# Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

…_.that human beings would be along soon._



1.There’s another way to put that: government school grads will bridle if that were to be put in terms of the existence of God, or a Creator, but when *scientists point out that far too many examples of the universe seemingly designed to support the survival of humanity……*it boils down to just that.



*2. Freeman John Dyson* (15 December 1923 – 28 February 2020) was an English-born American physicist, mathematician, and futurist, famous for his work in quantum mechanics, nuclear weapons design and policy, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. He was the winner of the Templeton Prize in the year 2000. Freeman Dyson - Wikiquote

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”― *Freeman John Dyson*




3. If one were subject to, and subscribed to, government school indoctrination, the subtext was how terrible America is, and how imperative it is to destroy our heritage, tradition and,* most of all, religion.* The name for this attempt is *‘neo-Marxism.’ *And atheism is your entrée into acceptance. But the *facts revealed by physicists *such as Dyson refute that…._but you won’t be taught that anywhere but here._




4. Another physicist, an American one, Alan Lightman, wrote in Harper’s Magazine _The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith, _http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720, which included the following:

“Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know _why_. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

*…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. *
* 
On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together. 
As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. 

The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it. Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist.”
*


*Of course you atheists can ignore the facts.....the science.....or, just have an epiphany.*


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> …_.that human beings would be along soon._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is this the kind of quackery that you learned in hom skooll? We don't know so it means it's an invisible guy who cares what we do? Um... no. It's only a theory until properly proven otherwise.

Human Evolution Evidence from the Smithsonian.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > …_.that human beings would be along soon._
> ...





Those are actual physicists being quoted.....compared with the windbag you have been exposed as.



BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And  you?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

5. “Today, 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God! *Theology and science are closer together than in the past several centuries. *We no longer need to fight the science vs. Bible battles—both are sources of different kinds of truth.

As an example, look at all that modern science has discovered about *the unique character of the universe.*



The Sun “burns” by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— the universe would consist only of hydrogen; with no heavy elements, there would be no planets and no life. If the amount converted were slightly larger (0.8%), fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8%.



*This is called the “fine tuning” of the universe.* Like slowly turning a radio dial to “tune in” a station, scientists have discovered that a whole variety of knobs have to be _*fine-tuned to enormous precision*_* for the universe, and life, to exist. Hence, Dyson’s statement that “the universe knew we were coming.”*



The universe is not a random crapshoot—*the sense of purpose and design is overwhelming*. When one ponders how scientists today demonstrate that *the odds the universe “just happened” are infinitesimally small, it’s easy to believe in a Creator.” *
The Universe Knew We Were Coming - Rich Hansen


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> 5. “Today, 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God! *Theology and science are closer together than in the past several centuries. *We no longer need to fight the science vs. Bible battles—both are sources of different kinds of truth.
> 
> As an example, look at all that modern science has discovered about *the unique character of the universe.*
> 
> ...


If anything the universe is custom made for the Coronavirus.  There are many times more of them than there are of us on this planet.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 26, 2020)

Anyone with an iota of common sense knows that the universe doesn't give a shit about them


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 5. “Today, 40% of all scientists believe in a personal God! *Theology and science are closer together than in the past several centuries. *We no longer need to fight the science vs. Bible battles—both are sources of different kinds of truth.
> ...





Another brilliant post by a government school grad.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

Blues Man said:


> Anyone with an iota of common sense knows that the universe doesn't give a shit about them




Why is it that the intellectually challenged are wedded to vulgarity?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Another brilliant post by a government school grad.


A few things. First, the US public school system is actually about 14k school districts + almost 35k private schools. If you start looking at education on the level where decisions are being made - the district, or school level - you see a wide variety of outcomes and metrics. Even just breaking it down by state and looking at international PISA scores (a pretty standard international metric) you see that many portions of the US are doing well above the international average, and even would be ranked within the top 5–10 if ranked as countries (Bringing it back home: Why state comparisons are more useful than international comparisons for improving U.S. education policy).

As a nation, as a whole, we have the problem of public education being available for all in a diverse country with tons of immigrants. A huge part of the education gap is the fact that about 10% of our students are learning the language of instruction at any given time (English Language Learners in Public Schools). That means that they are trying to learn math, language arts, science, history, etc in a language that they do not speak natively and are in the process of learning to fluency.

In addition, the US, unlike many other countries, is philosophically very much anti-”tracking.” That is, we don’t have different basic course requirements and outcomes goals based on whether we think you are “college material” or should instead be taught a skilled trade. Many countries, particularly in Europe, have a model where students are tracked and usually the students in the non-college-bound tracks are not counted in international comparisons (Stopping German students in their tracks? - Marketplace). This complicates education as you try to be “all things to all students” and/or prepare kids (even mainstreamed “special ed” kids) that have no interest or aptitude as if they are all going to college.

The Universities, however, don’t have the same constraints as public schools. International students usually have to take an English proficiency exam prior to enrollment, and you better believe that admissions requirements “track” students into schools/programs according to test scores/past grades/other measures of ability. To turn a popular quote and comic on it’s head:






Public schools in the US are told “teach everyone to climb that tree!” Colleges and universities are told “pick the test, and then pick the students to try and take that test.” Naturally, the latter has much better outcomes!

As for why the US has so many of these schools - we have a history of (relative to other contemporaries) high literacy rates, at least a nominal cultural meme of being a meritocracy, and we dodged most of the at-home infrastructure damage of two World Wars - letting our colleges and universities explode with students on the GI bill, filled with funding to race the Soviets in science and tech, and expanding rapidly while Europe was digging out the rubble (the US had a baby boom while the UK was still under strict rationing guidelines until 1954).


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


My Smithsonian link beats your TWO guys who have to pay to get into the Smithsonian. Too bad for you.

If you were an Ivy league grad you'd a) have a good job and wouldn't be here all the time, and b) you can't get through an Ivy League school by ranting and copy&pasting. EPIC FAIL.


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Another brilliant post by a government school grad.
> ...


PoleChick is hom skoolled. She seems traumatized by it as well, since she always attacks regular schools.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> …_.that human beings would be along soon._
> 
> 
> 
> ...



10. The usual cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya promoting the “if things were different, things would be different”, meme.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





BTW.....I'm an Ivy League grad.

And you? 


Don't be shy......be proud of the Robert Fiance School of Cosmetology.


----------



## Blues Man (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone with an iota of common sense knows that the universe doesn't give a shit about them
> ...








						Swearing Is Actually a Sign of More Intelligence - Not Less - Say Scientists
					

The use of obscene or taboo language - or swearing, as it’s more commonly known - is often seen as a sign that the speaker lacks vocabulary, cannot express themselves in a less offensive way, or even lacks intelligence.




					www.sciencealert.com
				












						Smarter people are more likely to use curse words
					

People who curse are smart as f—k! Intelligent people are more likely to swear than dumb folks, a new study claims. University of Rochester researchers asked 1,000 people about 400 everyday habits …




					nypost.com
				












						People Who Curse A Lot Are Smarter, Funnier And Healthier... So F Off
					

As a kid, I was always fascinated by the mysterious "F word." Every time I asked my parents about it, they would simply tell me the F stood for "fiddlesticks." For some reason, this ridiculous answer actually put my swear word suspicions to…




					www.elitedaily.com
				




Once again you are proven wrong by the guy who uses curse words


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

6. Rather than a war between religion and science, Dennis Prager notes:
“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, *in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”*




7. Why, then, is there a sense of warfare between what Stephen Gould called Non-overlapping _*magisteria*_ (NOMA)?

The reason is appears so is that *the only scientists we hear in the media are of the atheistic Marxist sort.*

“It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us *[Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."*

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition *the theology of Marxism is atheism.*



Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) *co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, *published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in _Nature_ magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as *Marxist revolutionaries.* As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"



…Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." _Wikipedia_ begins its discussion of this organization as follows: *"Science for the People is a leftwing organization *that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!

In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.



The new edition of "Science for the People" has been reestablished since 2002 with an endorsement from one of the founders of the original Science for the People — Herb Fox. In its working papers we are told "a few of us decided to start a magazine for *Working Scientists active in the Anti-Capitalist Movement,* as part of the European Social Forum." Let me make a prediction — this new leftwing "science" organization will be heavily involved in the global warming controversy on the side of big government and the "greening" of America.” 
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network

http://www.summit.org/blogs/the-presidents-desk/stephen-jay-gould/


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I didn't need college, I made several hundred million dollars on an invention I came up with when I was 20. I still win.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




I believed it my job to show you to be an idiot.....I see you've taken over the task.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Typical government skoolur, eh?

Although, where is the Harun Yahya madrassah thought to be Ivy League.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> 6. Rather than a war between religion and science, Dennis Prager notes:
> “In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, *in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”*
> 
> 
> ...



10. What silly nonsense. Your linky no work.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

8. Before one scoffs at* the nexus of religion and of science*, consider what another scientist, Andrew Palmer, has written about how accurate Genesis is with respect to the order of events that modern science now agrees to after the Big Bang.

_ “…*Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey.* Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them *in the right order…*.I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” 
Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,”., p.163-164._






“An acclaimed, paradigm-shifting evolutionary biologist shows how *the biblical story of Genesis uncannily reflects recent scientific discoveries-and finds room for divine inspiration within.” *https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/th...-book-of-the-bible-is-scientifically-accurate


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> 8. Before one scoffs at* the nexus of religion and of science*, consider what another scientist, Andrew Palmer, has written about how accurate Genesis is with respect to the order of events that modern science now agrees to after the Big Bang.
> 
> _ “…*Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey.* Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them *in the right order…*.I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.”
> Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,”., p.163-164._
> ...











						Review: The Genesis Enigma | National Center for Science Education
					

Andrew Parker,




					ncse.ngo
				




Parker’s figurative reading in light of the evolution of vision is interesting and creative. However, it is also a great example of how such approaches are prone to reflect the biases and wishes of the reader rather than the intended meaning of the text. Conservative Christians will criticize Parker for not taking the language of Genesis seriously enough, whereas progressives will ask why he perceives such a need to find congruence between the text and modern science. Experienced science-and-religion readers will also be baffled by the near-complete lack of treatment of previous scholarly works on this subject. If Parker’s goal was to add a new serious voice to the now voluminous creationism/evolution discussion, he should have spent more time discussing contemporary issues relevant to his interpretation.




Where is the part dealing with the talking snake?


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


She went to an Ivy so she is one of the Chosen and obviously much smarter and more knowledgeable than the rest of us, or at least the people she quotes must be or they wouldn't agree with her.  It is her *noblesse oblige* to enlighten the benighted masses so long as we acknowledge her elevated status.  She is vaguely Judeo-Christian but never even made it to the ninth commandment.  It is an honor to be insulted by such a one.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> _ “…*Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey.* Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea…._


But I thought you don't believe in evolution?  I guess if the Bible supports evolution, the Bible must be inaccurate.


----------



## esalla (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Bill gates is an ivy school dropout.....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




"She went to an Ivy so she is one of the Chosen and obviously much smarter and more knowledgeable than the rest of us, ..."

Hard to argue with that....

I’m sure you noticed how effortlessly I’ve demonstrated my strategic genius, my superiority of mind, my encyclopedic grasp of human weaknesses in all of its guises…just a few of my gifts.

You have my permission to quote any or all of the above.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > _ “…*Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey.* Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea…._
> ...




You really don't read carefully....probably not much of a hindrance in government schooling.



It is the Darwinian thesis that I regularly prove to be false.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> …_.that human beings would be along soon._
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With that logic, we should have next door neighbors in our own solar system.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

9. Let’s take a look at Parker’s thesis:



God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.
“The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….
The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.

And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl _that_ may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’

Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the sorts of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’
*How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?
That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?

What are the odds?*


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


For a Conservative to survive an Ivy League school is an achievement.
My daughter went to one and had to ignore all the idiot Liberals who surrounded her.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




You must have raised here right!

Tough girl!


In full disclosure, my sis also graduated from an Ivy.....and was subsumed.....we couldn't save here.
We'll have another chance at an intervention next Thanksgiving Dinner.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I note you didn't take exception to anything else I wrote.  Thanks for the confirmation.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


My children were always exposed to all the networks and we made sure they did their own research before accepting someone else's word.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


So you believe that all life descended from a common ancestor.  You just don't believe the mechanism was natural selection?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Why would an atheist such as yourself pay any heed to *a ninth commandment* given by an entity you insist doesn't exist?
By the way, you got the ninth commandment incorrect because you haven't studied it.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I totally blindly accept that COVID will one day be a male/female species more valued by Liberals than humans.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> For a Conservative to survive an Ivy League school is an achievement.
> My daughter went to one and had to ignore all the idiot Liberals who surrounded her.


So you're saying that the smartest, most learned, and highest achieving people are Liberals?  I have to agree.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > For a Conservative to survive an Ivy League school is an achievement.
> ...


Did you miss my post about how Conservatives survive Ivy League schools?
If you give the administration the impression you don't worship MSNBC, you don't get admitted.
Actually, I have yet to meet a LWer or RWer who I couldn't crush within 15 minutes.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Why would an atheist such as yourself pay any heed to *a ninth commandment* given by an entity you insist doesn't exist?
> By the way, you got the ninth commandment incorrect because you haven't studied it.


Seems to me "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" is a good ethic to have regardless of where it came from.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Never saw it.  I think the crushing takes place exclusively in your own head.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Why would an atheist such as yourself pay any heed to *a ninth commandment* given by an entity you insist doesn't exist?
> ...


I see you have no idea what it means.
Any statement that God knows is false is considered to be bearing false witness.
All humans are considered your neighbors.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I'm still waiting for an explanation of how single-celled, *asexual *organisms accidentally became *millions *of male/female pairs.
But I know an atheist will never address that issue.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


When have you proved Darwinian theory (as opposed to Darwinian thesis), false?

You're obviously struggling with terms and definitions you don't understand. Pretty typical for Harun Yahya madrassah groupies.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Nobody's proven it true and it's mathematically impossible due to the number of accidents required to produce millions of male/female species by accident.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > …_.that human beings would be along soon._
> ...


I hate it when the first response is by a pooh flinging monkey


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Thanks but that is exactly what I thought it meant.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

Now….you *government school grads:*



You’ve been taught to ridicule religion, to call it superstition. But you’re not a scientist, you’re simple a malleable object of the neo-Marxism so pervasive in our culture.



10. “Today scientists don’t hesitate to acknowledge this wondrous fact of *how tailor-made to life our universe is.* Or, as Anthony Flew declared in _There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,_ that *‘the laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe towards the emergence and sustenance of life.’*2



And what precisely is the cause of this enchantment? Or on what grounds do so many cosmologists believe that the universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to emerge in it? Well, it all has to do with *our universe’s remarkable fine-tuning of its most basic, fundamental forces. Let me elaborate:*

Cosmologists tell us, for instance, that had the* force of gravity* been a fraction weaker than it is: by 1 part in 10_40[ten to the 40th power] _(that is, one followed by forty zeros), matter couldn’t have clumped together to form galaxies or stars. The universe would have been a lifeless sea of drifting gas of interminable darkness.

Had* gravity *been ever so slightly stronger, the universe would be radically different than it is now. Matter would clump together more aggressively. Stars could still exist, but they would be far smaller and burn out much more quicker than the time needed for complex planetary life to evolve. If it did manage to evolve, even insects would need thicker legs to support themselves because of the increased gravitational tug; indeed gravity would crush anything as large as ourselves. And that is assuming that planets could be stable. For in a strong-gravity universe, stars will be packed far closer together, making stellar collisions frequent. Planetry existence would thus be very unlikely, or extremely unstable.



*So precisely-tuned is the force of gravity in relation to the other forces which operate throughout the universe that, had the initial explosion of the Big-Bang *differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10_60_, [ten to the 6oth power] then the universe would have either collapsed back on itself or expanded too rapidly for stars to form.

This incredibly slim margin is likened to firing a bullet at a fifty pence coin at the other side of the universe, billions of light-years away, and actually hitting the target!”








						Was the Universe Expecting Us?
					

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…




					thehumblei.com
				





Just a web of coincidences????


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> 9. Let’s take a look at Parker’s thesis:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not good, actually.


Anyone with a decent background in natural science who undertakes an impartial but critical look at the first chapter of Genesis should have no trouble denouncing its claims as rubbish. At best, the author has offered a poorly constructed allegory for the creation of the universe; at worst, and far more plausible, Genesis 1 is a total fabrication. This section will of course demonstrate why the creation account in the opening chapter fails miserably to be scientifically accurate.

Early in the creation, God allegedly separated the waters into two distinct bodies so that land could appear between them. He called the water below _seas_ and the water above _sky_, which he presumably held aloft by the use of a _firmament_ (Verses 6-10). While the NIV translated this verse using _expansion_, the Hebrew word utilized by the author is _raki’a_, which the KJV more accurately translated as a _solid_ body.

Why is the KJV translation more in line with the author’s intent? First, it’s the primary use of the word. Second, it reinforces the aforementioned idea of a sky ocean because a solid protective layer would be required to suspend the water if there truly were an ocean above us as the Bible suggests. Third, it complements the known widespread primitive beliefs. Take the mindset of an ancient Hebrew for a moment by ignoring any contemporary understanding you have of the world. You can glance at the sky above and observe that it’s the color of water, while, periodically, water falls from above. With no further evidence to consider and no further understanding of this phenomenon, the perfectly logical conclusion would be that there’s a mass of water in the sky. If this is true, it certainly follows that a solid body, a firmament, would be necessary to contain this oceanic reservoir. Perhaps windows even open in the firmament to allow rainfall (Genesis 8:2).

Although the pursuit of knowledge has proven these outdated beliefs untrue, we are far richer in scientific understanding than our Hebrew predecessors and should not scoff at the author for his proposal. We now know that the sky is blue due to the scattering of a particular wavelength of light passing through the atmosphere at a certain angle, not because there’s an ocean in the sky. While we cannot fault the author for believing this ancient hypothesis, we _can_ conclude that his guess on the properties of the sky was incorrect. Already, a critical analysis has demonstrated the Bible to be scientifically inaccurate and undeniably imperfect.

God allegedly created the sun and moon on the fourth day of the creation (14-19), but this curious statement creates a plethora of troubles because God had already divided the day into lightness and darkness as his first creation (3-5). How can there be night and day without the sun, the only appreciable source of light for our planet? Again, we must take the probable mindset of the author to understand his position. Look into the sky away from the sun. It’s unreasonable to conclude that the earth is bright at its distal boundaries just because the sun is shining, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary, because the light originating from this enormous ball of fire appears to stop very near its edges. Besides, everyone knows that the horizon is luminous well before and well after the sun is in the visible regions of the sky. Thus, there’s no solid reason to conclude that the sun has anything to do with creating the illumination, only that it accompanies the somewhat concurrent periods of lightness. In fact, the Bible explicitly states that the sun and moon are merely symbols “to divide the day from the night” (14). In the biblical world, however, God controlled morning and evening by this mysterious force called _light_ (3-5), an entirely different entity created much earlier than the sun. We now know that the sun is the determining factor between morning and evening, yet the Bible clearly proclaims morning and evening existed prior to the sun’s creation.





__





						An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense
					





					www.biblicalnonsense.com


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


And yet not one atheist civilization, which, by the way, never existed, ever insisted on these notions being strictly obeyed.
Although the closest civilizations to being atheist do commit the most atrocities, even today, on a daily basis.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 9. Let’s take a look at Parker’s thesis:
> ...


A Rohr-keea is a separation, which is not necessarily molecule thin.
For instance, an wall or curtain used to divide an area can be any shape, color or consist of various levels of transparencies.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Now….you *government school grads:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just a web of nonsense.









						The Non-Fine-Tuned Universe:  The Astronomical Failure of the Cosmological Argument for Theism
					

How significant are we as humans within the universe? Could the universe have been fine-tuned for our existence? In this week’s eSkeptic, Jérémie Harris and Edouard Harris examine the nature and extent of universal fine-tuning.




					www.skeptic.com
				





*How Do You Quantify Fine-Tuning?*

One of the biggest problems with the fine-tuning argument is that the extent of fine-tuning is, at least presently, utterly impossible to measure. In order to estimate the probability that a given universe could sustain life, one needs at least two pieces of information: first, the number of _possible_ universe configurations; and second, the number of such configurations that are conducive to the development of life, however one may define it.3 Since neither of these quantities is known, no discussion of fine-tuning can begin without a frank acknowledgement that the key premise of the fine-tuning argument is entirely speculative.

Nevertheless, frequent attempts have been made to present the fine-tuning argument in quantitative terms. These attempts have produced a wide range of dubious, and largely inconsistent, results. Often, their underlying assumptions are characterized by shocking failures of the imagination; some, for example, rely upon the conjecture that only carbon- based life is possible; others investigate the effect of changing just one cosmological parameter at a time, while keeping all others fixed, and thereby deny themselves almost the entire space of possible parameter values.4


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 9. Let’s take a look at Parker’s thesis:
> ...


Choshek is not "Black", it is Darkness or Chaos.
Ohr is light, which need not exist in a globe; are you going to state that light comes from the match or the accelerated oxidation?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


We need a pooh flinging monkey icon


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Single-celled, *asexual *organisms exchanged DNA before there was sexual differentiation. They still do it. Once that mechanism was in place it was simple for evolution to create males and females.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Exchanging DNA?
How?
In mathematically impossible numbers...Accidents by the *millions*?

You should lose your teaching license.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Every civilization insists on truth and honesty and every one, atheist or not, has failed to provide it.  Including ours.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


That'not at all true.
Might makes Right for most civilizations.
The overwhelming number of people on earth today do not live in just societies; we just ignore them for our own comfort.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


And the bumble bee is aerodynamically incapable of flying.

Genetic exchanges among bacteria occur by several mechanisms. In transformation, the recipient bacterium takes up extracellular donor DNA. In transduction, donor DNA packaged in a bacteriophage infects the recipient bacterium. In conjugation, the donor bacterium transfers DNA to the recipient by mating.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


That is true.
I Googled "single celled male/female" and found a scant few unfounded, pathetic theories on the subject.

I would just like some atheist scientist to have the gumption to address that issue outright.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Every civilization insists on truth and honesty and every one, atheist or not, has failed to provide it.  Including ours.
> ...


Can you name a civilization that espoused dishonesty?  Every civilization believes in "Might makes Right" and justice, they just all disagree on what exactly that means.

Do we live in a 'just' society?  Your answer may differ from someone in the BLM movement.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Maybe you're asking the wrong question, try: "bacteria exchange genetic material"


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Have you ever looked at the Muslims or the Chinese or the Hindus?
Totalitarianism in the mask of Truth is bull crap.

Do I live in a "Just Society"?
As a Jew I live amongst people who don't condemn you to a life of slavery based on genetics or a Bible that allows you to execute someone for wearing the wrong headgear.
Jews came to the *horrendous *US and couldn't get gainful employment so we started our own businesses and the *horrendous* US didn't burn our stores to the ground.

You better take a closer look at how you use your Liberal brain.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I did...a scant number of bull crap theories that don't come close to answering what I'm asking.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


You don't speak for everyone.  I doubt Muslims or Hindus would agree with your judgement.  

You should know from your own story that no society is 100% just and different people in a society are often treated differently.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Maybe what you're asking is nonsense?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Of course barbarians wouldn't agree with me; they would execute me and you would consider that just.
And *that*, my friend, is *your* problem, not *mine*.

Try reading my post again.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I'm asking the right question and I'd like a scientific mind to address the question.
Don't think you're the first person I've asked...far from it.
All I get from Evolution worshipers is, "If you don't understand how it works, you're not smart enough for me to explain it."
Liberals use ad hominems when they can't explain something.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> I'm asking the right question and I'd like a scientific mind to address the question.
> Don't think you're the first person I've asked...far from it.
> All I get from Evolution worshipers is, "If you don't understand how it works, you're not smart enough for me to explain it."
> Liberals use ad hominems when they can't explain something.


So, you're saying many people have told you that you're not smart enough to understand it and they can't seem to explain it to you?  Got it.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > I'm asking the right question and I'd like a scientific mind to address the question.
> ...


Have a few cups of coffee.
What I ask any Liberal a question such as the questions I ask here, they won't answer it at all.
Because they can't...so 100% of them give the exact same canned response...
"If you don't understand how it works, you're not smart enough for me to explain it."

It's almost like RWers do with the canned responses Rush has programmed them to blurt out.


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


THANK YOU O DOMINATRIX QUEEN!


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Everyone on the internet is rich, beautiful and went to an Ivy League school. Well, except you, I guess. 

She's full of shit, she was hom skoolled.


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Ya, she is pretty bad, isn't she?


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


No, you need one. Quick!


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Which one? They're all so stunning!!


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Compared to you a comic strip character is intelligent.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


The one I posted for you...the mentally retarded.


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Did you think of that one all by yourself? Were you hom skoolld too?


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


So why did god make me mentally retarded?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


So nice people can help you.
You probably misused your intelligence in a prior lifetime and were brought, unable to hurt anyone physically, monetarily, etc, and were brought back to gain acceptance to an eternal spiritual existence.
The people who are taking care of you also needed to make amends for being selfish and will now earn eternal spiritual existence.

Any other questions?


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


So you believe in re-incarnation? Is that part of god's plan?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Yes.
God is infinite.
The vision of god given to you was of a man who died and became a god.
We are, in our true essence, primarily spiritual beings.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

*11.* “That *our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, *is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of *intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists*, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.


All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.

Some have imaginatively likened the anthropic principle to a series of radio dials, with each instance of fine-tuning representing one dial. *Unless all the dials are tuned to exactly the right settings, life would be utterly impossible.* In his_ Just Six Numbers,_ Britain’s Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, states that such finely-tuned cosmological constants, ‘constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life.’3



*‘The chance,’ says Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, ‘that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters we observe.*



Both the Big-Bang and the growing realization of how the universe is finely-tuned for life have seriously altered the tone of the debate in terms of God, science and reason. Nonetheless, as suggestive as fine-tuning may be, its explanation continues to stoke intense debate in scientific, theological and philosophical circles.’” 








						Was the Universe Expecting Us?
					

Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost theoretical physicists, wrote: ‘The more I exam the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the univ…




					thehumblei.com
				





Again?

*"...that all these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal."*


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Because I believe the only real evidence is for re-incarnation. So we share that mental retardation?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> *11.* “That *our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, *is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of *intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists*, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.
> 
> 
> All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.
> ...


Another factor in getting scientists to recognize God is scientists who are religious and know what they're talking about.
Thanks to current technology, it's not so easy to shut down the religious scientists.


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> *11.* “That *our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, *is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of *intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists*, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.
> 
> 
> All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.
> ...


Nice random copy&paste. You do that for bluzman?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *11.* “That *our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, *is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of *intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists*, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.
> ...




'cut and paste' is an attempted pejorative for well documented and sourced.

It is always wielded by the ill informed, uneducated dolts who will never confront the lies they were forced to swallow in government school.
Raise your paw.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> *11.* “That *our universe seems uniquely tuned to give rise to life; more specifically, human life, *is known as the Anthropic Principle. And it remains a source of *intense wonder, debate and speculation among scientists*, philosophers and theologians since it was fullly appreciated a few decades ago.
> 
> 
> All in all there are fifteen cosmological constants which, because they have the values and parameters they have, allow the emergence of a universe capable of supporting complex life.
> ...


7. There's no evidence of your gods ''fine tuning'' anything.

8. I note you use the " fine tuning" slogan as an attribute to describe our solar system / universe. All of your slogans are typical at any one of the various fundamentalist creation ministries. "Fine tuning" is rather an odd description in view of planetary bombardment by comets and meteors, planetary collisions, cosmic radiation, black holes and supernovae explosion.

9. Yes. The earth’s gravity was ''fine tuned'' to cause an object to strike the planet 65 million years ago obliterating most life.

10. That’s some special fine tuning


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


It's not ez keeping up with the knowledge base Taz is constantly referencing.


