# Paleontologist Explains What The Fossils Really Say



## Viktor

Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong


----------



## tyroneweaver

Over last weekend the University of Utah said that fires that burned the grasslands killed the Mastodons


----------



## Muhammed

That would really suck if you were a mastodon. But it would be kinda great if you were having a BBQ.


----------



## Hollie

Viktor said:


> Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong


He's a Disco'tute groupie.


----------



## alang1216

Viktor said:


> Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong


Whatever the case, the fossil record certainly doesn't support creationism.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Whatever the case, the fossil record certainly doesn't support creationism.


The evidence supports creation even more.  How did the fossil remains get there in the first place?  It's in the type of fossils and the locations where they are found.  Atheist scientists just place them in the orderly fake time levels that they've established.

The truth is the layer evels are named after location and not time.  It shows where the animals died.  Obviously, you've been suckered by geology of uniformitarianism.

This is why I have a healthy respect for Satan.  He tempts, God warns, but it has led to what people "believe as science" today.  It was prophecised in the Bible and this has become true.

I think the creationists even have a year when all of it could end -- 2060.  That's not in the Bible, but one of their earlier great scientists swagged/predicted (?) it.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The evidence supports creation even more.  How did the fossil remains get there in the first place?  It's in the type of fossils and the locations where they are found.  Atheist scientists just place them in the orderly fake time levels that they've established.


Not fake but relative time levels.  If one rock layer is found lying on top of another it is dated as younger than the layer below.  That is how geological dating began, absolute dating by isotopes came much later.  The oldest marine rocks never contain whales or any other mammals for example.  Since later rocks do contain mammals where did they come from?



james bond said:


> The truth is the layer evels are named after location and not time.  It shows where the animals died.  Obviously, you've been suckered by geology of uniformitarianism.


The layers are named for the location where they were first described by a geologist.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Not fake but relative time levels.  If one rock layer is found lying on top of another it is dated as younger than the layer below.  That is how geological dating began, absolute dating by isotopes came much later.  The oldest marine rocks never contain whales or any other mammals for example.  Since later rocks do contain mammals where did they come from?
> 
> 
> The layers are named for the location where they were first described by a geologist.


The atheist geologists changed it to time and in perfectly organized by time layers because it had to explain billions of years in the past.  This is the fake part called uniformitarianism.  It's like how atheists and their scientists believed in an eternal universe in the past.






The names of the Earth's layers represent location (look up the names lol) and not time as fake represented in millions of years.  The names came first and had nothing to do with time.  Doesn't that make more sense?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Viktor said:


> Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong


About what? Could you summarize this in your words?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The atheist geologists changed it to time and in perfectly organized by time layers because it had to explain billions of years in the past.  This is the fake part called uniformitarianism.  It's like how atheists and their scientists believed in an eternal universe in the past.


As I wrote, the millions of years came later.  What came first, and I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene.  Do you agree with that at least?



james bond said:


> The names of the Earth's layers represent location (look up the names lol) and not time as fake represented in millions of years.  The names came first and had nothing to do with time.  Doesn't that make more sense?


You may need to look up the terms 'relative' and 'absolute'.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> As I wrote, the millions of years came later. What came first, and I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene. Do you agree with that at least?


>>I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene<<

What does it mean if the layers you clairm are older than the other?  It sounds like it's in nice order and that time had to do with one layer growing on top of another, but it didn't take millions of years.  If millions of years came later, what do you think happened?

Also, what if there was some catastrophe that changed the layers?  Would an earthquake change the layers?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> >>I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene<<
> 
> What does it mean if the layers you clairm are older than the other?  It sounds like it's in nice order and that time had to do with one layer growing on top of another, but it didn't take millions of years.  If millions of years came later, what do you think happened?


If you're asking why did the early geologists determine the layers represent millions of years, here's how.  They measure how long it takes for new proto-limestone to form from the shell of plankton.  Then they measure the thickness of existing limestone layers (e.g., White Cliffs of Dover) and get a ballpark number. 



james bond said:


> Also, what if there was some catastrophe that changed the layers?  Would an earthquake change the layers?


An earthquake or 'catastrophe'?  Never.  Only continental drift could do it but the evidence for it would be obvious.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> If you're asking why did the early geologists determine the layers represent millions of years, here's how. They measure how long it takes for new proto-limestone to form from the shell of plankton. Then they measure the thickness of existing limestone layers (e.g., White Cliffs of Dover) and get a ballpark number.


No one can see millions of years.  I asked about catastrophes changing the Earth ahead of you making your point because a catastrophe such as a flood would hasten limestone to form.  Almost all of the limestone that we observe were laid down by large amounts of water.  Lime rich volcanic waters gushed up from the ocean floor.  We can see it as we have 3/4 of our planet covered by water.  I have observable evidence in the mid-Atlantic Ridge and plate tectonics showing the Himalayas and Mt. Everest were formed by plate tectonics in our ocean floor.  The limestone is on top of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest.  How do you explain that with your uniformitarianism?

The Earth was different in the near past and was formed by catastrophism such as the Grand Canyon (further evidence).


----------



## Rigby5

Viktor said:


> Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong



Nonsense.
When a species is not doing well, there will be inbreeding and low fossil record, and that makes it appear to be against gradualism.
But the reality is that gradualism is what is really happening in the background, and what looks like big evolutionary jumps are just when the majority of a species dies out, leaving a more unusual remainder.


----------



## Rigby5

tyroneweaver said:


> Over last weekend the University of Utah said that fires that burned the grasslands killed the Mastodons



Wrong.  
There have always been grassland fires from lighting, and it never cause any specie extinction.
There are always things like hills, lakes, rivers, etc., that provide sanctuary for species in all fires.
Not only that, but grass fires do not move nearly as fast as forest fires, since tall trees accelerate fires, because they can move upward as they move forward.


----------



## Rigby5

james bond said:


> The evidence supports creation even more.  How did the fossil remains get there in the first place?  It's in the type of fossils and the locations where they are found.  Atheist scientists just place them in the orderly fake time levels that they've established.
> 
> The truth is the layer evels are named after location and not time.  It shows where the animals died.  Obviously, you've been suckered by geology of uniformitarianism.
> 
> This is why I have a healthy respect for Satan.  He tempts, God warns, but it has led to what people "believe as science" today.  It was prophecised in the Bible and this has become true.
> 
> I think the creationists even have a year when all of it could end -- 2060.  That's not in the Bible, but one of their earlier great scientists swagged/predicted (?) it.



That makes no sense.
Obviously, depth indicates time, as well as the mineralization process the fossils exhibit.
And there are an infinite number of slow variants that make creationism impossible.
If an all knowing and all powerful being made species, then they would have been made perfect from day one.
No change would be needed or allowed.


----------



## Rigby5

james bond said:


> The atheist geologists changed it to time and in perfectly organized by time layers because it had to explain billions of years in the past.  This is the fake part called uniformitarianism.  It's like how atheists and their scientists believed in an eternal universe in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The names of the Earth's layers represent location (look up the names lol) and not time as fake represented in millions of years.  The names came first and had nothing to do with time.  Doesn't that make more sense?



No, that makes no sense.
The names originally had no time correlation, but after the contents of the layer was identified, then its time relationship did become known.
So now by examining layer content, we can correlate its time.

The differentiation between different layers can only be explained by time.


----------



## Rigby5

alang1216 said:


> As I wrote, the millions of years came later.  What came first, and I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene.  Do you agree with that at least?
> 
> 
> You may need to look up the terms 'relative' and 'absolute'.



No.
While I have not personally done the research, as I understand what they have done is very convincing that the Pliocene comes before the Holocene.








						Pliocene–Holocene evolution of depositional conditions in the eastern Mediterranean: Role of anoxia vs. productivity at time of sapropel deposition
					

A multiproxy geochemical study of nine sapropel layers from ODP Hole 964A, ODP Leg 160 in the eastern Mediterranean spanning the Pliocene–Holocene tim…




					www.sciencedirect.com
				



There are a number of different dating techniques that all agree.
There are changes in species, degree of mineral process like crystalization and fossilization, radiation decay dating, etc.


----------



## Rigby5

james bond said:


> >>I'm not sure you understand, is that the Pleistocene is older than the Holocene and the Pliocene is older than the Pleistocene<<
> 
> What does it mean if the layers you clairm are older than the other?  It sounds like it's in nice order and that time had to do with one layer growing on top of another, but it didn't take millions of years.  If millions of years came later, what do you think happened?
> 
> Also, what if there was some catastrophe that changed the layers?  Would an earthquake change the layers?



Earthquakes do not change layers.
They just shake them back and forth a bit.

There are things like subduction that can cause layers to tilt, but there could never be any significant reversing of layers.


----------



## Rigby5

james bond said:


> No one can see millions of years.  I asked about catastrophes changing the Earth ahead of you making your point because a catastrophe such as a flood would hasten limestone to form.  Almost all of the limestone that we observe were laid down by large amounts of water.  Lime rich volcanic waters gushed up from the ocean floor.  We can see it as we have 3/4 of our planet covered by water.  I have observable evidence in the mid-Atlantic Ridge and plate tectonics showing the Himalayas and Mt. Everest were formed by plate tectonics in our ocean floor.  The limestone is on top of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest.  How do you explain that with your uniformitarianism?
> 
> The Earth was different in the near past and was formed by catastrophism such as the Grand Canyon (further evidence).



Things like the Grand Canyon are insignificantly small.
The height of Mt. Everest is insignificantly small.
There is nothing contradicting the great ages of the planet, being about 4,5 billion years old.
Limestone is from water and lime, but a catastrophic flood would NOT hasten its formation in the least.
It does not take large amounts of water to lay down limestone, but the reduction of water that does it.
If you have large amounts of water, the lime will remain in dissolved.
And don't try to bring up the great flood, because there is no evidence of one.
There is evidence of the Mediterranean, Black Sea, and other areas being dry at one time, but that is from a reduction of sea level, due to glaciation.
It is not due to any change in the amount of water.
That was determined by the comets and asteroids that coalesced to form the planet, and not any later addition or subtraction.
And there could have been no great flood near the time frame of human existence, because any subterranean ice would have melted billions of years ago when the planet core became hot and molten due to radiation, gravity, and rotational energy.


----------



## Mushroom

Viktor said:


> Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong



Ahhh, a video from a group that supports Creationism.  How neutral such a thing is.

Sorry, not buying whatever it is he is selling.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> No one can see millions of years.


You mean you can't.  A geologist can.



james bond said:


> I asked about catastrophes changing the Earth ahead of you making your point because a catastrophe such as a flood would hasten limestone to form.


Limestone never forms from a flood.  It requires quiet water.



james bond said:


> Almost all of the limestone that we observe were laid down by large amounts of water.  Lime rich volcanic waters gushed up from the ocean floor.


Are there lime volcanic waters gushing up today?  I don't think so.



james bond said:


> We can see it as we have 3/4 of our planet covered by water.  I have observable evidence in the mid-Atlantic Ridge and plate tectonics showing the Himalayas and Mt. Everest were formed by plate tectonics in our ocean floor.  The limestone is on top of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest.  How do you explain that with your uniformitarianism?


You're right Himalayas and Mt. Everest were formed by plate tectonics, but not 'in our ocean floor'.  India collided with Asia and the limestone layer between them were pushed upward.  



james bond said:


> The Earth was different in the near past and was formed by catastrophism such as the Grand Canyon (further evidence).


The Earth was different but there is no reason to think the mechanisms were any different.  Floods can be catastrophic but they happen regularly.  In some places, every year.  What is your evidence that the Grand Canyon was created by a catastrophe and not just your every-day erosion?


----------



## alang1216

Rigby5 said:


> There are things like subduction that can cause layers to tilt, but there could never be any significant reversing of layers.


Actually folding of layers during mountain building and thrust faults could reverse layers but each leaves tell-tale clues behind.


----------



## Mushroom

alang1216 said:


> Limestone never forms from a flood. It requires quiet water.



I am actually laughing at the lack of science in some.

Do they actually think "limestone" is created as deposits from "lime volcanoes"?  Or is deposited by "lime rich waters"?

Wow, maybe we should then add in some lemon rich waters, and we could have an ocean of 7-Up.

I am reading the posts you are responding to, it makes me wonder why this thread is still even in the "Science" section.  Do we even have a posting area for "fairy tales"?


----------



## Mushroom

alang1216 said:


> Actually folding of layers during mountain building and thrust faults could reverse layers but each leaves tell-tale clues behind.



Hell, I used to live about a mile from one of the most famous examples of this.







Commonly known as the "Palmdale Cut", or "The Great Wave", this is literally where California State Route 14 cuts through the San Andreas Fault.  And being an amateur geologist myself I am always looking for and studying formations like this.  One thing that many do not realize, is that the US Freeway System has been a literal gold mine for geology.  As there are hundreds of thousands of examples of strata like this, that had almost never been seen before.

In Idaho, it is possible to even see evidence of vulcanism quite easily, as many roads cut through where lava at one point had passed through the crust and leaving behind the evidence.


----------



## Astrostar

Viktor said:


> Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong


The creationist crowd will never give it up.  They are just like the christians, confederates and trump, forever chasing ghosts!  Bigly!!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mushroom said:


> Do they actually think "limestone" is created as deposits from "lime volcanoes"? Or is deposited by "lime rich waters"?


It is deposited in part by waters rich in dissolved calcium. So, like you said, not "lime".


----------



## Mushroom

Astrostar said:


> They are just like the christians



You might want to be careful about stereotyping there.

I am a "Christian", and fully accept conventional cosmology, evolution, and how almost all of science sees the evolution of the planet and universe.

Do not confuse most with the Fundamentalists.  They are very much in the minority.


----------



## Mushroom

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It is deposited in part by waters rich in dissolved calcium. So, like you said, not "lime".



Actually, no.






Oh, it is believed that in some rare cases this might have happened.  But almost every example known it is nothing more than sea life.  Coral, shells, even the skeletons of plankton that build up over millions of years, then eventually is thrust up above the oceans by crustal lifting.  Hell, one of my favorite things to do whenever I find limestone is to examine it for shells.

And yes, I have actually done that in many places.  All over the US, on a high ridge in Panama, in Japan, and in the Middle East.  Limestone is almost always made up of little but shells, and that is why it is so rich in shell fossils.

But please, tell me where I can find these "waters rich in calcium".  I could drink that, and never need to drink milk ever again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mushroom said:


> Actually, no.


Actually, yes. Some limestone is, indeed, formed by precipitation. And evaporation.


----------



## Mushroom

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Actually, yes. Some limestone is, indeed, formed by precipitation. And evaporation.



Very few.  The vast majority comes from fossilized sea life.

Might as well talk about the percent of CO2 that comes from plants that absorb oxygen and emit carbon dioxide.

In general, when discussing things scientific you should discuss the majority, not the minority of cause and effect.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mushroom said:


> Very few. The vast majority comes from fossilized sea life.


Yes, true. The scientists say that biological processes have dominated Limestone formation for the last 540 million years.


----------



## Mushroom

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, true. The scientists say that biological processes have dominated Limestone formation for the last 540 million years.



Oh, it goes back much farther than that.  All the way to the Proterozoic, starting roughly 2.5 gya.  And even the "precipitate" starting then was in the form of calcium carbonates.  Literally the skeletons of proto-plankton.  The "precipitation" was still created from a biological process.  And 95% of the limestone on the planet dates to this period and afterwards.

The majority of the rest dates to the Archean, 2.5 to 4 gya.  Once again, largely from biological processes as this is now where the evidence of the first forms of life have been found.


----------



## james bond

Rigby5 said:


> That makes no sense.
> Obviously, depth indicates time, as well as the mineralization process the fossils exhibit.
> And there are an infinite number of slow variants that make creationism impossible.
> If an all knowing and all powerful being made species, then they would have been made perfect from day one.
> No change would be needed or allowed.


