detritus accuracy can be better than 50 years in 50,000.
Who said it was a cave?
Wrong, ALL fossils are transitional, this is the very reason I study cro magnon, because they are 100% human and classified as modern human yet show marked differences in both skeletal structure and cranial capacity to humans of today. The skull I use as my avatar is one such example of what you claim does not exist, a transitional fossil. That my dear puts paid you your argument, however you could not possible consider that a fact because it screws up your belief that goddidit by magic one October day 6000 years ago so of course you are welcome to prove your ignorance by ignoring the fact.
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Based on figures supplied by science and the US government (but hey you could just as easily, without evidence of any sort claim them to be liars too, after all, you are christian and lying for your god is what christians are bets at)
Plus a few year 5 calculations of the volume of spheres.
Over to you…
So to be clear, you claim that DNA carries (genetic information), right?

Since: Sep 13

UK

#100517 Oct 4, 2013
Aura Mytha:-
"You either know something by the evidence at least to being somewhat confident in it because there is tangible, empirical or physical evidence showing the fact. Or you're a clueless believer in some story you like. The Big bang has considerable physical evidence showing it happened. Creationist have a story and a clueless belief based on faith. There is this physical evidence, and we are debating it because you are clueless believer who rejects the evidence to the fact.
So there really isn't a debate , there is your denial and our
telling you the truth."

You are not telling me the truth, you are simply telling me what you believe and as there is no irrefutable evidence, you are the clueless believer acting on faith.

I don't believe in creationism, Darwinism or the big bang theory because unlike yourself I am not a clueless believer. All three are theories based on facts or whatever you want to call them gathered by others and ,unless I can substantiate them myself which I can't, so I treat them with scepticism and refuse to claim any of them are true.

Creationism, Darwinism and the big bang theory all have the same thing in common. The person who put them forward spent the time gathering and putting forward the evidence they needed to prove their theory.

Innocent people have been sent to prison based on the theories of such people. No doubt those experts were as confident as you that they were right such as the chances of more than one cot death happening in a family.

The fact is nobody can say with 100% certainty that their theory on how life began or progressed is true. They can claim there is more chance of their theory being correct and present an argument to claim it is, but someone can then present an argument to say there is more chance of their theory being true.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100518 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The load of crap is your attitude that reflects/mirrors the attitudes Darwin faced, just saying.
That was a very stupid thing to say. And it had nothing to do with my post.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100519 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
An ignorant mind uses the word 'never' with science, just saying.
And only a jackass refuses to acknowledge evidence in favor of his fundamentalist beliefs.

Just saying.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100520 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
An ignorant mind uses the word 'never' with science, just saying.
And you ignored the evidence I did provide. So you're just a phony.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100523 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a skeptic is good. So contemplate this than. Where is true sea level? We know thousands of feet deep in oceans and seas lay many, many numerous mountainous valleys and plains that have the appearance from recent undersea examinations of having been carved out by water erosion and or weather as happens on the surface. So where was true sea levels? At the bottom of the oceans and seas in these valleys or where we guage it today? Than consider the implications of where the sea level was when we had no ice and where it laid when the 'supposed' snowball earth theory took place.
And if the valleys of the oceans/seas were really carved out by water/weather erosion, what sank them and from what sea level?
Questions, questions, questions :)
Read a book and your questions will be answered.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100524 Oct 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The Canadian find is oceanic rock.
It is literally the basaltic and some has other properties, but is the first crust that formed as the Earth cooled and water condensed creating the shallow seas. And greenstone
The deformed volcanic sequences that form greenstone belts in the Canadian Shield contain hyaloclastite and pillow lavas, indicating these areas were once below sea level and the lava was rapidly cooled underwater. Pillow lavas more than two billion years old indicate large submarine volcanoes existed during the early stages of the Earth's formation.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanology_of_C...
The pillow lava pushed up the older oceanic crust in this case, the part we thought was gone forever from subduction.
http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2007/0...
The oldest rocks on Earth are 4.28 billion years old - the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt, exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay, northern Quebec, Canada. With an age of about 4.28 billion years, it is the only portion of the Earth's crust known to have formed during the Hadean eon. In this greenstone belt the oldest dates came from rocks called "faux amphibolite," which are thought to be ancient volcanic deposits. These beat the previously oldest known rocks, which are about 4.03 billion years old and come from the Acasta Gneiss formation in Canada's Northwest Territories. The only older crustal material is from isolated mineral grains called zircons, which are highly resistant to weathering and geologic processes. The Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt gives researchers a fresh perspective on the early separation of Earth's mantle from the crust. It is thought that a shallow ocean had already existed 300 million years after the Earth's formation. It raises puzzling questions as to ancient bacteria, as they are thought to be needed to precipitate iron availability for the formation of this type of rock. It might very well be that this rock may also contain traces of the oldest form of life in some way.
http://www.sciencemall-usa.com/nugrbe.html
Interesting that they think life maybe found in it too.
Not quite. There are quite a few different rock strata in Canada. I was talking about 4.1 by old gneiss which is granitic or continental in origin. But your greenstone belt is older than the gneiss that I linked so you did fin an older rock and it looks like it would be oceanic crust.