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You should explain in one paragraph what your link says and post the link. Instead of copy&pasting a bunch of shit that nobody is going to read. Quote some of the saying if need be, but don't copy&post a whole shitload of random quotes. It's not conducive to a discussion.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I hardly believe, even for a moment, that you are interested in a discussion.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





Re-post sans the juvenile vulgarity that evinces your level of education, and I may grace you with a response.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




They are filled with rage that anyone would question what they were afraid to question when it was programmed into them.

Perhaps they recognize that it reveals their cowardice, and the vulgarity and attempts to ridicule is really their deep knowledge that that is what they deserve.


And, I am gratified to bring that out in his sort.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Might I suggest you limit your participation in threads to your usual tactic of cutting and pasting edited, parsed and altered ''quotes''. You tend come across as buffoonish when you try to construct coherent sentences.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


I'm unconvinced.  I tried to honestly answer your question but I was unable to explain it to you.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I may not be rich or from an Ivy but at least I'm beautiful.


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Try me.


----------



## Taz (Aug 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I'm just trying to help discuss what you're having a hard time saying without copy&paste. You reach for the insult. pity.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I realize that you are not the only "scientist" alive in the last 1,000 years that can't answer my question without sprinkling the answer with generous amounts of nonsense.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You are convinced there is no God.
I am convinced there is a God.
You are convinced that if there were a God, life would be perfect.
I am convinced that God has given mankind the responsibility of creating our own eternity and God's patience is not as small as man's inability to deal with differences of opinion or with disappointment.
Does this make me naive?
Nope; I have experienced as much emotional and physical pain as the average American, but in the end, I cannot deny that I am only a figment of God's extremely generous imagination.


----------



## alang1216 (Aug 26, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Maybe you think it nonsense because you don't understand it.  Or don't want to.


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 26, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I understand chemistry and biology.
Of course, according to the Internet, one has to be a *specialist* in over *10* scientific fields to understand Evolution.
That alone tells me it's a croc of garbage.


----------



## abu afak (Aug 27, 2020)

*Lying for Jesus*

*TOP DEFINITION*​
*lying for jesus*​
*Definition: when Christians deliberately spread misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, specious arguments, lies in order to further legitimize their religion or bring people to jesus.*​
*"The Creation Museum is lying for jesus when they show that dinosaurs walked on earth with humans."*​
*The Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, Creation Museum*​






						Urban Dictionary: lying for jesus
					

Definition: when Christians deliberately spread misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, specious arguments, lies in order to further legitimize their religion or bring people to jesus.




					www.urbandictionary.com
				



​
​


----------



## Hollie (Aug 27, 2020)

"Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew''

That's just so silly. Just as the religionists apply various human attributes to their God's, they apply human attributes such as intent, personality, sentience, etc., to the universe. 

It's really just so silly.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 27, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




"I may not be rich or from an Ivy but at least I'm beautiful."


.....in the dark.


----------



## Flash (Aug 27, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> *…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen. For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. *[/SIZE]
> *
> On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.
> As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.
> ...



Yes, God got it right.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 27, 2020)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





Cut and paste???
It upsets you that I can prove, document, provide quotes that prove everything I post?

Excellent.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 27, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You're not the least bit embarrassed at being exposed as a fraud.

Excellent!


----------



## Taz (Aug 27, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


I'm agnostic, I see no proof for or against a god.
A god could probably make things perfect if it wanted to.
Thinking that your god can run low on patience is naive.
If your god is so generous, why did it inflict so much pain on you? (And me as well).


----------



## Taz (Aug 27, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


See? you just posted without any copy&paste. How did it feel? Good?


----------



## Taz (Aug 27, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


So which Ivy League school are you pretending to have graduated from? And in what field?


----------



## Indeependent (Aug 27, 2020)

Taz said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I’m sure none of us had to expend energy to learn how to walk, speak a language, keep in shape.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 27, 2020)

*"Democrat Watching RNC Unsure Who This 'God' Guy They Keep Mentioning Is*
August 26th, 2020





PORTLAND, OR—Local Democrat man Xander Pollen tuned in to the Republican National Convention tonight in order to get his nightly fill of outrage and screaming at the sky, since his mother was at Bunco night and couldn't give him a ride to the Wednesday night riot with his friends.

But the man soon became confused as Republicans kept mentioning someone named "God," but it was unclear who exactly this was.
"Not sure who this 'God' fellow is, but he's probably a racist bigot or something," Pollen said. "And they even said our nation is 'under God,' so maybe he's a Russian operative trying to steal the election and take over the USPS. Anyway, there's definitely something wrong with the guy to even be associated with Republicans at all."
There were also strange mentions of something called "The Constitution," "unborn babies," and a very frightening mention of "personal responsibility."
"OK, I can't take this anymore -- it's like watching a horror movie," Pollen said, shuddering, as he turned it off and watched some comforting clips of Joe Biden saying completely incoherent nonsense and not mentioning God at all, simply because he couldn't remember His name.
At publishing time, sources had confirmed that some Republicans were confused by all the mentions of God as well."








						Democrat Watching RNC Unsure Who This 'God' Guy They Keep Mentioning Is
					

PORTLAND, OR—Local Democrat man Xander Pollen tuned in to the Republican National Convention tonight in order to get his nightly fill of outrage and screaming at the sky, since his mother was at Bunco night and couldn't give him a ride to the Wednesday night riot with his friends.




					babylonbee.com


----------



## Hollie (Aug 27, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> *"Democrat Watching RNC Unsure Who This 'God' Guy They Keep Mentioning Is*
> August 26th, 2020
> 
> 
> ...


Off topic spam. Please limit your participation to cutting and pasting your usual “quotes”.


----------



## james bond (Aug 27, 2020)

abu afak said:


> *"The Creation Museum is lying for jesus when they show that dinosaurs walked on earth with humans."*



It's you lying _against_ Jesus as the soft tissue fossil evidence shows dinosaurs walked the Earth with humans. History shows that dinosaurs became extinct due to the global flood and being hunted to extinction by humans. Practically, every ancient civilization has some sort of art depicting giant reptilian creatures. Examples are Roman mosaics, Mayan pottery, and Babylonian city walls.


----------



## james bond (Aug 27, 2020)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *"Democrat Watching RNC Unsure Who This 'God' Guy They Keep Mentioning Is*
> ...



Don't get yourself in a tizzy.  They just _misspelled_ Dumbocrat as Democrat and guy's name was given as Xander Pollen. He's just being sarcastic, but ends up with egg on his face.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 27, 2020)

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *"The Creation Museum is lying for jesus when they show that dinosaurs walked on earth with humans."*
> ...


“the soft tissue fossil evidence shows dinosaurs walked the Earth with humans.”

Nonsense.


----------



## james bond (Aug 27, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



The soft tissue fossils show that it wasn't that long ago.








If the dinosaurs were extinct, then how did the ancient people create illustrations that follow how they looked like through our reconstructions?

Let's face it.  You cannot explain while the Bible, creation science, and I can explain.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 28, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You explained nothing. 

Nonsense claims explain nothing.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You don't have a reference to where that rock came from. Was it a recent grade school art project?

.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 12, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



I cannot explain how you can be so gullible.


----------



## james bond (Jun 24, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I don't make up stories like the universe was infinite and is now 13.7 billion years old and Earth 4.5 billion years old.  That's what bugging you because you believe in bullsh*t.

It's always been around 6,000 years old and these stones show humans lived with dinosaurs.  It means your billions timeline is wrong.





__





						The Ancient Code -
					






					www.ancient-code.com
				












						The Ica Stones: Proving mankind Coexisted with Dinosaurs
					

The Ica Stones are a collection of thousands of stones discovered in modern-day Peru, which directly contradict mainstream history. The Ica Stones depict




					www.ancient-code.com


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


"Ancient-code.com"

You're joking, right?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2021)

PoliticalChic said:


> …_.that human beings would be along soon._
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's easy to ignore your usual, silly collection of cut and paste "quotes"


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2021)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


The Benny Hinn Sunday skool is not Ivy League.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Your second reference states:

_According to Carbon 14 studies made by the Autonomous University of Madrid in 2003, Spanish Researchers Felix Arenas and Maria del Carmen Olazar determined that they are between 60,000 and 100,000 years old._​​_In other images, you can appreciate the process of blood transfusions performed on a pregnant woman and even organ transplants (kidney, heart) among other things. Other depictions found on the Ica Stones illustrate what appears to be the application of anesthetic gas in a Caesarean section; others appear to depict –even though many claim it’s impossible– the transplant of cerebral hemispheres, the use of electromagnetic energy, pyramids, space travel, men looking at the stars with binoculars, the study of ancient petroglyphs and most shockingly maps of our planet as it was 13 million years ago._​
The stones are 60 to 100 K years. That is the noise limit for carbon dating. Your reference does not prove your point. Even though the stones are old, the carvings are contemporary.

.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 26, 2021)

In the 1960s Javier Cabrera Darquea began to collect and popularize the stones, obtaining many of them from a farmer named Basilio Uschuya. Uschuya, after claiming them to be real ancient artifacts, admitted to creating the carvings he had sold and said he produced a patina by baking the stone in cow dung.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones


----------



## james bond (Jun 26, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The stones are 60 to 100 K years. That is the noise limit for carbon dating. Your reference does not prove your point. Even though the stones are old, the carvings are contemporary.


No, we have found dinosaur fossils that still have soft tissue in them and C14 remaining.  They still can be dated by C14 dating.  How do you explain that?

As for your stones, soma do and soma don't.  You haven't proved anything about your disclaim.

"Evidence for:

1.) There are 15,000 or more of these stones in existence, each of which would have taken some time to carve. One estimate put the total time to carve all the stones at 375,000 working hours. That would be 12 hours a day, seven days a week for about 85 years! Only two modern-day Peruvians, Basilio and Irma, claim to have carved any stones. It seems impossible for them to have had the time to carve all 15,000 stones.

2.) Irma was asked about where she got the stones to make the carvings. She showed the interviewer a couple of small pits in the ground where she had dug out the raw stones. She then proceeded to dig for another stone and removed quite a bit of earth before finding one. She explained that the stones that she carved where about the size of an orange. However, many of the stones are larger and some of them are quite large, about 1,000 pounds. It would be impossible for all of the stones to have come from the small pits.

3.) It is illegal in Peru to sell ancient artifacts. Those caught can be punished by a long, hard jail sentence. If Basilio and Irma had admitted to finding the stones that they sold, they would face prosecution. This would be a strong motive for lying to stay out of jail.

4.) Many of the Ica Stones where found in the early 1960's when a flooding of the Ica River uncovered a large number of them. Most of the other stones have been found in graves by local farmers, graves robbers, or anthropologists. Some features of dinosaurs were not known to modern science until recently. It wasn't until 1975 that the Brontosaurus was displayed with the correct skull and renamed Apatosaurus. It also wasn't until more recently that dinosaur skeletons were displayed with their tails up and heads down when walking. Recent fossil finds also show crests on their heads and ridges on theirs backs. The Ica Stones have the right head on the Apatosaurus, the heads and tails displayed correctly, and head crests and back ridges, even though they predate the modern findings!

5.) Other Peruvian artifacts, e.g. Nazca Lines, pottery, textiles, and figurines, depict dinosaurs as well. The stones have been found together with other artifacts in ancient graves. It is clear that the ancient Peruvians had a fascination with dinosaurs. This suggests that they may indeed have lived together about 1,000 years ago.

6.) There is evidence of men and dinosaurs living together from around the world. There are even modern-day sightings of dinosaurs, pterodactyls, and plesiosaurs. This suggests that men and dinosaurs are living together today!

7.) The modern-day forgeries are relatively easy for an experienced person to pick out. Dr. Cabrera knew about the faked carvings and said that he could spot them easily. After contracting with Basilio to make a stone, Dr. Dennis Swift could see obvious differences between his stone and the stones in the museums.

8.) Finally, although some examinations have found carvings of modern origin, other examinations show carvings that are ancient. The examinations that claim the carvings to be of modern origin were probably examinations of the faked stones! These show metal flakes left by hacksaw blades, a bright surface in the grooves, and some artificial aging. Other examinations of the genuine stones have shown none of the distinguishing characteristics of the modern-day forged stones. What they did find was stones that were covered with a layer of patina, or mineralization, both on the surface of the stones and in the grooves. They also found layers of biological varnish produced by algae or bacteria. These same layers of patina and varnish are found on other artifacts found in the area. Some of the carvings were obscured by the thick layers of patina and varnish. It generally takes many hundreds of years to account for this much buildup in the arid environment of Peru."


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> No, we have found dinosaur fossils that still have soft tissue in them and C14 remaining. They still can be dated by C14 dating. How do you explain that?
> 
> As for your stones, soma do and soma don't. You haven't proved anything about your disclaim.


What the stones do prove is that the earth is at least 100,000 years old. Not 6,000 years as creationists believe. 

C14 dating with the best equipment has a noise limit of around 80 to 100 thousand years. In other words, an object that has no C14 at all will still register the noise limit, whether it's dinosaur tissue, diamonds, or rocks. 

.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The stones are 60 to 100 K years. That is the noise limit for carbon dating. Your reference does not prove your point. Even though the stones are old, the carvings are contemporary.
> ...


Sort of like tax evasion?


----------



## james bond (Jun 28, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > No, we have found dinosaur fossils that still have soft tissue in them and C14 remaining. They still can be dated by C14 dating. How do you explain that?
> ...


What the authentic stones show is humans lived with dinosaurs which disproves evolution.  Just admit you were caught in a lie.


----------



## james bond (Jun 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Sort of like tax evasion?



Let's not forget this travesty lol.  Lucy was shown to be a chimp.






The ica stones are just part of the evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together which disproves evolution.  Plenty more such as not enough seafloor layers, earth's magnetic field decaying faster than thought, not enough sodium in the sea and more.  Evolution is a huge lie than only fools believe in.  There is no scientific evidence for it.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Sort of like tax evasion?
> ...


About one percent of separation in the genome.


----------



## james bond (Jun 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Doesn't mean squat.  God used the same parts.  Monkeys are still monkeys and humans are humans.  Never the twain shall meet.  Another evolutionary lie that fools continue to believe.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Dinosaurs became extinct many millions of years before man appeared. The C14 shows young earth creationism is clearly proven false.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Yes, it does.  There is no rational reason for such close genetics without evolution.  Only false witness bearing hypocrites continue to believe what they allege to believe.


----------



## james bond (Jun 29, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


You have no evidence of that while I do.  More than Inca stones.  The C14 dating, i.e. radiometric dating, in addition to the _soft tissue_ remaining inside the fossil favors me and my side.  You continue to have no explanation and continue to be a fool who believes in lies.


----------



## james bond (Jun 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Yes, it does. There is no rational reason for such close genetics without evolution. Only false witness bearing hypocrites continue to believe what they allege to believe.


Hahahahahahahahahaha.  God re-used the same parts.  That's smart and makes sense for an intelligent creator.  Unlike you, who is stupid, stupid, stupid and who continues to believe in lies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it does. There is no rational reason for such close genetics without evolution. Only false witness bearing hypocrites continue to believe what they allege to believe.
> ...


^^Put this stupid shit on ignore. Do we really want every thread in the science section to be a Bond masturbation thread?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it does. There is no rational reason for such close genetics without evolution. Only false witness bearing hypocrites continue to believe what they allege to believe.
> ...


Show us the relevant passages in the Holy Bible, usually false-witness bearer on these forums.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> You have no evidence of that while I do. More than Inca stones. The C14 dating, i.e. radiometric dating


Your evidence is that the earth is at least 100,000 years old with C14 dating. Other radiometric data with long term isotopes show it's billions of years old. This is a fundamentally significant point that you have avoided. 

You have no evidence of young earth creationism at all.


----------



## james bond (Jun 29, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You have no evidence of that while I do. More than Inca stones. The C14 dating, i.e. radiometric dating
> ...


Sure I do.  I can't help it if you do not understand archaeologic and scientific evidence.  What have you presented?  Nothing but worthless opinion.


----------



## james bond (Jun 29, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Such jealousy.  The superior intellect usually comes out on top.  I can only think that all you have are rude comments while I continue to present real evidence and logical arguments while all you have are ad hominem attacks.  I even presented the fraud of evolution in this thread and no rebuttals.  You losers need to go home and lick your wounds that I've inflicted upon your psyche haha.


----------



## james bond (Jun 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Man, you are such a dumb shit.  It must come from your parents.  It's your argument, so go find it yourself you stupid POS.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure I do. I can't help it if you do not understand archaeologic and scientific evidence. What have you presented? Nothing but worthless opinion.


I certainly do understand your scientific evidence. According to  your evidence the earth is over 100,000 years old. Not 6,000.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



There's that xtian spirit we know and are repulsed by.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 30, 2021)

Of course it does

*****HAPPY SMILE*****


----------



## Colin norris (Jun 30, 2021)

PoliticalChic 

You went to a lot trouble to say nothing.  Not one scientists said it.  Not one.


----------



## james bond (Jun 30, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Let's face it.  After awhile, one gets tired of getting no evidence for atheism and atheistic science.  I think that's the atheistic spirit.  It's based on beliefs in lies since there is no evidence.

I've asked for and gotten nothing for abiogenesis (debunked) and speciation.  No explanation of what a million years of Earth and the universe means.  Atheism and evolutionary time and existence is difficult to relate to when it has no origins nor transitional evidence.  I can't relate to a million years.  It's difficult to relate to hundreds of thousands of years.

I can torture atheists and their scientists and we'll get nothing but rhetoric.  OTOH, Christians have contributed the most science throughout history.  More evidence for God and real science.


----------



## james bond (Jun 30, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Sure I do. I can't help it if you do not understand archaeologic and scientific evidence. What have you presented? Nothing but worthless opinion.
> ...


At least, I can relate somewhat to 100,000 years old.  I would expect to hear about changes throughout history and not about humans living in caves.  No evidence for it.  Also, I would be convinced of the seafloor build up.  I would not expect to see a ridge around the world and be looking for oceans underneath a planet for life.  I would not expect a magnetic field being necessary.  I would not know about the EMS being in existence.  It's no wonder there isn't life anywhere else but on Earth.  Are you too stupid to figure any of this out?  Of course, you are.  Atheists believe in lies, i.e. evolution and its evolutionary history and thinking.  I don't even know what their scientists have contributed to science.  Do you?  Just admit you're a dumb POS and then maybe you can actually understand science.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 30, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> PoliticalChic
> 
> You went to a lot trouble to say nothing.  Not one scientists said it.  Not one.





What is the quote you'd like me to defend?


----------



## Flash (Jun 30, 2021)

The universe is actually a very hostile place for life as we know it. 

There are more things in the universe that can kill life than Carter has Liver Pills.

Fortunately (with God's hand) the elements came together just right for life to flourish here on earth.  However, even with that there are extinction level events that happens now and then.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 30, 2021)

james bond said:


> At least, I can relate somewhat to 100,000 years old.


That's over 13 times the 6,000 years of young earth you have been promoting. So now you can relate to it?
100,000 years is the limit of  dating with C14. Dating with other isotopes give billions of years. You are ignoring an important part of science.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 30, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> PoliticalChic
> 
> You went to a lot trouble to say nothing.  Not one scientists said it.  Not one.


Yep. Not one.


----------



## james bond (Jul 1, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > At least, I can relate somewhat to 100,000 years old.
> ...


100,000 isn't so far off as a million.  Can one believe human society can live that long?  Remember the Bible tells us of our extinction.

Also, not if you believe the libby global alarmists of today.  We do not have evidence for humans living 100,000 years.  Instead, we have evidence of gigantic catastrophism.  We had a global flood which you can't wrap your head around.  It killed off most of the dinosaurs and changed Earth.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 1, 2021)

Is it any wonder why capitalists are already looking into making a profit from extra-terrestrial human colonization.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 1, 2021)

james bond 
There was no global flood. That is a total myth And complete bullshit. 
The dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid striking the earth 65 million years ago

Not one single event on this earth has any biblical relevance to any stupid God regardless of what bibles etc say.


----------



## james bond (Jul 1, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> james bond
> There was no global flood. That is a total myth And complete bullshit.
> The dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid striking the earth 65 million years ago
> 
> Not one single event on this earth has any biblical relevance to any stupid God regardless of what bibles etc say.



Don't be a stupid.  Where is your evidence for your claim of no global flood?  Instead, you have no evidence and believe in evolutionary lies by the atheists and their scientists.  They used to believe in an infinite universe when it was shown to them that God is infinite and life is infinite, your soul remains, through the Bible.  It was shown they were WRONG.  Generally speaking, the truth comes first and then the lies.

The evidence is there.  I just presented one with the mass extinction of dinosaurs.  They survived the global flood, but humans hunted them down.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 1, 2021)

james bond 

So YOU are saying the global flood was 65 million years ago which suggests the bible was written before that. How does that fit with your chronology of events? 

If the earth was covered by water to the depth of Mont Everest, where did all the water go to make the earth as it is today? 
Don't tell me it ran over the side of the flat earth or God disposed if it. 

Show me any information when science accepted that God was intimate. I know you can't so stop embarrassing yourself.
You are a liar and a fraudulent charlatan.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 1, 2021)

james bond 

Here's another one for you. 
You believe in immaculate conception and virgin births , talking snakes and resurrections etc yet you tell me not to be stupid. 
Are you kidding? 

You God has never been seen, heard or interacted with by anyone on earth and least of all you.  To suggest you know  God and how he thinks and what he wants is a blatant arrogant lie and  you know  it. 

I ch asllenges you to provide one thing about your religion which can be independently verified .  I know you can't. 
You can try your God crap on someone else who is gullible.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 1, 2021)

james bond said:


> 100,000 isn't so far off as a million. Can one believe human society can live that long? Remember the Bible tells us of our extinction.


Are you saying you believe the earth could be 100,000 years old? Maybe you should think about the several naturally occurring isotopes which have half lives of millions to billions of years. 

For example half of Potassium-40 decays to Argon-40 in 1.25 billion years. If the earth were only 6000 years old the daughter product, Argon-40 would not exist in situ.

.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> james bond
> 
> So YOU are saying the global flood was 65 million years ago which suggests the bible was written before that. How does that fit with your chronology of events?
> 
> ...


My claim is in the Bible which you are too ignorant to look up.  I have the fossil record and seafloor evidence.

Anyway, you could not come up with any evidence that the global flood didn't happen, so we can just ignore your lying claims haha.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > 100,000 isn't so far off as a million. Can one believe human society can live that long? Remember the Bible tells us of our extinction.
> ...


You just don't get it.  All I said was I can relate 100,000 years to 6,000 that we had so far.  You can't even explain what happens to Earth in a million years.  Evolution needs billions of years which no one can observe so it is stupid and a bunch of lies.  Otherwise, you'd have solid evidence such as transitional fossils.  Like I said, you believe in bullshit because atheists and their evolution are the s-word and can't figure things out.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You believe in immaculate conception and virgin births , talking snakes and resurrections etc yet you tell me not to be stupid.



Hahahahahahaha.  You are too ignorant and stupid.  There are no talking snakes.  It was Satan talking through the snake.  One would need faith to believe and understand The Immaculate Conception as well as being saved forever.  All I can say for the latter is you'll get what you deserve after your death.  That's the truth.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You choose to ignore the evidence. 

OTOH, the Christian church literary held back the advancement of learning for 800 years during the Daark Ages.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond said:


> You just don't get it. All I said was I can relate 100,000 years to 6,000 that we had so far. You can't even explain what happens to Earth in a million years. Evolution needs billions of years which no one can observe so it is stupid and a bunch of lies. Otherwise, you'd have solid evidence such as transitional fossils. Like I said, you believe in bullshit because atheists and their evolution are the s-word and can't figure things out.


Potassium-40 decays to Argon-40 with a half life of 1.25 billion years. Countless examples of K40 and A40 have been found. If the earth were only 6000 years old the daughter product, Argon-40 would not exist in situ at all.

That is very basic science. If "creation science" devotees still believe that creation was only 6,000 years ago, then "creation science" is not a science, but a sham.

.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond 

So we have a Satan now doing his ventriloquist trick through the snake. 

Virgin births ay? I understand it perfectly. It's you godbotherers who believe it's a unique story privileged for your hideous God only. You're the joke son. 

As for the obligatory threat that God will punish me after I die, don't make me vomit. The arrogance of you to think you can predict the destination and punishments for those who disagree with you. Simultaneously believe you will get eternity or some other bullshit.  You have been conned son. You're just another delusional godbotherer. 
Who's laughing now silly man?


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond 
There is nothing in the bible regarding DNA and fossils dating.  That is a blatant lie and a pathetic defence.  

I'll ask again, if the flood occurred, where did the water go? It's not that hard dickhead. How did kangaroos in Australia and elephants in India get there and back after it? 

You see, you have nothing to support your claims other than some hideous old book full of lies. 

Take some advice, bow out of this debate because like religion and God, you're on a loser. 
Now who's laughing? I can hear your teeth grinding now. You don't have   the smarts to get over me son.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You choose to ignore the evidence.


Why would I do that?  You have no evidence.  For example, you state singularity but where did the infinite energy come from?

OTOH, the Bible states, i.e. God told us, let there be light.  He created the EMS which contains all the energy in the universe that it will ever need.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> james bond
> 
> So we have a Satan now doing his ventriloquist trick through the snake.
> 
> ...


You should already know that it was a trick by Satan.  We know the devil likes to hide and this is how he was able to take dominion of the world.  Could he done the same trick through Darwin?  Darwinism led to social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler, Nazism, and the Holocaust.  Coincidence?  I think not.

If you understand the Immaculate Conception, then you wouldn't have said that.  I already stated that would involve faith first which is the key.  Anyway, I think I'll get the last laugh after you die and are delivered to Satan.  Nothing silly about that unlike atheism, singularity, Darwinism, evolution, evolutionary thinking and the like. 

What I have is what God stated happened in paradise.  We had heaven on Earth here, but it has been compromised.  The KCA explains it all.

What you have is what Satan created under Darwin.  It leads to horrible life after death as I mentioned above.  Again, it isn't what I said but what God said (no arrogance on my part).  Instead, we have you questioning your creator.

You should DEE (discover, explore, and evaluate).  I don't think you've done that and like most atheists took the easy way out.  You never explored the other side.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> james bond
> There is nothing in the bible regarding DNA and fossils dating.  That is a blatant lie and a pathetic defence.
> 
> I'll ask again, if the flood occurred, where did the water go? It's not that hard dickhead. How did kangaroos in Australia and elephants in India get there and back after it?
> ...


This is why I want the atheists to find out for themselves.  They are stupid as shit though.  The only way they'll learn is by fire and brimstone, but then it will be too late.  The Earth is covered by 3/4 water genius.  What other planet is like that hahahahahahahahahahaha?

Loser?  Me?  I think not.  Just look in the mirror if you want to see the loser.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond 
What is it the atheists will find out and where is your proof anything exists? 
I'm calling you a liar and you have nothing but faith. 

If the earth was covered by water, it would be deeper than mount Everest to cover it.  So I ask again, where did the water go? I'll tell you.  It didn't happen and you have no evidence it did. Again, you are a liar. .
Every time you reply I get another whack at you. Keep going.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Potassium-40 decays to Argon-40 with a half life of 1.25 billion years


That's a great point and I had to look it up.  In fact, I touched upon it earlier with asking about relativism since it's difficult for a creationist to relate to Darwin or evolutionary times.  The rebuttal lies with we do not know the amount Potassium-40 there was in the beginning.  Instead, the creation scientists have done experiments with rocks from Mt. St. Helens and have discovered volcanic rocks dated to hundreds of thousands of years using your method, but the rocks were about ten years old.

It's not creation science that is a sham, but evolutionary science that you believe in due to atheism.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond 
Are you saying that modern science doesn't have the capacity to tell the age if a rock? 
Where's you evidence that a mistake was made by them in regard to the instance you quoted? I'll bet you have nothing but lies.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> james bond
> Are you saying that modern science doesn't have the capacity to tell the age if a rock?
> Where's you evidence that a mistake was made by them in regard to the instance you quoted? I'll bet you have nothing but lies.


I already debunked that argument.  Not if they don't know what was there to start with?  As for the rest, it's stupid like you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond said:


> Not if they don't know what was there to start with?