Your last sentence doesn't make any sense due to the wrath of God. 

It makes plenty of sense except to uniformitarian atheists, i.e. nothing major happens to the Earth in billions of years, who can't accept catastrophism.  Today, we won't be around that long as global warming wipes us out.  That's catastrophism and more evidence for creationism.



Rigby5 said:


> Earthquakes do not change layers.
> They just shake them back and forth a bit.
> 
> There are things like subduction that can cause layers to tilt, but there could never be any significant reversing of layers.



We had a _global flood_ where the water came up from the oceans below sea level.  The evidence is there with the fountains of the deep in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.  I guess you missed that.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You mean you can't.  A geologist can.
> 
> 
> Limestone never forms from a flood.  It requires quiet water.
> 
> 
> Are there lime volcanic waters gushing up today?  I don't think so.
> 
> 
> You're right Himalayas and Mt. Everest were formed by plate tectonics, but not 'in our ocean floor'.  India collided with Asia and the limestone layer between them were pushed upward.
> 
> 
> The Earth was different but there is no reason to think the mechanisms were any different.  Floods can be catastrophic but they happen regularly.  In some places, every year.  What is your evidence that the Grand Canyon was created by a catastrophe and not just your every-day erosion?


Let's ask a creationist geologist.

Flume experiments have verified that carbonate mud isn’t deposited slowly but rapidly by wave and current action.3  Laboratory experiments demonstrate that water flowing between 10 and 20 inches per second creates ripples and laminated carbonate mud layers _identical_ to those observed in carbonate rocks.4

3  Schieber, J. et al. 2013. Experimental Deposition of Carbonate Mud from Moving Suspensions: Importance of Flocculation and Implications For Modern and Ancient Carbonate Mud Deposition. _Journal of Sedimentary Research._ 83 (11): 1025-1031.

4  Boggs Jr., S. 2006. _Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy_, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 159-167.

There are deep ocean volcanoes and they can bring up the seafloor in a process called seafloor spreading.  WW II Japanese ships on the bottom of the ocean have been brought up this way.

As for the Grand Canyon, nobody can observe nor test that it was carved out by the Colorado River.  Instead, it would take a giant amount of water like that necessary for a global flood -- Grand Canyon Carved by Flood Runoff.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Let's ask a creationist geologist.
> 
> Flume experiments have verified that carbonate mud isn’t deposited slowly but rapidly by wave and current action.3  Laboratory experiments demonstrate that water flowing between 10 and 20 inches per second creates ripples and laminated carbonate mud layers _identical_ to those observed in carbonate rocks.4
> 
> 3  Schieber, J. et al. 2013. Experimental Deposition of Carbonate Mud from Moving Suspensions: Importance of Flocculation and Implications For Modern and Ancient Carbonate Mud Deposition. _Journal of Sedimentary Research._ 83 (11): 1025-1031.
> 
> 4  Boggs Jr., S. 2006. _Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy_, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 159-167.


Your link didn't work.



james bond said:


> There are deep ocean volcanoes and they can bring up the seafloor in a process called seafloor spreading.


I don't believe this is true except in very rare cases like Iceland.  In fact the opposite is generally true.



james bond said:


> WW II Japanese ships on the bottom of the ocean have been brought up this way.


Never heard of this, got a link?



james bond said:


> As for the Grand Canyon, nobody can observe nor test that it was carved out by the Colorado River.  Instead, it would take a giant amount of water like that necessary for a global flood -- Grand Canyon Carved by Flood Runoff.


In fact just the opposite is true.  Below is a map of the Colorado River in the GC.  You can see the bends in the river.  Only slow moving rivers have such bends, floods cut straight courses.  The Colorado was already there when the uplift occurred so it kept its' original winding course.


----------



## Anomalism

Lol

Understanding everything is just easier when you believe in magic.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Let's ask a creationist geologist.
> 
> Flume experiments have verified that carbonate mud isn’t deposited slowly but rapidly by wave and current action.3  Laboratory experiments demonstrate that water flowing between 10 and 20 inches per second creates ripples and laminated carbonate mud layers _identical_ to those observed in carbonate rocks.4
> 
> 3  Schieber, J. et al. 2013. Experimental Deposition of Carbonate Mud from Moving Suspensions: Importance of Flocculation and Implications For Modern and Ancient Carbonate Mud Deposition. _Journal of Sedimentary Research._ 83 (11): 1025-1031.
> 
> 4  Boggs Jr., S. 2006. _Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy_, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 159-167.
> 
> There are deep ocean volcanoes and they can bring up the seafloor in a process called seafloor spreading.  WW II Japanese ships on the bottom of the ocean have been brought up this way.
> 
> As for the Grand Canyon, nobody can observe nor test that it was carved out by the Colorado River.  Instead, it would take a giant amount of water like that necessary for a global flood -- Grand Canyon Carved by Flood Runoff.


Why dump links to creationer loons in the Science and Technology forum?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Your link didn't work.
> 
> 
> I don't believe this is true except in very rare cases like Iceland.  In fact the opposite is generally true.
> 
> 
> Never heard of this, got a link?
> 
> 
> In fact just the opposite is true.  Below is a map of the Colorado River in the GC.  You can see the bends in the river.  Only slow moving rivers have such bends, floods cut straight courses.  The Colorado was already there when the uplift occurred so it kept its' original winding course.





alang1216 said:


> Your link didn't work.
> 
> 
> I don't believe this is true except in very rare cases like Iceland.  In fact the opposite is generally true.
> 
> 
> Never heard of this, got a link?
> 
> 
> In fact just the opposite is true.  Below is a map of the Colorado River in the GC.  You can see the bends in the river.  Only slow moving rivers have such bends, floods cut straight courses.  The Colorado was already there when the uplift occurred so it kept its' original winding course.


Try this one -- Experimental Deposition of Carbonate Mud From Moving Suspensions: Importance of Flocculation and Implications For Modern and Ancient Carbonate Mud DepositionCurrent Ripples | Journal of Sedimentary Research | GeoScienceWorld.

No, it's the norm.  Not the exception.  You are wrong again -- seafloor spreading | Evidence & Process.

Here's the Japanese WW II ships.  Will their ghosts get you now ? WWII 'ghost ships' rise from Pacific after volcanic eruption

We'll have to disagree on the Colorado river as creation science vs. atheist science.  We can't see millions of years and you can't prove millions of years as radiometric dating in 1956 was erroneous.


----------



## james bond

Anomalism said:


> Lol
> 
> Understanding everything is just easier when you believe in magic.


That's evolution as no one can observe or test it.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Why dump links to creationer loons in the Science and Technology forum?


The loonies are the atheists and their scientists.  None of you have any links nor can answer my questions while I have yours.

After awhile, it gets tiring.  That's why I love to yell, "Atheists need to die!" as that way they get the ultimate and irrefutable proof that they want.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Try this one -- Experimental Deposition of Carbonate Mud From Moving Suspensions: Importance of Flocculation and Implications For Modern and Ancient Carbonate Mud DepositionCurrent Ripples | Journal of Sedimentary Research | GeoScienceWorld.
> 
> No, it's the norm.  Not the exception.  You are wrong again -- seafloor spreading | Evidence & Process.
> 
> Here's the Japanese WW II ships.  Will their ghosts get you now ? WWII 'ghost ships' rise from Pacific after volcanic eruption


Your knowledge of geology is too weak for you to understand what you're cutting and pasting.



james bond said:


> We'll have to disagree on the Colorado river as creation science vs. atheist science.


There is no religious prefix to science, it is either based on evidence or it is not science.  You are welcome to ignore the evidence of the Colorado River and all the other evidence but that makes you like the 3 monkeys, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.



james bond said:


> We can't see millions of years and you can't prove millions of years as radiometric dating in 1956 was erroneous.


If I went to an area where a river floods every year, like say the Mississippi before all the dams and levees were built, and found a million individual layers, each representing a single flood event, would it be reasonable to say the river has been flooding for a million years?


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> We'll have to disagree on the Colorado river as creation science vs. atheist science. We can't see millions of years and you can't prove millions of years as radiometric dating in 1956 was erroneous.



Actually, we have both kinds of canyons in the US.  And they are very different from each other.

If you want an example of a flood created canyon, go to Idaho and Washington.  Whenever Lake Bonneville flooded, it covered entire states.  And carved some impressive canyons.  However, if you examine them they are almost all straight, and not all that deep.  Around 500 feet, between one section of hard basalt and another, wiping out all the sediment between them.  Not those deep and wide meandering canyons like the Colorado carved.

So yes, we can indeed prove it, by studying canyons we know were caused by massive flood events.  Feel free to follow the Snake River through Idaho, the southern part of the state (and Eastern Washington) is full of the evidence of such.

Oh, and as it goes down stream, the flood stops making canyons.  Like at Red Rock Pass, near the Idaho-Washington border.







This was the last "rock" the flood had to pass through, leaving this strange cut that puzzled settlers for over a century.  Then when you go west from here, you find hundreds of square miles of "petrified watermelons".  And strange ridges that run north-south.  It took aircraft to realize that it was a massive flood plain.  Like you would see in the silt on the bottom of a creek, but thousands of times larger.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Your knowledge of geology is too weak for you to understand what you're cutting and pasting.
> 
> 
> There is no religious prefix to science, it is either based on evidence or it is not science.  You are welcome to ignore the evidence of the Colorado River and all the other evidence but that makes you like the 3 monkeys, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
> 
> 
> If I went to an area where a river floods every year, like say the Mississippi before all the dams and levees were built, and found a million individual layers, each representing a single flood event, would it be reasonable to say the river has been flooding for a million years?


I'm no geologist, but do understand uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism and the errors in radiometric dating.

If there is no religious prefix to science, then stop believing in atheist science such as evolution.  Atheism is a religion.  At least, I am smart enough to realize our religion influences our science.  The facts are that science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  Also, nothing backs up evolution nor atheism.  It's just a fake religious belief.

Here's evidence that debunks evolution.  Prehistoric cave art of humans and dinosaurs living together.














						Prehistoric Cave Art Depicting Humans Hunting Dinosaurs Discovered in Kuwait
					

Kuwait| A 67-year old sheperd looking for one of his animals, stumbled upon what could be one of the most astonishing discoveries of modern archeology. The man noticed a barely visible entrance to …




					pneymatiko.wordpress.com


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> Actually, we have both kinds of canyons in the US.  And they are very different from each other.
> 
> If you want an example of a flood created canyon, go to Idaho and Washington.  Whenever Lake Bonneville flooded, it covered entire states.  And carved some impressive canyons.  However, if you examine them they are almost all straight, and not all that deep.  Around 500 feet, between one section of hard basalt and another, wiping out all the sediment between them.  Not those deep and wide meandering canyons like the Colorado carved.
> 
> So yes, we can indeed prove it, by studying canyons we know were caused by massive flood events.  Feel free to follow the Snake River through Idaho, the southern part of the state (and Eastern Washington) is full of the evidence of such.
> 
> Oh, and as it goes down stream, the flood stops making canyons.  Like at Red Rock Pass, near the Idaho-Washington border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was the last "rock" the flood had to pass through, leaving this strange cut that puzzled settlers for over a century.  Then when you go west from here, you find hundreds of square miles of "petrified watermelons".  And strange ridges that run north-south.  It took aircraft to realize that it was a massive flood plain.  Like you would see in the silt on the bottom of a creek, but thousands of times larger.


I don't disagree that canyons are formed by floods.  However, the Grand Canyon wasn't from the Colorado River flooding if that's what you're saying.  Otherwise, show me the evidence.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I'm no geologist, but do understand uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism and the errors in radiometric dating.


Do you?  I wonder.  If a flood happens every year is that an example of uniformitarianism or catastrophism?



james bond said:


> If there is no religious prefix to science, then stop believing in atheist science such as evolution.


But there is evidence for evolution all around us.  So much that it convinced scientists that believed in God that it happened.



james bond said:


> Atheism is a religion.  At least, I am smart enough to realize our religion influences our science.  The facts are that science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  Also, nothing backs up evolution nor atheism.  It's just a fake religious belief.


Why is it that rocks with dinosaur fossils never have human fossils and layers with human fossils never have dino fossils?



james bond said:


> Here's evidence that debunks evolution.  Prehistoric cave art of humans and dinosaurs living together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prehistoric Cave Art Depicting Humans Hunting Dinosaurs Discovered in Kuwait
> 
> 
> Kuwait| A 67-year old sheperd looking for one of his animals, stumbled upon what could be one of the most astonishing discoveries of modern archeology. The man noticed a barely visible entrance to …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pneymatiko.wordpress.com


See above.  Besides your 'dinos' look a lot like camels.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Do you?  I wonder.  If a flood happens every year is that an example of uniformitarianism or catastrophism?
> 
> 
> But there is evidence for evolution all around us.  So much that it convinced scientists that believed in God that it happened.
> 
> 
> Why is it that rocks with dinosaur fossils never have human fossils and layers with human fossils never have dino fossils?
> 
> 
> See above.  Besides your 'dinos' look a lot like camels.


LMAO.  I can see you do not understand uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism.  There is no uniformitarianism.

Nothing observable nor testable for evolution and lies.

Dinosaur fossils have been found with bird ones.  Eventually, we'll find dinosaur and human fossils.

Notice the tail.  Too many cave drawings to mistake dinosaurs and camels.


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> However, the Grand Canyon wasn't from the Colorado River flooding if that's what you're saying.



Exactly.

And that is obvious from the meandering and oxbows.  That is from long term erosion, flood canyons are nothing like that.  They tend to be perfectly straight, following the course of least resistance towards low ground.  The oxbows are a dead giveaway that it is an ancient stream, as that only happens as a river gets "old".

Hence, a "young river" like the Columbia, Sacramento, and Snake rarely have oxbows, rarely double back on themselves (other than for a geological reason), and are mostly straight.  Older rivers that have followed the same course for a very long time tend to gather sediment until it reaches a point it can shift the river itself.  The Mississippi does this, as does the Colorado.

The evidence is right there.


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> Here's evidence that debunks evolution.  Prehistoric cave art of humans and dinosaurs living together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prehistoric Cave Art Depicting Humans Hunting Dinosaurs Discovered in Kuwait
> 
> 
> Kuwait| A 67-year old sheperd looking for one of his animals, stumbled upon what could be one of the most astonishing discoveries of modern archeology. The man noticed a barely visible entrance to …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pneymatiko.wordpress.com



You know that's fake, right?  One obvious sign is that the photograph does not show the clear wal, but a blow-up that is not where it belongs.

Second, this has been released several times on sketchy sites.  In 2014, again in 2017, and again in 2020.  Each time as if it was a brand new discovery.

And next, notice that it says "paleontologist Abdul Al-Shalafi".  But funny, not who he works for.  No university, no research center, nothing.  A legitimate source would say something like "Dr. Jose Bonaparte, Natural History Museum of Argentina".

And finally, *that art is not from Kuwait!  *That is from the Chauvet Cave in France.  So not only wrong cave, but wrong country and wrong continent.






I bet you have never found a link you did not like, so long as it agrees with your beliefs.  But me, I am more of a skeptic and question everything.  And thanks to modern search tools, it is amazingly simple to find out lies like that if you know how to do it.

And it is this simple.  I did a google image search on your photo above, and read several articles that each said the exact same thing over and over again.  Then I did another image search, and found the original image.  The running hunter at the top made it damned easy, he is very distinctive.  Then find another image of him, and as they say "voila!"  It is from a famous cave in France.

Not Kuwait, France.

In other words, you are believing a lie.

But here is the thing, I bet you are going to continue to believe the lie, insist it is true and I am wrong, and prove to me that even trying to discuss anything with you is a waste of time.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> LMAO.  I can see you do not understand uniformitarianism vs. catastrophism.  There is no uniformitarianism.


