Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

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

Comments (Page 4,757)

Showing posts 95,121 - 95,140 of106,037
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100505
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you want more question when you won't answer any I have asked so far?
Okay, he is an easy one.
I remember your claim was at one time the entire surface was covered with water.
Since you now state billions of years, did you want to offer a specific time in history when you claim the last time the entire surface was covered with water?
No, you did not ask questions. You made idiotic statements.

And no moron, I did not say that the entire surface of the Earth was covered by water. I said in the last billion years it has not been.

You really have exceedingly poor reading comprehension. That might be part of your problem.

The entire face of the Earth may never have been covered in water. It is not really possible to tell. Very very early in the Earth's history there was no liquid water. The surface was too hot due to the accretion of meteorites. And then there was the late heavy bombardment that would have vaporized any ocean if one existed at that time.

At any rate the energy of an asteroid striking the Earth is much greater than just the energy of falling into Earth's gravity well. They also tend to be moving in or out of the Sun's gravity well and that is much bigger than the Earth's and a much bigger source of energy.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100506
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Who told you this stuff?
Do you know where the oldest land mass is? If not, then why would you believe this?
I told you, it can be found in South Africa, Greenland , and Australia.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/...
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100507
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean?
There are so many transitional fossils that almost all fossils are considered to be transitional, as long as they don't end in an extinction.
What do you expect a transitional fossil to look like?
Are you still pretending not to be a creationist.
So you don't want to address the dating Issue, figures.

Since there are so many, this should be an easy one for you.
So you claim the first fossil was a transitional fossil?

And how many transitions did the sea horse go thru to it's current state?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100508
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, so why would this lead you to believe there was no evidence for a flood?
Because most sediments are not flood sediments. Sandstones are very often well sorted and well rounded, definitely not flood sediments. Shales show extremely long term slow deposition, again, floods tend to be short termed. Limestones would not form in a flood at all and they are a healthy proportion of the sediments that we see. Actual flood sediments are probably less than 1% of all observed sediments.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100509
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you, it can be found in South Africa, Greenland , and Australia.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/...
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100510
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't want to address the dating Issue, figures.
Since there are so many, this should be an easy one for you.
So you claim the first fossil was a transitional fossil?
And how many transitions did the sea horse go thru to it's current state?
Can you not ask a question without looking like a complete fool?

There is no "dating Issue".

And yes, of course the first fossil is a transitional fossil. Do you even know what that term means?

Lastly I don't know how many "transitions" the seahorse had to go through. Technically every generation is a transition so if you can calculate the number of generations you can calculate the transitions.

You have a tendency to ask questions that show you have no education at all.

Here is the sort of question you are asking: Exactly how old were you when you were no longer a baby?

Can you answer that question?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100511
Oct 4, 2013
 
Okay, I guess I will try to sleep again.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100513
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100514
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100515
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100517
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100518
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100519
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100520
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100523
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100524
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100525
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100527
Oct 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 95,121 - 95,140 of106,037
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••