This is just so stupid. You either have zero understanding of radiation at all, or you do and you are just trolling your little heart out. Or maybe you are just here to lie to yourself "out loud"?

Ever feel like... everyone understands but you? Like, anyone who knows anything about radiation and chemistry seems to get it... and you don't?

Call your doctor. You might have AIDS.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond 
Where's your evidence? You don't have anything but a big mouth. 
Why do you belch lies line that, attempting to justify some pathetic poke at non believers? 
At least show links or post facts. 
You are a liar.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Not if they don't know what was there to start with?
> ...


It's you who probably has gotten AIDS already you fruitcake.

After a while, I figure the atheists are too stupid to figure things out for themselves because evolution gives them no truths to base their beliefs on.  

One doesn't need to know the exact science of radiometric dating to figure this out.  It's like an egg timer which is accurate because of the amount of sand falling is constant.  If the timer was empty on the top and then turned over, then we know how long it was.  We don't know what the rock or timer started out as in the case he presented so it could be way off.  Anyway, Wuwei just brought up what most atheists are taught to believe in due to evolutionary thinking.  They need billions of years old Earth and universe or else their beliefs are wrong.  The build up on the seafloor nor magnetic field losing its strength back them up.  They don't even use Earth rocks.  He carefully neglected to mention they measured the age of meteors.  More embarrassment for the atheists!


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond 

You believe in immaculate conception and virgin births etc yet it's atheists who are stupid???? 
Do you ever read anything you write? 

Atheists have the whole world of science backing them, you have a 2000 book supposedly written by a son of God or some other bullshit, filled with impossible deeds by him, and the rest is lies. 
Grow up.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> james bond
> Where's your evidence? You don't have anything but a big mouth.
> Why do you belch lies line that, attempting to justify some pathetic poke at non believers?
> At least show links or post facts.
> You are a liar.


Hahahahahahahaha.  I caught you in your lie and now your feelings are hurt.



Colin norris said:


> If the earth was covered by water, it would be deeper than mount Everest to cover it.


First, your side can't explain the 3/4 water but the Bible has.  Back then, the pre-flood Earth had different topography and didn't have the elevations that we have today.  A global flood would be able to cover a flatter pre-flood Earth.  It states in the Bible that the Earth as it was back then perished due to the mass changes in topography.  The higher elevations that you bring up were created then.  The evidence for this is that the Himalayas and Mt. Everest and other high elevations are comprised of ocean-bottom sediments.  The flood helped formed these higher elevations and topography.  Otherwise, you can't explain how it happened.  Evolutionary glaciers and such taking long time are all BS.  Today's Earth topography happened rapidly.  See how science backs up the Bible and not evolution?


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond 
What year was the great flood keeping in mind when this silly boat was built? 
Be very careful with your answer because I can date when Everest started. I know about tectonic plates and the dates. 
Get it wrong and we'll see who laughs the loudest.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You believe in immaculate conception and virgin births etc yet it's atheists who are stupid????
> Do you ever read anything you write?


I already stated that those things require faith.  Those are religious aspects and not scientific ones.  Regarding science, you can't explain our origins nor how the universe and Earth came to be.  You can't explain where the energy came from.  You can't even explain how space and time started.  You can't explain why the chicken came before the egg.  This was proven already.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond 
Immaculate conception and virgin births etc require a lityle more than faith. Believing it won't make it fact. That's ridiculous. 
Science believes the only plausible method for the universe is the big bang.  
Energy etc. Are covered by many physics exercises. 
If you think their theories play second fiddle to some hideous ghost flicking his fingers and it all appeared from absolutely nothing, you need medical attention. 

All that aside, I find it gibbsmacking that a grown human being could possibly believe the God rubbish without question. 
It's all some magic trick. 
How can you ignore the facts of DNA dating back to 4.8 billion years? Yet sacrifice common sense and logic and huge research because as a kid you parents told you there was a god. 
Honestly, you're an embarrassment to the human race.


----------



## james bond (Jul 2, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> james bond
> What year was the great flood keeping in mind when this silly boat was built?
> Be very careful with your answer because I can date when Everest started. I know about tectonic plates and the dates.
> Get it wrong and we'll see who laughs the loudest.


Why don't you explain your dates?  The flood date can't be for certain from the Bible genealogies (which gives us a date of around 2345 BC if genealogies weren't skipped). Some peoples genealogies were skipped in the Bible so one can't be certain of exact dating.

Regardless, it doesn't show the Earth is 4.54 B years old.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 2, 2021)

james bond 
 I'll take you question as an admission you've had nothing but the beginning, as I predicted. 

Everest was formed 60 million years ago. 
How far does you bible go back again? 

My point is your silly story is absurd. 
Take some advice, don't post anything unless you can support it with facts. 
Believe what you want but don't belch it on here and insult people who know better. 
If you want to try me with another if your biblical myths, go ahead.


----------



## james bond (Jul 3, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> james bond
> I'll take you question as an admission you've had nothing but the beginning, as I predicted.
> 
> Everest was formed 60 million years ago.
> ...


You provide no explanation for it.  Are you claiming your K-Ar dating which was wrongly used on meteors to date the Earth?  You also do not explain how these mountain ranges were formed using seafloor based sediment.  We know your idiotic lies are based on atheism and the need for long time to explain evolution.  It's a lie to explain a lie.

Comparing evolution to how old the Bible is is a non-sequitur.  Only one of us can be right.  I provided scientific evidence to back up the young Earth and the Bible.

Evolution is based on faith in atheism.  Not any real science.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 3, 2021)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Potassium-40 decays to Argon-40 with a half life of 1.25 billion years
> ...


Your rebuttal is wrong. In dating, the original amount of K40 is the amount of K40 measured plus the amount of in situ decay product. Ie, the original amount is K40+A40. (measured in moles.)

Mt Helens:
100,000 years is the lower limit of K40 dating. Only 0.0053% K40 would have decayed to A40. That pushes the the measurement to the limitation of the detection devices. Ie 100,000 years is consistent with zero.

Even then, those creationists said the earth was at least 100,000 yrs old. Not 6000. Creationists are proving 6000 yrs is bogus.

Your creation science web sites do not understand the limitations of instrumentation.

.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 3, 2021)

james bond 
My explanation for the flood is it didn't happen. There's no evidence. Every drop of water that is on this earth has been here since asteroids etc stopped colliding.  Now if the earth was totally coveted, wher3s the water? 

As for Everest,  for Christ sale r4ad some books on tectonic plates. You are completely ignorant to facts. 

Where's your scientific evidence to support a young earth and bible? I know you have nothing scientific at all. You are a liar. You cannot prove a thing. 
But the hypocrisy of you telling me I'm lying and my arguments is based on atheism.  Your whole argument is based on your filthy God and bible bit compare it to the greatest minds on earth.  Ar ed you kidding? 

Evolution is fact. There's no more doubt about it and you can believe what you want but not one bible will ever prove it wrong.  
Finally, evolution is based on pure science ,  nothing else.  No gods or myths. Not even atheism.  
You are an intellectual vacuum in this regard. How can you be so ignorant to facts which are proven while upholding a ridiculous belief that some faith you have is far more realistic. 
You are a blight on human intelligence.


----------



## james bond (Jul 3, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


No, your original attack was on the Bible and its genealogies used as basis for a young or current estimate of around 6,000 yo Earth.  It's not going to give you an accurate age, i.e. it could be thousands of years off with genealogies left out, but should be better than the long ages of evolution based on atheism.  The Bible wasn't intended to provide the age of the Earth.  Instead, it provides us a reference point when things began.  Your claim of the Bible being in error due to the error in the 6,000 yo age of the Earth was shown to be wrong.   

If there are creationists that go with an older Earth, then they are based on their beliefs in evolution and radiometric dating.  Are you saying recent creationists state hundreds of thousands of years and not billions.  Where is your source for that?

Moreover, your radiometric dating of meteors and the Earth's age in the billions was shown to be way off due to not knowing the original K amounts.  You can disagree, but it would be based on your atheism just as evolution is based on atheism.  I doubt Mt. St. Helens dating would be as accurate as you think they are.

I'll still opt for the younger Earth even though the genealogies could be thousands of years off because of the lack of seafloor buildup and Earth's magnetic field rapidly dissipating.  Both show it won't be in the hundreds of thousands years.  A big part of our disagreement is that I admit my beliefs are based on the Bible while you won't admit it's your atheism and its atheistic science that drive your beliefs.  Yet, I can explain basic things such as how the Earth was formed while you can't.  I'm still waiting for your explanation of the Himalayas, Mt. Everest, and other topologies.  Where did our vast amount of surface water come from?  Instead, you're still hung up on your erroneous radiometric dating techniques despite your admission of the limitations of the instrumentation.

>>Your creation science web sites do not understand the limitations of instrumentation.<<

We both use the same instrumentation, but the initial assumptions made are way different.  For example, you won't believe humans were created by a creator and lived with dinosaurs.  God provided when human life began.  Creationists aren't hung up on having an exact age of the Earth, but the young Earth ones like me base it on the genealogies found in the Bible.  I admit there may missing genealogies, but don't think the young Earth would be that far in error such as hundreds of thousands of years off if they are.  Are you admitting that the instrumentation does not give us millions nor billions yo Earth?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 3, 2021)

james bond said:


> The Bible wasn't intended to provide the age of the Earth. Instead, it provides us a reference point when things began. Your claim of the Bible being in error due to the error in the 6,000 yo age of the Earth was shown to be wrong.


Many Christians believe the bible isn't in error because it's an allegory which shouldn't be taken literally. Young earth creationists are the ones in error.


james bond said:


> If there are creationists that go with an older Earth, then they are based on their beliefs in evolution and radiometric dating. Are you saying recent creationists state hundreds of thousands of years and not billions. Where is your source for that?


If you disagree with the concept behind radiometric data, you disagree with physics. Evolution is not relevant in determining the earth's age. The source for 100,000 years comes from creationist  (erroneous) assays of diamonds. They do not understand the measuring instruments. Please Google "noise floor".


james bond said:


> Moreover, your radiometric dating of meteors and the Earth's age in the billions was shown to be way off due to not knowing the original K amounts. You can disagree, but it would be based on your atheism


Radiological dating is based on physics, not on atheism. How can you possibly think that.


james bond said:


> I'm still waiting for your explanation of the Himalayas, Mt. Everest, and other topologies.


Read about plate tectonics. 


james bond said:


> Instead, you're still hung up on your erroneous radiometric dating techniques despite your admission of the limitations of the instrumentation.


Google "noise floor" Creationists think instrument noise has value where the error bars at that level overwhelm any scientific deduction.  


james bond said:


> Are you admitting that the instrumentation does not give us millions nor billions yo Earth?


I said the instrumentation is unreliable for K40 dating for *any object less than 100,000 years old*. This older source puts it at 250,000 years.




__





						Potassium-argon Dating | Encyclopedia.com
					

*potassium–argon dating* A dating technique [1] for certain rocks that depends on the decay of the radioisotope potassium–40 to argon–40, a process with a half-life of about 1.27 × 1010 years.




					www.encyclopedia.com
				



*potassium—argon dating (K—Ar method)*_ Geologic dating technique based on the radioactive decay of potassium (40K) to argon (40Ar). This potassium isotope has a half-life (see DECAY CONSTANT) of 1.3 billion (109) years, making this a valuable dating method. The minimum age limit for this dating method is about 250 000 years._​What that means is that creationists were wasting their time assaying young rocks from a volcano.

.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 3, 2021)

james bond 
You've got a Hang up based around atheism and evution. 
Evolution is not based on atheism. It's a fact. That's why you attempt to refute it with your religious rubbish. 

There are no genealogy for the earth age. It is proven by science etc. It's fact.  
You can romance your bible to dispute it but it still remains a fact. 

It's an Insult to the human race that you godbotherers can argue that your religious beliefs takes precedent over the scientific research and knowledge we know today. It's absolutely insane to even suggest it. 
You live with help of science every day and accept it as a given. But when it comes to religion, all the laws of nature are suspended, all research is set aside like embroidery and some supernatural diety takes compete control because you are frightened of mortality.


----------



## james bond (Jul 4, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible wasn't intended to provide the age of the Earth. Instead, it provides us a reference point when things began. Your claim of the Bible being in error due to the error in the 6,000 yo age of the Earth was shown to be wrong.
> ...


Last, I pointed out how ignorant you are of how the Earth was dated as well as how the continents were formed.  I knew your side dated meteors for the Earth.  Do you know why?

Furthermore, it was Christian scientists who came up with plate tectonics.  Why don't you read about creation scientist Alfred Wegener and plate tectonics?  Before that was creation scientist Sir Frances Bacon and continental drift.  No one from your side mentioned of how our continents formed from breaking larger land masses.  Instead, I have to deal with atheist idiots who know squat  , but claim to know the "facts."


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 4, 2021)

james bond 
What's your point? 
Tectonic plates existed before any creationist scientists etc. I don't care if he is still a Christian. It's irrelevant. 
Atheists had no input into the debate other accepting the facts. Why bring them into it?


----------



## cnm (Jul 4, 2021)

PoliticalChic said:


> I'm an Ivy League grad.


I'm sure they want that advertised everywhere...


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 4, 2021)

james bond said:


> Last, I pointed out how ignorant you are of how the Earth was dated as well as how the continents were formed. I knew your side dated meteors for the Earth. Do you know why?


So I take it that you still don't believe in radiological dating science. 


james bond said:


> Furthermore, it was Christian scientists who came up with plate tectonics.


 Then it is really a surprise that you don't know how Himalayas, Mt. Everest, etc were formed.

.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 4, 2021)

cnm said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm an Ivy League grad.
> ...




I can see why you don't....

When you graduated from Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College ....


.....did they give you a diploma or just that big red nose?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 4, 2021)

cnm said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I'm an Ivy League grad.
> ...


Well, the reason it is only advertised on an anonymous message board is because it is so obviously false.


----------



## james bond (Jul 4, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Last, I pointed out how ignorant you are of how the Earth was dated as well as how the continents were formed. I knew your side dated meteors for the Earth. Do you know why?
> ...


Your denials, lack of explanation and lack of explanations shows you believe in lies.  OTW, you would have explained already and we would have understood.  OTOH, I have already explained but you could not believe it so it went over your head .  The Himalayas and our continents land masses were due to Noah's Flood.  The proof is them being consisted of seafloor sediment.

If your science wasn't atheistic, then you would accept the possibility of God as creator and science backing up the Bible.  It does.  Those are the facts.  Moreover, it would've been atheist scientists with the discoveries, too.  They haven't done much.  Most have been wrong.  How big of an error is an infinite universe to a billions of years old universe which is supposedly "fact" now?  You don't even have a KCA.  You don't even know how the magnetic field works.  What we have is an Earth that is dying and eventually will be destroyed.  After 2060 is one possibility and the first SWAG by Sir Isaac Newton.  

No, what you have are lies and beliefs in the atheist religion.  It wouldn't be a big deal, but being wrong about it means other things happen to you after you die.  Life is supernatural.  We all die, i.e. our physical selves, but our spiritual side lives on forever.  OW, you would be right in seeing abiogenesis happen or life being created from non-life.  Life would be another temporary, natural process.  We would have transitional fossils.  The exact age of the Earth would probably be irrelevant.  We would prolly have found intelligent life elsewhere.  Instead, we know the Earth and the universe will be destroyed and a new way of existence will emerge.

Bottom line is I know what to expect if we are to believe evolution happened.  The only thing that happens is natural selection and catastrophism and that is what God gave us and have punished us with.  It's truly amazing your side thinks they know it all, have all the "facts," when they have no evidence whatsoever and have been wrong.


----------



## james bond (Jul 4, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


How do you know it is obviously false?  If you claimed it, then many of us and I would agree you were lying.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 4, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You choose to ignore the evidence.
> ...


I never 'stated singularity'. Not surprisingly, you don't even understand the terms you use.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 4, 2021)

What does the Bible say about Pangaea? 

Pangaea or *Pangea* ( /pænˈdʒiːə/) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras. It assembled from earlier continental units approximately 335 million years ago, and began to break apart about 175 million years ago.








						Pangaea - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## james bond (Jul 4, 2021)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Good if you didn't state singularity because that is pure BS.  Physics and good logic dictates we have no infinite temperature and infinite density and never had in our universe.  It's more evidence for God starting space and time together and the KCA.

However, you do not understand any of this so you may as well be dismissed.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 4, 2021)

james bond said:


> The Himalayas and our continents land masses were due to Noah's Flood. The proof is them being consisted of seafloor sediment.


We already went through this. Plate tectonics has pushed some ancient sea floors up above sea level. No flood could go that high. The earth has been radically changing for millennia


james bond said:


> You don't even know how the magnetic field works.


Yes I do. You don't. I have gone through a complete derivation of Maxwell's equations. You have not.


james bond said:


> No, what you have are lies and beliefs in the atheist religion. It wouldn't be a big deal, but being wrong about it means other things happen to you after you die. Life is supernatural. We all die, i.e. our physical selves, but our spiritual side lives on forever. OW, you would be right in seeing abiogenesis happen or life being created from non-life. Life would be another temporary, natural process. We would have transitional fossils. The exact age of the Earth would probably be irrelevant. We would prolly have found intelligent life elsewhere. Instead, we know the Earth and the universe will be destroyed and a new way of existence will emerge.
> 
> Bottom line is I know what to expect if we are to believe evolution happened. The only thing that happens is natural selection and catastrophism and that is what God gave us and have punished us with. It's truly amazing your side thinks they know it all, have all the "facts," when they have no evidence whatsoever and have been wrong.


Preaching religion in a science forum has absolutely no relevance. 

The Scientific Method:
_Start with the facts, and see what conclusions can be drawn from them._​The Creationist Method. 
_Start with the conclusion, and see what facts are consistent with it. Ignore all facts that aren't._​
Creation "science" is not science. It never will be.

.


----------



## james bond (Jul 4, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> What does the Bible say about Pangaea?
> 
> Pangaea or *Pangea* ( /pænˈdʒiːə/) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras. It assembled from earlier continental units approximately 335 million years ago, and began to break apart about 175 million years ago.
> 
> ...









The Bible does not mention Pangea or supercontinent by name, but mentions, "And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so."  The Earth was one supercontinent and then broke up into seven due to plate tectonics and the global flood.  Creationist Alfred Wegener more fully developed this continental drift idea into the theory of plate tectonics.

The gif above doesn't do a good job of showing how the global flood waters rose from the "fountains of the deep."  It shows how the continents broke apart, but does not show how the Earth became covered with water.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 5, 2021)

The scientific consensus is that it took over a hundred million years for that to happen.


----------



## james bond (Jul 6, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The scientific consensus is that it took over a hundred million years for that to happen.


The _atheist _scientific consensus.  They don't believe a global flood happened despite the mid-Atlantic ridge circling the planet, the oceans found below the seafloor, and the theory of plate tectonics.

Can you name some of these atheist scientists?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> The _atheist _scientific consensus.  They don't believe a global flood happened despite the mid-Atlantic ridge circling the planet, the oceans found below the seafloor, and the theory of plate tectonics.
> 
> Can you name some of these atheist scientists?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 19, 2021)

PoliticalChic said:


> …_.that human beings would be along soon._
> 
> 
> 
> ...



DUH!


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 19, 2021)

Flash said:


> The universe is actually a very hostile place for life as we know it.
> 
> There are more things in the universe that can kill life than Carter has Liver Pills.
> 
> Fortunately (with God's hand) the elements came together just right for life to flourish here on earth.  However, even with that there are extinction level events that happens now and then.



"Flash," WE don't live in those hostile places such as, oh, Pluto, Jupiter, and Youranus.
I have taken my family snow skiing in the mountains, where (gasp!) people have died by the tens of thousands in harsh conditions.  We reveled and skied down the frozen snow.

I have dived down to 120 feet below sea level.  Hundreds of thousands have died at sea and underwater.  I enjoyed catching lobster and abalone and fish.

How many thousands have perished in aircraft and yet all of us fly to vacations and family reunions.

There has been NO "extinction event" involving humans, except perhaps the Great Flood and it's not going to happen ever again.    So no need to be afraid of those things more numerous than Carter's Little Liver Pills.  Many people put their lives in jeopardy just for the thrill of it.
I stupidly dived head first into Lake Powell from a 50 foot high cliff while a dozen people watched.  What an idiotic thing to do, but then I was only 25 then.  And I thought the water was deep enough but did not bother to check it.....  Hurt my head it was so high.


----------



## james bond (Jul 19, 2021)

danielpalos said:


>


Atheist religion lol?


----------



## james bond (Jul 19, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> We already went through this. Plate tectonics has pushed some ancient sea floors up above sea level. No flood could go that high. The earth has been radically changing for millennia


And so have I.  The Himalayas were created by the fountains of the deep as well as the seven continents by plate tectonics catastrophism, i.e. global flood.  The evidence is found in sedimentary layers, worldwide flood stories (based on a true event), land being displaced, the mid-Atlantic ridge circling the Earth, fossil remains of marine life atop the mountains, and more.

I can't help it if you have fallen for atheist lies and evolutionary science which real science does not back up.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> And so have I.  The Himalayas were created by the fountains of the deep as well as the seven continents by plate tectonics catastrophism, i.e. global flood.  The evidence is found in sedimentary layers, worldwide flood stories (based on a true event), land being displaced, the mid-Atlantic ridge circling the Earth, fossil remains of marine life atop the mountains, and more.
> 
> I can't help it if you have fallen for atheist lies and evolutionary science which real science does not back up.


Umm, no. The Himalayas were not created by ''fountains of the deep''. Thermal vents are not the silly ''fountains'' that Henry Morris groupies believe them to be. The biblical flat Earth would certainly allow for all the Earth to be covered by water in existing oceans. Are you still insisting the earth is flat?

As with all claims by the hyper-religious for explanations requiring belief in magic and supernaturalism, we are supposed to suspend acceptance of reason and rationality in place of tales and fables. Why do you think there is not a shred of evidence for a flat earth or a global flood that supports any of your claims? Or are you simply trying to devise ways to make the bible appear as if it is correct? Making rationalizations to make the Flood mythology believable is a rather glaring example of someone just being silly.


----------



## james bond (Jul 19, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Umm, no. The Himalayas were not created by ''fountains of the deep''. Thermal vents are not the silly ''fountains'' that Henry Morris groupies believe them to be. The biblical flat Earth would certainly allow for all the Earth to be covered by water in existing oceans. Are you still insisting the earth is flat?
> 
> As with all claims by the hyper-religious for explanations requiring belief in magic and supernaturalism, we are supposed to suspend acceptance of reason and rationality in place of tales and fables. Why do you think there is not a shred of evidence for a flat earth or a global flood that supports any of your claims? Or are you simply trying to devise ways to make the bible appear as if it is correct? Making rationalizations to make the Flood mythology believable is a rather glaring example of someone just being silly.


As usual, you show your complete ignorance of the global flood.  3/4 of the Earth is covered by water for one.  The we have the mid Atlantic ridge that show the fountains of the deep.  We also see that one supercontinent broke into seven via continental drift and plate tectonics.  That's facts and evidence.  

You side has erroneous claims of an infinite universe and Earth into billions of years old Earth.  There is absolutely no history and evidence for it except erroneous dating techniques.

You keep mentioning the flat Earth and the internet shows it came from atheists.  I'll start calling you Flattie from now on lol.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 19, 2021)

james bond said:


> Atheist religion lol?


Only atheists believe in the Jurassic and Triassic periods?


----------



## james bond (Jul 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Only atheists believe in the Jurassic and Triassic periods?


The creationists accept the layers of the Earth formed during that time, but not the periods of time based on atheism.  Look at the evidence of what was found including continental drift and plate tectonics and creation science comes out ahead.  2/3 of the Earth's lands now lie below the oceans and we have the mid-Atlantic ridge forming the largest mountains below the oceans circling the globe like baseball stitching..


----------



## Hollie (Jul 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> As usual, you show your complete ignorance of the global flood.  3/4 of the Earth is covered by water for one.  The we have the mid Atlantic ridge that show the fountains of the deep.  We also see that one supercontinent broke into seven via continental drift and plate tectonics.  That's facts and evidence.
> 
> You side has erroneous claims of an infinite universe and Earth into billions of years old Earth.  There is absolutely no history and evidence for it except erroneous dating techniques.
> 
> You keep mentioning the flat Earth and the internet shows it came from atheists.  I'll start calling you Flattie from now on lol.


There is no evidence of a biblical flood. As usual, your proselytizing is misplaced in the science and technology forum. There are no ''fountains of the deep''. So, no, ''we'' don't have them. 

Continental drift and plate tectonics do nothing to support your gods and bibles. Are you going to suggest that the continents as they exist on the planet today configured as such a mere 6,000 years ago? You're suggesting that continental drift was more like a Carnival thrill ride.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> The creationists accept the layers of the Earth formed during that time, but not the periods of time based on atheism.  Look at the evidence of what was found including continental drift and plate tectonics and creation science comes out ahead.  2/3 of the Earth's lands now lie below the oceans and we have the mid-Atlantic ridge forming the largest mountains below the oceans circling the globe like baseball stitching..


Any studies showing how that could be accomplished in that relatively short time frame?


----------



## justoffal (Jul 20, 2021)

PoliticalChic said:


> …_.that human beings would be along soon._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep everywhere we look out there the only thing that makes any sense at all is that somebody tampered with the surroundings to allow life.....


----------



## justoffal (Jul 20, 2021)

Hollie said:


> There is no evidence of a biblical flood. As usual, your proselytizing is misplaced in the science and technology forum. There are no ''fountains of the deep''. So, no, ''we'' don't have them.
> 
> Continental drift and plate tectonics do nothing to support your gods and bibles. Are you going to suggest that the continents as they exist on the planet today configured as such a mere 6,000 years ago? You're suggesting that continental drift was more like a Carnival thrill ride.


Nobody said that the creative days were only 24 hours a piece..... the Hebrew word for day in the original Genesis text is not constrained to a solar day.....it could and likely does mean a period of thousands of years.

JO


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 20, 2021)

justoffal said:


> Yep everywhere we look out there the only thing that makes any sense at all is that somebody tampered with the surroundings to allow life.....


The Miller-Urey experiment discovered some interesting findings.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 20, 2021)

justoffal said:


> Nobody said that the creative days were only 24 hours a piece..... the Hebrew word for day in the original Genesis text is not constrained to a solar day.....it could and likely does mean a period of thousands of years.
> 
> JO


The theistic consensus is that the Earth is around six thousand years old.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 20, 2021)

All pure speculation. How conceited to think the entire universe is concentric to human existence on Earth.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 20, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> All pure speculation. How conceited to think the entire universe is concentric to human existence on Earth.


We have no choice but to view it as we understand it.


----------



## justoffal (Jul 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The theistic consensus is that the Earth is around six thousand years old.


Have you ever noticed the striking similarity between the neural construct of the human brain synapses and the new more accurate pictures of the cosmic tentacles that are now being mapped as a whole diagram of the observable universe?  How do we know there isn't a thought process taking place right in front of us? The very first time I saw a picture of the cosmic web it's the first thing that occurred to me.





__





						The Strange Similarity of Neuron and Galaxy Networks
					

Your life’s memories could, in principle, be stored in the universe’s structure.




					nautil.us
				




JO


----------



## justoffal (Jul 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> The Bible does not mention Pangea or supercontinent by name, but mentions, "And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so."  The Earth was one supercontinent and then broke up into seven due to plate tectonics and the global flood.  Creationist Alfred Wegener more fully developed this continental drift idea into the theory of plate tectonics.
> 
> The gif above doesn't do a good job of showing how the global flood waters rose from the "fountains of the deep."  It shows how the continents broke apart, but does not show how the Earth became covered with water.