How many catastrophic events have you personally experienced?



james bond said:


> Nothing observable nor testable for evolution and lies.


We have found trillions of fossils, how many have NOT fit into the ToE?  Spoiler alert: NONE



james bond said:


> Dinosaur fossils have been found with bird ones.  Eventually, we'll find dinosaur and human fossils.


Or maybe you die waiting.



james bond said:


> Notice the tail.  Too many cave drawings to mistake dinosaurs and camels.


Maybe.  Not a lot to hang your theory on.


----------



## Mushroom

alang1216 said:


> See above. Besides your 'dinos' look a lot like camels.



Those are not even "Dinos", I bet they are a complete fabrication as the area they are in on an original and unedited photo seems to be showing a canine of some kind or a feline prediator.

But when his original "source" can not even give the right continent of the cave, it is complete garbage and should be treated as such.


----------



## Mushroom

Mushroom said:


> Those are not even "Dinos", I bet they are a complete fabrication as the area they are in on an original and unedited photo seems to be showing a canine of some kind or a feline prediator.
> 
> But when his original "source" can not even give the right continent of the cave, it is complete garbage and should be treated as such.


In fact, take a closer look at the top-left part of the larger image.  Look closely at the black line in the rock, which goes up almost like a mountain, then gets thinner before it goes to a peak then descends again.  Then look at the top of the "circled" area.  Wow, they literally cropped out that part of the image with nothing else in it, then painted the "dinosaur" right there before moving it down.  Part of it is even barely visible in their edited photo.











Complete and utter fail.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mushroom said:


> In fact, take a closer look at the top-right part of the larger image.  Look closely at the black line in the rock, which goes up almost like a mountain, then gets thinner before it goes to a peak then descends again.  Then look at the top of the "circled" area.  Wow, they literally cropped out that part of the image with nothing else in it, then painted the "dinosaur" right there before moving it down.  Part of it is even barely visible in their edited photo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete and utter fail.


james bond


----------



## Mushroom

In fact, just for fun, here is another crop of the original photo.  Just to pour more salt onto the wound.










Gee, the same image seen at the bottom of the unretouched photograph.

Of course, with GIMP or Photoshop you can do some amazing things.


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> None of you have any links nor can answer my questions while I have yours.



We answered, busted, and laughed.

Now, care to talk to us about the obviously photoshopped image connected to the garbage site you insisted was "proof"?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Do you?  I wonder.  If a flood happens every year is that an example of uniformitarianism or catastrophism?
> 
> 
> But there is evidence for evolution all around us.  So much that it convinced scientists that believed in God that it happened.
> 
> 
> Why is it that rocks with dinosaur fossils never have human fossils and layers with human fossils never have dino fossils?
> 
> 
> See above.  Besides your 'dinos' look a lot like camels.


I know, but it appears you didn't know.  It's catastrophism.  Didn't I say there was no uniformitarianism?  However, I'm open to it.  What is something that is uniformitarian if you disagree?  What does uniformitarianism mean?

There is no evolution around us at all.  There is no common ancestor.  It's just a made up fairy tale by the atheist scientists who wrote so many papers about it that people started to believe it.  Who are these scientists who believe in God and evolution lol?

I think dinosaur and human fossils will be found in one layer, i.e. location, and will make you and the atheists look foolish.  It's not easy to find either fossil.  Where are the human fossils?  You don't have any fossils of these, but yet you believe in them.


----------



## Mushroom

Here is an example of what I mean by "oxbows" if somebody does not know what they are.






This is the Mississippi, and as can easily be seen, there are multiple oxbows in this image.  In essence, during erosion sediment builds up at a point on the bank, and causes the river to make a small turn around it.  Over time more sediment builds up, and the outer edge starts to cut into the outer bank.  The inner part is slower than the outer part, which causes more sediment to build up there, and causes the outer to cut out even more.  Eventually to the point where you eventually get an island build up in the middle, and then quite often the river will cut through the sediment again, either leaving a horseshoe lake behind.  And causing the river to "meander" even more, until it is soon going all kinds of crazy directions, not simply following what should be the "path of least resistance".

Now as a gold miner, this is something we all look for when we are going to be sluicing along a river.  We look for those bows, and then dig out the sand on the inward side of a bend.  That is where the water was moving the slowest, and where it is most likely to deposit gold among the sands.  This is why to anybody mining rivers, these inner parts of a bend are what we look for.  Along with the black sand and gold that is always found in those areas.






That is the Grand Canyon from space, and this effect is clearly evident.

Now, here is the Snake River, in Idaho.






Now this indeed is a flood event canyon.  Notice, it is fairly straight.  The upper "cut" is from the flood event, when ancient Lake Bonneville  (the remainder is now known as the "Great Salt Lake") about 30,000 years ago topped the natural rock and earth that kept it in place, and it flooded into Southern Idaho.  The cut below that is the natural erosion in the 30 ky since the flood.  This flooded out at the rate of around a million cubic meters per minute, reaching the Snake River just south of where the American Falls Lake is now, then continuing all the way until it hit Red Rock Pass at the Idaho-Washington Border.

At which point it broke out into a flat open prairie, and both spread out and slowed down.  Creating the "Washington Scablands".






The "ridges" visible are actually the same as the ripples you can see on the sandy bottom of a stream, but many times bigger.  Made by the same forces of nature.  And the "petrified watermelons" I mentioned earlier are the round rocks round all around this area, just larger versions of the rounded pebbles in a creek.


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> You know that's fake, right?  One obvious sign is that the photograph does not show the clear wal, but a blow-up that is not where it belongs.
> 
> Second, this has been released several times on sketchy sites.  In 2014, again in 2017, and again in 2020.  Each time as if it was a brand new discovery.
> 
> And next, notice that it says "paleontologist Abdul Al-Shalafi".  But funny, not who he works for.  No university, no research center, nothing.  A legitimate source would say something like "Dr. Jose Bonaparte, Natural History Museum of Argentina".
> 
> And finally, *that art is not from Kuwait!  *That is from the Chauvet Cave in France.  So not only wrong cave, but wrong country and wrong continent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you have never found a link you did not like, so long as it agrees with your beliefs.  But me, I am more of a skeptic and question everything.  And thanks to modern search tools, it is amazingly simple to find out lies like that if you know how to do it.
> 
> And it is this simple.  I did a google image search on your photo above, and read several articles that each said the exact same thing over and over again.  Then I did another image search, and found the original image.  The running hunter at the top made it damned easy, he is very distinctive.  Then find another image of him, and as they say "voila!"  It is from a famous cave in France.
> 
> Not Kuwait, France.
> 
> In other words, you are believing a lie.
> 
> But here is the thing, I bet you are going to continue to believe the lie, insist it is true and I am wrong, and prove to me that even trying to discuss anything with you is a waste of time.


I didn't know that.  I went to look at the pictures of humans and dinosaurs and went with something that looked good.  The photo is named Chauvet+5, so you may be right.  Is it a picture in the Chauvet Caves in France?  How old are they?  I couldn't find it in those pictures -- chauvet cave paintings france - Bing images.


----------



## Old Rocks

james bond said:


> I know, but it appears you didn't know.  It's catastrophism.  Didn't I say there was no uniformitarianism?  However, I'm open to it.  What is something that is uniformitarian if you disagree?  What does uniformitarianism mean?
> 
> There is no evolution around us at all.  There is no common ancestor.  It's just a made up fairy tale by the atheist scientists who wrote so many papers about it that people started to believe it.  Who are these scientists who believe in God and evolution lol?
> 
> I think dinosaur and human fossils will be found in one layer, i.e. location, and will make you and the atheists look foolish.  It's not easy to find either fossil.  Where are the human fossils?  You don't have any fossils of these, but yet you believe in them.


Apparently you are so ignorant that you do not know that there are many ways of dating rocks and other artifacts. As far as evolution goes, we are related to all life on Earth, it is written in the DNA in every cell in your body. That you choose to take as fact the mythology developed by a bunch of goat herders 5000 years ago simply is an indication of how you fear knowledge.


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> How old are they?



Between 25-37 kya.

The oldest images are the most crude, those date to the Aurignacian period of around 33-37 kya.  Generally little more than outlines, hand prints, and stick figures.






The more well known and "artistic" ones  mostly date from around 28-31 kya.











These are the images most are familiar with, as they are the most "lifelike" of those found in the cave.

But the moment I saw that image, I knew where it was from.  Petroglyphs in the Middle East are normally carved, and on the faces of rock walls or boulders.


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> I didn't know that. I went to look at the pictures of humans and dinosaurs and went with something that looked good.



And that is the danger of just finding something and not critically analyzing it.

Myself, I am very much a skeptic, and that "article" jumped out and screamed at me it was fake.  For reasons I already stated.

First of all, a Kuwaiti "sheperd" (misspelling, it should be "shepherd") finding the caves?  Well gee, where have we heard that one before?  Did they find cave art, or the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Then we get to the person in charge.  "Abdul Al-Shalafi, the paleontologist recently named in charge of the site".  First of all, who is he affiliated with?  A university?  A museum?  A government cultural agency?  Look at any similar article, and it will always identify who they are working for.  Here, nothing.  And if he works for nobody, who was it that put him in charge, under what authority?

Well, I did a Google search for "Abdul Al-Shalafi".  And what did I find?  Well, absolutely nothing that did not refer right back to this single discovery.  Which interestingly enough has been "reported" almost the exact same way in 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2021.  The same "news" being reported exactly the same over and over again is almost a guarantee it is fake.

I encourage anybody to look at things like this through the eyes of a skeptic.  Do not just look for things you agree with, make sure they are credible reports and are factual. 

I mean come on, really?  NEWS

Well, how reputable are they?  Let's examine some of their current "headlines".

TRANS-SPECIES MAN WHO IDENTIFIES AS A SQUIRREL ARRESTED FOR TWO 20-TON PEANUT TRUCK HEISTS​TEXAS MAN ADMITS KIDNAPPING 79 PEOPLE TO ANALLY PROBE THEM WHILE DISGUISED AS AN ALIEN​CANNIBAL KILLER SLAUGHTERED AND ATE 23 PIZZA DELIVERY MEN, 6 JEHOVAH WITNESSES, 2 POSTMEN IN PAST 7 YEARS​WOMAN SUES SAMSUNG FOR $1.8M AFTER CELL PHONE GETS STUCK INSIDE HER VAGINA​FLORIDA FISHERMAN LOST AT SEA FOR 14 DAYS CLAIMS HE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY MERMAIDS​
Yea, that is the site you used to pull up this "proof".  Dude, you trolled yourself.  But take it as a lesson, and look for accurate and factual information, not just information that agrees with your beliefs.


----------



## Old Rocks




----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I know, but it appears you didn't know.  It's catastrophism.  Didn't I say there was no uniformitarianism?  However, I'm open to it.  What is something that is uniformitarian if you disagree?  What does uniformitarianism mean?


If you don't like annual flooding how about the movement of plates.  There is no evidence I know of that points to any change in the speed of their movement.




james bond said:


> I think dinosaur and human fossils will be found in one layer, i.e. location, and will make you and the atheists look foolish.


That would certainly turn science on its head but until then it is not evolution science that looks foolish



james bond said:


> It's not easy to find either fossil.  Where are the human fossils?  You don't have any fossils of these, but yet you believe in them.


There are hundreds of fossils of our ancestors, apes that walked upright when no dinos were around.


----------



## Mushroom

alang1216 said:


> There are hundreds of fossils of our ancestors, apes that walked upright when no dinos were around.



Hell, the first recognized "proto-primate" is Purgatorius, which evolved around 66 mya in North America.  And it was a long tailed four legged arboreal creature, having more in common with a squirrel than what would follow it.







It would be another 10 million years until that evolved into Notharctus, another North American primate that would finally take on a form that most would actually recognize as being an actual primate.  But anatomically it was still closer to a rodent than to a modern Primate, but the direction it was now moving in was becoming obvious.






So at the absolute outside, the idea that "humans were with dinosaurs" is true - only if you include all primates and their predecessors as "human".


----------



## JoeBlow

Viktor said:


> Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong


I made one of those in grade school once.


----------



## james bond

Old Rocks said:


> Apparently you are so ignorant that you do not know that there are many ways of dating rocks and other artifacts. As far as evolution goes, we are related to all life on Earth, it is written in the DNA in every cell in your body. That you choose to take as fact the mythology developed by a bunch of goat herders 5000 years ago simply is an indication of how you fear knowledge.


You are wrong and trying to make mountains out of molehills.  It shows that you are so desperate for a win.  I wasn't ignorant, but just had the wrong location.  Instead of Kuwait, it was France, but dinosaurs and humans lived together.  All of these rocks and cave paintings are considered prehistoric.  They have them around the world.


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> And that is the danger of just finding something and not critically analyzing it.
> 
> Myself, I am very much a skeptic, and that "article" jumped out and screamed at me it was fake.  For reasons I already stated.
> 
> First of all, a Kuwaiti "sheperd" (misspelling, it should be "shepherd") finding the caves?  Well gee, where have we heard that one before?  Did they find cave art, or the Dead Sea Scrolls?
> 
> Then we get to the person in charge.  "Abdul Al-Shalafi, the paleontologist recently named in charge of the site".  First of all, who is he affiliated with?  A university?  A museum?  A government cultural agency?  Look at any similar article, and it will always identify who they are working for.  Here, nothing.  And if he works for nobody, who was it that put him in charge, under what authority?
> 
> Well, I did a Google search for "Abdul Al-Shalafi".  And what did I find?  Well, absolutely nothing that did not refer right back to this single discovery.  Which interestingly enough has been "reported" almost the exact same way in 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2021.  The same "news" being reported exactly the same over and over again is almost a guarantee it is fake.
> 
> I encourage anybody to look at things like this through the eyes of a skeptic.  Do not just look for things you agree with, make sure they are credible reports and are factual.
> 
> I mean come on, really?  NEWS
> 
> Well, how reputable are they?  Let's examine some of their current "headlines".
> 
> TRANS-SPECIES MAN WHO IDENTIFIES AS A SQUIRREL ARRESTED FOR TWO 20-TON PEANUT TRUCK HEISTS​TEXAS MAN ADMITS KIDNAPPING 79 PEOPLE TO ANALLY PROBE THEM WHILE DISGUISED AS AN ALIEN​CANNIBAL KILLER SLAUGHTERED AND ATE 23 PIZZA DELIVERY MEN, 6 JEHOVAH WITNESSES, 2 POSTMEN IN PAST 7 YEARS​WOMAN SUES SAMSUNG FOR $1.8M AFTER CELL PHONE GETS STUCK INSIDE HER VAGINA​FLORIDA FISHERMAN LOST AT SEA FOR 14 DAYS CLAIMS HE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY MERMAIDS​
> Yea, that is the site you used to pull up this "proof".  Dude, you trolled yourself.  But take it as a lesson, and look for accurate and factual information, not just information that agrees with your beliefs.


You sound like another desperate for a win.  All you did was correct the location of where the prehistoric cave painting was at.  It was in the Chavet Caves in France.  Chauvet Caves is known as the oldest rock art site in the world.  Why don't you tell us about that?  Then, I would consider you a winner instead of a trivialist or someone who makes a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## Mac-7

alang1216 said:


> Whatever the case, the fossil record certainly doesn't support creationism.


If not evolution then what?

Call it creationism or intelligent design 

It still points to something that makes godless libs uncomfortable


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> Instead of Kuwait, it was France, but dinosaurs and humans lived together.


*
The image was not even there!*

It was a fraud!  From a website that also claimed a man from Texas dressed up as an alien and anal probed people!

Holy hell, you do not even realize you were trolled, you still believe that nonsense!

Well, maybe we should have that guy from Texas pay you a visit.


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> You sound like another desperate for a win. All you did was correct the location of where the prehistoric cave painting was at.


















The "cave painting" is a lie!  From the same people that brought you the "trans species" man who thinks he is a squirrel and stole 20 tons of nuts.