Actually that makes more sense since the most common way to make continental crust is to take some older oceanic crust and partially remelt it. The lighter more easily melted minerals form granite and rhyolite the heavier remaining rock sinks into the mantle.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100525 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I never stated there was a Biblical flood or when or how. You're the looney to continue to think I have said such things when I haven't.
Yet you keep arguing that it could have happened.
No Surprise wrote:
I have stated the earth has it's own potential to do whatever it will, including flooding itself above the highest peaks or freezing nearly all water on it's surface in a nuclear glacial winter and covering nearly all land in deep, deep snow for a short period of time.
No, the earth cannot do whatever it will. It obeys the same laws of physics as everything else.
No Surprise wrote:
You on the other hand have continually stated what you believe never can happen or never would happen and that is your narrow, shallow restrictive opinion.
And also because I'm not a friggin loony who thinks that anything can happen,

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100527 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Doofus? lol...fricking to funny states the doofus who believes theories never become fact. Are you pathetically ignorant? It was a theory that disagreed with a more popular theory that proved and became a fact that the earth rotated around the sun and not viceversa. Theories were the basis of all established facts. Theories where probable/provable became/become an established fact in science.
If your logic is correct(which it isn't)that theories NEVER become fact, than it's still an unproven theory that the sun is the center of our solar system.
If your logic is correct(which it isn't)that theories NEVER become fact, than it's still an unproven theory that gravity holds us to this earth.
Should I continue with your logic? Hmm?
Wow! You really are that dumb. What I said was 100% correct. Now go back any try and finish your GED. Hopefully before you start collecting social security,

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100528 Oct 4, 2013
And here is why I did not use the the greenstone Aura mentioned:

"
Oldest rock on Earth[edit]
The Acasta Gneiss in the Canadian Shield in the Northwest Territories, Canada is composed of the Archaean igneous and gneissic cores of ancient mountain chains that have been exposed in a glacial peneplain. Analyses of zircons from a felsic orthogneiss with presumed granitic protolith returned an age of 4.031 ± 0.003 Ga.[1]
On September 25, 2008, researchers from McGill University, Carnegie Institution for Science and UQAM announced that a rock formation, the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt, exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec had a Sm-Nd age for extraction from the mantle of 4.28 billion years.[8][9][10][11] However, it is argued that the actual age of formation of this rock, as opposed to the extraction of its magma from the mantle, is likely closer to 3.8 billion years, according to Simon Wilde of the Institute for Geoscience Research in Australia.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_roc...

Of course they are going to the original time of cooling for the gneiss that I mentioned, not its later metamorphicism. So I still give it to the greenstone belt.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100529 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your intelligent reply? Par for course for you isn't it :)
MikeF in conversations he doesn't like...lol
"Some say it's possible there was a global flood."
MikeF.."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
"There's elephant head reliefs on Mayan stone buildings."
MikeF..."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
"There's growing evidence for cocaine from South and or central America in Egyptian mummies and not just cross contamination."
MikeF.."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
You go dude :)
Massive ignorance. Amazing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100530 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice. I can do the same for you :)
Do you know how many times Florida was covered by ancient oceans? You should have an idea as you pretend to understand all things science and you do live in Florida.
Do you know how many different ways Florida/parts of Florida was covered from sudden violent action to maybe a few inches to a foot a year by ocean water?
Do you know that most depressions on the earths surface that water resides in called 'lakes' were formed by ancient glacial flooding and from swirling currents disturbing the sea floor to earthquake activity and crustal movement to how ancient surface lava beds settled?
Floods are majorly responsible for reshaping the earth's general surface so that where there wasn't a lake there maybe one afterwards or a small lake might be reshaped to being a large lake. Glaciers have also played a large part.
By the way bub, I live/lived in two states where most lake beds were shaped by glaciers and glacier flooding where water would later fill and remain. Now what?
You were wrong. Again. Your little rant doesn't change that.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100531 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely not.
I have repeatedly disparaged your's and others remarks who claim to understand science and use words like 'never','impossible','never happened', etc. That is true.
{yawn}

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100532 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
As you state it no. Never happens. People of science do not use predictions to help formulate theories to show proof of something they wish to be recognized as fact.
Here you say they do not make prediction.
No Surprise wrote:
People in science doing estimations may predict the outcome ahead of time, that is true.
Here you say they do. Can't make up you mind? Or just confused?
No Surprise wrote:
The following I took from the web for you :)
Prediction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
Informal prediction ...· Statistics · Prediction in science · Finance · Sports
A prediction (Latin præ-, "before," and dicere, "to say") or forecast is a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on ...
..........
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Overview · Scientific inquiry · Elements of the ...· Models of scientific ...
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed ...
The following I took from the web for you since you are in too much of a damn hurry to even read your own links:

"The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false."

Notice the word "PREDICTIONS", moron?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100533 Oct 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
People that rely on links are unable to present an argument and need to have someone else do the bidding for them.
Horseshit. Links to respected documentation is an excellent way to support an argument. No one is going to retype an entire paper just to satisfy some whiner.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100534 Oct 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Thing is in ten minutes, I'll have forgotten all about you, but you will be thinking about me all day...
Today when you see the color BLUE, you see an image of yourself turning BLUE,(like the girl in Wonka that turned into a blueberry) that will remind you of how I exposed you in front of all your little trolls in here and that makes you BLUE.
OK, I'm done with this one, tossing back.
Next?
Arrogant little prick, aren't you?

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
News Oregon farmers agree slugs are a problem _ but ... 7 min Lawrence Wolf 28
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 9 min CJ Rocker 78,537
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 10 min wichita-rick 159,861
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 12 min Mega Monster 14,009
News Strange glowing orbs spotted in sky near Guelph (Jun '14) 14 min Emerald 9
News Mississippi pastor trots out horse in wedding d... 17 min TruthBeTold 97
Write cities alfabetically (tell the country/st... (Sep '11) 20 min Old Sam 2,463
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 30 min flbadcatowner 171
Word Association (Jun '10) 1 hr harlehoney 26,953
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 39,980
More from around the web