Oh shit...  and here I was thinking all this time that Pangea was a Soup and Bread restaurant chain.....my bad.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 20, 2021)

justoffal said:


> Have you ever noticed the striking similarity between the neural construct of the human brain synapses and the new more accurate pictures of the cosmic tentacles that are now being mapped as a whole diagram of the observable universe?  How do we know there isn't a thought process taking place right in front of us? The very first time I saw a picture of the cosmic web it's the first thing that occurred to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would we be the equivalent to cells or organs?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> And so have I. The Himalayas were created by the fountains of the deep as well as the seven continents by plate tectonics catastrophism, i.e. global flood. The evidence is found in sedimentary layers, worldwide flood stories (based on a true event), land being displaced, the mid-Atlantic ridge circling the Earth, fossil remains of marine life atop the mountains, and more.
> 
> I can't help it if you have fallen for atheist lies and evolutionary science which real science does not back up.


None of what you say is proof of anything. You are simply stating conclusions that you find on creationists sites. That is not science. It is speculation on geology that creationists try to fit to the bible.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Would we be the equivalent to cells or organs?


Maybe viruses?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 20, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Maybe viruses?


I think I read a theory that enables the potentiality that life originated from viruses.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I think I read a theory that enables the potentiality that life originated from viruses.


Actually viruses are RNA relying on the mechanism of more complex hosts to replicate.

However I read something, like you suggest, that there has been some work that shows in certain cases that RNA encapsulated in lipids alone has the potential to replicate. It is chemically much more easy to form from the "primordial soup". It is similar to viruses without the need for a host and a cell penetration mechanism. 
.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 20, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Actually viruses are RNA relying on the mechanism of more complex hosts to replicate.
> 
> However I read something, like you suggest, that there has been some work that shows in certain cases that RNA encapsulated in lipids alone has the potential to replicate. It is chemically much more easy to form from the "primordial soup". It is similar to viruses without the need for a host and a cell penetration mechanism.
> .


Would a longitudinal run of the Miller-Urey experiment potentially, eventually evolve a virus?


----------



## justoffal (Jul 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Would we be the equivalent to cells or organs?


Yeah...that's kinda what I feel like when I look at it....Hell maybe we're an infection....lol


----------



## Hollie (Jul 20, 2021)

justoffal said:


> Nobody said that the creative days were only 24 hours a piece..... the Hebrew word for day in the original Genesis text is not constrained to a solar day.....it could and likely does mean a period of thousands of years.
> 
> JO


Or, we accept such tales and fables for what they are.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Would a longitudinal run of the Miller-Urey experiment potentially, eventually evolve a virus?


Potentially, yes. But probably no. Even a M-U experiment in a huge space over a period of 100 years is no match for the surface of the earth over many millions of years. 

I think there would be more luck in creating controlled experiments on how subsystems might be built up and how these subsystems might be pieced together to develop a self replicating system.

If we can experimentally synthesize it, we are more able to determine the probability that each synthesis step will happen, and the probability of the full synthesis of the primitive cell.

Breaking the synthesis of a cell into smaller steps allow a Markov Chain analysis which would more accurately lead to the probability of spontaneous formation of life. (Google "Markov Chain" for an explanation.)
.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 20, 2021)

justoffal said:


> Yep everywhere we look out there the only thing that makes any sense at all is that somebody tampered with the surroundings to allow life.....


...to you.

To academics, scientists, intellectuals, and casual appreciators of science, it seems obvious that this is nonsense and what has happened is that evolution has caused life to be fine tuned to its environment, not the other way around.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 20, 2021)

justoffal said:


> Nobody said that the creative days were only 24 hours a piece.....


Why not? If they didn't mean "day", then why did they say day?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 20, 2021)

justoffal said:


> Have you ever noticed the striking similarity between the neural construct of the human brain synapses and the new more accurate pictures of the cosmic tentacles that are now being mapped as a whole diagram of the observable universe?


No. Or yes, in the sense that you can show the same not really striking similarity in any interconnected Network.


----------



## james bond (Jul 20, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> None of what you say is proof of anything. You are simply stating conclusions that you find on creationists sites. That is not science. It is speculation on geology that creationists try to fit to the bible.
> .


It's hard evidence and much more than what you have with radiometric dating, the only evidence you have for evolution, or lies made up to support lies.  It's such a weak argument that no one remembers the nerd who came up with radiometric dating.






Evolution, evolutionary thinking, and radiometric dating fits Communism, Marxism. and Nazism perfectly.  Creation science is much more conservative, not libturd.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> It's hard evidence and much more than what you have with radiometric dating, the only evidence you have for evolution, or lies made up to support lies. It's such a weak argument that no one remembers the nerd who came up with radiometric dating.
> 
> Evolution, evolutionary thinking, and radiometric dating fits  perfectly. Creation science is much more conservative, not libturd.


Jeez buddy you are really ticked off. You are even pulling the Communism, Marxism. and Nazism cards. It would help if you sat in a quiet room and chanted ooommmmm.

Radiometric dating is here to stay. 

.


----------



## james bond (Jul 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Any studies showing how that could be accomplished in that relatively short time frame?


The mid-Atlantic ridge shows that Pangea broke apart rapidly (in one year's time) and today we see the marine life fossils and mountain ranges underneath the oceans.


----------



## james bond (Jul 20, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Jeez buddy you are really ticked off. You are even pulling the Communism, Marxism. and Nazism cards. It would help if you sat in a quiet room and chanted ooommmmm.
> 
> Radiometric dating is here to stay.
> 
> .








You need to admit atheism is the foundation of Communism, Marxism, and Nazism.  Are you communist?  Is that your fearless leader above?

Atheism, radiometric dating, evolution, and evolutionary thinking lies will continue on as stated in the Bible, "For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." Romans 1:25

I just disproved radiometric dating and provided radiocarbon dating which does not need assumptions.  We know thru world history that Darwinism + atheism led to Nazism and the Holocaust and social Darwinism.  I know that you have to have radiometric dating because it is the only thing that backs up evolution.  It is lies to back up a bigger lie.


----------



## james bond (Jul 20, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The theistic consensus is that the Earth is around six thousand years old.


Yes, I think this is true.  The 6K years is based on Biblical genealogies.  If there are missing genealogies, then 6K years would be off.  However, the Bible makes no mention of the age of the Earth because it isn't important.  The age of the Earth could be 50,000 to 200,000 years.  I think all we can get is a rough estimate, but it is still much younger than the 4.5 billion years old Earth lie of the evolutionists.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 20, 2021)

james bond said:


> You need to admit atheism is the foundation of Communism, Marxism, and Nazism. Are you communist? Is that your fearless leader above?


Joe Biden is my fearless leader. I support free enterprise and democracy. Bringing political science into a discussion of radiological dating is downright silly.


james bond said:


> I just disproved radiometric dating and provided radiocarbon dating which does not need assumptions. We know thru world history that Darwinism + atheism led to Nazism and the Holocaust and social Darwinism. I know that you have to have radiometric dating because it is the only thing that backs up evolution. It is lies to back up a bigger lie.


You didn't disprove anything. Thousands of assays of various long-lived isotopes have been cross-checked and agree strongly. Radiological dating is a tool that evolutionists use and definitely is not a justification for evolution. What you say is tantamount to saying an ax is a justification for chopping a tree. Try reading science. Your creationist websites are not telling you the truth. 

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 20, 2021)

james bond is getting his ass handed to him.

He should be declaring victory any time now.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 21, 2021)

justoffal said:


> Nobody said that the creative days were only 24 hours a piece..... the Hebrew word for day in the original Genesis text is not constrained to a solar day.....it could and likely does mean a period of thousands of years.
> 
> JO


It's always convenient to rewrite the text of the bible when the tales and fables simply make no sense. 

As you have decided that days doesn't mean days, what else would you like to change?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> Yes, I think this is true.  The 6K years is based on Biblical genealogies.  If there are missing genealogies, then 6K years would be off.  However, the Bible makes no mention of the age of the Earth because it isn't important.  The age of the Earth could be 50,000 to 200,000 years.  I think all we can get is a rough estimate, but it is still much younger than the 4.5 billion years old Earth lie of the evolutionists.


Unfortunately for you, merely having the Expense of Government due to original sinners just being themselves gives the lie to the theists.  Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth.


----------



## james bond (Jul 21, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Joe Biden is my fearless leader. I support free enterprise and democracy. Bringing political science into a discussion of radiological dating is downright silly.
> 
> You didn't disprove anything. Thousands of assays of various long-lived isotopes have been cross-checked and agree strongly. Radiological dating is a tool that evolutionists use and definitely is not a justification for evolution. What you say is tantamount to saying an ax is a justification for chopping a tree. Try reading science. Your creationist websites are not telling you the truth.
> 
> .


Sure, I did.  We have discovered it's the atheists and their scientists who only care about the age of the Earth and universe.  They made up radiometric dating to show billions of years when the procedure itself is flawed.  The atheist scientists only accept a specified date range of billions of years or else the results are tossed out as error.  The dates have to fit the age of the layer of the Earth the rock or fossil was found in or else it is considered an error in the process and the results tossed out.  Talk about fitting the data to expected results.  

Next, there is tremendous lack of explanation of how the layers of the Earth formed so nicely one on top of the other when the Earth's surface was changed by catastrophism, e.g. global food.  It means the procedure is only accepted for billions of years to show age of the Earth is billions of years old.  What a crock.  I already showed the layers of the Earth are named after location and not time.  It means the atheists and their scientists lied!  It was the atheist scientists who made up the radiometric dating procedure and stated the layers were based on time.  There is a serious lack of explanation of what happened and evidence of how the layers formed so nicely one on top of the other throughout billions of years.  The more explanation, the more lies your scientists can be caught with.  I caught you with your pants down and kicked your arse and your balls.  You are really hurting haha.


----------



## james bond (Jul 21, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Unfortunately for you, merely having the Expense of Government due to original sinners just being themselves gives the lie to the theists.  Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth.


You are plain silly and can provide no explanation for the relationship between libturds and atheism.  Mostly, it's the libs who believe in evolutionary lies.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, I did.  We have discovered it's the atheists and their scientists who only care about the age of the Earth and universe.  They made up radiometric dating to show billions of years when the procedure itself is flawed.  The atheist scientists only accept a specified date range of billions of years or else the results are tossed out as error.  The dates have to fit the age of the layer of the Earth the rock or fossil was found in or else it is considered an error in the process and the results tossed out.  Talk about fitting the data to expected results.
> 
> Next, there is tremendous lack of explanation of how the layers of the Earth formed so nicely one on top of the other when the Earth's surface was changed by catastrophism, e.g. global food.  It means the procedure is only accepted for billions of years to show age of the Earth is billions of years old.  What a crock.  I already showed the layers of the Earth are named after location and not time.  It means the atheists and their scientists lied!  It was the atheist scientists who made up the radiometric dating procedure and stated the layers were based on time.  There is a serious lack of explanation of what happened and evidence of how the layers formed so nicely one on top of the other throughout billions of years.  The more explanation, the more lies your scientists can be caught with.  I caught you with your pants down and kicked your arse and your balls.  You are really hurting haha.



That is a collection of really ignorant conspiracy theories.


----------



## james bond (Jul 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond is getting his ass handed to him.
> 
> He should be declaring victory any time now.


It is I who have provided the evidence for C14 dating and have exposed radiometric dating procedures as phony science.  Why can't you accept the results of million of years old layers when the result shows it?  I like to know myself.  Maybe there are more millions of years layers than billions of years.  Who knows when the process itself is flawed?  The shame is the 4.5 B years old Earth lie has been repeated so often that it is taught in school and students believe it.  Why not use C14 dating of thousands of years of Earth when C14 remains?  Moreover, there is serious lack of explanation of how the Earth layers formed and what happened to the Earth in billions of years.  Most likely, we would not be here that long nor our galaxy when we see whole galaxies are destroyed in outer space.  IOW, evolution has no history.  It's only history is made up by atheist scientists but the details are sadly lacking.  I think I can safely say you and your side has lost now with only radiometric dating as the only evidence to back up your lies.  It means a flawed and erroneous  procedure was used to come up with 4.5 B years old Earth.


----------



## james bond (Jul 21, 2021)

Hollie said:


> That is a collection of really ignorant conspiracy theories.


The conspiracy was all on the atheist scientists side.  The creationists weren't interested in the age of the Earth until the billions of years old Earth story came to fruition.  I had trouble convincing Wuwei who continues to believe in the evolutionists lies that creationists weren't interested in the age of the Earth.  It was the atheist scientists who got funding for it.

All the creationists had to show were the flaws in the radiometric dating procedure itself and the use of circular reasoning to come up with the age of the Earth.  Radioactive decay would slow down as the Earth cooled, so the decay is not constant.  That's something new that I've learned about radiometric dating.  

Next, I showed It was the atheist scientists who were interested in getting the age of the Earth as billions of years old.  The person who came up with it isn't even remembered as he was exposed as having contamination problems.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> It is I who have provided the evidence for C14 dating and have exposed radiometric dating procedures as phony science.  Why can't you accept the results of million of years old layers when the result shows it?  I like to know myself.  Maybe there are more millions of years layers than billions of years.  Who knows when the process itself is flawed?  The shame is the 4.5 B years old Earth lie has been repeated so often that it is taught in school and students believe it.  Why not use C14 dating of thousands of years of Earth when C14 remains?  Moreover, there is serious lack of explanation of how the Earth layers formed and what happened to the Earth in billions of years.  Most likely, we would not be here that long nor our galaxy when we see whole galaxies are destroyed in outer space.  IOW, evolution has no history.  It's only history is made up by atheist scientists but the details are sadly lacking.  I think I can safely say you and your side has lost now with only radiometric dating as the only evidence to back up your lies.  It means a flawed and erroneous  procedure was used to come up with 4.5 B years old Earth.



Right on cue. 

"_I think I can safely say you and your side has lost now_...''


----------



## Hollie (Jul 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> The conspiracy was all on the atheist scientists side.  The creationists weren't interested in the age of the Earth until the billions of years old Earth story came to fruition.  I had trouble convincing Wuwei who continues to believe in the evolutionists lies that creationists weren't interested in the age of the Earth.  It was the atheist scientists who got funding for it.
> 
> All the creationists had to show were the flaws in the radiometric dating procedure itself and the use of circular reasoning to come up with the age of the Earth.  Radioactive decay would slow down as the Earth cooled, so the decay is not constant.  That's something new that I've learned about radiometric dating.
> 
> Next, I showed It was the atheist scientists who were interested in getting the age of the Earth as billions of years old.  The person who came up with it isn't even remembered as he was exposed as having contamination problems.



That was quite the flailing rant. I'm convinced you know your rants are meaningless piffle, but AIG gives you a quota to meet.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 21, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Right on cue.
> 
> "_I think I can safely say you and your side has lost now_...''


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> You are plain silly and can provide no explanation for the relationship between libturds and atheism.  Mostly, it's the libs who believe in evolutionary lies.


Simply having Government on Earth is proof alleged theists have nothing but original Sin and are Incorrigible.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 21, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, I did.  We have discovered it's the atheists and their scientists who only care about the age of the Earth and universe.  They made up radiometric dating to show billions of years when the procedure itself is flawed.  The atheist scientists only accept a specified date range of billions of years or else the results are tossed out as error.  The dates have to fit the age of the layer of the Earth the rock or fossil was found in or else it is considered an error in the process and the results tossed out.  Talk about fitting the data to expected results.
> 
> Next, there is tremendous lack of explanation of how the layers of the Earth formed so nicely one on top of the other when the Earth's surface was changed by catastrophism, e.g. global food.  It means the procedure is only accepted for billions of years to show age of the Earth is billions of years old.  What a crock.  I already showed the layers of the Earth are named after location and not time.  It means the atheists and their scientists lied!  It was the atheist scientists who made up the radiometric dating procedure and stated the layers were based on time.  There is a serious lack of explanation of what happened and evidence of how the layers formed so nicely one on top of the other throughout billions of years.  The more explanation, the more lies your scientists can be caught with.  I caught you with your pants down and kicked your arse and your balls.  You are really hurting haha.


Spoken like a troll. An anti-science troll at that. It reminds me of the black knight in a Monty Python movie who was outmatched and had his arms and legs cut off and still thought he could fight. You will clearly see james bond as the black knight at the 2 minute mark.


.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 21, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Right on cue.
> 
> "_I think I can safely say you and your side has lost now_...''


It is really sad to see the depth that someone will go through to try to preserve their "science" fantasy. The hypocrisy of embracing the misuse of C14 but vociferously rejecting virtually all other longer lived isotopes is simply amazing.
.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 21, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> It is really sad to see the depth that someone will go through to try to preserve their "science" fantasy. The hypocrisy of embracing the misuse of C14 but vociferously rejecting virtually all other longer lived isotopes is simply amazing.
> .


Yes. I think our friend James believes the Bible is reason enough for scientists to abandon the search for our origins, to study the universe and to explore the natural world. Hewing Arks out of cubits of gofher wood is the peak of humankind's existence. 

Creationers have to provide some evidence as to why evolution is not true... not that you just can't believe it. ID'iot Creationer advocates have yet to provide ANY evidence that disproves evolution. On the other hand, these forums are full of rebuttals to creationers claims. Creationers have yet to come up with a viable, scientific alternative to evolution. We're looking for *science* here.

While creationers deny evolution and science, their motivation for doing so is clear; it is for reasons of biblical literalism, (and that is *all* creationers have offered),  I have to question their intellectual honesty. They would rather believe, _without the slightest shred of evidence,_ in talking animals, the Tower of Babel, Jonah living in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days, talking snakes, water to wine, and on, and on...


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 21, 2021)

Where does the Bible explain five separate extinction level events that happened more than six thousand years apart?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 21, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Yes. I think our friend James believes the Bible is reason enough for scientists to abandon the search for our origins, to study the universe and to explore the natural world. Hewing Arks out of cubits of gofher wood is the peak of humankind's existence.
> 
> Creationers have to provide some evidence as to why evolution is not true... not that you just can't believe it. ID'iot Creationer advocates have yet to provide ANY evidence that disproves evolution. On the other hand, these forums are full of rebuttals to creationers claims. Creationers have yet to come up with a viable, scientific alternative to evolution. We're looking for *science* here.
> 
> While creationers deny evolution and science, their motivation for doing so is clear; it is for reasons of biblical literalism, (and that is *all* creationers have offered),  I have to question their intellectual honesty. They would rather believe, _without the slightest shred of evidence,_ in talking animals, the Tower of Babel, Jonah living in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days, talking snakes, water to wine, and on, and on...


As intelligent as the human mind is, it still has foibles that override the intelligence. Think of Jim Jones and his Kool Aid, QAnon, the Waco TX Davidians, Scientology, flat earthers, and yes Creationism. 

There are a lot of trap doors in the brain that marketers, politicians, and clergy know about and they know how to open and pore their cause directly into the brains. And the hapless victims are not even aware that they've been had.

Sadly the human race is destroying itself. 
.


----------



## james bond (Jul 22, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Right on cue.
> 
> "_I think I can safely say you and your side has lost now_...''


Sure, when the atheist side has nothing but radiometric dating.  I showed it is erroneous and atheist scientists have ages from millions to billions of years (not 4.5 B).  It's curious that the atheists still use the dates from 1956.  The scientist who did the erroneous dating was soon forgotten.  Why not use it to date something we know the age of?

Again, how can it fit when the layers of the Earth has been jumbled up by catastrophism?  You have no argument against what happened to the Earth's layers.  The layers show location and not time.


----------



## james bond (Jul 22, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Simply having Government on Earth is proof alleged theists have nothing but original Sin and are Incorrigible.


The original sin applies to all as explained in the Bible.  We have that, history, and not the age of the Earth as IMPORTANT.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> The original sin applies to all as explained in the Bible.  We have that, history, and not the age of the Earth as IMPORTANT.


In Nexus 6 with Zardoz and incorrigible Original Sinners.  Is that why Satan rebelled; he didn't want to "get stuck with us"?


----------



## james bond (Jul 22, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> As intelligent as the human mind is, it still has foibles that override the intelligence. Think of Jim Jones and his Kool Aid, QAnon, the Waco TX Davidians, Scientology, flat earthers, and yes Creationism.
> 
> There are a lot of trap doors in the brain that marketers, politicians, and clergy know about and they know how to open and pore their cause directly into the brains. And the hapless victims are not even aware that they've been had.
> 
> ...


Not creationism and creation science.  The best scientists throughout history were creation scientists.  Your two atheist scientists came up with Darwinism and radiometric dating.  I can't think of anything else.  You were the one who thought age of Earth was an argument against the creationists, but were wrong.  You prolly believe something can go faster than the speed of light when that is impossible.  Even Jim Jones was atheist and not theist.  Liberals started to believe QAnon and wanted POTUS Trump impeached for obstruction of justice.  That's crazy.  BTW, what do you know about the Branch Davidians?  Scientology is condemned by both religious and secular groups.  Flat Earthers and Flattie Hollie are both crazy.  You may as well be one.  Finally, you lie lumping creationists with the above.  Atheists, their scientists, and people like you are more closely related than creationists.  It's more ignorance and espousal of stupid statements by yourself.

You were soundly whupped with the age of the Earth and radiometric dating.

>>There are a lot of trap doors in the brain that marketers, politicians, and clergy know about and they know how to open and pore their cause directly into the brains. And the hapless victims are not even aware that they've been had.

Sadly the human race is destroying itself.<<

You and the atheists do not know that you've been had by Satan.  Sadly the human race will be destroyed by God, i.e. second coming of Jesus, again like with the global flood.  This time no survivors.  I can spew religion just as well as your liberal atheism.


----------



## james bond (Jul 22, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Where does the Bible explain five separate extinction level events that happened more than six thousand years apart?


Only one extinction event so far -- "In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened." Genesis 7:11


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> Only one extinction event so far -- "In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened." Genesis 7:11


No meteor that is alleged to have killed the dinosaurs has impacted Earth within the last six thousand years.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> Not creationism and creation science. The best scientists throughout history were creation scientists. Your two atheist scientists came up with Darwinism and radiometric dating. I can't think of anything else. You were the one who thought age of Earth was an argument against the creationists, but were wrong. You prolly believe something can go faster than the speed of light when that is impossible. Even Jim Jones was atheist and not theist. Liberals started to believe QAnon and wanted POTUS Trump impeached for obstruction of justice. That's crazy. BTW, what do you know about the Branch Davidians? Scientology is condemned by both religious and secular groups. Flat Earthers and Flattie Hollie are both crazy. You may as well be one. Finally, you lie lumping creationists with the above. Atheists, their scientists, and people like you are more closely related than creationists. It's more ignorance and espousal of stupid statements by yourself.
> 
> You were soundly whupped with the age of the Earth and radiometric dating.
> 
> ...


*You missed the entire point of my post. *
Instead, you just blather on with your non-sequiturs, trolling and preaching.
.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 22, 2021)

james bond said:


> Only one extinction event so far -- "In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened." Genesis 7:11


The fossil record says you are clearly wrong.


----------



## james bond (Jul 23, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> No meteor that is alleged to have killed the dinosaurs has impacted Earth within the last six thousand years.


Unless you believe what the atheist scientists are saying with their mistaken belief of Chicxulub asteroid impact 65 M years ago.  First, the impact was local and would not have scattered iridium around the globe.  The atheist scientists are backing off this claim today.  Second, 65 M yrs ago is based on erroneous radiometric dating done during the 50s.


----------



## james bond (Jul 23, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> The fossil record says you are clearly wrong.


The creation scientists are the ones with dinosaur fossils with soft tissue and C14 remaining.  That would be impossible with dinosaurs that went extinct 65 millions years ago as atheist scientists claim.  Also, the giant asteroid hypothesis doesn't add up.  The fossil record actually shows it wasn't so.


----------



## james bond (Jul 23, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Spoken like a troll. An anti-science troll at that.


Lol, it is hypocritical for an evolutionist to claim their opposition is anti-science.

If one can't prove old age of the Earth, then evolution and evolutionary thinking are dead.  Furthermore, we know the dinosaurs weren't all killed off by an asteroid.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> The creation scientists are the ones with dinosaur fossils with soft tissue and C14 remaining.  That would be impossible with dinosaurs that went extinct 65 millions years ago as atheist scientists claim.  Also, the giant asteroid hypothesis doesn't add up.  The fossil record actually shows it wasn't so.


The K-T extinction was even the biggest extinction event (that would be the Permian).  We find dinos and many other species below that boundary that we don't find in layers above them.  You may claim that was Noah's flood but you'd still be left explaining how the same type of evidence is found in much older rock.  

It is estimated that 95% of species went extinct in the Permian.  Of the new species found just after that event, there were no dinos, they didn't come until later.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, when the atheist side has nothing but radiometric dating.  I showed it is erroneous and atheist scientists have ages from millions to billions of years (not 4.5 B).  It's curious that the atheists still use the dates from 1956.  The scientist who did the erroneous dating was soon forgotten.  Why not use it to date something we know the age of?
> 
> Again, how can it fit when the layers of the Earth has been jumbled up by catastrophism?  You have no argument against what happened to the Earth's layers.  The layers show location and not time.


You knowingly make false claims. Radiometric dating is just one method of dating. 

Scientists using only dating from 1956 is another false claim. 

It seems the hyper-religious are not concerned with facts or personal integrity.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> Lol, it is hypocritical for an evolutionist to claim their opposition is anti-science.
> 
> If one can't prove old age of the Earth, then evolution and evolutionary thinking are dead.  Furthermore, we know the dinosaurs weren't all killed off by an asteroid.


How many dinosaurs walked off of Noah's Ark? One would think that any of the real gargantuan dinosaurs would have left some intact fossils such as Mammoths.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> Lol, it is hypocritical for an evolutionist to claim their opposition is anti-science.
> 
> If one can't prove old age of the Earth, then evolution and evolutionary thinking are dead.  Furthermore, we know the dinosaurs weren't all killed off by an asteroid.


The age of the earth is the study of physics and geology. Biological evolution is a different discipline. While the sciences overlap and different fields of study are complimentary, you should have noticed that biology and geology are spelled differently. 

That's called a clue.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 23, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> The fossil record says you are clearly wrong.


If there is anything about the general fossil record is that clearly everything drowned.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> If there is anything about the general fossil record is that clearly everything drowned.


Not true.









						Ancient Ash Volcanoes Entombed Chinese Dinosaurs
					

Ashy, explosive, volcanic outbursts killed and buried the famed dinosaurs of northern China, a new study says.




					www.nationalgeographic.com


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You knowingly make false claims. Radiometric dating is just one method of dating.
> 
> Scientists using only dating from 1956 is another false claim.
> 
> It seems the hyper-religious are not concerned with facts or personal integrity.


RADIOCARBON DATING​Radiocarbon dating was developed in the 1950s by chemist Willard F. Libby. It revolves around the element carbon-14 (14C): an isotope of carbon that is produced when the sun’s energy interacts with nitrogen atoms in the earth’s atmosphere.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Catastrophic smothering...


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Catastrophic smothering...


Not drowning. So clearly everything didn’t drown. However, animals quickly covered in sediment reveal a great many details.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> RADIOCARBON DATING​Radiocarbon dating was developed in the 1950s by chemist Willard F. Libby. It revolves around the element carbon-14 (14C): an isotope of carbon that is produced when the sun’s energy interacts with nitrogen atoms in the earth’s atmosphere.


Once again scientists “discovering” what is explained clearly in the science text called the Bible. Would you like to point out the verse that provides a comprehensive description of radiocarbon dating?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> If there is anything about the general fossil record is that clearly everything drowned.


Why oh why do you make up such stupid lies and post them in the science section? Ridiculous behavior.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> If there is anything about the general fossil record is that clearly everything drowned.


Completely false.  If you knew anything about the subject you'd be embarrassed.  How many people and animals drowned in the eruption of Mt. St. Helens?

Creationists remind me of that old joke: 
Me: I can speak any language except Greek​You: Can you speak Spanish?​Me: No, that's Greek to me.​


----------



## james bond (Jul 23, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> The K-T extinction was even the biggest extinction event (that would be the Permian).  We find dinos and many other species below that boundary that we don't find in layers above them.  You may claim that was Noah's flood but you'd still be left explaining how the same type of evidence is found in much older rock.
> 
> It is estimated that 95% of species went extinct in the Permian.  Of the new species found just after that event, there were no dinos, they didn't come until later.