Holy hell, you really can not tell reality from fantasy, can you?  

Tell me, where do the mermaids fit into your fantasy world?  Because the same "source" that says this photo is real also claims mermaids are real.


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> The "cave painting" is a lie!  From the same people that brought you the "trans species" man who thinks he is a squirrel and stole 20 tons of nuts.
> 
> Holy hell, you really can not tell reality from fantasy, can you?
> 
> Tell me, where do the mermaids fit into your fantasy world?  Because the same "source" that says this photo is real also claims mermaids are real.


First, there is evidence such as dinosaur fossils with soft tissue and C14 still remaining.  With prehistoric art and others, it shows prehistoric humans weren't _underdeveloped_ Neanderthals as atheist scientists claim. Creationists do not believe in millions of year old humans nor of them living in caves (I've been to Pinnacles and Carlsbad Caverns and wouldn't want to live there. Have you visited any caves?). The Neanderthal skeletons are representations of today's humans. The art shows that prehistoric humans were more advanced than what atheist scientists think.






As for dino and human art, there are others found all over the world and it just _supplements_ the soft tissue/C14 evidence.


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> Holy hell, you really can not tell reality from fantasy, can you?


Can you?  I just used a poor example of prehistoric dino art.  But evolutionists have nothing to support their early human history and have had their "scientific" evidence shown to be fakes.

Here's one from evolution.  We have _no history_ of these so-called human depictions.


----------



## Mushroom

Debunking the "Dinosaurs" of Kachina Bridge
					






					www.smithsonianmag.com


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> Let's ask a creationist geologist.
> 
> Flume experiments have verified that carbonate mud isn’t deposited slowly but rapidly by wave and current action.3 Laboratory experiments demonstrate that water flowing between 10 and 20 inches per second creates ripples and laminated carbonate mud layers _identical_ to those observed in carbonate rocks.4



The only problem is that is all bullshit.

Tell us, where can we find this "carbonate mud" that would be required?  And then, how much of it is there?

You are aware are you not that during the processes to turn that "carbonate mud" into limestone, you are going to only end up with a fraction of the final result, because of subsurface compression.  Most estimate that such strata are only 1/10 the size they were before such compression (or even smaller).  Where we see coal seams a few dozen meters thick, was once hundreds of meters of plant material piled on top of more plant material for millions of years.  We see a hundred meters or so of limestone, that was tens or millions of years of deposits.  It is only when you get closer to the time of origin that the compression largely goes away.

However, it is still there.  Go to any of the fossil beds left behind by the many eruptions of the Yellowstone Caldera, and you can see this in action.  A layer maybe a meter or two thick, normally dating to the last million or so years of volcanic ash.  However, this was up to tens of meters thick originally, but like can be seen after any ashfall this is a light material and compresses.

So what you said, it is all bullshit.  And anybody experienced with geology can tell it is bullshit in a moment.  That is why we all laugh at the very idea of a "creationist geologist".  That is somebody that ignores science and proof, and just makes up crazy garbage that they think makes sense.  But in reality, is all bullshit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> If not evolution then what?
> 
> Call it creationism or intelligent design
> 
> It still points to something that makes godless libs uncomfortable


No, we are perfectly fine with creationism. I.E., evolution is how it happened. Science is the study of rhe universe, and saying "but mah Gawd did it" doesn't get in the way of anything  at all.


----------



## alang1216

Mac-7 said:


> If not evolution then what?
> 
> Call it creationism or intelligent design
> 
> It still points to something that makes godless libs uncomfortable


We have trillions of fossils and every one supports the theory of evolution.  If that makes religious people uncomfortable, that is on them since it is the reality of the world.  If a God created it, that is how He did it.  You may say creationism or intelligent design but you're only saying that you don't know how we came to be.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> About what? Could you summarize this in your words?


I have only watched the first 7 minutes of the video but from what I have seen it's the same thing we have been discussing in the other thread.   That the fossil record does not support speciation based upon slight successive changes.  He said Darwin's theory does a good job of explaining why the beaks of finches changed slightly but not where birds came from.


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> Hell, the first recognized "proto-primate" is Purgatorius, which evolved around 66 mya in North America.  And it was a long tailed four legged arboreal creature, having more in common with a squirrel than what would follow it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be another 10 million years until that evolved into Notharctus, another North American primate that would finally take on a form that most would actually recognize as being an actual primate.  But anatomically it was still closer to a rodent than to a modern Primate, but the direction it was now moving in was becoming obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So at the absolute outside, the idea that "humans were with dinosaurs" is true - only if you include all primates and their predecessors as "human".


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> Ahhh, a video from a group that supports Creationism.  How neutral such a thing is.
> 
> Sorry, not buying whatever it is he is selling.


I'm not a creationists even though I get accused of being a creationist (they do that a lot to Christians here) but I do buy punctuated equilibrium and that is what I thought he was discussing but I have only watched the first 7 minutes of the video.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> I have only watched the first 7 minutes of the video but from what I have seen it's the same thing we have been discussing in the other thread.   That the fossil record does not support speciation based upon slight successive changes.  He said Darwin's theory does a good job of explaining why the beaks of finches changed slightly but not where birds came from.







Doesn't seem like radical changes are required to change from dinos to birds.


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, we are perfectly fine with creationism. I.E., evolution is how it happened. Science is the study of rhe universe, and saying "but mah Gawd did it" doesn't get in the way of anything  at all.


I dont believe in the sort of dumb luck evolution that you are referring to

Molecules just crashing into each other till complex life emerged

It took the hand of God to make all of this happen


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> Doesn't seem like radical changes are required to change from dinos to birds.


Where are the slight changes?  That is what we are debating, right?

Thank you for proving my point that there are no slight successive changes like the beaks of Darwin's finches.


----------



## Mac-7

alang1216 said:


> We have trillions of fossils and every one supports the theory of evolution. If that makes religious people uncomfortable, that is on them since it is the reality of the world. If a God created it, that is how He did it. You may say creationism or intelligent design but you're only saying that you don't know how we came to be.


See post #81


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> dont believe in the sort of dumb luck evolution that you are referring to


Good, because I and scientists don't either. You are confused about evolution. Selection is precisely the opposite of "random".

So it appears your doubt arises from a fundamental misunderstanding, and you need to throw away what you know about evolution and re-learn the topic.

And yes, you can still say God did it. That is useless and explains nothing, but it also does not conflict with anything.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> Doesn't seem like radical changes are required to change from dinos to birds.


Those don't look like the slight successive changes of the beaks of Darwin's finches to me, bro.  Those look like pretty big changes to me.  

You are killing your own argument here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Those don't look like the slight successive changes of the beaks of Darwin's finches to me, bro.  Those look like pretty big changes to me.
> 
> You are killing your own argument here.


Looks pretty slight to me. I don't see any new limbs... I see the same body models in roughly the same proportions. No fins or gills. No starfish shapes. No lost backbones. No gained thrid eyes, no lost tails, bones in the same places in roughly the same shapes.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Looks pretty slight to me. I don't see any new limbs... I see the same body models in roughly the same proportions. No fins or gills. No starfish shapes. No lost backbones. No gained thrid eyes, no lost tails, bones in the same places in roughly the same shapes.


Yes, it totally looks like subtle changes in beaks to me too.   

You do realize that Darwin's ideas about how traits were passed down were completely wrong, right?  He had no knowledge of genes or genetics.  And it was his belief on how traits were passed down (which were completely wrong) which served as the foundation for his theory of slight successive changes leading to vastly different new species.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> Where are the slight changes?  That is what we are debating, right?
> 
> Thank you for proving my point that there are no slight successive changes like the beaks of Darwin's finches.


"Slight" like "gradual" are relative terms so you should take care in throwing them around.


----------



## alang1216

Mac-7 said:


> See post #81


Evolution is not random.


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Selection is precisely the opposite of "random"


No, its quite random

And impossible

If you spent a trillion years you could not accomplish what libs believe happened


----------



## Mac-7

alang1216 said:


> Evolution is not random.


See post 90


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Yes, it totally looks like subtle changes in beaks to me too.


That's your standard for "slight changes". Not mine. And obviously we're talking about different timeframe, here. Not just athe few years that Darwin observe finches

. So you see, "slight changes" gets pretty subjective.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> No, its quite random


False. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Selection is the opposite of random. This is a fundamental idea of evolution ,and it apparently eludes you. So again, I suggest you re-learn what you think you know about evolution.

Maybe, if you actually have factual information about evolutuon and have an actual understanding of evolutionary theory, you won't be so put off by it.


----------



## alang1216

Mac-7 said:


> See post 90


You were wrong there too.  If you want to evolution in real time you can look at viruses like covid.  They start with a set of genes but with lots variations.  You get a vaccine and it kills 99.99% of the viruses but that 0.01% that survive pass their genes to the next generation.  The population is now very different from what it was previously.  Natural selection is anything but random.


----------



## Mac-7

alang1216 said:


> You were wrong there too.  If you want to evolution in real time you can look at viruses like covid.  They start with a set of genes but with lots variations.  You get a vaccine and it kills 99.99% of the viruses but that 0.01% that survive pass their genes to the next generation.  The population is now very different from what it was previously.  Natural selection is anything but random.


Do the virus’ become trees or fish or humans?

No

They just become a new virus


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> Do the virus’ become trees or fish or humans?
> 
> No
> 
> They just become a new virus


So? In the science section, you should actually make points and not make people ask you what your point is. That "I'm not saying I'm just saying" fact vomiting is for other sections of the board


----------



## alang1216

Mac-7 said:


> Do the virus’ become trees or fish or humans?
> 
> No
> 
> They just become a new virus


You're so impatient, just wait a few billion years and then talk.  The point is, the process is not random.


----------



## Mac-7

alang1216 said:


> You're so impatient, just wait a few billion years and then talk.  The point is, the process is not random.


A trillion years is not enough time for what libs claim has happened


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> A trillion years is not enough time for what libs claim has happened


Why is that? Or are you issuing divine decrees, now, shaman...?

Drop the "lib" label, you embarrass yourself.


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why is that? Or are you issuing divine decrees, now, shaman...?
> 
> Drop the "lib" label, you embarrass yourself.


Never the less evolution cannot explain creation


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> Never the less evolution cannot explain creation


It doesn't try to do so. Did you also not know that? Geesh. Electromagnetic theory cannot explain creation, either. So what? Irrelevant.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Viktor said:


> Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong


Maybe a good time to pause and note:

This quack is not a paleontologist. He does not publish research and was let go from his last job at a museum, because he doesn't belong in a setting that celebrates and defers to scientific knowledge. Now, all he does is write for creationism websites and embarrass himself on YouTube.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> Never the less evolution cannot explain creation


Which is fine, since it isn't a theory that attempts to explain creation.

Which should be a relief to you. All of this bad information you have ... all the silly, false things you say about evolution...you can stop embarrassing yourself now, because evolution does not attempt to explain creation and does not conflict with the idea that gods created everything. 

Isn't that a relief?


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It doesn't try to do so. Did you also not know that? Geesh. Electromagnetic theory cannot explain creation, either. So what? Irrelevant.


If not then you cant reject intelligent design by a Devine Creator


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> If not then you cant reject intelligent design by a Devine Creator


More accurately, I cannot know with certainty that there is no creator or design. I am fine with that. 

What did you expect?


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> More accurately, I cannot know with certainty that there is no creator or design. I am fine with that.
> 
> What did you expect?


So am I

We are just two ships passing in the night


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> So am I
> 
> We are just two ships passing in the night


Right. Believe anything you like. I don't think lesser of you for it.


----------



## alang1216

Mac-7 said:


> A trillion years is not enough time for what libs claim has happened


First off science is not politics, no matter how much you want it to be.

Second, you have no idea if a trillion years or a million years is enough, since you are clueless as to the science.  Just because you don't understand something, you shouldn't assume no one else does either.


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> Where are the slight changes? That is what we are debating, right?



Feathers evolved from scales.  This we know mostly because they are actually made of the exact same thing.  Beta-Keratin sheets that are hydrogen bonded into crosslinked strands.  We know they evolved several different times, not unlike "sabre teeth" did.  Most likely originally as simply larger scales to help trap more heat, then becoming longer and more elaborate as for a warm blooded animal the extra insulation was a benefit.

But chemically and structurally, there is no difference between feathers and scales, and each of them form in the exact same way, with the exact same patterning and bias.  And the remaining scales on birds (predominantly on the feet) are no different.


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> If not then you cant reject intelligent design by a Devine Creator



But those that do believe in Intelligent Design and also follow the science do not have the crazy beliefs that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old, and that humans lived with dinosaurs.

One group is trying to make the science and their faith match.  The other are just crazy fundamentalists who reject any science they do not like and make everything else up as they go along.  Even getting fooled by fake reports and evidence, and even when that is pointed out still insisting they are right.


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> First, there is evidence such as dinosaur fossils with soft tissue and C14 still remaining.  With prehistoric art and others, it shows prehistoric humans weren't _underdeveloped_ Neanderthals as atheist scientists claim. Creationists do not believe in millions of year old humans nor of them living in caves (I've been to Pinnacles and Carlsbad Caverns and wouldn't want to live there. Have you visited any caves?). The Neanderthal skeletons are representations of today's humans. The art shows that prehistoric humans were more advanced than what atheist scientists think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for dino and human art, there are others found all over the world and it just _supplements_ the soft tissue/C14 evidence.



And once again, you are believing a lie.  With fake evidence.

Want to know what that rock really looks like?  Because that is not it.






And chemical and structural analysis has shown that what you are seeing is a petroglyph of a snake, partially on top of an older one, with some chemical contaminants.  Just like the last "proof" you provided, this is fake and a lie because the "original" does not look like the image you are trying to show us.

In fact, the person that "discovered" it also does not believe it is of a dinosaur.  It was discovered in 2006 by Phil Senter, from Fayetteville State University.  He passed it along to Sally Cole, a Petroglyph Archaeologist with the Natural History Museum of Utah.  Who examined it in more detail (including under various forms of light and microscopically) and came to that conclusion.

Notice once again, real scientists who work for real legitimate institutions.  Who then release real and original photographs, not faked up ones that claim they are original.  When somebody uses an obviously faked and doctored photograph and claims it is "original", the entire report should be dismissed.  If they are lying about the photograph, odds are that the entire article is a lie.


----------



## Mac-7

Mushroom said:


> But those that do believe in Intelligent Design and also follow the science do not have the crazy beliefs that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old, and that humans lived with dinosaurs.


Very few people believe the earth is only 6000 years old

If you are basing your case against the Bible on that you ate doing yourself a disservice


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> If you are basing your case against the Bible on that you ate doing yourself a disservice



*laugh*

And once again, you are making some huge freaking assumptions here.  And laughingly, very wrong.

Actually, I very much consider myself a "Christian", and do not "ate" the Bible.  You are making the classic mistake of so many in here.  That anybody not in 100% complete agreement with you must be the "enemy", therefore must reject everything you believe in.

Most Christians (and Jews, and others) who are religious have no problem meshing in scientific theory with our faiths.  We do not see a problem with that, and in fact I think George Burns put it great in a movie.  Where in "Oh, God!" when he was asked if he created the Universe in seven days, he answered that he did.  But a day for him was many times longer than a day for a human.


----------



## Mac-7

Mushroom said:


> *laugh*
> 
> And once again, you are making some huge freaking assumptions here.  And laughingly, very wrong.
> 
> Actually, I very much consider myself a "Christian", and do not "ate" the Bible.


I see we have a typing nazi here

Oh well

As for the rest of your post I dont essentially disagree

You rail against Christians who believe the earth is only 6000 years old

But you are beating a dead horse because thats not a common belief


----------



## Mushroom

Mac-7 said:


> As for the rest of your post I dont essentially disagree
> 
> You rail against Christians who believe the earth is only 6000 years old



Yes, because those are fundamentalist lunatics.  And I have little use for any fundamentalists.