Stop it.  Stop the atheist conjectures, i.e. lies.  The Bible explained it first and the Earth evidence that we find back up the global flood.

The evidence that shows the impact from Chicxulub wasn't global is the lack of iridium around the globe.  Wouldn't you say a global extinction event would have evidence around the world?


----------



## james bond (Jul 23, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Once again scientists “discovering” what is explained clearly in the science text called the Bible. Would you like to point out the verse that provides a comprehensive description of radiocarbon dating?


C14 dating of dinosaur fossils, diamonds, rocks, other fossils, etc. back up a younger Earth of thousands of years than what the atheist scientists claim of billions of years with radiometric dating.

Again, the Bible doesn't care about the age of the Earth nor discusses it.  However, you can knock yourself out and then suffer for eternity since you believe the lies -- What Does the Bible Say About The Age Of The Earth?.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 23, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why oh why do you make up such stupid lies and post them in the science section? Ridiculous behavior.


Are you the spokesman for the scientific community? You are the atheist without any proof that life simply developed all on its own -------- yet you cannot even fabricate the same with presently existing stepping stones of life. I would have to say that you and not I are "ridiculous". Ridiculous in you denial. Ridiculous in your religious atheistic fervor. Ridiculous in your hatred of other considerations.   The Flood epic in Genesis say that the heavens opened and the fountains of the deep erupted. For 40 days and nights all the living things upon the land were systematically swept away. They suffocated, they drowned, they were buried.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> The evidence that shows the impact from Chicxulub wasn't global is the lack of iridium around the globe.


Get out of the science section you embarrassing, pathetic liar. 






						Science | AAAS
					






					advances.sciencemag.org


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 23, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Are you the spokesman for the scientific community?


Any child can read a 2 paragraph article and know you made up that stupid, pathetic lie. You can sit there all day and jerk off to thoughts of me., and your pathetic lie generated from your diseased brain will still be a pathetic lie. You are embarrassing yourself and your immoral religion with your behavior.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> Stop it.  Stop the atheist conjectures, i.e. lies.  The Bible explained it first and the Earth evidence that we find back up the global flood.
> 
> The evidence that shows the impact from Chicxulub wasn't global is the lack of iridium around the globe.  Wouldn't you say a global extinction event would have evidence around the world?


You ignored the part about the clear geological evidence for *multiple extinctions* in different eras.  

First off the impact from Chicxulub *was *global as iridium *IS *found around the globe.  Also, after the K-T event there were no dinos anywhere on the planet, even marine animals went extinct (curious for a flood).  Sounds global to me.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 23, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why oh why do you make up such stupid lies and post them in the science section? Ridiculous behavior.


Why? It is imperative that creationists lie. They are pitiful pests that enjoy trolling science forums.

.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 23, 2021)

james bond said:


> Unless you believe what the atheist scientists are saying with their mistaken belief of Chicxulub asteroid impact 65 M years ago.  First, the impact was local and would not have scattered iridium around the globe.  The atheist scientists are backing off this claim today.  Second, 65 M yrs ago is based on erroneous radiometric dating done during the 50s.


But, nothing within the last six thousand years.


----------



## james bond (Jul 23, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Get out of the science section you embarrassing, pathetic liar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why should I trust an atheist science website, you worthless POS simpleton and liar?  Where is the evidence for it being spread around the globe?

'Lack of an iridium anomaly
The secular model predicts a layer containing higher than crustal levels of iridium (a rare earth element) should spread out across the globe after a major impact hits the earth, but this is not necessarily the case. Much of the iridium produced in an impact stays in the debris at or near the impact site, and does not go up in a dust cloud to later settle globally (Taylor 2007).

Although higher levels of iridium have been found in rocks near the K-Pg boundary at many sites around the globe (Claeys, Kiessling, and Alvarez 2002), it is not universally distributed. In fact, Ir-anomalies are not always observed in adjacent locations within the same rock unit, as Clemens and Hartman (2014) found in the Hell Creek Formation in eastern Montana.

Sarjeant and Currie (2001) further reported that the original site in Gubbio, Italy, made famous by the Alvarez et al. paper (1980), was reanalyzed by Crocket et al. (1988) and Rocchia et al. (1990). These authors found that the reported iridium anomaly was not a single spike in value as claimed by Alvarez et al. (1980), but a series of iridium-rich layers spread across a 4 m thick interval. Sarjeant and Currie (2001) concluded that this is hardly the type of data that support a single impact.

And what was found at the Chicxulub site in all the cores and drilling results to date? Although a few traces of iridium were identified in melt rocks in wells C-1 and Y-5 (Fig. 1) (Schuraytz et al. 1996; Sharpton et al. 1992) no significant amounts of iridium have been found in any of the ejecta material or impactite layers across the Chicxulub site (Keller et al. 2004b). The amount found in the melt-rich rocks in C-1 and Y-6 ranged from none detected to 13.5 ppb, reportedly “well above typical crustal concentrations” (Sharpton et al. 1992, 820). Finally, there was no trace of an iridium spike in the top of the impactite in the Yaxcopoil-1 (Yax-1) core and no iridium reported to date within the M0077A core drilled in 2016.

In addition to the less than expected iridium, Paquay et al. (2008) found that the osmium residue in marine sediments at the K-Pg was insufficient for a large impactor the size of what has been claimed for Chicxulub.

Ironically, an iridium-rich layer is often used to identify the K-Pg boundary, where it is found (Claeys, Kiessling, and Alvarez 2002), and yet there is virtually no iridium in the impactite material at the very site claimed to be the “smoking gun.”'









						Do Data Support Large Meteorite Impact at Chicxulub?
					

The evidence for a large impact at Chicxulub may not be as strong as generally believed. A case can also be made that there was no impact.




					answersingenesis.org
				




ETA:  You just want me out of S&T because I am right most of the time and destroy arguments by other atheists.  Envy is one of the deadly sins.


----------



## james bond (Jul 24, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> You ignored the part about the clear geological evidence for *multiple extinctions* in different eras.
> 
> First off the impact from Chicxulub *was *global as iridium *IS *found around the globe.  Also, after the K-T event there were no dinos anywhere on the planet, even marine animals went extinct (curious for a flood).  Sounds global to me.


The creation scientists know that the global flood was the grandaddy of all extinctions.

The impact from Chicxulub was not global.  The big deal is there isn't enough iridium at the site.  The atheist scientists claim that it caused iridium found around the globe, but it is too random from what the atheists claim.  Furthermore, can you actually prove that it was a large meteor or asteroid impact there?  The other way a crater can form is a volcano.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 24, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> If anything the universe is custom made for the Coronavirus.  There are many times more of them than there are of us on this planet.


----------



## james bond (Jul 24, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Why? It is imperative that creationists lie. They are pitiful pests that enjoy trolling science forums.
> 
> .


How can a creationist lie if he goes by God's word in the Bible?  Science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  That should make you turn red with embarrassment for being so wrong about your competition such as your age of the Earth fiasco and posting under the wrong topic.  At least if I don't know about what atheist scientists are doing and have come up with, then I can go to evolution.berkeley.edu done by my secular alma mater.

If secular scientists didn't lie, then it would be in the Bible but evolution, evolutionary thinking, and abiogenesis aren't there.  Singularity is there, but God created that and the atheist scientists stole it for their own.  Initially, God was and still is infinite, but atheists took that and came up with an infinite universe.  They were proven wrong.  The Bible is still correct stating God is infinite, but now the lying scientists have made up a billion of years old universe.


----------



## Colin norris (Jul 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> The _atheist _scientific consensus.  They don't believe a global flood happened despite the mid-Atlantic ridge circling the planet, the oceans found below the seafloor, and the theory of plate tectonics.
> 
> Can you name some of these atheist scientists?



Exactly what year was this global flood in regard to the scriptures?


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> The creation scientists know that the global flood was the grandaddy of all extinctions.
> 
> The impact from Chicxulub was not global.  The big deal is there isn't enough iridium at the site.  The atheist scientists claim that it caused iridium found around the globe, but it is too random from what the atheists claim.  Furthermore, can you actually prove that it was a large meteor or asteroid impact there?  The other way a crater can form is a volcano.


So what caused the other extinctions?

And yes, the Chicxulub crater is an impact crater.  Scientists (it was a big team so probably atheists, jews, christians, and muslims) have drilled into the crater and taken samples.  It is not volcanic.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> The creation scientists know that the global flood was the grandaddy of all extinctions.
> 
> The impact from Chicxulub was not global.  The big deal is there isn't enough iridium at the site.  The atheist scientists claim that it caused iridium found around the globe, but it is too random from what the atheists claim.  Furthermore, can you actually prove that it was a large meteor or asteroid impact there?  The other way a crater can form is a volcano.


FYI, "creation scientists" is an oxymoron while "atheist scientists" is redundant.  Science is, by definition, a study of the natural world.  If a "scientist" invokes supernatural forces or events to explain something, they are no longer a scientist and have become a theologian.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> C14 dating of dinosaur fossils, diamonds, rocks, other fossils, etc. back up a younger Earth of thousands of years than what the atheist scientists claim of billions of years with radiometric dating.
> 
> Again, the Bible doesn't care about the age of the Earth nor discusses it.  However, you can knock yourself out and then suffer for eternity since you believe the lies -- What Does the Bible Say About The Age Of The Earth?.


Your opinions about C14 dating are erroneous because they reflect misinformation from the various creationer ministries.

It’s odd that you describe the Bible as a caring entity. You give the Bible feelings, emotions and personality as you do your gods.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> How can a creationist lie if he goes by God's word in the Bible?  Science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  That should make you turn red with embarrassment for being so wrong about your competition such as your age of the Earth fiasco and posting under the wrong topic.  At least if I don't know about what atheist scientists are doing and have come up with, then I can go to evolution.berkeley.edu done by my secular alma mater.
> 
> If secular scientists didn't lie, then it would be in the Bible but evolution, evolutionary thinking, and abiogenesis aren't there.  Singularity is there, but God created that and the atheist scientists stole it for their own.  Initially, God was and still is infinite, but atheists took that and came up with an infinite universe.  They were proven wrong.  The Bible is still correct stating God is infinite, but now the lying scientists have made up a billion of years old universe.


Science does not “back up” the Bible. Please show us where science “backs up” a flat earth, talking snakes, dead people becoming undead, etc., etc.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> Why should I trust an atheist science website, you worthless POS simpleton and liar?  Where is the evidence for it being spread around the globe?
> 
> 'Lack of an iridium anomaly
> The secular model predicts a layer containing higher than crustal levels of iridium (a rare earth element) should spread out across the globe after a major impact hits the earth, but this is not necessarily the case. Much of the iridium produced in an impact stays in the debris at or near the impact site, and does not go up in a dust cloud to later settle globally (Taylor 2007).
> ...


When your source is charlatans at AIG, you immediately lose credibility.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 24, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Catastrophic smothering...





Wuwei said:


> Why? It is imperative that creationists lie. They are pitiful pests that enjoy trolling science forums.
> 
> .



Why don't you give everyone your own original science lecture.  Don't cut and paste.  Use your own words and *scientific* acumen.   We can't wait to learn the terrific *science* you will teach everyone.

Do you even KNOW the etiology of "science"?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> Why don't you give everyone your own original science lecture.  Don't cut and paste.  Use your own words and *scientific* acumen.   We can't wait to learn the terrific *science* you will teach everyone.
> 
> Do you even KNOW the etiology of "science"?


"Don't cut and paste.''

This from the (im)poster who cuts and pastes entire pages of ''quotes" from creationer websites.


----------



## james bond (Jul 24, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Exactly what year was this global flood in regard to the scriptures?


Going by Biblical genealogy, it was around 2345 BC.


----------



## james bond (Jul 24, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Science does not “back up” the Bible. Please show us where science “backs up” a flat earth, talking snakes, dead people becoming undead, etc., etc.





Hollie said:


> When your source is charlatans at AIG, you immediately lose credibility.


AIG is one of the great creation science websites.  You need to understand science today has become atheist vs creation science or liberal vs conservative science.

The tragedy is many people, especially atheists, believe whatever they are told.  They do not even know that their science is influenced by their religion.  How stupid AF is that?


----------



## james bond (Jul 24, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So what caused the other extinctions?


Creationists believe that the global flood was the granddaddy for global extinction.  The others were local catastrophes like Chicxulub.  They believe that Chicxulub could have happened while the global flood was occurring, i.e. over a year's time.


----------



## james bond (Jul 24, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> FYI, "creation scientists" is an oxymoron while "atheist scientists" is redundant.  Science is, by definition, a study of the natural world.  If a "scientist" invokes supernatural forces or events to explain something, they are no longer a scientist and have become a theologian.  Just sayin'.


Nah.  Stop believing in the mythology and fairy tales of atheist science.  They're the only ones who can teach _their_ brand of science until creationists are allowed to teach creation science in schools.  The greatest scientists in the history of science were creation scientists.  One came up with the scientific method.  Another with plate tectonics.  The atheist scientist who dated the Earth and universe (in the 50s) has been forgotten.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> How can a creationist lie if he goes by God's word in the Bible?  Science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  That should make you turn red with embarrassment for being so wrong about your competition such as your age of the Earth fiasco and posting under the wrong topic.  At least if I don't know about what atheist scientists are doing and have come up with, then I can go to evolution.berkeley.edu done by my secular alma mater.
> 
> If secular scientists didn't lie, then it would be in the Bible but evolution, evolutionary thinking, and abiogenesis aren't there.  Singularity is there, but God created that and the atheist scientists stole it for their own.  Initially, God was and still is infinite, but atheists took that and came up with an infinite universe.  They were proven wrong.  The Bible is still correct stating God is infinite, but now the lying scientists have made up a billion of years old universe.


Ores millions of years old have been dated using rhenium-187 decay to osmium-187.

Rh-187 and Os-187 have been found completely isolated within diamonds. Both elements are very rare, so subsequent contamination is extremely unlikely. The diamonds have been dated to a range of 3.0 to 3.5 billion years old.

What objections do you have on the efficacy of this dating method. Please use science and be specific. 

.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> AIG is one of the great creation science websites.  You need to understand science today has become atheist vs creation science or liberal vs conservative science.
> 
> The tragedy is many people, especially atheists, believe whatever they are told.  They do not even know that their science is influenced by their religion.  How stupid AF is that?


AIG has nothing to do with science. The _about_ page makes that clear. 

"Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.''

No mention of science so who made you their spokes-charlatan?


There is no ''atheist vs creation science'' conflict as you have described your conspiracy theory. "Creation science'' has consistently been rejected as science for what it is: fundamentalist Christianity.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> Nah.  Stop believing in the mythology and fairy tales of atheist science.  They're the only ones who can teach _their_ brand of science until creationists are allowed to teach creation science in schools.  The greatest scientists in the history of science were creation scientists.  One came up with the scientific method.  Another with plate tectonics.  The atheist scientist who dated the Earth and universe (in the 50s) has been forgotten.


Christian fundamentalism will not be taught in the public schools. The courts have consistently exposed the fraud of ''creationer science'' under the burqa of religious fear and ignorance.









						Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education
					

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.




					ncse.ngo


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Any child can read a 2 paragraph article and know you made up that stupid, pathetic lie. You can sit there all day and jerk off to thoughts of me., and your pathetic lie generated from your diseased brain will still be a pathetic lie. You are embarrassing yourself and your immoral religion with your behavior.


What you spread over and over and over are atheistic LIES. You believe if "smart" atheistic people say something enough then it has to be true --- or at least if enough people say it then it must be fact. I don't believe what you say. You are a very immature person who shows little if any concern for anyone but yourself. And you like to label people who beg to differ with your views and opinions.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 24, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> What you spread over and over and over are atheistic LIES. You believe if "smart" atheistic people say something enough then it has to be true --- or at least if enough people say it then it must be fact. I don't believe what you say. You are a very immature person who shows little if any concern for anyone but yourself. And you like to label people who beg to differ with you view and opinions.


My Friend, please put such people on Ignore.  That's what it's for.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

"Answer not a fool  according to his folly lest thou be like unto him." - The Holy Bible

More recently and crudely put:

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is always an order of magnitude greater than it took to produce it." - Brandolini's Law


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 24, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Christian fundamentalism will not be taught in the public schools. The courts have consistently exposed the fraud of ''creationer science'' under the burqa of religious fear and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Atheism should not be taught as secular truth in public classrooms either. When historic Biblical views could be freely disseminated, students were prone to THINK and PONDER and RATIONALIZE. Try to encourage a discussion today and instructors risk losing their jobs because to THINK one must be willing to consider right and wrong. To PONDER one must be willing to regard values and opinions. And to RATIONALIZE one must consider that there are values and opinions that are irrational.  That doesn't have to be mean or vindictive, but it must be fair, honest and scrutinized. Public institutions are not willing to do that today.  They are far too concerned with allowing people born biologically male or female to insist to be called "IT" without any scientific validation, and yet disregard values or opinions simply because they are supportive of GODLY principles some don't wish to deal with.


----------



## james bond (Jul 24, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Ores millions of years old have been dated using rhenium-187 decay to osmium-187.
> 
> Rh-187 and Os-187 have been found completely isolated within diamonds. Both elements are very rare, so subsequent contamination is extremely unlikely. The diamonds have been dated to a range of 3.0 to 3.5 billion years old.
> 
> ...


I still think you're hung up on the _age of the Earth_ because you're a dumb atheist stuck on evolution and evolutionary thinking.  Admit you are the one who cares badly about the age of the Earth!

Are you finally admitting the Earth is *not 4.54 billions of years old* as claimed from the 1950s in the above?  What does the millions of years mean?  I think it would be a path toward some genuine knowledge and it would fail today's evolution and evolutionary thinking.  My arguments against radiometric dating were:  1) We do not know how much of the parent isotope there was present at the beginning, 2) we assume there has been no contamination, and 3) the decay rate has remained constant.  Radiometric dating is unreliable and an erroneous process as it usually fails all three!   The creationists have dated rocks of known ages and have gotten _extremely inflated _ages.  If valid, radiometric dating is the only thing that supports the long time evolution needs, but it isn't valid.


----------



## james bond (Jul 24, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Christian fundamentalism will not be taught in the public schools. The courts have consistently exposed the fraud of ''creationer science'' under the burqa of religious fear and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As usual, Flattie Hollie, you fail to read and understand what I am saying.  We are for teaching creation science as an argument against just teaching atheist science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 24, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> What you spread over and over and over are atheistic LIES.


Backed by every shred of evidence we have ever collected in every field of science.

You have a book of myths written in the iron age.

I like my chances. Good luck!


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 24, 2021)

Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one. - The Late Milton Friedman









						(no title)
					






					TheEducationFraud.wordpress.com
				




Colleges are turning out millions of brainwashed Leftists  every year.  That explains the 
dolts we have in the White House.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 24, 2021)

ChemEngineer said:


> Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one. - The Late Milton Friedman
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You uneducated slob right wingers have been using this same talking point since forever. Educated, intelligent people tend to be more moderate and more liberal. And since you feel inferior n so many ways, you attack.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 24, 2021)

james bond said:


> Are you finally admitting the Earth is *not 4.54 billions of years old* as claimed from the 1950s in the above? What does the millions of years mean?


The age of the earth is irrelevant in this post. I'm simply giving the range that Rh-Os can measure. The context here is radiology not evolution.


james bond said:


> 1) We do not know how much of the parent isotope there was present at the beginning,


We absolutely do know the original amount.  It Is the current amount of Rh plus the current amount of Os. Why? Looking back in time, the Os in the sample was once all Rh. That was the amount of the parent element in the material at the start, namely the sum of amounts of Rh + Os. The Os comes from the original Rh. It was once Rh, and now it's Os. It's as simple as that.


james bond said:


> 2) we assume there has been no contamination,


Rh - Os is embedded in diamond, not exposed to the air like carbon samples are. If there was Os contamination it could easily be measured because only 1.96% of Osmium-187 isotope is naturally occurring. If there was contamination almost all of it would be from the heavier isotopes, Os-188 through Os-192 which are easily weeded out. 

OTOH, Diamonds and old rocks are exposed to open air and much more subject to contamination if C14 is used for dating.


james bond said:


> 3) [we assume] the decay rate has remained constant


The decay rates depends on fundamental physical forces and constants.  Isotopes can undergo beta decay, alpha decay, and gamma decay. If any of these forces were not constant, the stars and planets would have blown up or shriveled up long ago. 

Those are my 3 responses. If you disagree with any responses what physical reason do you have.

.


----------



## james bond (Jul 24, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The age of the earth is irrelevant in this post. I'm simply giving the range that Rh-Os can measure. The context here is radiology not evolution.
> 
> We absolutely do know the original amount.  It Is the current amount of Rh plus the current amount of Os. Why? Looking back in time, the Os in the sample was once all Rh. That was the amount of the parent element in the material at the start, namely the sum of amounts of Rh + Os. The Os comes from the original Rh. It was once Rh, and now it's Os. It's as simple as that.
> 
> ...


You should back off the age of the Earth since the creation scientists can just use C14 dating for organic items such as fossils.  What was interesting was the soft tissue and C14 remaining in dinosaur fossils.  That alone should scare the crap outta you that evolution and evolutionary thinking is wrong.  Instead, radiometric dating from the 1950s is what you base your entire arguments upon since there is no evidence for abiogenesis nor atheist singularity.  The tables have turned since you stupidly brought up age of the Earth.

As for rocks and diamonds, I think the creation scientists only used radiometric dating on rocks and diamonds of known age to show they weren't billions of years as thought.  It exposed what the atheist scientist of 1950s claimed.

I'm glad you admit radiometric dating is flawed.  At least, I think that's what you're saying and admitting defeat.


----------



## james bond (Jul 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Backed by every shred of evidence we have ever collected in every field of science.
> 
> You have a book of myths written in the iron age.
> 
> I like my chances. Good luck!


You're the worst science poster here.  You should be in the atheist religion section.  Yours is not backed by any shred of evidence that require real science.  It's basically backed by atheism and in your case with enormous stupidity.  Radiometric dating is supposed to support long time, but the dating method is flawed due to poor assumptions.





__





						More Bad News for Radiometric Dating
					





					www.cs.unc.edu


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> Creationists believe that the global flood was the granddaddy for global extinction.  The others were local catastrophes like Chicxulub.  They believe that Chicxulub could have happened while the global flood was occurring, i.e. over a year's time.


One has to admire the strength of your faith and you're ability to ignore any evidence that may contradict it.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> Nah.  Stop believing in the mythology and fairy tales of atheist science.  They're the only ones who can teach _their_ brand of science until creationists are allowed to teach creation science in schools.  The greatest scientists in the history of science were creation scientists.  One came up with the scientific method.  *Another with plate tectonics.*  The atheist scientist who dated the Earth and universe (in the 50s) has been forgotten.


Ironic that plate tectonics was discovered by a 'creation scientist' and you still refuse to accept it.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Atheism should not be taught as secular truth in public classrooms either. When historic Biblical views could be freely disseminated, students were prone to THINK and PONDER and RATIONALIZE. Try to encourage a discussion today and instructors risk losing their jobs because to THINK one must be willing to consider right and wrong. To PONDER one must be willing to regard values and opinions. And to RATIONALIZE one must consider that there are values and opinions that are irrational.  That doesn't have to be mean or vindictive, but it must be fair, honest and scrutinized. Public institutions are not willing to do that today.  They are far too concerned with allowing people born biologically male or female to insist to be called "IT" without any scientific validation, and yet disregard values or opinions simply because they are supportive of GODLY principles some don't wish to deal with.


There is nothing to support your statement that “_When historic Biblical views could be freely disseminated, students were prone to THINK and PONDER and RATIONALIZE”. _Christians tend to make such ludicrous claims because they’re incensed that proselytizing is illegal in the public schools.

if we are going to attempt to RATIONALIZE a literal rendering of the Bible, how goes anyone THINK and PONDER about such absurdities as talking snakes, a flat earth, a 6,000 year old earth, dead people coming back to life, etc.?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> You should back off the age of the Earth since the creation scientists can just use C14 dating for organic items such as fossils.  What was interesting was the soft tissue and C14 remaining in dinosaur fossils.  That alone should scare the crap outta you that evolution and evolutionary thinking is wrong.  Instead, radiometric dating from the 1950s is what you base your entire arguments upon since there is no evidence for abiogenesis nor atheist singularity.  The tables have turned since you stupidly brought up age of the Earth.
> 
> As for rocks and diamonds, I think the creation scientists only used radiometric dating on rocks and diamonds of known age to show they weren't billions of years as thought.  It exposed what the atheist scientist of 1950s claimed.
> 
> I'm glad you admit radiometric dating is flawed.  At least, I think that's what you're saying and admitting defeat.


My post addressed Rh-Os decay and your objections concerning the *original amount of rhenium, contamination possibility, and invariance of decay rate*.

You deflected to issues that have nothing to do with the efficacy of Rh-Os dating. I gave 3 responses in post #317. If you disagree with any responses what physical reason do you have.

As of now it looks like you can't defend your argument with the science of long half-life dating. You can only change the subject.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 25, 2021)

Hollie said:


> if we are going to attempt to RATIONALIZE a literal rendering of the Bible, how goes anyone THINK and PONDER


I don't think creationists know how to ponder.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> As usual, Flattie Hollie, you fail to read and understand what I am saying.  We are for teaching creation science as an argument against just teaching atheist science.


Actually, what you are saying is nothing more than what comes out of creation ministries and that is far removed from science. You should be honest with yourself and others. “Creation science” is Christian fundamentalism. “Creation science” is simply _window dressing_ new lipstick on a string of phony labels attempting to rebrand “Biblical Creationism" which became “Scientific Creationism, which became "Intelligent Design." All of it being attempts by Christian fundamentalists to press their religion into the public school system.

As a group, Christian extremists have shown themselves to be dishonest, agenda driven hacks.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> One has to admire the strength of your faith and you're ability to ignore any evidence that may contradict it.


Can it really be Faith in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the Incorrigible original sinners?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 25, 2021)

On the contrary, i think Bond and Nipper show how fragile and shaky their faith is, when they treat us to this dog and pony show. If their faith were strong and unshakeable, they would not feel the need to go on a message board and try to justify it with lies, attacks, and fake evidence and arguments that have nothing to do with beliefs they hold for entirely different reasons. We are just the foils in this little exercise of them trying to keep their faith.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Can it really be Faith in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the Incorrigible original sinners?


I ran that through Google Translate and it still sounds like nonsense.


----------



## james bond (Jul 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> One has to admire the strength of your faith and you're ability to ignore any evidence that may contradict it.


Hm... Speaking of FAITH, I understand that on this topic, it's more a _belief_ of the atheists and their scientists that an asteroid killed off the dinosaurs and their _belief_ that radiometric dating from the 1950s is valid.  The Bible has _always_ told it first and the atheists and their scientists (and Satan) had to _contradict everything _the Bible stated.  The Chicxulub explanation would contradict the global flood killing the dinosaurs.

However, the evidence doesn't show that it would cause a global extinction.  It doesn't even show that there was an asteroid impact.  There were no impacted rocks and debris found at the site and lack of iridium or radioactive material present in all meteors.  The evidence shows that the crater was formed by a volcano.  Aren't you the one going by what _you believe_ than the actual evidence?

I didn't want to bring up Satan in s&t, but there is no other explanation of why evolution and evolutionary thinking _contradicts everything_ in the Bible.  You're entitled to believe what you want without the scientific evidence backing it up, but it's weird like the atheists and their scientists are going by the anti-Bible.  Are you starting to get it now?


----------



## james bond (Jul 25, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Ironic that plate tectonics was discovered by a 'creation scientist' and you still refuse to accept it.


Heh.  It's what caused the global flood, but you and your side refuse to accept it.


----------



## james bond (Jul 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> On the contrary, i think Bond and Nipper show how fragile and shaky their faith is, when they treat us to this dog and pony show. If their faith were strong and unshakeable, they would not feel the need to go on a message board and try to justify it with lies, attacks, and fake evidence and arguments that have nothing to do with beliefs they hold for entirely different reasons. We are just the foils in this little exercise of them trying to keep their faith.