Including what I call "Fundamentalist Atheists".  A "true atheist" would not care what others believe in.  It is the fundamentalists that try to shove their belief of "no God" and trying to force everybody to share their belief that I find repulsive.

Any that try to claim the earth is six thousand years old or some other crazy small age has already rejected all science, and should never be taken serious in a scientific discussion.

Oh, they are more than welcome to move over to the Religion area, and then flagellate themselves and each other all they want.  But such prater does not belong in a scientific discussion.


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> The only problem is that is all bullshit.
> 
> Tell us, where can we find this "carbonate mud" that would be required?  And then, how much of it is there?
> 
> You are aware are you not that during the processes to turn that "carbonate mud" into limestone, you are going to only end up with a fraction of the final result, because of subsurface compression.  Most estimate that such strata are only 1/10 the size they were before such compression (or even smaller).  Where we see coal seams a few dozen meters thick, was once hundreds of meters of plant material piled on top of more plant material for millions of years.  We see a hundred meters or so of limestone, that was tens or millions of years of deposits.  It is only when you get closer to the time of origin that the compression largely goes away.
> 
> However, it is still there.  Go to any of the fossil beds left behind by the many eruptions of the Yellowstone Caldera, and you can see this in action.  A layer maybe a meter or two thick, normally dating to the last million or so years of volcanic ash.  However, this was up to tens of meters thick originally, but like can be seen after any ashfall this is a light material and compresses.
> 
> So what you said, it is all bullshit.  And anybody experienced with geology can tell it is bullshit in a moment.  That is why we all laugh at the very idea of a "creationist geologist".  That is somebody that ignores science and proof, and just makes up crazy garbage that they think makes sense.  But in reality, is all bullshit.


The creation geologist backs me up.  All you have is evolutionist opinion, so no need for me to agree with your bullshit.  You can't prove millions or so years as my radiocarbon dating disproved it.


Mushroom said:


> And once again, you are believing a lie.  With fake evidence.
> 
> Want to know what that rock really looks like?  Because that is not it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And chemical and structural analysis has shown that what you are seeing is a petroglyph of a snake, partially on top of an older one, with some chemical contaminants.  Just like the last "proof" you provided, this is fake and a lie because the "original" does not look like the image you are trying to show us.
> 
> In fact, the person that "discovered" it also does not believe it is of a dinosaur.  It was discovered in 2006 by Phil Senter, from Fayetteville State University.  He passed it along to Sally Cole, a Petroglyph Archaeologist with the Natural History Museum of Utah.  Who examined it in more detail (including under various forms of light and microscopically) and came to that conclusion.
> 
> Notice once again, real scientists who work for real legitimate institutions.  Who then release real and original photographs, not faked up ones that claim they are original.  When somebody uses an obviously faked and doctored photograph and claims it is "original", the entire report should be dismissed.  If they are lying about the photograph, odds are that the entire article is a lie.


Man, your assertions are just colossal bullshit lmao.  I don't believe your scientists as evidence of humans and dinosaurs hurts evolution.  All they have is papers biased atheist scientists wrote.  That isn't evidence.  Moreover, you have nothing to show millions of years while creationists have dino fossils with soft tissue and C14 remaining.


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> The creation geologist backs me up. All you have is evolutionist opinion



Once again, that is a contradiction.

And when I talk about geology, I talk about geology.  You see, geology does not give a damn about evolution, or the Bible, or anything else.  It only cares about the planet, the rocks, and how the two of them developed.  You are trying to mash them together, and that is a fail.  Like trying to compare ERA stats in baseball, and saying a player is better or worse than a football quarterback because of their yards passed stats.

This is why you keep failing, because I am actually talking very little about evolution itself.  I am discussing geology, and slightly into anthropology and paleontology.  I am dismissing your claims based on the science of that alone, and not even going into biology, or actual evolution.

But please tell me, where are all these lime volcanos?  Or these massive "lime floods", because there is no evidence of either of those events happening ever.

That is the difference.  I use actual hard observation and science, you are believing fairy stories that are completely made up and have no basis in reality.

And you reject my assertations as "bullshit", yet ignore the fact once again that your reference lied to you.  When faced with the fact they lied, you still believe them and what they say, and reject actual hard evidence that you were lied to.  

As I said, take this claim down to the religion area.  It does not belong here.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> "Slight" like "gradual" are relative terms so you should take care in throwing them around.


Which the fossil record does not support.   

Darwin's understanding of inheritance was flawed and he built his theory on that flaw. 

“It seems pretty clear that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations” (Darwin 1861, p. 7).


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's your standard for "slight changes". Not mine. And obviously we're talking about different timeframe, here. Not just athe few years that Darwin observe finches
> 
> . So you see, "slight changes" gets pretty subjective.


Maybe you need to read what Darwin actually wrote.  Because his theory was built upon a flawed understanding of how inheritance works.  

“It seems pretty clear that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations” (Darwin 1861, p. 7).


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> Feathers evolved from scales.  This we know mostly because they are actually made of the exact same thing.  Beta-Keratin sheets that are hydrogen bonded into crosslinked strands.  We know they evolved several different times, not unlike "sabre teeth" did.  Most likely originally as simply larger scales to help trap more heat, then becoming longer and more elaborate as for a warm blooded animal the extra insulation was a benefit.
> 
> But chemically and structurally, there is no difference between feathers and scales, and each of them form in the exact same way, with the exact same patterning and bias.  And the remaining scales on birds (predominantly on the feet) are no different.


So how long did this "slight" change from scales to feathers occur and where is the fossil record of that change to show the gradual changes from scales to feathers.  

You do realize I am arguing for punctuated equilibrium driven by genetic mutations, right?  I'm not arguing against evolution.  I am arguing about how evolution occurs.  Darwin's beliefs on inheritance were wrong and he built his theory on that flaw.  Which is why the fossil record does not support evolution being a gradual event.  His theory works great for the beaks of finches but not for new species like birds.



> “It seems pretty clear that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations” (Darwin 1861, p. 7).


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> Which the fossil record does not support.
> 
> Darwin's understanding of inheritance was flawed and he built his theory on that flaw.
> 
> “It seems pretty clear that organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for many generations” (Darwin 1861, p. 7).


Do you accept the concept that we all descended from a common ancestor?  Whatever the actual mechanism.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> The creation geologist backs me up.  All you have is evolutionist opinion, so no need for me to agree with your bullshit.  You can't prove millions or so years as my radiocarbon dating disproved it.
> 
> Man, your assertions are just colossal bullshit lmao.  I don't believe your scientists as evidence of humans and dinosaurs hurts evolution.  All they have is papers biased atheist scientists wrote.  That isn't evidence.  Moreover, you have nothing to show millions of years while creationists have dino fossils with soft tissue and C14 remaining.



Creation geologist? What university offers that degree?


----------



## Colin norris

Viktor said:


> Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong


Bechly is the one who is wrong. That fact he said that proves evolution failed when installing intelligence into him and anyone who believes him.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> Do you accept the concept that we all descended from a common ancestor?  Whatever the actual mechanism.


I believe we come from common ancestors. Plural. I don't believe that evolution occurs in onesies and twosies. Because logic, statistics and the fossil record does not support that.  Speciation occurs across the herd as an event. Such that there is a fairly rapid transition - i.e. one or two generations - from one species to another species with the original species dying out because that is what the fossil record shows with respect to speciation.


----------



## ding

I do not believe that....

"...organic beings must be exposed during several generations to the new conditions of life to cause any appreciable amount of variation; and that when the organisation has once begun to vary, it generally continues to vary for *many* generations” (Darwin 1861, p. 7)...

And if Darwin had known about genetics and genetic mutations, I don't believe he would have believed what he wrote in his book either.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> So how long did this "slight" change from scales to feathers occur and where is the fossil record of that change to show the gradual changes from scales to feathers.


The changes are recorded in the genome of every bird.  There are many types of feathers, only one or two of which enables flight.  Most birds preserve this multitude of types since the feathers that don't support flight are not needed on the body.



Discoveries of bird-like theropod dinosaurs and basal avialans in recent decades have helped to put the iconic ‘Urvogel’ _Archaeopteryx_1 into context2,3,4,5,6 and have yielded important new data on the origin and early evolution of feathers7. However, the biological context under which pennaceous feathers evolved is still debated. Here we describe a new specimen of _Archaeopteryx_ with extensive feather preservation, not only on the wings and tail, but also on the body and legs. The new specimen shows that the entire body was covered in pennaceous feathers, and that the hindlimbs had long, symmetrical feathers along the tibiotarsus but short feathers on the tarsometatarsus. Furthermore, the wing plumage demonstrates that several recent interpretations8,9 are problematic. An analysis of the phylogenetic distribution of pennaceous feathers on the tail, hindlimb and arms of advanced maniraptorans and basal avialans strongly indicates that these structures evolved in a functional context other than flight, most probably in relation to display, as suggested by some previous studies10,11,12. Pennaceous feathers thus represented an exaptation and were later, in several lineages and following different patterns, recruited for aerodynamic functions. This indicates that the origin of flight in avialans was more complex than previously thought and might have involved several convergent achievements of aerial abilities.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> I believe we come from common ancestors. Plural. I don't believe that evolution occurs in onesies and twosies. Because logic, statistics and the fossil record does not support that.  Speciation occurs across the herd as an event. Such that there is a fairly rapid transition - i.e. *one or two generations* - from one species to another species with the original species dying out because that is what the fossil record shows with respect to speciation.


I think that is an absurdly short amount of time.  We're talking about geology where a thousand years is instantaneous.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> The changes are recorded in the genome of every bird.  There are many types of feathers, only one or two of which enables flight.  Most birds preserve this multitude of types since the feathers that don't support flight are not needed on the body.
> 
> 
> Discoveries of bird-like theropod dinosaurs and basal avialans in recent decades have helped to put the iconic ‘Urvogel’ _Archaeopteryx_1 into context2,3,4,5,6 and have yielded important new data on the origin and early evolution of feathers7. However, the biological context under which pennaceous feathers evolved is still debated. Here we describe a new specimen of _Archaeopteryx_ with extensive feather preservation, not only on the wings and tail, but also on the body and legs. The new specimen shows that the entire body was covered in pennaceous feathers, and that the hindlimbs had long, symmetrical feathers along the tibiotarsus but short feathers on the tarsometatarsus. Furthermore, the wing plumage demonstrates that several recent interpretations8,9 are problematic. An analysis of the phylogenetic distribution of pennaceous feathers on the tail, hindlimb and arms of advanced maniraptorans and basal avialans strongly indicates that these structures evolved in a functional context other than flight, most probably in relation to display, as suggested by some previous studies10,11,12. Pennaceous feathers thus represented an exaptation and were later, in several lineages and following different patterns, recruited for aerodynamic functions. This indicates that the origin of flight in avialans was more complex than previously thought and might have involved several convergent achievements of aerial abilities.


How does this show that these organic beings were exposed during several generations to  new conditions of life before any appreciable amount of variation occurred and that once it began to vary, it continued to vary for many generations?


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> I think that is an absurdly short amount of time.  We're talking about geology where a thousand years is instantaneous.


Why?  Do you understand how genes work?

We aren't talking about geology.  We are talking about biology.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> How does this show that these organic beings were exposed during several generations to  new conditions of life before any appreciable amount of variation occurred and that once it began to vary, it continued to vary for many generations?


I shows there are many small changes in the feather to bring it to the flight feathers we see today.  Feathers didn't suddenly appear in the fossil record.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> Why?  Do you understand how genes work?
> 
> We aren't talking about geology.  We are talking about biology.


I have a vague notion of genetics but I do know that when you talk fossils you are talking about geology.


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> Once again, that is a contradiction.
> 
> And when I talk about geology, I talk about geology.  You see, geology does not give a damn about evolution, or the Bible, or anything else.  It only cares about the planet, the rocks, and how the two of them developed.  You are trying to mash them together, and that is a fail.  Like trying to compare ERA stats in baseball, and saying a player is better or worse than a football quarterback because of their yards passed stats.
> 
> This is why you keep failing, because I am actually talking very little about evolution itself.  I am discussing geology, and slightly into anthropology and paleontology.  I am dismissing your claims based on the science of that alone, and not even going into biology, or actual evolution.
> 
> But please tell me, where are all these lime volcanos?  Or these massive "lime floods", because there is no evidence of either of those events happening ever.
> 
> That is the difference.  I use actual hard observation and science, you are believing fairy stories that are completely made up and have no basis in reality.
> 
> And you reject my assertations as "bullshit", yet ignore the fact once again that your reference lied to you.  When faced with the fact they lied, you still believe them and what they say, and reject actual hard evidence that you were lied to.
> 
> As I said, take this claim down to the religion area.  It does not belong here.


As usual, what the evo believers and atheists have are ad hominem attacks.  It shows that you lost the argument.  You have nothing to show millions of years that you claimed.  Thus, now you want the limestone evidence again.  It's on top of Mt. Everest.  Go hike up there lol.

OTOH, I showed dinosaurs are less than 50,000 years old as C14 is still remaining in their fossils.

What other fossils were in the dinosaur level that shows what animals lived with it?  It means they lived together.  There were squirrels, platypus, beavers, badgers, snakes, reptiles, frogs, fish, and more.  Most surprising was they found birds with them -- parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets.  That said, the evo paleontologists purposely disregarded them, i.e. they lied by omission.  Thus, if a human fossil were ever to be found in the same level, then I think they would lie again.  Your evo paleontologist make up their own findings to fit evolution.  Obviously, if they contradicted the fairy tale of evolution, then they would be ostracized.  How did this ever happen?

ETA:  Listen, if I ever found out that my whole life was a lie, then that may set off a heart attack and that would be it.  A life cut down before its time.  However, I started to go by the Bible in 2012 and discovered science backs up the Bible.  My story can't change while evolution's changes or is made to fit its main story line, i.e. there was no creation.  What's weird is people ended up disbelieving God with no solid evidence.  Nothing pops into existence by abiogeneis (disproved by Pasteur's swan neck experiment) nor an explanation of why.  There is no evidence as the evidence disproves evolution lmao.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> I shows there are many small changes in the feather to bring it to the flight feathers we see today.  Feathers didn't suddenly appear in the fossil record.


Have you seen the fossil sequence of small changes with your own eyes?


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> I have a vague notion of genetics but I do know that when you talk fossils you are talking about geology.


That is incorrect.   Geology is the science that deals with the earth's physical structure and substance, its history, and the processes that act on it.  Paleontology is the branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants.


----------



## Mushroom

alang1216 said:


> Most birds preserve this multitude of types since the feathers that don't support flight are not needed on the body.



Since when do Emu's and Penguins fly?

False analysis, however the birds I mentioned have feathers for the same reason most late dinosaurs did.  Temperature regulation.


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> Have you seen the fossil sequence of small changes with your own eyes?



Hell, just look at humans.  We are still evolving even to this day.


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> So how long did this "slight" change from scales to feathers occur and where is the fossil record of that change to show the gradual changes from scales to feathers.



Here is the fascinating thing, the timeline keeps getting pushed back.

I am old enough to remember the shockwaves when some were first speculating that birds had evolved from dinosaurs, and that some dinosaurs had feathers.  And each decade, paleontologists keep looking back more and more, and seeing that the evidence for feathers existed much earlier than they ever thought.

For over a century, it was believed that birds largely evolved after dinosaurs died out.  But it was around 1976 that this belief started to change, and they realized that the earliest birds were dinosaurs.  And that many of the ones we are most familiar with actually had feathers.  Including at least some relatives of the T. Rex.


----------



## BackAgain

If you want to know what the fossils say, ask Joe Brandon and Nancy Pelousy.  They were there.


----------



## BackAgain

My last comment got a downvote!  Yeah. Yeah. I know. I mean, I was shocked, too!  Especially since I can PROVE it!




Scientists have studied Joe Brandon’s ancient fossilized footprints for several years and concluded that even back then, he had a severe cognitive deficit.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> Have you seen the fossil sequence of small changes with your own eyes?


Yes, sticking with feathers, you can see them get more complex over time.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> That is incorrect.   Geology is the science that deals with the earth's physical structure and substance, its history, and the processes that act on it.  Paleontology is the branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants.


I consider Paleontology to be a sister science since geology provides the context that fossils alone can not.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> OTOH, I showed dinosaurs are less than 50,000 years old as C14 is still remaining in their fossils.


Aren't you the one who claims that radioisotope dating is a lie?


----------



## alang1216

Mushroom said:


> Since when do Emu's and Penguins fly?
> 
> False analysis, however the birds I mentioned have feathers for the same reason most late dinosaurs did.  Temperature regulation.


False analysis since there are many types of feathers:
Contour feathers are large and stiff-vaned feathers that generally form the outer layer of a bird's feather coat. Flight feathers are the contour feathers than create the airfoil of the wing. These feathers are large in volant birds, but in penguins the “flight” feathers *are reduced to tiny, scale-like structures*​


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> Yes, sticking with feathers, you can see them get more complex over time.


I'm talking about before the first bird.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> I consider Paleontology to be a sister science since geology provides the context that fossils alone can not.


I consider you making up definitions and pretending you didn't make a mistake when getting called on it a sign of vanity.


----------



## Mushroom

alang1216 said:


> False analysis since there are many types of feathers:
> Contour feathers are large and stiff-vaned feathers that generally form the outer layer of a bird's feather coat. Flight feathers are the contour feathers than create the airfoil of the wing. These feathers are large in volant birds, but in penguins the “flight” feathers *are reduced to tiny, scale-like structures*



Yes.  But that is not what you said.

"Most birds preserve this multitude of types *since the feathers that don't support flight are not needed on the body*."

But not all birds fly.  Yet, they still have feathers.  And many kinds of feathers.


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> I'm talking about before the first bird.



Ahhh, the "Chicken and egg" riddle.  Actually, unanswerable, as it is likely there were a great many "birds" before the "first birds".

That is not how evolution works.


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> Ahhh, the "Chicken and egg" riddle.  Actually, unanswerable, as it is likely there were a great many "birds" before the "first birds".
> 
> That is not how evolution works.


Still not buying Darwin's model of slight changes over long periods of time for speciation.  Sorry.  Fossil record doesn't support it.


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> Still not buying Darwin's model of slight changes over long periods of time for speciation.



Uh-huh.  So you doubt everything but.....

Whatever.  Because whatever you believe apparently is not science.  And this is a science area.


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> Uh-huh.  So you doubt everything but.....
> 
> Whatever.  Because whatever you believe apparently is not science.  And this is a science area.


I doubt his theory on origin of species.  Works great for the evolution of finch beaks though.

Seriously, don't you think that if he knew about genetics that he might have come up with something different?  Especially since he was aware of the fossil record not supporting gradual evolution leading to speciation?

It's almost as if his theory has become a dogmatic religion where no challenges are allowed.

What exactly is it that you believe I believe that is not science?  These aren't my theories.  Punctuated equilibrium has been around for almost 50 years.  It's as much science as Darwin's theory and it actually attempts to explain why the fossil record is as we see it.  Whereas Darwin punted on that.  He blamed the imperfect fossil record for why his theory did not match the fossil record.  Which is odd because that's like saying the thing he based his theory on is wrong.  Weird.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> I'm talking about before the first bird.


So am I.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> I consider you making up definitions and pretending you didn't make a mistake when getting called on it a sign of vanity.


Me?  Vain?  I'm way too smart, knowledgeable, and good looking for that.


----------



## alang1216

Mushroom said:


> Yes.  But that is not what you said.
> 
> "Most birds preserve this multitude of types *since the feathers that don't support flight are not needed on the body*."
> 
> But not all birds fly.  Yet, they still have feathers.  And many kinds of feathers.


oops, a typo.  I meant *"the feathers that don't support flight are not needed on the body*."


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> So am I.


Great.  Show the fossils to me .


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> Me?  Vain?  I'm way too smart, knowledgeable, and good looking for that.


Good one.  You should do more of that.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> Great.  Show the fossils to me .


I already did.  The graphic I posted previously had lots of therapods only one group of which were birds.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> I already did.  The graphic I posted previously had lots of therapods only one group of which were birds.


No.  I didn't see any slight changes.  You do know what Darwin's finches looked like, right?


----------



## Mushroom

alang1216 said:


> oops, a typo.  I meant *"the feathers that don't support flight are not needed on the body*."



Fair enough.  We all do that from time to time.

The current consensus is that feathers evolved millions of years before they were used in flight.  Originally as a form of thermal regulation, then later as part of mating.  It took a long time for them to evolve into a form that was on the right dinosaur for flight.

I for one always loved watching buzzards and condors in the morning standing upright and spreading their wings out wide to catch the morning sun.  And later in the day they will often do the opposite, and spread their wings and face the sun.  The former allows the black feathers on their back to capture the heat, warming their blood.  The latter allows the wings to operate as a radiator and bleed off excess heat, as the more white underside reflects the light.

An amazing adaptation, that one will help them gain heat, and the other get rid of it.  Kind of like they are a living thermos bottle.


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> No.  I didn't see any slight changes.  You do know what Darwin's finches looked like, right?


Are we talking finches or feathers?  I know a bit about each but I'm easily confused apparently.


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> No. I didn't see any slight changes.



How much do you think remains in the fossil record?

It takes some very specific "accidents" for creatures to fossilize.  Only the very smallest of a percent ever have this happen, and the creature has to be at the right time, at the right place for this to happen.

Heck, one is the evolution of felinae and pantherinae.  That divurgence was only around 10 mya, but there is almost no fossil record of it.  Many still debate which came off of which, or if they are both offshoots of the predecessor animal.

Hell, even closer we know that all modern dogs evolved from the wolf.  But tell me, where are all the fossils that showed this in action?  Where is the "fossil record" that showed the mighty wolf transforming into the chihuahua?  That was less than 9 kya, where is the fossil record?

We know it happened, show us the proof.  Oh, and also the malamute, the hare dog, and the xolo.  We know they all evolved from the wolf, and in the last 9,000 years.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> Are we talking finches or feathers?  I know a bit about each but I'm easily confused apparently.


We are talking about the origin of birds.  I'm just trying to hold you to the same standard you established for evolution from slight changes like Darwin's finches.


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> How much do you think remains in the fossil record?
> 
> It takes some very specific "accidents" for creatures to fossilize.  Only the very smallest of a percent ever have this happen, and the creature has to be at the right time, at the right place for this to happen.
> 
> Heck, one is the evolution of felinae and pantherinae.  That divurgence was only around 10 mya, but there is almost no fossil record of it.  Many still debate which came off of which, or if they are both offshoots of the predecessor animal.
> 
> Hell, even closer we know that all modern dogs evolved from the wolf.  But tell me, where are all the fossils that showed this in action?  Where is the "fossil record" that showed the mighty wolf transforming into the chihuahua?  That was less than 9 kya, where is the fossil record?
> 
> We know it happened, show us the proof.  Oh, and also the malamute, the hare dog, and the xolo.  We know they all evolved from the wolf, and in the last 9,000 years.


Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium and why that came about in the first place?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> You rail against Christians who believe the earth is only 6000 years old
> 
> But you are beating a dead horse because thats not a common belief


You might want to check that.


----------



## Mushroom

ding said:


> Are you familiar with punctuated equilibrium and why that came about in the first place?



You are the one demanding fossil proof of something millions of years ago.  Hell, I am asking for fossils less than 10,000 years old.

And you do not see the similarity.  Why am I not surprised.


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You might want to check that.


I dont think so

But as for anyone who may date the earth at 6000 years big deal

Those people are wrong but they harm no one


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> I didn't see any slight changes.


I did. Lots of them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> I dont think so


Yeah, you already said that. . Last poll I saw put it at about 40% of American adults.

They don't harm anyone. But they do sometimes step out of their lane.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Aren't you the one who claims that radioisotope dating is a lie?


C14 dating is for 50,000 years and less and usually done on deceased organic remains with C14 remaining.  The one that Clair Patterson created in 1956 is for longer time and inorganic materials, but he made errors -- Cosmos Review: “The Clean Room”.  That's what I mean when evos use Patterson's work.

Here's the article on dino fossils with C14 remaining -- C14 dinos - creation.com.

What about Mars and oceans of water on its surface?  What happened to it and did it produce any life?  AFAIK, there wasn't any life discovered.  Not even a microbe, but I'm open to it.  What is the latest news?


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> We are talking about the origin of birds.  I'm just trying to hold you to the same standard you established for evolution from slight changes like Darwin's finches.


So we have dinosaurs with feathers, we have birds with feathers.  The dino feathers were not evolved to fly, they served other purposes.  It doesn't seem like much of a leap to say as dinos used their feathers to enhance gliding they evolved better flight feathers and gradually became birds.  Probably happened first in small isolated populations then spread.

I'm getting fuzzy on where we disagree.


----------



## ding

Mushroom said:


> You are the one demanding fossil proof of something millions of years ago.  Hell, I am asking for fossils less than 10,000 years old.
> 
> And you do not see the similarity.  Why am I not surprised.


You are probably surprised because you haven't taken the time to investigate punctuated equilibrium for yourself and think I should be spoon feeding you on the basis for PE.  I shouldn't.  You are a big boy.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> So we have dinosaurs with feathers, we have birds with feathers.  The dino feathers were not evolved to fly, they served other purposes.  It doesn't seem like much of a leap to say as dinos used their feathers to enhance gliding they evolved better flight feathers and gradually became birds.  Probably happened first in small isolated populations then spread.
> 
> I'm getting fuzzy on where we disagree.


Small successive gradual changes leading to speciation.  That's where we disagree.  It's not supported by the fossil record.  


And you believing fossils are geology.  I almost forgot about that.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I did. Lots of them.


Proponents of PE would disagree.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> C14 dating is for 50,000 years and less and usually done on deceased organic remains with C14 remaining.  The one that Clair Patterson created in 1956 is for longer time and inorganic materials, but he made errors -- Cosmos Review: “The Clean Room”.  That's what I mean when evos use Patterson's work.
> 
> Here's the article on dino fossils with C14 remaining -- C14 dinos - creation.com.


Got it.  So when human (Neanderthal) remains are dated to 40,000 years ago, you're good with those numbers?


----------



## alang1216

ding said:


> Small successive gradual changes leading to speciation.  That's where we disagree.  It's not supported by the fossil record.


You're certainly welcome to your interpretation but the fossil record is not the only source of evolutionary data.



ding said:


> And you believing fossils are geology.  I almost forgot about that.


For historical reasons, paleontology is *part of the geology department* at many universities: in the 19th and early 20th centuries, geology departments found fossil evidence important for dating rocks, while biology departments showed little interest.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Proponents of PE would disagree.


No they wouldn't. Proponents of PE dont necessarily say it's the only mode of speciation. Only that it did happen a lot.


----------



## ding

alang1216 said:


> You're certainly welcome to your interpretation but the fossil record is not the only source of evolutionary data.
> 
> 
> For historical reasons, paleontology is *part of the geology department* at many universities: in the 19th and early 20th centuries, geology departments found fossil evidence important for dating rocks, while biology departments showed little interest.


I've worked with geologists and paleontologists enough not to confuse the two.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No they wouldn't. Proponents of PE dont necessarily say it's the only mode of speciation. Only that it did happen a lot.


uh huh.









						Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it _punctuated equilibria_.[1] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] and their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and *Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> uh huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it _punctuated equilibria_.[1] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] and their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and *Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.*


Yes, Gould proposed that, 50 years ago. As it turns out, this is 50 years later, and there is more than one scientist on the planet. Always glad to clarify.

This garbage post by you is why you usually stay on ignore. In a nutshell.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, Gould proposed that, 50 years ago. As it turns out, this is 50 years later, and there is more than one scientist on the planet. Always glad to clarify.
> 
> This garbage post by you is why you usually stay on ignore. In a nutshell.


This is exactly how a religious fanatic would respond to a challenge of his religion.

This is science.  Not religion.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Got it.  So when human (Neanderthal) remains are dated to 40,000 years ago, you're good with those numbers?


Not so fast,  I said Neanderthals fossils are like those of regular humans today, i.e. they aren't common ancestors from the past as evolutionists claim.  Shouldn't you produce these fossils and show us comparisons to see how they developed?  We should not find Neanderthal fossils in other "time" layers, but I already debunked some of it with today's birds and animals found in the dinosaur level, but for whatever reason they are ignored by the atheist paleontologists.

Furthermore, there should be C14 remaining in those fossils.  This would be the clincher and your scientists could do radiocarbon dating on them.

ETA:  I also said I've been to the Pinnacles and Carlsbad Caverns.  If I was a  "evolution" Neanderthal, then I would not live in a cave as they are dark, cold, and the surrounding area is not suitable for growing crops.   There is mostly forest nearby.  Thus, creationists claim prehistoric people did not live in caves.  Maybe they were temporary shelters or places to show ones art or graffiti lol.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Not so fast,  I said Neanderthals fossils are like those of regular humans today, i.e. they aren't common ancestors from the past as evolutionists claim.  Shouldn't you produce these fossils and show us comparisons to see how they developed?  We should not find Neanderthal fossils in other "time" layers, but I already debunked some of it with today's birds and animals found in the dinosaur level, but for whatever reason they are ignored by the atheist paleontologists.
> 
> Furthermore, there should be C14 remaining in those fossils.  This would be the clincher and your scientists could do radiocarbon dating on them.
> 
> ETA:  I also said I've been to the Pinnacles and Carlsbad Caverns.  If I was a  "evolution" Neanderthal, then I would not live in a cave as they are dark, cold, and the surrounding area is not suitable for growing crops.   There is mostly forest nearby.  Thus, creationists claim prehistoric people did not live in caves.  Maybe they were temporary shelters or places to show ones art or graffiti lol.


You totally missed the point.  Correct me if I'm wrong but, as you are a Bible literalist, you believe the Earth is very young.  6,000 is one number I know but do you accept that those Neanderthals died about 40,000 years ago?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You totally missed the point.  Correct me if I'm wrong but, as you are a Bible literalist, you believe the Earth is very young.  6,000 is one number I know but do you accept that those Neanderthals died about 40,000 years ago?


I don't think I missed the point.  It's interesting that you say that as you do not provide any hard evidence for Neanderthals and what they evolved0 years.  If evolution was true, then you'd easily provide the evidence that I'm asking for.  Instead, I discovered that in the layer where Neanderthal was found there were other fossils of animals and even a duck.  So the absurd idea that birds are dinosaurs is a fairy tale.  The atheist scientists are claiming it wasn't a duck.  That's in those papers that atheist scientists wrote to continue to get their funding.  Moreover, there are other fossils of today's animals found in the same layer, but were mysteriously disregarded because it doesn't fit the evolutionists argument that birds are dinosaurs.  I think it means another win for creation science. 

The Bible does not say anything about the age of the Earth.  It does provide a history of humankind and the bibliography of the peoples in the Bible and these were added up to get around 6,000 years as the age of the Earth.  This was to counter the claim of 4.54 billion year old Earth for radiometric dating by Clair Patterson in 1956.

The point is atheists and their scientists do not have any evidence to show long time.  Their radiometric dating created and done by Clair Patterson in 1956 had mistakes and erroneous assumptions.

The atheists and their scientists do not have much history of what happened to Earth during the Neanderthal period, but from the cave drawings we can see that Neanderthals were quite skilled in art and knew about art techniques.  That hurts evolutionary theory right there as Neanderthals are considered unsophisticated.