The stuff that happened in the past such as global flood vs. Chicxulub asteroid can only be argued by the evidence.  There's plenty of factual evidence for a global flood and nothing for a large meteor impact at Chicxulub.  It sounds like more fairy tales of evolutionary thinking and something made up to discredit a global flood.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> On the contrary, i think Bond and Nipper show how fragile and shaky their faith is, when they treat us to this dog and pony show. If their faith were strong and unshakeable, they would not feel the need to go on a message board and try to justify it with lies, attacks, and fake evidence and arguments that have nothing to do with beliefs they hold for entirely different reasons. We are just the foils in this little exercise of them trying to keep their faith.


There is very little difference in the broken brain wiring of a creation "scientist" compared to scientologists, Rudy Giuliani, and the like. 
We obviously can't make them see rationality but we can push them into corners, but they seem to be too oblivious to recognize their own self-contradictions. However some on this board have no recourse except simply being trolls.

All would be well if they didn't constantly hijack science threads and post crap from creationist sites that have gaslighted their minds. 
.


----------



## Bezukhov (Jul 25, 2021)

Can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt it was your version of this first cause that was responsible for everything, and not that Hindu's over there?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 25, 2021)

Should we ask the Sumerians?


----------



## ChemEngineer (Jul 25, 2021)

Bezukhov said:


> Can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt it was your version of this first cause that was responsible for everything, and not that Hindu's over there?



You are clearly unfamiliar with the nature of "proof."
Nothing will serve as "proof" if it is contrary to their narrative.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hm... Speaking of FAITH, I understand that on this topic, it's more a _belief_ of the atheists and their scientists that an asteroid killed off the dinosaurs and their _belief_ that radiometric dating from the 1950s is valid.  The Bible has _always_ told it first and the atheists and their scientists (and Satan) had to _contradict everything _the Bible stated.  The Chicxulub explanation would contradict the global flood killing the dinosaurs.
> 
> However, the evidence doesn't show that it would cause a global extinction.  It doesn't even show that there was an asteroid impact.  There were no impacted rocks and debris found at the site and lack of iridium or radioactive material present in all meteors.  The evidence shows that the crater was formed by a volcano.  Aren't you the one going by what _you believe_ than the actual evidence?
> 
> I didn't want to bring up Satan in s&t, but there is no other explanation of why evolution and evolutionary thinking _contradicts everything_ in the Bible.  You're entitled to believe what you want without the scientific evidence backing it up, but it's weird like the atheists and their scientists are going by the anti-Bible.  Are you starting to get it now?


Here is an account of a scientific exploration of the crater.  They drilled into it and removed rock cores.  They found NO volcanic rock.  You can look at them yourself.  I have to doubt your honesty when you claim the evidence shows that the crater was formed by a volcano.  What evidence?

I do get it.  You use a book on theology as a scientific textbook.  You really need to understand the difference between theology and science.  The Bible doesn't have to be literally true to have value, you are the one cheapening it by demanding it does.  What does it matter if the flood were literally true or not, is your faith so fragile that you have to invent things to back it up?

_Inch by inch, the team pulled up the skinny core of ghostly white limestone from the ocean floor, gazing at the compressed remains of ancient organisms that died tens of millions of years ago. But then a stark divide appeared as the layers abruptly darkened._​​_“It was nothing like the stuff above,” recalls Sean Gulick, a co-chief scientist of the expedition and a researcher at the University of Texas at Austin._​​_This change in the rock marks one of the most catastrophic events in Earth’s history, some 66 million years ago, when an epic asteroid slammed into the sea just offshore of Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula. _​


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 25, 2021)

Bezukhov said:


> Can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt it was your version of this first cause that was responsible for everything, and not that Hindu's over there?


The way I see it is that if you want to say the big bang had a first cause, that's fine. But that means nothing further can be said. It does not mean that a particular religion is valid. It does not give rise to any form of prayer, liturgy, or rituals. It does not say that same first cause micromanages your life. 
.


----------



## james bond (Jul 25, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> My post addressed Rh-Os decay and your objections concerning the *original amount of rhenium, contamination possibility, and invariance of decay rate*.
> 
> You deflected to issues that have nothing to do with the efficacy of Rh-Os dating. I gave 3 responses in post #317. If you disagree with any responses what physical reason do you have.
> 
> ...



When was RH-Os decay done initially?  What was it used to date to get the _long half-life time_?  I suspect you're giving a different example of how radiometric decay can be used to date a rock and we went over that already -- The Radiometric Dating Game.

Moreover, I've found that you're getting the radiometric age which may not have to do with actual age.

Finally, I can accept that you won't accept the creation science of radiocarbon dating of dinosaur fossils because it shows they died off in short time.  It's real science, but you cannot accept it due and continually avoid it because it destroys your erroneous atheist worldview.



Wuwei said:


> There is very little difference in the broken brain wiring of a creation "scientist" compared to scientologists, Rudy Giuliani, and the like.
> We obviously can't make them see rationality but we can push them into corners, but they seem to be too oblivious to recognize their own self-contradictions. However some on this board have no recourse except simply being trolls.
> 
> All would be well if they didn't constantly hijack science threads and post crap from creationist sites that have gaslighted their minds.
> .


Come now.  Basically, all I get from you are libturd atheist science promotion and lies of atheist science arguments.  I understand because it's based on trying to support your religion and contradicting what the Bible stated.

Thus, I agree that we'll disagree, but I didn't expect to find that we disagree on everything.  My science is based on the Bible, but I try to leave out the religious parts as creationists have found that science backs up the Bible.  For example, God creating singularity and the big bang cause spacetime and our universe to be formed.  However, we find that afterwards atheist scientists took singularity for themselves and hypothesized that it and the big bang happens naturally.  That's a ridiculous and weak argument and huge lie.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> ? I suspect you're giving a different example of how radiometric decay can be used to date a rock and we went over that already -- The Radiometric Dating Game.


Haha...do you ever have a moment of clarity and realize you have to cite fringe morons who have published no science? That you embarrass youself when you do this? I doubt it.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> When was RH-Os decay done initially?  What was it used to date to get the _long half-life time_?  I suspect you're giving a different example of how radiometric decay can be used to date a rock and we went over that already -- The Radiometric Dating Game.
> 
> Moreover, I've found that you're getting the radiometric age which may not have to do with actual age.
> 
> ...


Cutting and pasting from a religioners personal blog is hardly a relevant argument.


----------



## james bond (Jul 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha...do you ever have a moment of clarity and realize you have to cite fringe morons who have published no science? That you embarrass youself when you do this? I doubt it.


Hm... Instead of criticizing the creation scientist writers as fringe morons, what about turning the high powered analytical mind of yours and looking at the fringe morons here?

Notice how Wuwei has run, run, run away when I just asked him a few questions of why he came up with Rh-Os dating?  He's obsessed with the age of the Earth and I think it's why he likes to follow me around.  Isn't he a good example of the fringe morons _here_?  Or flat Earther Hollie?  Or how about using the goofy mind of yours and look in the mirror?  I would say you three are prime examples of fringe morons.  May as well start in our own backyard first.

Obviously, my sources would be different than the atheist scientist fringe moron garbage links.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> Hm... Instead of criticizing the creation scientist writers as fringe morons, what about turning the high powered analytical mind of yours and looking at the fringe morons here?
> 
> Notice how Wuwei has run, run, run away when I just asked him a few questions of why he came up with Rh-Os dating?  He's obsessed with the age of the Earth and I think it's why he likes to follow me around.  Isn't he a good example of the fringe morons _here_?  Or flat Earther Hollie?  Or how about using the goofy mind of yours and look in the mirror?  I would say you three are prime examples of fringe morons.  May as well start in our own backyard first.
> 
> Obviously, my sources would be different than the atheist scientist fringe moron garbage links.


Your juvenile tirades do nothing to rescue creationer falsehoods.


----------



## james bond (Jul 25, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Cutting and pasting from a religioners personal blog is hardly a relevant argument.


Well, I'm subjected to your libtard atheist religioner fake websites such as wikipedia and more.  *Talk about fringe morons. * Sheesh.

I rather use conservapedia and know the types of people I am dealing with.  Is it because of anger that you call me a derogatory flat Earther when you are an atheist religioner?

"According to Anthony DeStefano:


“But are (atheists) really dangerous, too?
You bet they are. The truth is, the atheist position is incapable of supporting any coherent system of morality other than ruthless social Darwinism. That’s why it has caused more deaths, murders and bloodshed than any other belief system in the history of the world.
Atheists, of course, are always claiming hysterically that Christianity has been responsible for most of the world’s wars, but that’s just another example of atheistic ignorance. The main reasons for war have always been economic gain, territorial gain, civil and revolutionary conflicts. According to Philip Axelrod’s monumental "Encyclopedia of Wars," only 6.98 percent or all wars from 8000 BC to present were religious in nature. If you subtract Islamic wars from the equation, only 3.2 percent of wars were due to specifically Christian causes. That means that over 96 percent of all the wars on this planet were due to worldly reasons.[25]”
Various studies found that traumatic events in people's lives has a positive correlation with "emotional atheism".[26]

The atheist and lesbian Greta Christina told the journalist Chris Mooney on the Point of Inquiry podcast, "there isn't one emotion" that affects atheists "but anger is one of the emotions that many of us have ...[it] drives others to participate in the movement."[27]

Social science research indicates that antitheists score the highest among atheists when it comes to personality traits such as narcissism, dogmatism, and anger.[28] Furthermore, they scored lowest when it comes to agreeableness and positive relations with others.[29]

For additional information, please see: Atheism and social intelligence and Atheism and emotional intelligence and Atheism and unforgiveness and Atheism and bitterness"

...

"
Atheism and its retention rate in individuals​_See also:_ Atheism and its retention rate in individuals and Conversion from atheism to Christianity and Atheism and children and Desecularization and Atheism and apathy




In 2012, a Georgetown University study was published indicating that about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household in the United States remain atheists as adults.[30] See: Atheism and its retention rate in individuals
In 2012, a Georgetown University study was published indicating that only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.[30] See also: Atheism and children

A 2012 study by the General Social Survey of the social science research organization NORC at the University of Chicago found that belief in God rises with age, even in atheistic nations.[31] The Pew Forum reports about American atheists: "Among self-identified atheists and agnostics, the median age is 34, and roughly four-in-ten adults in these categories are between the ages of 18 and 29."[32] See also: Atheism and immaturity.

In addition, in atheistic Communist China, Christianity is experiencing rapid growth (see: Growth of Christianity in China). Also, there was a collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union (see: Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union)."

...

"
Difficulty in participating in atheist community​_See also:_ Atheism and loneliness and Atheism and apathy and Atheism and motivation and Internet atheism

According to an international study done by William Bainbridge, atheism is frequent among people whose interpersonal social obligations are weak and is also linked to lower fertility rates in advanced industrial nations (See also: Atheism and fertility rates).[33] See also: Atheism and loneliness and Atheism and social skills

In comparison to many religious groups, which have many meetings/conferences in numerous places in a given day or week which are convenient to attend, atheist meetings and atheist conferences are sparse. One of the causes of this situation is the apathy of many atheists (see: Atheism and apathy and Atheism and motivation).

Most atheist organizations are relatively small in terms of active participants as most atheists are apathetic about organized atheism (see: Atheism and apathy). An exception is the Communist Party of China which requires its members be atheists (see: Atheism and China and Atheism and communism). At the same time, due to the explosive growth of Christianity in China, there are now more Christians in China than Chinese who belong to the Communist Party of China (see also: East Asia and global desecularization).[34]

In recent times, the number of people attending atheist conferences has grown smaller.[35] Atheist David Smalley wrote: "And we wonder why we’re losing elections, losing funding, and our conferences are getting smaller."[20] In 2017, the atheist activist Lee Moore said about atheist conferences, "Most conferences are gone now. They're either gone or in some kind of life support form."[36]




Jerry Coyne speaking at a 2013 atheist meeting entitled The Amazing Meeting (TAM). TAM is an annual meeting.
Atheist Francois Tremblay wrote about the difficulty of motivating atheists to engage in activities related to atheism: "One last problem that undermines any propagation of atheism is inspiration. Let's be honest here, "there is no god!" is not a very motivating call for most people." (see also: Atheism and inspiration).[37] The atheist Jerry Coyne said about atheist meetings/conferences, "But to me the speakers and talks have often seemed repetitive: the same crew of jet-set skeptics giving the same talks."[38]

In an essay entitled _How the Atheist Movement Failed Me_, an atheist woman noted that participation in the atheist community is often expensive due to the cost of attending atheist conferences and even local atheist meetings in restaurants and bars challenged her modest budget.[39] As a result of the challenges that atheists commonly have in terms of socializing in person, many atheists turn to the internet in terms of communicating with other atheists.[40] Often internet communication between atheists turns turns contentious (see: Atheist factions).

Christian organizations have been significantly more successful than atheist organizations as far as evangelizing via the internet (see: Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists).

For more information, please see: Atheism and loneliness"





__





						Atheism - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> Well, I'm subjected to your libtard atheist religioner fake websites such as wikipedia and more.  *Talk about fringe morons. * Sheesh.
> 
> I rather use conservapedia and know the types of people I am dealing with.  Is it because of anger that you call me a derogatory flat Earther when you are an atheist religioner?
> 
> ...


That's a lot of cutting and pasting. Was it supposed to mean something?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> When was RH-Os decay done initially? What was it used to date to get the _long half-life time_? I suspect you're giving a different example of how radiometric decay can be used to date a rock and we went over that already -- The Radiometric Dating Game.


Long lived isotopes are dated by chemically determining how many atoms are in a sample and measuring the decay rate with a particle detector. I did it as a student once.

Your reference is almost 100% on volcanoes with dating involving argon. Even non-creationist sites says it is not reliable. The author has no analytic information, just uncertainty with his many phrases like:
_I suspect not..._​_It is also possible that..._​_It seems to me..._​_I don't see how..._​_might be able to account for..._​_So it's not clear to me how..._​_It seems reasonable that..._​_is probably..._​That doesn't sound like well thought out science.


james bond said:


> Moreover, I've found that you're getting the radiometric age which may not have to do with actual age.


Getting the radiometric age is the whole point of an assay.


james bond said:


> Finally, I can accept that you won't accept the creation science of radiocarbon dating of dinosaur fossils because it shows they died off in short time. It's real science, but you cannot accept it due and continually avoid it because it destroys your erroneous atheist worldview.


You are wrong. C14 dating that is near the noise floor of an instrument is worthless whether it's dinosaurs or trees. It's about instrumentation limitations not evolution. 


james bond said:


> Come now. Basically, all I get from you are libturd atheist science promotion and lies of atheist science arguments. I understand because it's based on trying to support your religion and contradicting what the Bible stated.


Your emotion is getting the best of you.


james bond said:


> Thus, I agree that we'll disagree, but I didn't expect to find that we disagree on everything. My science is based on the Bible, but I try to leave out the religious parts as creationists have found that science backs up the Bible. For example, God creating singularity and the big bang cause spacetime and our universe to be formed. However, we find that afterwards atheist scientists took singularity for themselves and hypothesized that it and the big bang happens naturally. That's a ridiculous and weak argument and huge lie.


More preaching. You still have not addressed what you think is wrong with Rh-Os dating in diamonds. You deflect to the less rigorous dating of volcanos involving argon which is not the issue. You can believe creation as you will, but your science is bankrupt.

.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Backed by every shred of evidence we have ever collected in every field of science.
> 
> You have a book of myths written in the iron age.
> 
> I like my chances. Good luck!


No evidence but contrived opinion. Study mathematics, and you may learn something. You have no chances. You will live and you will die and that is the end of you presumptions ---- absolutely inevitable.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 25, 2021)

james bond said:


> Notice how @Wuwei has run, run, run away when I just asked him a few questions of why he came up with Rh-Os dating?


I'm still here buddy. What astounds me is that the reference you cited goes on and on how dating with argon is full of contamination but you embrace C14 and completely ignore contamination from the CO2 in the air.

I take it back. I'm not astounded by your hypocrisy anymore. 
.


----------



## james bond (Jul 26, 2021)

Hollie said:


> That's a lot of cutting and pasting. Was it supposed to mean something?








I would say the radiometric dating of rocks is important for the atheists.  I suspect they'll pay for their false beliefs in the end.


----------



## james bond (Jul 26, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Your reference is almost 100% on volcanoes with dating involving argon. Even non-creationist sites says it is not reliable. The author has no analytic information, just uncertainty with his many phrases like:
> _I suspect not...It is also possible that...It seems to me...I don't see how...might be able to account for...So it's not clear to me how...It seems reasonable that...is probably..._That doesn't sound like well thought out science.


Your conclusions are just providing part of the sentence and leaving out what the writer was trying to convey such as, "So it's not clear to me how one can be sure of the 4.5 billion year age, even assuming a constant decay rate."  It's disingenuous at best.  Typical for atheists as stated in the conservapedia article.



Wuwei said:


> Getting the radiometric age is the whole point of an assay.


Sure.  However, radiometric age is inaccurate due to the assumptions made and the results have nothing to do with actual age.



Wuwei said:


> You are wrong. C14 dating that is near the noise floor of an instrument is worthless whether it's dinosaurs or trees. It's about instrumentation limitations not evolution.


That's a mighty big assumption and is typical when atheists are faced with a dating method that would cause destruction of long age.  What it means is the creation scientists have a dating method that is falsifiable and repeatable.

The same can't be said for radiometric dating of rocks as the results are based on the assumptions made.  We find that it has problems when the actual conditions do not fit the assumptions.

"The requirements for radiometric dating are stated in another way, at the web site http://hubcap.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter7.html:
"But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially)."

Here are more quotes about radiometric dating from HDER Chapter 12:

"All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events' or `second' or `third events.' "

And again,

"It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past."

It is known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry. Some more quotes from the same source:"



Wuwei said:


> Your emotion is getting the best of you.


Lol, not as much as pour vous.  You're the one who went with ad hominem attacks first and continued repeating.



Wuwei said:


> More preaching. You still have not addressed what you think is wrong with Rh-Os dating in diamonds. You deflect to the less rigorous dating of volcanos involving argon which is not the issue. You can believe creation as you will, but your science is bankrupt.


Well, did you answer my questions about Rh-Os dating so we could continue discussing?  I suppose you answered it was done to _diamonds and not rocks_.  Here they are again.

>>When was RH-Os decay done initially? What was it used to date to get the _long half-life time_? I suspect you're giving a different example of how radiometric decay can be used to date a rock and we went over that already.<<

Now that you said it was on diamonds, what do the results mean?  What were the results?

You sure are touchy when the 1956 radiometric dating of meteors to find the "age of the Earth" was shown wrong.


----------



## james bond (Jul 26, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I'm still here buddy. What astounds me is that the reference you cited goes on and on how dating with argon is full of contamination but you embrace C14 and completely ignore contamination from the CO2 in the air.
> 
> I take it back. I'm not astounded by your hypocrisy anymore.


Again, see my questions above. 

I never said it was perfect.  What do you want to know about the C14 results?  They were done several times on organic materials at different times and can be done again.  Is it accurate?  To the point that results can be repeated based on using the same assumptions.  Does it give us the actual age of the organic material?  No, it just gives us the C14 age.  Actual age could have had different conditions in the past and no one was there so assumptions were made.

This is in contrast to radiometric dating which was done once in the past and can't be repeated again.  Do you know why?  It's historical dating.

I think you're butthurt and that's why you're coming unglued emotionally and resorting to ad hominems.  We didn't even discuss the C14 dating, but I tried to discuss your Rh-Os dating by asking questions.  Sheesh.  What a grouch!


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 26, 2021)

I have read a few myths.  They were all based on creationism.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> Your conclusions are just providing part of the sentence and leaving out what the writer was trying to convey such as, "So it's not clear to me how one can be sure of the 4.5 billion year age, even assuming a constant decay rate."


That was my whole point. Creationists are quite uncertain or guessing about many things. That's not science.


james bond said:


> Sure. However, radiometric age is inaccurate due to the assumptions made and the results have nothing to do with actual age.


Sure. All measurements like that have error bars. The fundamental point is that creationists don't talk about them. In some cases billion year isotopes have accuracies +/- 10%. That does not negate the usefulness of the information. 


james bond said:


> That's a mighty big assumption and is typical when atheists are faced with a dating method that would cause destruction of long age. What it means is the creation scientists have a dating method that is falsifiable and repeatable.
> 
> The same can't be said for radiometric dating of rocks as the results are based on the assumptions made. We find that it has problems when the actual conditions do not fit the assumptions.


Long life attempts with C14 are falsified by the noise floor of the instrument.


james bond said:


> these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially)."


They are not arbitrary assumptions. They are necessities. For both C14 and long lived isotopes. Scientists have always been aware of that. Besides decay rates do not change. It would be obvious if the did.

Your further quotes from YEC's are known by scientists. If a scientist is sloppy they will be challenged by other scientists.

Concerning neutrinos. The collision cross-section for neutrinos are such that half of low energy neutrinos are absorbed through* 1 light year of lead! With higher energy neutrons it's 1000 light years of lead.* A real scientist could easily calculate that the chances of neutrino interference is vanishingly small. Why don't creation "scientists" do the calculation rather than just saying "it's also possible". That is not science. They are duping creationists who read their web sites.


james bond said:


> Now that you said it was on diamonds, what do the results mean? What were the results?


Research was done on several diamonds from Brazil and Africa. The African diamonds were around 3.5 billion years. The Brazilian diamonds were a billion or so years younger. Rh and Os were totally encased in the diamonds, so all the criteria for accurate dating was met. Finally the diamonds have the same lifetime as the encased Rh. It is as simple as that.

Meteors are on the order of 4+ billion years. Over 100 assays on moon rocks show show a range of dates around 4 billion years with a collective STD of a few hundred million.

The universe is old. That has always been my point.

As far as you second post, You still don't understand how the noise floor sets a limit on the accuracy, and any assay that gives the ball park of 80,000 years is dealing with 1 part per 1000 trillion C14 vs C12. Noise overwhelms the measurement rendering it useless.

.


----------



## james bond (Jul 26, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> That was my whole point. Creationists are quite uncertain or guessing about many things. That's not science.


And atheist scientists are not such as readily accepting billions of years universe and Earth from the 1950s?  It's like atheists practice voodoo science  with atheist evolution.  They just want to contradict and disprove what the Bible said.

No guessing on the part of the creationists.  It's already in the Bible and science backs up the parts of the Bible we are discussing.  It came up with singularity first and the big bang, i.e. expansion of the universe, and then the atheist scientists stole it once the discovery of CMB.  The atheist scientists claimed an infinite universe existed in order to not have God starting space and time and the universe, but they were freaking wrong.  Now, they have to claim long time because the Bible stated cosmic expansion or big bang, i.e. there was a beginning.

Thus, it is you who are wrong once again.  You have feces on your face and not egg because this has happened to the atheists over and over.  The universe is not infinite.  Earth didn't exist until it was created.  The atheists can't even explain the energy nor the cosmic expansion unless they claim natural singularity.  What bull.  The Bible and the creationists stated what happened first and science has backed it up with creation singularity and the big bang.

You have gotten too emotional over this and the destruction of radiometric dating and don't know what you are talking about anymore.  It really is sad and pathetic to read your posts.



Wuwei said:


> Sure. All measurements like that have error bars. The fundamental point is that creationists don't talk about them. In some cases billion year isotopes have accuracies +/- 10%. That does not negate the usefulness of the information.


Lol.  More lies.  Creationists talk about the atheists and their evolutionary thinking all the time.  We find we discuss how science backs up the Bible and then the atheist scientists steal what was discovered and try to make up stuff and an atheist version to explain the Biblical truth and science.  I provided one of the biggest examples above.

As for measurements, I have been giving you what was measured and what the creationists have measured or did you just ignore radiocarbon dating?  It sounds like your emotions have made you blind or deaf to what your opponent is presenting.



Wuwei said:


> They are not arbitrary assumptions. They are necessities. For both C14 and long lived isotopes. Scientists have always been aware of that. Besides decay rates do not change. It would be obvious if the did.
> 
> Your further quotes from YEC's are known by scientists. If a scientist is sloppy they will be challenged by other scientists.
> 
> Concerning neutrinos. The collision cross-section for neutrinos are such that half of low energy neutrinos are absorbed through* 1 light year of lead! With higher energy neutrons it's 1000 light years of lead.* A real scientist could easily calculate that the chances of neutrino interference is vanishingly small. Why don't creation "scientists" do the calculation rather than just saying "it's also possible". That is not science. They are duping creationists who read their web sites.


Not for C14 when there is C14 remaining.

It's interesting you associate sloppiness with YEC scientists.  In the link I provided, it was you who committed logical fallacies by taking statements out of their full context in order to show the writer wasn't accurate, sloppy, and not scientific.  Taken in the entire context, it made science and was logical.



Wuwei said:


> Concerning neutrinos. The collision cross-section for neutrinos are such that half of low energy neutrinos are absorbed through* 1 light year of lead! With higher energy neutrons it's 1000 light years of lead.* A real scientist could easily calculate that the chances of neutrino interference is vanishingly small. Why don't creation "scientists" do the calculation rather than just saying "it's also possible". That is not science. They are duping creationists who read their web sites.


I can only guess the neutrinos section and article was to show the various whining and complaints of atheists when creationists point out the truthful science first.  Are you are taking things out of context again?  What is the section or sections of what I provided that you are complaining about?  Is it the below?

"

_*4.* Do the radiometric dating methods possess the three qualifications to measure time correctly?_​*Answer:*The radiometric dating methods cannot be proved to fulfill all of the requirements for a reliable clock.


> *a.* The evidence generally supports the constancy of radioactive decay rates within narrow limits. However, some research suggests that special conditions may, perhaps, appreciably alter some radioactive decay rates.2 It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past.3 In addition, according to a recently developed theory, the speed of light has varied since the Creation, and this would have affected radioactive decay rates drastically. (See answer 7c below.)





> *b.* The daughter products of the various systems are all found widely distributed in the earth's crust, e.g., Pb-206, Pb-208, argon-40, and strontium-87. It is generally not possible to be sure that some daughter product atoms were not present in the rock at time zero.





> *c.* Finally, all of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as "metamorphic events" or "second" or "third events."4


From the above facts it can be seen that the radiometric dating methods do not in general fulfill all of the requirements for a reliable clock._*5.* If the earth is really young, only thousands of years old, why do the radiometric methods usually give such large ages, millions or billions of years?_​*Answer:* The half-lives of the parent atoms used in dating the rocks are very long, from hundreds of millions to billions of years. Since the daughter product atoms are found everywhere in the rocks -- and they are equated to time -- it should not be surprising to find that these methods yield large values for the age of the earth.
"


Wuwei said:


> Research was done on several diamonds from Brazil and Africa. The African diamonds were around 3.5 billion years. The Brazilian diamonds were a billion or so years younger. Rh and Os were totally encased in the diamonds, so all the criteria for accurate dating was met. Finally the diamonds have the same lifetime as the encased Rh. It is as simple as that.
> 
> Meteors are on the order of 4+ billion years. Over 100 assays on moon rocks show show a range of dates around 4 billion years with a collective STD of a few hundred million.
> 
> ...


Can you provide some links and articles where you are getting this?  Am I just supposed to take your atheist word on Rh-Os dating?

The universe isn't billions of years old as you claim.  Otherwise, our sun would have used up most of it's energy.  It's still a strong sun.


----------



## james bond (Jul 26, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I have read a few myths.  They were all based on creationism.


Maybe you can explain the universe is old statement that atheists believe.  We still have a young sun and not not an 80% burned out one if our Earth is 4.5 billions of years old.  Second, where did all the energy in our universe come from in the atheist version?  Sadly, the lack of detail and explanation of what happened in the atheist version makes their evolutionary science very, very, very questionable.  Why is it always the creation scientists who explain what happened using the Bible first and then the atheist scientists make up lies to explains their version afterward?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 26, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> No evidence but contrived opinion.