I was just watching the movie Minority Report and one character said people do not choose what they believe, but what they believe chooses them.  That should definitely belong in science fiction  .


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I don't think I missed the point.  It's interesting that you say that as you do not provide any hard evidence for Neanderthals and what they evolved0 years.  If evolution was true, then you'd easily provide the evidence that I'm asking for.  Instead, I discovered that in the layer where Neanderthal was found there were other fossils of animals and even a duck.  So the absurd idea that birds are dinosaurs is a fairy tale.  The atheist scientists are claiming it wasn't a duck.  That's in those papers that atheist scientists wrote to continue to get their funding.  Moreover, there are other fossils of today's animals found in the same layer, but were mysteriously disregarded because it doesn't fit the evolutionists argument that birds are dinosaurs.  I think it means another win for creation science.
> 
> The Bible does not say anything about the age of the Earth.  It does provide a history of humankind and the bibliography of the peoples in the Bible and these were added up to get around 6,000 years as the age of the Earth.  This was to counter the claim of 4.54 billion year old Earth for radiometric dating by Clair Patterson in 1956.
> 
> The point is atheists and their scientists do not have any evidence to show long time.  Their radiometric dating created and done by Clair Patterson in 1956 had mistakes and erroneous assumptions.
> 
> The atheists and their scientists do not have much history of what happened to Earth during the Neanderthal period, but from the cave drawings we can see that Neanderthals were quite skilled in art and knew about art techniques.  That hurts evolutionary theory right there as Neanderthals are considered unsophisticated.
> 
> I was just watching the movie Minority Report and one character said people do not choose what they believe, but what they believe chooses them.  That should definitely belong in science fiction  .


No you missed the point as I wasn't claiming anything about Neanderthal evolution, only for the fact that C14 put the date of one such individual as 40,000 years ago.  My ONLY question is: *Is this date accurate, and Homo has been on this planet for at least 40,000 years, or is C14 dating incorrect?*


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

alang1216 said:


> If you're asking why did the early geologists determine the layers represent millions of years, here's how.  They measure how long it takes for new proto-limestone to form from the shell of plankton.  Then they measure the thickness of existing limestone layers (e.g., White Cliffs of Dover) and get a ballpark number.
> 
> 
> An earthquake or 'catastrophe'?  Never.  Only continental drift could do it but the evidence for it would be obvious.


The White Ciffs of Dover are NOT limestone, dumbass.  They are chalk!


----------



## alang1216

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> The White Ciffs of Dover are NOT limestone, dumbass.  They are chalk!


I may be a dumbass but at least I'm *educated *enough to know that chalk is form of limestone.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> No you missed the point as I wasn't claiming anything about Neanderthal evolution, only for the fact that C14 put the date of one such individual as 40,000 years ago.  My ONLY question is: *Is this date accurate, and Homo has been on this planet for at least 40,000 years, or is C14 dating incorrect?*


I'm no expert, but think it's accurate.  But as we learned from radioisotope testing, there has to be controls and we have to know what assumptions we are making or else the results could be erroneous.  To use this one test to gauge how long one Neanderthal  lived ago is probably not correct.  I would want to see other dating of Neanderthal fossils to get a conclusive number.  We now have other animal fossils in that layer beside the human one, but for some reason the evolutionists aren't dating those.

To turn it around, what do you think?  If you're an evolutionist, then are you going to accept this as hurting evolutionary theory?


----------



## Mushroom

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> They are chalk!



Which is composed of calcium carbonate.  In other words, it was once a deposit of limestone that was then disintegrated over time and recomposed as a sedimentary rock.  It is still "limestone", just after having gone through another step.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

alang1216 said:


> I may be a dumbass but at least I'm *educated *enough to know that chalk is form of limestone.


That's like saying the gravel in my driveway is chalk, because it isn't!  It's limestone.

You call a spade a spade, dumbass!


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> Once again, that is a contradiction.
> 
> And when I talk about geology, I talk about geology.  You see, geology does not give a damn about evolution, or the Bible, or anything else.  It only cares about the planet, the rocks, and how the two of them developed.  You are trying to mash them together, and that is a fail.  Like trying to compare ERA stats in baseball, and saying a player is better or worse than a football quarterback because of their yards passed stats.
> 
> This is why you keep failing, because I am actually talking very little about evolution itself.  I am discussing geology, and slightly into anthropology and paleontology.  I am dismissing your claims based on the science of that alone, and not even going into biology, or actual evolution.
> 
> But please tell me, where are all these lime volcanos?  Or these massive "lime floods", because there is no evidence of either of those events happening ever.
> 
> That is the difference.  I use actual hard observation and science, you are believing fairy stories that are completely made up and have no basis in reality.
> 
> And you reject my assertations as "bullshit", yet ignore the fact once again that your reference lied to you.  When faced with the fact they lied, you still believe them and what they say, and reject actual hard evidence that you were lied to.
> 
> As I said, take this claim down to the religion area.  It does not belong here.


It's not a contradiction as I corrected the fake cave drawing for a verified one.  Furthermore, I said creation scientists found other animals in the Neanderthal layer.  They also have dinosaur fossils with soft tissue remaining, C14, and radiometric dating can be done on it.  You have nothing to counter the hard evidence.

>>As I said, take this claim down to the religion area.  It does not belong here.<<

Why don't you apologize for your lame, opinionated post?  If you know so much about geology, then how does it relate to what was discussed in the Neanderthal level?  All you claim is:

>>I am discussing geology, and slightly into anthropology and paleontology.<<

 ...

>>That is the difference.  I use actual hard observation and science, you are believing fairy stories that are completely made up and have no basis in reality.<<

Why don't you provide this _hard observation and science_ of what you are claiming?  I'm not a mind reader.

As for your questions, I'll hold off answering them.  I'm tired of answering atheist questions because I have the truth and scientific answers.  What do you mean by "lime volcanoes" or massive "lime floods?"

I did provide the evidence for a sauropod dinosaur cave drawing in the US to correct the fake one.  It's a simple mistake while the evolution scientists were caught red-handed in lies -- The Piltdown Man Fraud.  That's much worse coming from _your_ professionals.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> That's like saying the gravel in my driveway is chalk, because it isn't!  It's limestone.
> 
> You call a spade a spade, dumbass!


Chalk is a form of limestone. When you said it was not limestone, you were wrong.

Moving on...


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I'm no expert, but think it's accurate.  But as we learned from radioisotope testing, there has to be controls and we have to know what assumptions we are making or else the results could be erroneous.  To use this one test to gauge how long one Neanderthal  lived ago is probably not correct.  I would want to see other dating of Neanderthal fossils to get a conclusive number.  We now have other animal fossils in that layer beside the human one, but for some reason the evolutionists aren't dating those.
> 
> To turn it around, what do you think?  If you're an evolutionist, then are you going to accept this as hurting evolutionary theory?


Hardly surprising to find fish and humans together in recent rocks since both are alive today.  What would be surprising would be to find humans and dinosaurs (NOT birds) together since their are no living dinosaurs and they are accepted by science to have perished before humans existed.


----------



## alang1216

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> That's like saying the gravel in my driveway is chalk, because it isn't!  It's limestone.
> 
> You call a spade a spade, dumbass!


Don't double down on your ignorance, when there is Google you have no excuse.

Chalk is a form of limestone


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Hardly surprising to find fish and humans together in recent rocks since both are alive today.  What would be surprising would be to find humans and dinosaurs (NOT birds) together since their are no living dinosaurs and they are accepted by science to have perished before humans existed.


Well, you avoided the 40K years finding from the C14 dating while I thought C14 dating was valid.  Can I just assume it blows evolution's millions of years out of the water?  

Also, the Neanderthal level did find a duck and dinosaurs together, but the atheists won't admit it was a duck.  There were other modern animals and birds in the dinosaur level, but they just ignored it.  I had some evidence of dinosaurs and humans together, but it's not hard evidence so cave drawings (I just had those found in the US) would have to considred soft.  It's unfortunate that Mushroom thinks my using fake evidence means making a mountain out of a molehill for evolution lmao.  He presented no evidence while asserting he has it.  The evidence is for Neanderthals not being ape-like and more human (because they were human).

"The theory of evolution states that all living creatures arose from a single cell by natural processes over eons of time, and God had nothing to do with this process. According to the theory each animal arose from a different kind of animal over ‘millions of years’. E.g. most evolutionists assert that modern birds evolved _from_ dinosaurs. Finding fossils of modern birds _with _those of dinosaurs, not just above them, contradicts this idea.


Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, _Living Fossils_, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, _yet museums do not display these fossils_, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true."









						Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com
					

Fossils of many modern birds are found with dinosaurs, but almost no museums display them, thus misleading the public.




					creation.com


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> It's unfortunate that @Mushroom thinks my using fake evidence means making a mountain out of a molehill for evolution lmao.



What it does is bring up credibility and if the person or their claims should be taken seriously or not.  When caught at it twice in a row, it brings your credibility down to almost nothing.

But I am sure that things like credibility means nothing to you, just so long as it is anybody or anything that agrees with you.


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> What it does is bring up credibility and if the person or their claims should be taken seriously or not.  When caught at it twice in a row, it brings your credibility down to almost nothing.
> 
> But I am sure that things like credibility means nothing to you, just so long as it is anybody or anything that agrees with you.


Big assertions, but nothing in terms of evidence from geology, paleontology, and paleontology.  Can I just assume you don't know or have anything solid or even soft evidence?  You won't admit YOUR huge mistake.  

I think we can safely say that modern birds and animals lived with Neanderthals thousands of years ago.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Well, you avoided the 40K years finding from the C14 dating while I thought C14 dating was valid.  Can I just assume it blows evolution's millions of years out of the water?


Not avoiding anything and no it does not blow "evolution's millions of years out of the water" since no one claims there were Neanderthals millions of years ago.  I'm just impressed that you accept that the earth is at least that old.



james bond said:


> Also, the Neanderthal level did find a duck and dinosaurs together, but the atheists won't admit it was a duck.


I never heard that dinosaurs were found at a Neanderthal level.  I'm pretty sure you're mistaken since that would have been the biggest scientific discovery in the last 200 years and the discoverer would be famous.



james bond said:


> There were other modern animals and birds in the dinosaur level, but they just ignored it.


Again, although birds are hardly modern and find them with dinosaurs is expected, no 'modern' animals would be ignored.



james bond said:


> I had some evidence of dinosaurs and humans together, but it's not hard evidence so cave drawings (I just had those found in the US) would have to considred soft.


Radical claims require radical evidence.  Soft won't cut it.



james bond said:


> The evidence is for Neanderthals not being ape-like and more human (because they were human).


No scientist thinks Neanderthals were ape-like.  I've heard it said that if you saw one walking down the street you wouldn't think anything of if.  The differences are small, significant but small.



james bond said:


> "The theory of evolution states that all living creatures arose from a single cell by natural processes over eons of time, and God had nothing to do with this process. According to the theory each animal arose from a different kind of animal over ‘millions of years’. E.g. most evolutionists assert that modern birds evolved _from_ dinosaurs. Finding fossils of modern birds _with _those of dinosaurs, not just above them, contradicts this idea.


Incorrect.  The theory of evolution states that there is no requirement for supernatural intervention to create the species we see.  Of course that may be exactly what God intended, science wouldn't know.  Finding birds and dinosaurs in no way contradicts evolution since the precursors to birds still existed back then.  My wife gave birth to my daughter but both are still alive.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Well, you avoided the 40K years finding from the C14 dating while I thought C14 dating was valid.  Can I just assume it blows evolution's millions of years out of the water?
> 
> Also, the Neanderthal level did find a duck and dinosaurs together, but the atheists won't admit it was a duck.  There were other modern animals and birds in the dinosaur level, but they just ignored it.  I had some evidence of dinosaurs and humans together, but it's not hard evidence so cave drawings (I just had those found in the US) would have to considred soft.  It's unfortunate that Mushroom thinks my using fake evidence means making a mountain out of a molehill for evolution lmao.  He presented no evidence while asserting he has it.  The evidence is for Neanderthals not being ape-like and more human (because they were human).
> 
> "The theory of evolution states that all living creatures arose from a single cell by natural processes over eons of time, and God had nothing to do with this process. According to the theory each animal arose from a different kind of animal over ‘millions of years’. E.g. most evolutionists assert that modern birds evolved _from_ dinosaurs. Finding fossils of modern birds _with _those of dinosaurs, not just above them, contradicts this idea.
> 
> 
> Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, _Living Fossils_, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, _yet museums do not display these fossils_, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com
> 
> 
> Fossils of many modern birds are found with dinosaurs, but almost no museums display them, thus misleading the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com


As you are aware, cutting and pasting from creationer ministries is pointless in the Science forum because their (and your) agenda is spelled out clearly.

The attempted undermining of peer reviewed science matters is one of the devices used by creationists to create the illusion that creationism is a viable mechanism to explain the diversity of life on the planet. Christian creationism is simply the misrepresentation of authoritative scientific research; The lack of actual research undertaken by the christian creationist ministries and the refusal to submit research and results for peer review is a standard tactic. The entirety of the creationist argument is to appeal to people with a prior commitment to religious dogma. However, since there is nothing in the literature of the Christian creationist ministries to support their arguments, their charade of authority can be maintained only by pressing a distorted caricature of how the Scientific Method is actually maintained








						About Us - creation.com
					

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.




					creation.com
				


About Us​First time here? About Creation Ministries International​
Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Well, you avoided the 40K years finding from the C14 dating while I thought C14 dating was valid.  Can I just assume it blows evolution's millions of years out of the water?
> 
> Also, the Neanderthal level did find a duck and dinosaurs together, but the atheists won't admit it was a duck.  There were other modern animals and birds in the dinosaur level, but they just ignored it.  I had some evidence of dinosaurs and humans together, but it's not hard evidence so cave drawings (I just had those found in the US) would have to considred soft.  It's unfortunate that Mushroom thinks my using fake evidence means making a mountain out of a molehill for evolution lmao.  He presented no evidence while asserting he has it.  The evidence is for Neanderthals not being ape-like and more human (because they were human).
> 
> "The theory of evolution states that all living creatures arose from a single cell by natural processes over eons of time, and God had nothing to do with this process. According to the theory each animal arose from a different kind of animal over ‘millions of years’. E.g. most evolutionists assert that modern birds evolved _from_ dinosaurs. Finding fossils of modern birds _with _those of dinosaurs, not just above them, contradicts this idea.
> 
> 
> Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, _Living Fossils_, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, _yet museums do not display these fossils_, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com
> 
> 
> Fossils of many modern birds are found with dinosaurs, but almost no museums display them, thus misleading the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com


“Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, _Living Fossils_, reveals that fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with dinosaurs, _yet museums do not display these fossils_, thus keeping this information from the public. By keeping this information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true."


Your loopy, over the rainbow, ain’t coming’ back conspiracy theories are pretty typical for the most extreme of the religious extremists.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Not avoiding anything and no it does not blow "evolution's millions of years out of the water" since no one claims there were Neanderthals millions of years ago.  I'm just impressed that you accept that the earth is at least that old.
> 
> 
> I never heard that dinosaurs were found at a Neanderthal level.  I'm pretty sure you're mistaken since that would have been the biggest scientific discovery in the last 200 years and the discoverer would be famous.
> 
> 
> Again, although birds are hardly modern and find them with dinosaurs is expected, no 'modern' animals would be ignored.
> 
> 
> Radical claims require radical evidence.  Soft won't cut it.
> 
> 
> No scientist thinks Neanderthals were ape-like.  I've heard it said that if you saw one walking down the street you wouldn't think anything of if.  The differences are small, significant but small.
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  The theory of evolution states that there is no requirement for supernatural intervention to create the species we see.  Of course that may be exactly what God intended, science wouldn't know.  Finding birds and dinosaurs in no way contradicts evolution since the precursors to birds still existed back then.  My wife gave birth to my daughter but both are still alive.