Well you sound like a gotdam moron. Yes, all the evidence. And since you know less than nothing about evolution or any of the evidence, your opinion on either is completely worthless


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> Maybe you can explain the universe is old statement that atheists believe.  We still have a young sun and not not an 80% burned out one if our Earth is 4.5 billions of years old.  Second, where did all the energy in our universe come from in the atheist version?  Sadly, the lack of detail and explanation of what happened in the atheist version makes their evolutionary science very, very, very questionable.  Why is it always the creation scientists who explain what happened using the Bible first and then the atheist scientists make up lies to explains their version afterward?


Sumerian "mythology" claimed it first.


----------



## james bond (Jul 26, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Sumerian "mythology" claimed it first.


And atheist mythology is claiming something even wackier -- evolution and old Earth/universe mythology -- but millions of libtard fools are sucked into it today.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> And atheist mythology is claiming something even wackier -- evolution and old Earth/universe mythology -- but millions of libtard fools are sucked into it today.


We don't have Perfect Knowledge and even some basic research may be dangerous; the scientific method is still our best bet, in my opinion.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 26, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well you sound like a gotdam moron. Yes, all the evidence. And since you know less than nothing about evolution or any of the evidence, your opinion on either is completely worthless


Sounds can be deceiving, as I'm sure your scientific experience warns you...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 26, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Sounds can be deceiving, as I'm sure your scientific experience warns you...


That doesn't change the fact that you clearly know less than nothing about evolution or the evidence for it.


----------



## james bond (Jul 26, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> We don't have Perfect Knowledge and even some basic research may be dangerous; the scientific method is still our best bet, in my opinion.


Which you can't admit to yourself was created by *creation scientist Sir Francis Bacon*  -- Sir Francis Bacon.  At least, we remember our BIG scientists who created our best science unlike yours who made up radiometric dating.  (I know but won't tell you lol).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> you can't admit to yourself was created by *creation scientist Sir Francis Bacon* -- Sir Francis Bacon.


So what? That knowledge came in spite of religion, not because of it. He had the same iron aged book of childish myths as every man before him had for millennia. Yet we had to wait for him.

So...way to highlight yet another way your book of silly myths is useless, when it comes to science.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> I would say the radiometric dating of rocks is important for the atheists.  I suspect they'll pay for their false beliefs in the end.



You're offended by the advancement of science and knowledge because discovery of the natural world leaves less and less room for belief in ancient fears and superstitions. Are you aware that not everyone is a fundamentalist Christian, or shares your extremist views? Your apparent goal is to project your fears and superstitions on others and to use your extremist views like a weapon. Trying to convince people that the bible is not a myth, or that the Bibies are an authoritative rendering of history is nonsense. Bible thumping is counter-productive and using your Bibles and gods to hurl cheap threats is makes you look like some Taliban wannabe. 

How is looking at scientific evidence "with a biblical view" different from looking at it in any other light? Are you suggesting that the conclusions should be influenced by biblical faith? Shame on you. Facts are facts, regardless of your religious beliefs.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> Which you can't admit to yourself was created by *creation scientist Sir Francis Bacon*  -- Sir Francis Bacon.  At least, we remember our BIG scientists who created our best science unlike yours who made up radiometric dating.  (I know but won't tell you lol).


I don't follow your line of reasoning.  The scientific method comes from the discovery of self-evident truths studied.


----------



## james bond (Jul 26, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So what? That knowledge came in spite of religion, not because of it. He had the same iron aged book of childish myths as every man before him had for millennia. Yet we had to wait for him.
> 
> So...way to highlight yet another way your book of silly myths is useless, when it comes to science.


So LMAO.  Your guy who invented radiometric dating is long forgotten.  Don't be jealous.  Envy is one of the seven deadly sins.


----------



## james bond (Jul 26, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I don't follow your line of reasoning.  The scientific method comes from the discovery of self-evident truths studied.








The scientific method is the _ideal way_ science should be done.  It's not based on atheistic lies like radiometric dating, evolution, and evolutionary thinking because no one was there to _observe_ when billions of years old meteors were formed.  OTOH God was there since the beginning of creation and told us how he did it in the Bible, his autobiography.

The greatest scientists in the history of the world have been creation scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Johan Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (invented calculus), Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, James Joule, Louis Pasteur, James Maxwell, George Washington Carver, and more.  Albert Einstein believed in a personal god and wasn't atheist.  He wasn't exactly a creationist either.  The atheist list doesn't match up.  Can you name a few and their accomplishments?  Who invented radiometric dating?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> It's not based on atheistic lies like radiometric dating, evolution, and evolutionary thinking because no one was there to _observe_ when billions of years old meteors were formed.


It is more objective than anything else.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 26, 2021)

james bond said:


> And atheist scientists are not such as readily accepting billions of years universe and Earth from the 1950s? It's like atheists practice voodoo science with atheist evolution. They just want to contradict and disprove what the Bible said.
> 
> No guessing on the part of the creationists. It's already in the Bible and science backs up the parts of the Bible we are discussing. It came up with singularity first and the big bang, i.e. expansion of the universe, and then the atheist scientists stole it once the discovery of CMB. The atheist scientists claimed an infinite universe existed in order to not have God starting space and time and the universe, but they were freaking wrong. Now, they have to claim long time because the Bible stated cosmic expansion or big bang, i.e. there was a beginning.
> 
> ...


More preaching. Also this:
_You have feces on your face and not egg because this has happened to the atheists over and over._​_..._​_You have gotten too emotional over this..._​How can you be my BFF when you say things like that. It shows you got the emotion thing backwards, ya know. 


james bond said:


> Lol. More lies. Creationists talk about the atheists and their evolutionary thinking all the time. We find we discuss how science backs up the Bible and then the atheist scientists steal what was discovered and try to make up stuff and an atheist version to explain the Biblical truth and science. I provided one of the biggest examples above.
> 
> As for measurements, I have been giving you what was measured and what the creationists have measured or did you just ignore radiocarbon dating? It sounds like your emotions have made you blind or deaf to what your opponent is presenting.


Let me say it again. The reference you gave me was almost all about K-Ar dating. The contamination and dispersion problems they cover in detail are well known to scientists. Nothing new there. But you failed to give a reference that covers Rh-Os dating which has none of those problems. 

Furthermore one other isotope they cover in many paragraphs is C14, but they failed to give any analysis of the noise problems when trying to date anything past 60-80 thousand years. That is negligent and simply deceitful. Contamination and dispersion in K-Ar, but not for C14! Cmon.


james bond said:


> I can only guess the neutrinos section and article was to show the various whining and complaints of atheists when creationists point out the truthful science first.


I don't have to guess. The excerpt about neutrinos had no basis in fact, and the authors failed to mathematically analyze it if they were serious.


james bond said:


> From the above facts it can be seen that the radiometric dating methods do not in general fulfill all of the requirements for a reliable clock.


Rh-Os dating fulfills all the reliability requirements extremely well.


james bond said:


> Can you provide some links and articles where you are getting this? Am I just supposed to take your atheist word on Rh-Os dating?


I already gave you the link in an earlier thread and also this one. Here it is for the third time:




__





						Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution | Research & News
					

Diamond inclusion research yields age and insight into earth history



					www.gia.edu
				





james bond said:


> The universe isn't billions of years old as you claim. Otherwise, our sun would have used up most of it's energy. It's still a strong sun.


Can you give me a link to that. Or maybe you really should retract it. 

Summary:
Your friends complain about dispersion in K-Ar, but don't mention it at all in C14 data. Kind of disingenuous dontya think. And your source was about K-Ar. You never gave a cogent response to Rh-Os which 1) has a long stable half life, 2) with a parent that is tightly contained, 3) a daughter isotope that is likewise contained, and 4) both are very rare and the daughter product barely exists naturally. So no contamination or dispersion. 

.


----------



## james bond (Jul 27, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It is more objective than anything else.


I think creation science is more objective, but if you don't believe in the Bible and Christian God, then I can see how someone of the atheist religion would go with the atheist science of evolution and radiometric thinking and make assumptions for it.  Where the rubber meets to road is in the hard evidence that creation science has from the Bible and science that backs it up despite the Bible not being a science book.  Political views also plays a big part because most liberals are atheists today.


----------



## james bond (Jul 27, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> More preaching. Also this:
> _You have feces on your face and not egg because this has happened to the atheists over and over....You have gotten too emotional over this..._How can you be my BFF when you say things like that. It shows you got the emotion thing backwards, ya know.


LMAO.  You keep taking things out of context from creationists articles, science articles, and my posts.  No wonder you are so mixed up over creation science.



Wuwei said:


> Let me say it again. The reference you gave me was almost all about K-Ar dating. The contamination and dispersion problems they cover in detail are well known to scientists. Nothing new there. But you failed to give a reference that covers Rh-Os dating which has none of those problems.


It's your claim that Rh-Os has none of those problems.  Can you provide some scientific evidence that it has none of those problems?  It isn't widely used.  Why not?  Why don't you post some other links to convince us of your Rh-Os claims.  Why should I believe the statements of an atheist?  At least, I provide my sources thru valid links.  I'm your opposition and you expect me to know all your dirty little lies.  You're sound like an atheist believer which I can understand, but also an atheist bullshitter which I can't understand.  It makes you sound like a dirty atheist liar.

I mean please explain your GIA article.  It doesn't even explain what diamonds are in scientific terms.  Compare it to an AIG article -- Radiohalos and Diamonds.

>>Diamonds are vastly older than any archeological relic, so carbon dating—which can only date items back to around 60,000 years ago—isn’t possible.<<

Creation scientists have done C14 dating of diamonds to disprove the atheists claims of old age.  Your atheist scientist Shirley only believes his own BS and continually only sees one side.

"Buoyed by this success, the RATE radiocarbon research next checked for carbon-14 in diamonds. Diamonds are the hardest known natural substance and resist physical abrasion. Also, the chemical bonding of the carbon in diamonds makes them highly resistant to chemical corrosion and weathering. Diamonds also repel and exclude water from adhering to their surfaces, which would eliminate any possibility of the carbon in the diamonds becoming contaminated. Sure enough, the diamonds submitted for radiocarbon analyses did contain detectable, significant levels of carbon-14, equivalent to an age of around 55,000 years. Again, the laboratory did repeat analyses and discounted any possibility that this carbon-14 was due to contamination, _in situ_ to the diamonds or added in the laboratory. At 1–2 billion years old, these diamonds, which are formed deep inside the earth, are regarded as being related to the earth’s early history. Therefore, it was concluded that carbon-14 in these diamonds was consistent with a young age for the earth itself."

Note:  Generally, creation scientists use C14 dating for organic items, but used it on diamonds because it was found in them -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed.  This is why creation science should be taught in schools as science.  The smarter students don't just accept the teachings of evolution.  Instead they question it, think it is BS, and start to look for other answers.  Even from you, I get one-sided answers/articles and claims that I am preaching.  Aren't you the one preaching your atheist religion and only giving one sided answers?

I gave you atheists credit for radiometric dating, but I am finding it is erroneous from discussing it with you and going back and reading AIG and creation.com articles.  Science does not back up old Earth and evolution.

Finally, I am not _preaching_ but asking questions which you do not answer or making points you can not rebut.  It's you and your side who only presents a one-sided presentation and makes atheist old Earth assumptions.  Otherwise, you don't know about the Bible and how science backs it up.  You make stereotypical assumptions of creationists and their scientists and act like a stuck up basturd when the Bible's answers do not fit your stereotypical views.  Your side bases your science on uniformitarianism and atheism.  My side bases it on catastrophism and the Bible's parts where we found science backs up the Bible.  We acknowledge our opposition and makes smart comments to support our statements and disprove or rebut our opposition's scientific beliefs.  Your smug atheist scientists only present one side.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> I think creation science is more objective, but if you don't believe in the Bible and Christian God, then I can see how someone of the atheist religion would go with the atheist science of evolution and radiometric thinking and make assumptions for it.  Where the rubber meets to road is in the hard evidence that creation science has from the Bible and science that backs it up despite the Bible not being a science book.  Political views also plays a big part because most liberals are atheists today.


Creationer ''science'' is neither science nor is it objective. Like all of the fundamentalist ministries, they have a single-minded goal of proselytizing not science investigation.

From the AIG website:
_Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and bedfellow: a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe)._

There's nothing to misinterpret there. Science to the christian fundamentalist is an annoyance because it conflicts with fundamentalist christian notions such as a flat earth, young earth, etc.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> The scientific method is the _ideal way_ science should be done.  It's not based on atheistic lies like radiometric dating, evolution, and evolutionary thinking because no one was there to _observe_ when billions of years old meteors were formed.  OTOH God was there since the beginning of creation and told us how he did it in the Bible, his autobiography.
> 
> The greatest scientists in the history of the world have been creation scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Johan Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (invented calculus), Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, James Joule, Louis Pasteur, James Maxwell, George Washington Carver, and more.  Albert Einstein believed in a personal god and wasn't atheist.  He wasn't exactly a creationist either.  The atheist list doesn't match up.  Can you name a few and their accomplishments?  Who invented radiometric dating?


Actually, "creationer scientists" is a relatively recent slogan invented by the Christian ministries. None of the people you listed were "creationer scientists". 

It's really desperate and dishonest to force your religious beliefs on others.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> I think creation science is more objective, but if you don't believe in the Bible and Christian God, then I can see how someone of the atheist religion would go with the atheist science of evolution and radiometric thinking and make assumptions for it.  Where the rubber meets to road is in the hard evidence that creation science has from the Bible and science that backs it up despite the Bible not being a science book.  Political views also plays a big part because most liberals are atheists today.


From my perception, all myths are based on creationism.   And, if all Religion requires is faith, it is not difficult to understand why we are in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the Incorrigibles.


----------



## james bond (Jul 27, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Can you give me a link to that. Or maybe you really should retract it.
> 
> Summary:
> Your friends complain about dispersion in K-Ar, but don't mention it at all in C14 data. Kind of disingenuous dontya think. And your source was about K-Ar. You never gave a cogent response to Rh-Os which 1) has a long stable half life, 2) with a parent that is tightly contained, 3) a daughter isotope that is likewise contained, and 4) both are very rare and the daughter product barely exists naturally. So no contamination or dispersion.





Hollie said:


> Creationer ''science'' is neither science nor is it objective. Like all of the fundamentalist ministries, they have a single-minded goal of proselytizing not science investigation.
> 
> From the AIG website:
> _Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and bedfellow: a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe)._
> ...


It's creation science, Flattie Hollie.  Sure, it's objective because it came first and the creator was objective and truthful.  He wrote his beautiful and heartful autobiography in the Bible (life of Jesus) and we usually discuss Genesis here, but there is more that which science backs up throughout.  There is likely more to find out as humankind will discover new truths in the future such as the universe has a boundary.  Isn't that what real science is about?  What's funny is the atheist scientists do not admit their religious science.  They do not admit that it's _atheist science_ from the get go.  That's a huge and erroneous assumption and will cause pain, agony, and hurt as they willfully contradict the creator.  You're butthurt any time creation science or real science is discussed here.  I can only point out the truth vs the errors in s&t and am the one who presents a more balanced view.

Notice, you do not even realize that your science is "religioner science" and follows what Lucifer said and did.  Instead of a snake, he is talking through atheist scientists.  The price for your religioner science will be high indeed.  How can anyone live without the one and true most awesome God?  What's evidence for this?  We all die daily as that is explained in the Bible when we live without God.  God is gone from our universe and lives in the original heaven.


----------



## james bond (Jul 27, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> From my perception, all myths are based on creationism. And, if all Religion requires is faith, it is not difficult to understand why we are in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the Incorrigibles.


You're just fooled by Lucifer's anti-Bible of atheist science.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> You're just fooled by Lucifer's anti-Bible of atheist science.


He was upset He had to get stuck with us in Nexus Six.


----------



## james bond (Jul 27, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> He was upset He had to get stuck with us in Nexus Six.


That goes a way back and was a great flick.  Do you know Fort Fun Indiana?  You should hit it off on Nexus 6 and other imaginary places with your imaginary science.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> It's your claim that Rh-Os has none of those problems. Can you provide some scientific evidence that it has none of those problems?


I did. It should have been clear.


james bond said:


> Why don't you post some other links to convince us of your Rh-Os claims. Why should I believe the statements of an atheist?


You ask me to post some links; then in the next sentence you say you won't believe them. That seems sorta futile dontya think?


james bond said:


> I mean please explain your GIA article. It doesn't even explain what diamonds are in scientific terms.


What diamonds are is very well known. Wikipedia has a very long discussion with 161 references.


james bond said:


> I gave you atheists credit for radiometric dating, but I am finding it is erroneous from discussing it with you and going back and reading AIG and creation.com articles. Science does not back up old Earth and evolution.
> 
> Finally, I am not _preaching_ but asking questions which you do not answer or making points you can not rebut. It's you and your side who only presents a one-sided presentation and makes atheist old Earth assumptions. Otherwise, you don't know about the Bible and how science backs it up. You make stereotypical assumptions of creationists and their scientists and act like a stuck up basturd when the Bible's answers do not fit your stereotypical views. Your side bases your science on uniformitarianism and atheism. My side bases it on catastrophism and the Bible's parts where we found science backs up the Bible. We acknowledge our opposition and makes smart comments to support our statements and disprove or rebut our opposition's scientific beliefs. Your smug atheist scientists only present one side.


We already know you don't believe the science because your creation web site says so. You have never shown a source that tells why YECs dismiss the fact that all measuring instruments, specifically mass spectrometers, used at their limit are dealing with noise... Never. You have wrapped yourself in a self-contradiction. 

That is why it is so obvious that creation "science" is not science. You can't fool us.

.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> It's creation science, Flattie Hollie.  Sure, it's objective because it came first and the creator was objective and truthful.  He wrote his beautiful and heartful autobiography in the Bible (life of Jesus) and we usually discuss Genesis here, but there is more that which science backs up throughout.  There is likely more to find out as humankind will discover new truths in the future such as the universe has a boundary.  Isn't that what real science is about?  What's funny is the atheist scientists do not admit their religious science.  They do not admit that it's _atheist science_ from the get go.  That's a huge and erroneous assumption and will cause pain, agony, and hurt as they willfully contradict the creator.  You're butthurt any time creation science or real science is discussed here.  I can only point out the truth vs the errors in s&t and am the one who presents a more balanced view.
> 
> Notice, you do not even realize that your science is "religioner science" and follows what Lucifer said and did.  Instead of a snake, he is talking through atheist scientists.  The price for your religioner science will be high indeed.  How can anyone live without the one and true most awesome God?  What's evidence for this?  We all die daily as that is explained in the Bible when we live without God.  God is gone from our universe and lives in the original heaven.


Your ministries make no pretenses about what they preach. 

From the AIG charlatans:
_Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively._

You can't have missed there was no mention of science. Rather, they seek to proselytize. It's simply dishonest to claim a fundamentalist ministry is seeking to advance science. 

Where did the Lucifer character ever mention "religioner science"? You may choose to live your life in trembling fear of characters invented two thousand years ago and intended to frighten and coerce  the gullible, why would you think others should share your fears and superstitions?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2021)

“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life



“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson


“Don't creationists ever wonder about the fact that the paleontologists found ape-like skulls with the 'human leg and foot bones,' rather than the other way around, i.e., human skulls with 'ape leg and foot bones?' . . . Come on, creationists, think about it! Did God hide the human skulls, only leaving behind leg and foot bones belonging to human midgets with misshapen feet, and mix such bones only with the skulls of ape-like creatures with larger cranial capacities than living apes? What a 'kidder' the creationists' God must be.”
― Edward Babinski


----------



## james bond (Jul 27, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> That is why it is so obvious that creation "science" is not science.


Creation science presented BOTH sides of the argument and I'll stay on God's side, thank you.

OTOH, you and your science only presented your side and disregarded the other.  Now, you're believing everything because of radiometric decay?  It's really stupid.  No wonder you tried to bring in the age of the Earth.  I mean if the Bible had the age of the Earth, then you could present something to contradict it.  But just your presentation has nothing to contradict.  I won't argue further as I said my piece and only say that it could be wrong.

I enjoyed what AIG presented.  We can ignore radiometric dating.


----------



## james bond (Jul 27, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Where did the Lucifer character ever mention "religioner science"? You may choose to live your life in trembling fear of characters invented two thousand years ago and intended to frighten and coerce the gullible, why would you think others should share your fears and superstitions?


Evolution and evolutionary thinking are not scientific theories supported by mountains of evidence, as atheist scientists would have us believe.  They are a part of Satan’s grand plan to keep people from understanding that they need a savior.

The former is the truth and is backed up by the evidence of creation science.  The latter is as close to my only preaching here as the libs have gone atheist.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2021)

james bond said:


> Evolution and evolutionary thinking are not scientific theories supported by mountains of evidence, as atheist scientists would have us believe.  They are a part of Satan’s grand plan to keep people from understanding that they need a savior.
> 
> The former is the truth and is backed up by the evidence of creation science.  The latter is as close to my only preaching here as the libs have gone atheist.


Your conspiracy theories reveal a true dark side of religious extremist. To willingly reject the indisputable evidence for biological evolution suggest a great deal of extremist indoctrination and a surrender to fear and ignorance.  The data and the research underlies the undeniable fact that life propogates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that those modifications are passed on, and that over time, many modifications can lead to a species that is very different from before.

The challenge to the extremist religioners is very simple: present a single instance of supernatural / magical design by your gods. Just one! . Everything from the intricacies of a snowflake to the DNA that is the basic building block of biological life is explained in detail by science. You insist the magical hand of three partisan gods accounts for all of existence so, please state the evidence for it. None of the creationer ministries have so far been able to do so. Complexity does not require a designer... it requires an explanation


----------



## james bond (Jul 27, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Can you give me a link to that. Or maybe you really should retract it.
> 
> Summary:
> Your friends complain about dispersion in K-Ar, but don't mention it at all in C14 data. Kind of disingenuous dontya think. And your source was about K-Ar. You never gave a cogent response to Rh-Os which 1) has a long stable half life, 2) with a parent that is tightly contained, 3) a daughter isotope that is likewise contained, and 4) both are very rare and the daughter product barely exists naturally. So no contamination or dispersion.


Second point first.  You don't know about C14 and fossils dating.  What do you know?  Instead, I now know more about Rh-Os dating which doesn't mean much for creation scientists.  How would it apply to them?

As for the sun using up a lot of its energy in a billion years, here it is:

"However, if the sun were billions of years old, it would have been 30 percent fainter in the distant past. But if the sun were that much fainter, then Earth would have been a frozen wasteland and life would not have been possible. 4"

"The sun resists naturalistic formation scenarios. Secular astronomers currently believe that the sun (as with other stars) was formed by the collapse of a nebula—a giant cloud of hydrogen and helium gas in space. Astronomers have discovered thousands of nebulae, but no one has ever seen a nebula collapse in on itself to form a star. The outward force of gas pressure in a typical nebula far exceeds the meager inward pull of gravity. As far as we know, nebulae only expand and never contract to form stars. Even if gravity could somehow overcome gas pressure, magnetic fields and angular momentum would tend to resist any further collapse, preventing the sun from forming at all. It seems that science confirms what Scripture teaches: God made the greater light to rule the day."









						The Solar System: The Sun
					

Then God made...the greater light to rule the day. (Genesis 1:16)  	At the heart of our solar system is the sun, a stable hydrogen “bomb” that gives off more energy every second than a billion major cities would use in an entire year. The sun is remarkable in its complexity and power. When we...




					www.icr.org


----------



## james bond (Jul 28, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> We already know you don't believe the science because your creation web site says so. You have never shown a source that tells why YECs dismiss the fact that all measuring instruments, specifically mass spectrometers, used at their limit are dealing with noise... Never. You have wrapped yourself in a self-contradiction.
> 
> That is why it is so obvious that creation "science" is not science. You can't fool us.


This is so wacko.  Again, creation scientists came up with science and its history.  They got it from the Bible.  I think you can understand that unless you are so far gone that you can't even play with yourself.  

OTOH, atheist scientists got theirs from Satan.  I know you don't believe that, but there can be no coincidence when today's atheist science contradicts everything that God and creation science stated with evolution and evolutionary thinking.  We can add radiometric dating to that pile.  All of aforementioned including uniformitarianism started a little before Darwin.  I don't expect you to believe that you got your science from Satan, but it is what it is.


----------



## james bond (Jul 28, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Your conspiracy theories reveal a true dark side of religious extremist.


Sure, whenever I mention Satan, it is dark, but that is the truth.  All of that was foretold in the Bible about evolution, evolutionary thinking, radiometric dating, uniformitarianism, and so on has come true.  I can't make this stuff up.  The Bible said it first.  Do you want the scripture?  The Bible can't change, but history has shown it to be true with its prophecies.  The atheist science can change tomorrow.  I can't help it if you don't believe it and cast it aside as "religioner."


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sure, whenever I mention Satan, it is dark, but that is the truth.  All of that was foretold in the Bible about evolution, evolutionary thinking, radiometric dating, uniformitarianism, and so on has come true.  I can't make this stuff up.  The Bible said it first.  Do you want the scripture?  The Bible can't change, but history has shown it to be true with its prophecies.  The atheist science can change tomorrow.  I can't help it if you don't believe it and cast it aside as "religioner."


That's really disappointing. For all the claimed supermagical powers of your gods, there's not a single instance in all of history that you can point to and claim that ''see, that took the supermagical power of my gods to perform''.

It's been said that a person who never sheds their childhood fears has never grown up. If you believe that a ''satan'' boogeyman is hiding under your bed, you might want to consider the trajectory of your adulthood.

So I'm clear, for gods who are allegedly responsible for opening every petal of every flower, for every raindrop that falls, for magically creating all of existence, there isn't a single event in history or a single magically occurring event that you can point to and proclaim, ''see, only the magic of the gods could cause that to happen''?

As to alleged biblical ''prophecies'', those vague, ambiguous creations of soothsayer charlatans suffer from the lack of rational examination of the gods making thunder and lightning. Creationers have this need to play oneupsmanship with with bibles vs. carnival soothsayers reading their crystal balls.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> Creation science presented BOTH sides of the argument and I'll stay on God's side, thank you.
> 
> OTOH, you and your science only presented your side and disregarded the other. Now, you're believing everything because of radiometric decay? It's really stupid. No wonder you tried to bring in the age of the Earth. I mean if the Bible had the age of the Earth, then you could present something to contradict it. But just your presentation has nothing to contradict. I won't argue further as I said my piece and only say that it could be wrong.
> 
> I enjoyed what AIG presented. We can ignore radiometric dating.


The evidence of an age of billions of years isn't only about radiology on the earth, it is about the entire universe - From observations in astronomy galaxies are also billions of years old.


james bond said:


> Second point first. You don't know about C14 and fossils dating. What do you know? Instead, I now know more about Rh-Os dating which doesn't mean much for creation scientists. How would it apply to them?


The point is that the reference I gave concerning Rh-Os unequivocally gives a date of the earth that at least in the billions of years.


james bond said:


> As for the sun using up a lot of its energy in a billion years, here it is....


Your reference starts out with the words.
_"Then God made ... the greater light to rule the day...."_​That is not science it is biblical. The reference has some "explanations" of star formation that are absolutely wrong. See this reference:





						How Do Stars Form?
					

Stars form when clouds of interstellar dust and gas collapse in on themselves and heat up, eventually leading to the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium. Several stars typically form out of a single cloud, making star clusters extremely common.




					www.reference.com
				





james bond said:


> This is so wacko. Again, creation scientists came up with science and its history. They got it from the Bible. I think you can understand that unless you are so far gone that you can't even play with yourself.
> 
> OTOH, atheist scientists got theirs from Satan. I know you don't believe that, but there can be no coincidence when today's atheist science contradicts everything that God and creation science stated with evolution and evolutionary thinking. We can add radiometric dating to that pile. All of aforementioned including uniformitarianism started a little before Darwin. I don't expect you to believe that you got your science from Satan, but it is what it is.


Science does not contradict the bible. It contradicts what YEC read into the bible. Astronomers and geologists got their understanding from observation and experiments. not satan.

.


----------



## james bond (Jul 28, 2021)

Hollie said:


> That's really disappointing. For all the claimed supermagical powers of your gods, there's not a single instance in all of history that you can point to and claim that ''see, that took the supermagical power of my gods to perform''.
> 
> It's been said that a person who never sheds their childhood fears has never grown up. If you believe that a ''satan'' boogeyman is hiding under your bed, you might want to consider the trajectory of your adulthood.
> 
> ...


You just don't understand creation science, the Bible, nor Christianity.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> You just don't understand creation science, the Bible, nor Christianity.


I understand you're backtracking. 

Religioners claim all of existence is the result of the hands of supernatural gods, yet, religioners can't identify a single event in all of human history that can be attributed to supernatural causation. 

You're a terrible spokes-zealot for the industry of creationer proselytizing.


----------



## james bond (Jul 28, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The evidence of an age of billions of years isn't only about radiology on the earth, it is about the entire universe - From observations in astronomy galaxies are also billions of years old.


The age of the universe and Earth is from the same nerd atheist scientists in 1956 and radiometric dating.  Can you admit that it's only you and the atheist scientists who care about the age of the universe and Earth?  Creation scientists think radiometric dating is erroneous how it was done in 1950s.  They only think radiocarbon dating on organic materials is valid if C14 is remaining -- Carbon-14 Dating—Understanding the Basics.



Wuwei said:


> Your reference starts out with the words.
> _"Then God made ... the greater light to rule the day...."_That is not science it is biblical. The reference has some "explanations" of star formation that are absolutely wrong. See this reference:
> How Do Stars Form?


It is first person testimony by God.  Got made the EMS and separated day and night in order to start time.  We see that he created space and matter first.  Science backs it up as matter has to be there before time.  Your side has no detailed explanation of how any of this happened.  Just the need for billions of years right off the bat which is impossible without space, matter, and all the energy of the universe.



Wuwei said:


> The point is that the reference I gave concerning Rh-Os unequivocally gives a date of the earth that at least in the billions of years.


Lol, I'm not quibbling because it's very important to you.  I don't think the other atheist scientists care.  They're going by other radiometric decay from 1956.  Have you discovered who it was yet?



Wuwei said:


> Science does not contradict the bible. It contradicts what YEC read into the bible. Astronomers and geologists got their understanding from observation and experiments. not satan.


Evolution, evolutionary thinking, radiometric dating, and more contradict the Bible.  Atheist science contradicts the Bible and creation science.  We disagree on everything.  This is why only one of us is right.

You're still hung up on YEC and know very little of the Bible.  Give me scripture on where you get your claim.  No, your astronomers and geologists started with atheism, uniformitarianism, and Darwinism which led to evolution and evolutionary thinking.  See Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.  What you are referring to is the scientific method which a creation scientist came up with.  We use that whenever possible?  For example, it was used to debunk radiometric dating.  See RATE.

I don't expect you to believe in Satan, but don't you think it's strange that everything that God stated of creation science is contradicted by atheist science?


----------



## james bond (Jul 28, 2021)

Hollie said:


> I understand you're backtracking.
> 
> Religioners claim all of existence is the result of the hands of supernatural gods, yet, religioners can't identify a single event in all of human history that can be attributed to supernatural causation.
> 
> You're a terrible spokes-zealot for the industry of creationer proselytizing.


Lol, I'm not backtracking.  Nor am I proselytizing.  You're just wrong and wacko because you just don't know with atheist science.  At least, the ones who know can present an atheist science argument.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> Lol, I'm not backtracking.  Nor am I proselytizing.  You're just wrong and wacko because you just don't know with atheist science.  At least, the ones who know can present an atheist science argument.


There is no creationer science argument. You make the mistake of proselytizing religioner dogma as if it has any relevance beyond mere dogma.  

I'm left to conclude that the successes of science; the peer reviewed data, the fact-based progression of theory to confirming law is the result of experimentation and verification. 

I have no reason to accept outlandish tales and fables over a reality based worldview.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2021)

james bond said:


> The age of the universe and Earth is from the same nerd atheist scientists in 1956 and radiometric dating.  Can you admit that it's only you and the atheist scientists who care about the age of the universe and Earth?  Creation scientists think radiometric dating is erroneous how it was done in 1950s.  They only think radiocarbon dating on organic materials is valid if C14 is remaining -- Carbon-14 Dating—Understanding the Basics.
> 
> 
> It is first person testimony by God.  Got made the EMS and separated day and night in order to start time.  We see that he created space and matter first.  Science backs it up as matter has to be there before time.  Your side has no detailed explanation of how any of this happened.  Just the need for billions of years right off the bat which is impossible without space, matter, and all the energy of the universe.
> ...


There has never been any first person testimony from any of your gods. 

I'm not sure where your brand of religionism comes from but you're being taken advantage of.


----------



## james bond (Jul 29, 2021)

Hollie said:


> There is no creationer science argument. You make the mistake of proselytizing religioner dogma as if it has any relevance beyond mere dogma.
> 
> I'm left to conclude that the successes of science; the peer reviewed data, the fact-based progression of theory to confirming law is the result of experimentation and verification.
> 
> I have no reason to accept outlandish tales and fables over a reality based worldview.


Lol, again it's actual science as creation science.  There's nothing creationer or religioner about it whatever that means.  It's atheist science that came afterward and is wrong, wrong, wrong.  However, I do understand the need for it and why the liberals were tricked as they're mostly atheists.

You're just left to conclude because of you know who.  The only evidence I have is how can atheist science contradict EVERYTHING that God said scientifically?  You know who talked through James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin.  They based their science on atheism first.  You know is really powerful and loves to hide.  I am amazed at the power he holds over the atheists.

Again, you do not understand creationists and creation science.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> Lol, again it's actual science as creation science.  There's nothing creationer or religioner about it whatever that means.  It's atheist science that came afterward and is wrong, wrong, wrong.  However, I do understand the need for it and why the liberals were tricked as they're mostly atheists.
> 
> You're just left to conclude because of you know who.  The only evidence I have is how can atheist science contradict EVERYTHING that God said scientifically?  You know who talked through James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin.  They based their science on atheism first.  You know is really powerful and loves to hide.  I am amazed at the power he holds over the atheists.
> 
> Again, you do not understand creationists and creation science.


You do not understand creationer dogma. It is religion under a burqa of fear and ignorance. 

To claim that your gods ''said anything scientifically'' is to promote falsehoods. 

You live in fear of boogeyman who you describe as ''you know who''. Grow up!


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> Can you admit that it's only you and the atheist scientists who care about the age of the universe and Earth?


Of course scientists especially geologists and astronomers are interested in the timing of events and the age of the universe. That is an important part of science. What is your point?


james bond said:


> It is first person testimony by God. Got made the EMS and separated day and night in order to start time. We see that he created space and matter first. Science backs it up as matter has to be there before time. Your side has no detailed explanation of how any of this happened. Just the need for billions of years right off the bat which is impossible without space, matter, and all the energy of the universe.


Scripture is not a backup for science which is evidenced based.


james bond said:


> Lol, I'm not quibbling because it's very important to you. I don't think the other atheist scientists care. They're going by other radiometric decay from 1956. Have you discovered who it was yet?


We went through that in a different thread. Why do you keep bringing that up again? It disproves YEC. 


james bond said:


> Evolution, evolutionary thinking, radiometric dating, and more contradict the Bible. Atheist science contradicts the Bible and creation science. We disagree on everything. This is why only one of us is right.


One of us? It is between hundreds of years of scientist's work and people that refuse to believe that the bible is an allegory.  Not just "one of us."


james bond said:


> You're still hung up on YEC and know very little of the Bible. Give me scripture on where you get your claim.


Are you kidding? That is funny.


james bond said:


> No, your astronomers and geologists started with atheism, uniformitarianism, and Darwinism which led to evolution and evolutionary thinking. See Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin. What you are referring to is the scientific method which a creation scientist came up with. We use that whenever possible? For example, it was used to debunk radiometric dating. See RATE.
> 
> I don't expect you to believe in Satan, but don't you think it's strange that everything that God stated of creation science is contradicted by atheist science?


Creationists, even the founder Sir Francis Bacon, abandon the scientific method. That makes creation science vacuous as a science. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 29, 2021)

Hollie said:


> ...burqa of fear...


That is a funny way of putting it.


----------



## james bond (Jul 29, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You do not understand creationer dogma. It is religion under a burqa of fear and ignorance.
> 
> To claim that your gods ''said anything scientifically'' is to promote falsehoods.
> 
> You live in fear of boogeyman who you describe as ''you know who''. Grow up!


You have learned nothing of the Bible from me here and are blinded by your fake atheist science.  You may as well be the flat Earth believer as it would be a comparable belief to evolution, but the consequences are much worse;. Flat Earth believers only experience ridicule.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 29, 2021)

No one is claiming the bible may not have any anecdotal evidence.  

However, evolution seems more "intelligently" designed.


----------



## james bond (Jul 29, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Of course scientists especially geologists and astronomers are interested in the timing of events and the age of the universe. That is an important part of science. What is your point?


The point is you accused the creationists as being the ones who cared.  It was the other way around and now you are finally admitting it.  The creationists only brought up the age of the Earth to disprove evolution, i.e. no long time, no evolution.  (They also found C14 dating on organic material by creation scientist Willard Libby.)  The false belief of long time is now required for atheist science.  It started with uniformitarianism by the atheists James Hutton and handed down to Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.  It eventually made its way to you.

I'll get to your other points later.


----------



## james bond (Jul 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> No one is claiming the bible may not have any anecdotal evidence.
> 
> However, evolution seems more "intelligently" designed.


Far more than that.  It provides the exact details and we find that science backs it up.  The irony of you calling evolution "intelligently" designed lmao.


----------



## james bond (Jul 29, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> That is a funny way of putting it.


Figures.  Both of you mistaking Christianity with Islam.  It's the aroma of atheism seeping into your brains and turning it to something worse than mush.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> Far more than that.  It provides the exact details and we find that science backs it up.  The irony of you calling evolution "intelligently" designed lmao.


After millions of years of "trial and error"?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> The point is you accused the creationists as being the ones who cared.  It was the other way around and now you are finally admitting it.  The creationists only brought up the age of the Earth to disprove evolution, i.e. no long time, no evolution.  (They also found C14 dating on organic material by creation scientist Willard Libby.)  The false belief of long time is now required for atheist science.  It started with uniformitarianism by the atheists James Hutton and handed down to Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.  It eventually made its way to you.
> 
> I'll get to your other points later.


This is full of misinformation and trivia.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> Figures. Both of you mistaking Christianity with Islam. It's the aroma of atheism seeping into your brains and turning it to something worse than mush.


Cmon. It was a joke, and yes an insult - much milder and more clever than the plethora of insults you make.


----------



## james bond (Jul 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> After millions of years of "trial and error"?


One can't have that many errors or else they die or get laughed off science.  

What trial and errors have happened in 2021?  Still no abiogenesis, no aliens, nor radiometric decay adding up to half of 2021+.  We still don't know who invented radiometric dating?


----------



## james bond (Jul 29, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> This is full of misinformation and trivia.


Not I.  It's you Wong Way.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> One can't have that many errors or else they die or get laughed off science.
> 
> What trial and errors have happened in 2021?  Still no abiogenesis, no aliens, nor radiometric decay adding up to half of 2021+.  We still don't know who invented radiometric dating?


The Miller-Urey experiment discovered some results after only a week.


----------



## james bond (Jul 29, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The point is that the reference I gave concerning Rh-Os unequivocally gives a date of the earth that at least in the billions of years.


See, you avoided my questions once more.  Moreover, most creation scientists do not care about the age of the Earth based on diamonds.  It's not unequivocal by a long shot.  The dates are way overstated.  You even admitted radiometric date is not equivalent to calendar date.  What good is trusting an atheist to do science?


----------



## james bond (Jul 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The Miller-Urey experiment discovered some results after only a week.


In 2021?  LMAO.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> In 2021?  LMAO.


lol.  We have quantum supremacy now; I wonder what they could discover now.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 29, 2021)

james bond said:


> See, you avoided my questions once more. Moreover, most creation scientists do not care about the age of the Earth based on diamonds. It's not unequivocal by a long shot. The dates are way overstated. You even admitted radiometric date is not equivalent to calendar date. What good is trusting an atheist to do science?


Re: C14. You asked _What do you know_? That's ambiguous. You want me to write an essay on C14 dating?
Or are you referring to this question?
_Instead, I now know more about Rh-Os dating which doesn't mean much for creation scientists. How would it apply to them?_​
I told you many times the significance of the Rh-Os dating. 

_._


----------



## james bond (Jul 30, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Re: C14. You asked _What do you know_? That's ambiguous. You want me to write an essay on C14 dating?
> Or are you referring to this question?
> _Instead, I now know more about Rh-Os dating which doesn't mean much for creation scientists. How would it apply to them?_​
> I told you many times the significance of the Rh-Os dating.
> ...


Rh-Os dating only in terms of atheist science.  I told you that it and radiometric dating was discarded by creation scientists.  This is why you buy radiometric dating while I know it's a lie.  You even thought the creation scientists care about a young Earth when age of Earth isn't mentioned in the Bible.  You thought you had a rebuttal to YEC when it was the other way around.  That was very telling.  It's why you have become Wong Way embracing radiometric dating and Rh-Os decay as an argument when nobody cares.  You don't even know who created radiometric dating.

No need for you to explain C14 dating when it was used to date dinosaur fossils by the creationists.  It shows that atheist science ignores creation science while creation scientists know about atheist science and can rebut it as fake.


----------



## james bond (Jul 30, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> lol.  We have quantum supremacy now; I wonder what they could discover now.


Eh, you mean quantum mechanics or quantum physics?  Creation already has it covered.  It shows God's supremacy.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 30, 2021)

james bond said:


> Rh-Os dating only in terms of atheist science. I told you that it and radiometric dating was discarded by creation scientists. This is why you buy radiometric dating while I know it's a lie. You even thought the creation scientists care about a young Earth when age of Earth isn't mentioned in the Bible. You thought you had a rebuttal to YEC when it was the other way around. That was very telling. It's why you have become Wong Way embracing radiometric dating and Rh-Os decay as an argument when nobody cares. You don't even know who created radiometric dating.
> 
> No need for you to explain C14 dating when it was used to date dinosaur fossils by the creationists. It shows that atheist science ignores creation science while creation scientists know about atheist science and can rebut it as fake.


This post is weird and self-contradictory. 

You claim radiometric dating is a lie, however you cling to inappropriate use of C14 dating.

Now you say creationists don't care about young Earth, when a few thousand years age was emphasized because Biblical scholars analyzed the time-line in the Genesis.

You say nobody cares about radiometric dating. By "nobody" you mean creationists. Geologists certainly care. 

Yes science ignores creation science because creation science rejects science and substitutes Biblical gut feel in place of evidence. 

So the  bottom line is that you come to this science forum to tell us that science is fake. It is no wonder that you get so much flak in this forum. 

Look, I have no quarrel with you believing in creationism. My aunt and sister-in-law are creationists, but we get along fine. The fact that we have different philosophies never comes up. But when you try to mix religion and science with your vile temper, it just doesn't work. In my mind you are just debasing your Christianity. 

.


----------



## james bond (Jul 30, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> This post is weird and self-contradictory.
> 
> You claim radiometric dating is a lie, however you cling to inappropriate use of C14 dating.
> 
> ...


It's radiocarbon dating.  Not radiometric dating.  We're basically comparing the materials it is used on of organic vs inorganic.  Both give radioactive ages and not calendar ages,  We agreed on that.

I don't think anyone is arguing C14 dating backs up the Bible or Biblical age of the Earth which still seems what you are hung up on.  C14 dating could give 50, 000 years upper limit.  Wouldn't you think God would've provided an exact age if that was important?  Instead, all we can do is get a range of dates for organic items.  I suppose it can be used for inorganic items if C14 remains, but it won't be as consistent due to contamination.

OTOH, your radiometric dating claims 13.7 billion and 4.5 billion years old universe and Earth respectively since 1956.  You provide a different parent and daughter element to provide accuracy versus the criticisms.  It's your side that wants to show long time calendar age and that is where the error comes in.  they're not the same and makes the dating irrelevant.  Radiometric dates are not even relevant to actual calendar dates.  Dating of items of known age using those methods show the error in the dating.

You geologists should care about radiometric age if that's what is important.  Not claims of billions of years of calendar dating.  I provided the evidence that dating of same items or items from a particular layer are eliminated if they do not match the age of the layer.

I come to the science forum to use and present creation science to counter the self-serving purpose and lying claims of atheist science such as the existance of long time to back up evolution.  It's misleading when calendar ages are claimed.

Even if you claim you have no quarrel with creationism, you still tried to disprove a young Earth with your radiometric date.  I just wanted to show that the radiometric date has little to do with calendar date.  Why?  Because of the assumptions made, contamination, and little correlation shown.  If they were used on dating of know age rocks and meteors, then it would give a wide range of radiometric ages.  I exposed your RADIOMETRIC dates from 1956 and am the one who know the name of the person who created radiometric dating in 1956.  Certainly, not anyone worthwhile like Dr. Willard Libby who created radiocarbon dating or else he would be better remembered.

It was used on dino fossils to show dinosaurs lived with humans.  It was used to show how radiocarbon age to counter the long time of radiometric age as how could C14 still have remained if over 50 K years.  It's no wonder you and your side purposely avoid the C14 argument.


----------



## james bond (Jul 30, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> lol.  We have quantum supremacy now; I wonder what they could discover now.


Multiverses anyone?


----------



## james bond (Jul 30, 2021)

Speaking of multiverses, what about Stephen Hawking, atheist scientist?  Anyone remember him?  What is he remembered for?  Being an atheist haha?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 30, 2021)

james bond said:


> Both give radioactive ages and not calendar ages


When done carefully both give a calendar age that is equal to the results of the isotope assay.


james bond said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing C14 dating backs up the Bible or Biblical age of the Earth


Good.


james bond said:


> Radiometric dates are not even relevant to actual calendar dates.


Long lived isotope dating provides the calendar age.


james bond said:


> It was used on dino fossils to show dinosaurs lived with humans.


Patently not true. Creationists mistook noise for signal.


james bond said:


> It's no wonder you and your side purposely avoid the C14 argument.


There is no worthwhile argument to avoid. 

.


----------



## james bond (Jul 30, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> When done carefully both give a calendar age that is equal to the results of the isotope assay.
> 
> Good.
> 
> ...


Sez you.  Individual claims have to be put to the test.  I have to admit atheist scientists make a lot of noise, but very little good signal.  Creation scientists have demonstrated radiometric decay dates aren't valid for calendar ages.  It's important as so far nothing has backed up the lies of evolution.

C14 dating is important in disproving what the atheist scientist claimed is the universe and Earth ages in 1956.  It does back up young dates we get of the Earth using Bible genealogies.  AIG formed the RATE group to further back up its findings and they further destroy the radiometric dates from 1956 as calendar ages.  Let its work stand the test of time.  This should be taught in schools.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 30, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sez you.  Individual claims have to be put to the test.  I have to admit atheist scientists make a lot of noise, but very little good signal.  Creation scientists have demonstrated radiometric decay dates aren't valid for calendar ages.  It's important as so far nothing has backed up the lies of evolution.
> 
> C14 dating is important in disproving what the atheist scientist claimed is the universe and Earth ages in 1956.  It does back up young dates we get of the Earth using Bible genealogies.  AIG formed the RATE group to further back up its findings and they further destroy the radiometric dates from 1956 as calendar ages.  Let its work stand the test of time.  This should be taught in schools.


So you don't believe modern science. Scientists disagree with almost every sentence in your post.

.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 30, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> So you don't believe modern science. Scientists disagree with almost every sentence in your post.
> 
> .


Not all scientists disagree, and it is true that many scientist do agree with somethings James Bond says. Neither make the scientists in question correct nor able to prove anything.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 30, 2021)

LittleNipper said:


> Not all scientists disagree, and it is true that many scientist do agree with somethings James Bond says. Neither make the scientists in question correct nor able to prove anything.


It does not matter that "all" scientists do not agree. There are nuts in any crowd. 

But this mich is certain: any geologist or physicist who does not agree is not going to pass their college courses and so wont ever be physicists or geologists.


----------



## james bond (Jul 31, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> So you don't believe modern science. Scientists disagree with almost every sentence in your post.
> 
> .


I did say we were going to disagree.  I pointed out the creation scientists made their claims first from the Bible.  They had catastrophism in the early 18th century.

Next, came uniformitarianism during the 1830s which led to Darwinism in 1859.  James Hutton was atheist and influenced Charles Lyell.  They deliberately went against catastrophism because that was based on the Bible and God.  They wanted their science deliberately atheist from the start.  It was founded on the atheist religion.  Can you see how lies were built upon lies?

You think yours is the only modern science when we still have creation science.  Creationists are amazed at the power of Satan to be able contradict creation science when he loves to hide.  Personally, I believe Satan talked through those founding atheist scientists who eliminated God like the snake to Adam and Eve in the garden.  I mean you can just state your science, but you know it is based on your strong belief that God had nothing to do with anything.  That's why the creationists eventually found the science to contradict the long time theory.  Do you agree now that the age of the Earth (and universe) came first from atheist science?  If the young Earth was important, then it would be in the Bible but no mention of the age of the universe and Earth.  God did give us our birth certificates with the creation of Adam and Eve, so we believe the age of the Earth can be calculated from that quite accurately.  C14 dating backed that up and debunked the long time of evolution.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 31, 2021)

james bond, you are just repeating old posts with your stream of consciousness rambling.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)




----------



## james bond (Jul 31, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> james bond, you are just repeating old posts with your stream of consciousness rambling.


You just won't admit that you started as an atheist and then came your science.  This is your so called claim to modern science.

At least, I started with Christianity (Methodist religion) and found the Bible.  That led me to creation science.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

Nexus Six can have that effect on people.


----------



## james bond (Jul 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


>


There is no scientific evidence humans came from monkeys.  I can figure these things out and put 2 + 2 together.  

We are here today because of atheism, atheist science, (and the trickery of Satan to make people believe in lies).  I tip my hat to him as he loves to hide and yet he's so powerful.  He has the Christian truth, Bible, and creation science shut out of schools.


----------



## james bond (Jul 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Nexus Six can have that effect on people.


Only on you.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

james bond said:


> Only on you.


I strive to resort to the fewest fallacies and must be the truest witness bearer on this site as a result.  Some effect.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


>


Such a cool video.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 1, 2021)

james bond said:


> You just won't admit that you started as an atheist and then came your science.  This is your so called claim to modern science.
> 
> At least, I started with Christianity (Methodist religion) and found the Bible.  That led me to creation science.


Yes, you started with Christianity because it is the religion most commonly associated with western culture. Nothing remarkable about that. You just used the religion you were given. Your personal tragedy is certainly a tragedy. You started with christianity and assumed all the fears, superstitions and biases associated with the religion.


----------



## james bond (Aug 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I strive to resort to the fewest fallacies and must be the truest witness bearer on this site as a result.  Some effect.


I do have to give the atheist scientists credit for discovering the _fine tuning parameters_ while studying the big bang, but it seems to be quickly forgotten and removed from atheist science.  The parameters show that our universe is finely tuned to support life, i.e. only life exists on Earth.  They actually found real science, but it backed up creation science because the universe and Earth seemed to be designed with intelligence behind it, i.e. God.  They had to make up a _multiverse fallacy_ to counter.  So now you have atheist scientists who believe in multiverses, but have absolutely no evidence.

You can find your Nexus there.


----------



## james bond (Aug 1, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Yes, you started with Christianity because it is the religion most commonly associated with western culture. Nothing remarkable about that. You just used the religion you were given. Your personal tragedy is certainly a tragedy. You started with christianity and assumed all the fears, superstitions and biases associated with the religion.


There is no tragedy being with God and having creation science back it up.  Interesting that you think it's my tragedy when it is the opposite.  How else did God-fearing people become the greatest scientists in history and discovered the scientific method?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 1, 2021)

james bond said:


> There is no tragedy being with God and having creation science back it up.  Interesting that you think it's my tragedy when it is the opposite.  How else did God-fearing people become the greatest scientists in history and discovered the scientific method?


The tragedy is promoting falsehoods which you view as godly. Science does not ''back up'' a flat earth, talking snakes, Ark cruises, etc. 

Gawd fearing people did not become the greatest scientists. It was the christian church that spent 800 years persecuting scientists. Are you expecting applause for the damage done to humanity by the church?


----------



## james bond (Aug 1, 2021)

Hollie said:


> The tragedy is promoting falsehoods which you view as godly. Science does not ''back up'' a flat earth, talking snakes, Ark cruises, etc.
> 
> Gawd fearing people did not become the greatest scientists. It was the christian church that spent 800 years persecuting scientists. Are you expecting applause for the damage done to humanity by the church?


The Bible doesn't say much about hell.  I think it would be a spiritual realm unlike Earth and our universe.  IOW, once you die, the spirit is whisked immediately (in most instances) away from our Earth and universe to a place for the spiritual dead called Hades.  I think this is where one remains dormant until Jesus returns.

The place called hell is where there is no God, no creator.  It was a place created for demonic spirits, but now a place destined for those without a spiritual body.  The Bible tells us it is a place of burning, a dark place with no light, intense grief, and horror (revelation of all human sins?).  Is there any hard evidence?  I think only in the Bible.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 1, 2021)

Any multiverse would accommodate Nexus Six.


----------



## james bond (Aug 2, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> @james bond, you are just repeating old posts with your stream of consciousness rambling.


Let's discuss something else then such as FEAR.  This is in regards to our political views (liberal vs conservative) determining our religious beliefs (atheist vs Christian) and in turn it determines our beliefs in science.  

So my question is do you think like Hollie that Christianity is based on fear?  It isn't, but I do not want to be without God.  This is faith instead of fear.  The Bible states faith and fear cannot exist together and that it is unbelief that leads to fear, a powerful emotion.  As usual, Hollie is ignorant of what God said and ends up stating the opposite.  In scientific terms, my science cannot change while yours can change and does.  The fear is you cannot trust it to be true.  The fear is of being wrong.  I brought up the multiverse which was made up to counter fine tuning.  Stephen Hawking struggled to explain it until his death.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 2, 2021)

james bond said:


> The Bible doesn't say much about hell.  I think it would be a spiritual realm unlike Earth and our universe.  IOW, once you die, the spirit is whisked immediately (in most instances) away from our Earth and universe to a place for the spiritual dead called Hades.  I think this is where one remains dormant until Jesus returns.
> 
> The place called hell is where there is no God, no creator.  It was a place created for demonic spirits, but now a place destined for those without a spiritual body.  The Bible tells us it is a place of burning, a dark place with no light, intense grief, and horror (revelation of all human sins?).  Is there any hard evidence?  I think only in the Bible.


You're applying for Jimmy Swaggert's job, right?

A child who never loses his adolescent fears and superstitions is said to have never grown up.


----------



## james bond (Aug 2, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You're applying for Jimmy Swaggert's job, right?
> 
> A child who never loses his adolescent fears and superstitions is said to have never grown up.


Again, the Bible states faith and fear cannot exist together, but unbelief leads to fear, i.e. strong emotion.  Who's in the better position?  Me.

I'm not sure what that is for the unbelievers here because I think it would be personal.  Here are some things that could apply to you from the science of fear.  It could be psychological.  It could be trauma or actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others.  It could be being shown film clips of something very disturbing or that showed some kind of terrible event that was impossible to stop.  It could be disturbing visual images, imminent threat and a lack of control.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 2, 2021)

james bond said:


> Again, the Bible states faith and fear cannot exist together, but unbelief leads to fear, i.e. strong emotion.  Who's in the better position?  Me.
> 
> I'm not sure what that is for the unbelievers here because I think it would be personal.  Here are some things that could apply to you from the science of fear.  It could be psychological.  It could be trauma or actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others.  It could be being shown film clips of something very disturbing or that showed some kind of terrible event that was impossible to stop.  It could be disturbing visual images, imminent threat and a lack of control.


Or, you could seek help for your sociopathy.


----------