Yes, you're avoiding my question as whether you believe in radiocarbon dating?  I gave you a straight answer, but you're avoiding my question.  It means you're ignorant and don't know much about dinosaurs and evolution.

It does mean evolution's millions of years as atheist scientists as they think Neanderthals were ape-like creatures from millions of years ago.  Darwin was a racist towards them and thought they were subhuman and from Africa.  Such a mofo and he made huge mistakes to boot.  Creationists think they're like today's humans as we share their DNA, but the Neanderthals were ancient people both at end of OT and beginning of NT.

We're not talking about dinosaurs and humans unless you want to answer why dinosaur fossils still have soft tissue inside and have C14 remaining.  Are you admitting they're not millions of years old?  Also, why are atheist scientists ignoring the birds and animals found also with the Neanderthal fossils.  My opinion is that we'll find dinosaurs and human fossils in the same layer eventually.

As for the rest, it sounds like you're in denial and can't give a straight answer.  That's typical of people who _don't really know_ and _fell for evolution_. Not even one link from an atheist scientist backing your weak opinions up.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Yes, you're avoiding my question as whether you believe in radiocarbon dating?  I gave you a straight answer, but you're avoiding my question.  It means you're ignorant and don't know much about dinosaurs and evolution.
> 
> It does mean evolution's millions of years as atheist scientists as they think Neanderthals were ape-like creatures from millions of years ago.  Darwin was a racist towards them and thought they were subhuman and from Africa.  Such a mofo and he made huge mistakes to boot.  Creationists think they're like today's humans as we share their DNA, but the Neanderthals were ancient people both at end of OT and beginning of NT.
> 
> We're not talking about dinosaurs and humans unless you want to answer why dinosaur fossils still have soft tissue inside and have C14 remaining.  Are you admitting they're not millions of years old?  Also, why are atheist scientists ignoring the birds and animals found also with the Neanderthal fossils.  My opinion is that we'll find dinosaurs and human fossils in the same layer eventually.
> 
> As for the rest, it sounds like you're in denial and can't give a straight answer.  That's typical of people who _don't really know_ and _fell for evolution_. Not even one link from an atheist scientist backing your weak opinions up.



“We're not talking about dinosaurs and humans unless you want to answer why dinosaur fossils still have soft tissue inside and have C14 remaining.”

The discovery of so-called soft tissue was made by real scientists not quack creationers. That makes sense because we know that creationer quacks do no research and submit no data for peer review.

I suppose you’re admitting that the planet is very old as opposed to the creationer nonsense of just 6,000 years old.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> As you are aware, cutting and pasting from creationer ministries is pointless in the Science forum because their (and your) agenda is spelled out clearly.
> 
> The attempted undermining of peer reviewed science matters is one of the devices used by creationists to create the illusion that creationism is a viable mechanism to explain the diversity of life on the planet. Christian creationism is simply the misrepresentation of authoritative scientific research; The lack of actual research undertaken by the christian creationist ministries and the refusal to submit research and results for peer review is a standard tactic. The entirety of the creationist argument is to appeal to people with a prior commitment to religious dogma. However, since there is nothing in the literature of the Christian creationist ministries to support their arguments, their charade of authority can be maintained only by pressing a distorted caricature of how the Scientific Method is actually maintained
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About Us - creation.com
> 
> 
> Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> About Us​First time here? About Creation Ministries International​
> Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
> Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
> Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.


It's not like the atheist scientists or ministries as the "creationers," as you like to call us, have real science backing us up.  In the years that I have witnessed your posts, you haven't given one decent post showing evidence for evolution.  Just complaints about mine.  And only one of us can be right lol.

I got The Rapture to look forward to while you get to witness it all first hand.  I won't know what happened to the atheists/sinners here because of God's infinite wisdom, but I'll be happy and satisfied.  Isn't that what counts -- winning and not losing?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

There was a recent discovery of the largest dinosaur tibia ever found.  The paleontologists were overjoyed when they removed it from the surrounding rock.  It was a real shin-dig!


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> “We're not talking about dinosaurs and humans unless you want to answer why dinosaur fossils still have soft tissue inside and have C14 remaining.”
> 
> The discovery of so-called soft tissue was made by real scientists not quack creationers. That makes sense because we know that creationer quacks do no research and submit no data for peer review.
> 
> I suppose you’re admitting that the planet is very old as opposed to the creationer nonsense of just 6,000 years old.


The age of the Earth isn't discussed in the Bible, but became an issue with the NEED for _long time_ by evolutionists.  Thus, they accepted the erroneous work of Cliff Pondexter or something in 1956 where he claimed billions of years old Earth.  Were they able to build clean rooms in 1956?  

Creationists added up the dates of the people in the Bible and it came out to around 6,000 years old Earth.  The evolutionist side don't have any history to account for the billions of years that passed, so that's hokey right there.  They don't have any history of the Neanderthal human while creationists think he was at the end of the OT and the start of the NT.  It means too many holes in the evolution lie.  You have to lie to cover up a previous lie.  It's no wonder you don't want to really discuss evolution with me and rather complain about my truthful, scientific, and winning posts.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Hardly surprising to find fish and humans together in recent rocks since both are alive today.  What would be surprising would be to find humans and dinosaurs (NOT birds) together since their are no living dinosaurs and they are accepted by science to have perished before humans existed.


Now, you're making stuff up.  A trait of those who believe in lies.  We're discussing the Neanderthal or prehistoric human layer.  Aren't dinosaurs in the prehistoric layer?  That's why I said eventually they'll find a human fossil (likely Neanderthal (?) in that level.  The evo scientists keep denying there were birds in the prehistoric as well as other animals.  Why were The Flintstones so popular lmao?  It's around the end of the OT and start of the NT in the Bible.

What about the duck fossil and all the other birds and animals found in that level?  It means birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs as they lived at the same time.  That blows macroevolution out of the water.  You have the same problem with humans evolving from monkeys as I showed the Neanderthal was quite intelligent and sophisticated.  He wasn't an ape-human, i.e. African or Negro, as racist Darwin stated.

Don't you think it's weird that people didn't have any names?  You don't even know what they did.  All you have is a theory that has contradictions all over the place and no evidence for macroevolution.  It's no wonder that atheist geologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, etc. do not have any history in their museums.  It's all generic.  Maybe one is honest enough to have a parrot fossil or duck fossil which contradict birds are dinosaurs and the ape-human was really a human while Lucy, the walking ape-human, was really a chimpanzee.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> The evidence supports creation even more.  How did the fossil remains get there in the first place?  It's in the type of fossils and the locations where they are found.  Atheist scientists just place them in the orderly fake time levels that they've established.
> 
> The truth is the layer evels are named after location and not time.  It shows where the animals died.  Obviously, you've been suckered by geology of uniformitarianism.
> 
> This is why I have a healthy respect for Satan.  He tempts, God warns, but it has led to what people "believe as science" today.  It was prophecised in the Bible and this has become true.
> 
> I think the creationists even have a year when all of it could end -- 2060.  That's not in the Bible, but one of their earlier great scientists swagged/predicted (?) it.



So, how do these scientists place fossils deep under ground?


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> So, how do these scientists place fossils deep under ground?


Pay attention.  It's where the poor creatures died.  Afterwards, we had the global flood, undersea volcanoes, or other catastrophes which moved the fossils and layers.  It's not as neatly and nicely organized as the geology of uniformitarianism claims.  Remember the atheist scientists claimed that a huge asteroid killed all the dinosaurs?  Well, that was proven false.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It's not like the atheist scientists or ministries as the "creationers," as you like to call us, have real science backing us up.  In the years that I have witnessed your posts, you haven't given one decent post showing evidence for evolution.  Just complaints about mine.  And only one of us can be right lol.
> 
> I got The Rapture to look forward to while you get to witness it all first hand.  I won't know what happened to the atheists/sinners here because of God's infinite wisdom, but I'll be happy and satisfied.  Isn't that what counts -- winning and not losing?


It’s not like the creationers have any credibility in the science fields. Predefined conclusions that require creationers to reach conclusions predicated on Bible verses is just silly. Science has progressed since the time of Aristotle. Creationers have not.

The revulsion for science held by creationers /Flat Earthers is one borne of religious extremism. Ceationism is not a theory, It’s literal, hyper-religious extremism that requires every biblical tale and fable to be literally correct. 

The fact you cut and paste links to the charlatans at creation.com is reason enough to accept your views as anything but rational or objective


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Yes, you're avoiding my question as whether you believe in radiocarbon dating?  I gave you a straight answer, but you're avoiding my question.  It means you're ignorant and don't know much about dinosaurs and evolution.


I believe radiocarbon dating is real if that is your question.



james bond said:


> It does mean evolution's millions of years as atheist scientists as they think Neanderthals were ape-like creatures from millions of years ago.


You are making up what scientists think, I can assure you none think Neanderthals were ape-like creatures from millions of years ago.  



james bond said:


> Darwin was a racist towards them and thought they were subhuman and from Africa.  Such a mofo and he made huge mistakes to boot.  Creationists think they're like today's humans as we share their DNA, but the Neanderthals were ancient people both at end of OT and beginning of NT.


Darwin was a man of his time and can't be judged by our morality and knowledge. 



james bond said:


> We're not talking about dinosaurs and humans unless you want to answer why dinosaur fossils still have soft tissue inside and have C14 remaining.  Are you admitting they're not millions of years old?


Nope.  Got a peer-reviewed scientific study to show me?



james bond said:


> Also, why are atheist scientists ignoring the birds and animals found also with the Neanderthal fossils.  My opinion is that we'll find dinosaurs and human fossils in the same layer eventually.


Birds have been around for at least 65 million years.  We could bury you with a chicken but I'm not sure what it would prove.
Keep hoping but I wouldn't place any bets on finding dinosaurs and human fossils in the same layer.



james bond said:


> As for the rest, it sounds like you're in denial and can't give a straight answer.  That's typical of people who _don't really know_ and _fell for evolution_. Not even one link from an atheist scientist backing your weak opinions up.


Straight answer to what?  What links would you like to see (other than those from Creationist sites?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Now, you're making stuff up.  A trait of those who believe in lies.  We're discussing the Neanderthal or prehistoric human layer.  Aren't dinosaurs in the prehistoric layer?  That's why I said eventually they'll find a human fossil (likely Neanderthal (?) in that level.  The evo scientists keep denying there were birds in the prehistoric as well as other animals.  Why were The Flintstones so popular lmao?  It's around the end of the OT and start of the NT in the Bible.


We have never *found *humans in a layer with dinosaurs.  There is not a rock layer there are literally tens of millions.



james bond said:


> What about the duck fossil and all the other birds and animals found in that level?  It means birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs as they lived at the same time.  That blows macroevolution out of the water.


No, your logic is flawed or can you explain why it matters that birds and humans are found together?



james bond said:


> You have the same problem with humans evolving from monkeys as I showed the Neanderthal was quite intelligent and sophisticated.  He wasn't an ape-human, i.e. African or Negro, as racist Darwin stated.


True.



james bond said:


> Don't you think it's weird that people didn't have any names?  You don't even know what they did.  All you have is a theory that has contradictions all over the place and no evidence for macroevolution.  It's no wonder that atheist geologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, etc. do not have any history in their museums.  It's all generic.  Maybe one is honest enough to have a parrot fossil or duck fossil which contradict birds are dinosaurs and the ape-human was really a human while Lucy, the walking ape-human, was really a chimpanzee.


Lots of nonsense here but Lucy was NOT a chimpanzee since Lucy was 100% bipedal and chimps are not.  Lots of other difference too between Lucy and chimps and us.


----------



## braalian

I’m sure Dr Bechly is right, and every other paleontologist on earth and the Paleontological Society are wrong. Makes sense.


The Paleontological Society Position Statement: Evolution​*Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases.*


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Pay attention.  It's where the poor creatures died.  Afterwards, we had the global flood, undersea volcanoes, or other catastrophes which moved the fossils and layers.  It's not as neatly and nicely organized as the geology of uniformitarianism claims.  Remember the atheist scientists claimed that a huge asteroid killed all the dinosaurs?  Well, that was proven false.


:Remember the atheist scientists claimed that a huge asteroid killed all the dinosaurs? Well, that was proven false."

That is simply not true. As usual, you provide nothing to support these specious claims.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> It’s not like the creationers have any credibility in the science fields. Predefined conclusions that require creationers to reach conclusions predicated on Bible verses is just silly. Science has progressed since the time of Aristotle. Creationers have not.
> 
> The revulsion for science held by creationers /Flat Earthers is one borne of religious extremism. Ceationism is not a theory, It’s literal, hyper-religious extremism that requires every biblical tale and fable to be literally correct.
> 
> The fact you cut and paste links to the charlatans at creation.com is reason enough to accept your views as anything but rational or objective


That's where you're wrong as science backs up the Bible.  I keep telling you science doesn't back up evolution, but for some reason the atheists use it to guide their lives  It's life without any logic or biographies.  We found you do not have any history to equate to with Neanderthals.  None of them had names.  Even Lucy was a name given by scientists looking back into the past.  The chimp didn't call herself that nor other "ape-humans."  Compare that to creation where God created adult humans and they had names and a biography to tell and write.  Your atheist scientists make up whatever they want like the Chicxulub asteroid or meteor killed all the dinosaurs.  They ignore the other animals there at the time.  With creation, we have God the creator as witness.  He created light to divide night and day and we can see that's how time and space started.  When it comes to logic, we find the simplest answer is the best -- Occam's Razor.  Basically, I can't change my histories, but you keep ignoring your evolution's.  We do not have anyone after Lucy nor know who she mated with.  Your story doesn't even follow logic and there were no witnesses.  We don't even know what Lucy did nor how she met her mate and where they lived.  I doubt they lived in caves because most animals don't usually live in caves because of the darkness, cold, dampness, and lack of food.  Thus, if Neanderthals were smart, then they would not have chosen a cave to live in.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I believe radiocarbon dating is real if that is your question.
> 
> 
> You are making up what scientists think, I can assure you none think Neanderthals were ape-like creatures from millions of years ago.
> 
> 
> Darwin was a man of his time and can't be judged by our morality and knowledge.
> 
> 
> Nope.  Got a peer-reviewed scientific study to show me?
> 
> 
> Birds have been around for at least 65 million years.  We could bury you with a chicken but I'm not sure what it would prove.
> Keep hoping but I wouldn't place any bets on finding dinosaurs and human fossils in the same layer.
> 
> 
> Straight answer to what?  What links would you like to see (other than those from Creationist sites?


The it blows evolution out of the water of millions of years.  I said it was valid if the assumptions were correct such as somehow we knew when did the C14 started being accumulated in the fossil and there was no contamination.  It like a hourglass as we know the rate of how much sand falls into the bottom glass, but we may not know when the glass was turned over.  

Well, you have no evidence such as C14 or any history of these "ape-humans."  Did they live together?  Where did they live?  What did they eat?  Did they communicate with each other.  Even the early tribes in Africa were hunters, farmers, warring groups who made more sophisticated weapons, and had a ruling class or leaders.  I'm sure they have written histories.  Some insects are group oriented and they are led by the queen; they have a hive mind.  Yet, none of them wrote they lived and evolved for millions of years.  No names, famous people, foot prints, housing or other evidence of societies.  That's how I know you're lying when lived for millions of years.  I can't even relate to how they would evolve as a society if they lived that long.  I mean did they continue to live in huts and fashion spears of stone and use bow and arrows?

Peer reviewed by creation scientists -- Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com.

Well, where did the idea that humans and dinosaurs lived together as depicted in the media start?  It could be like the global flood story found around the world.  Some people believe there are still dinosaurs living today.  I wouldn't go that far unless I see the evidence.  I think so far it has been sightings, but that's like UFO/alien sightings.

Nothing wrong with creationist sites as they counter the lies of the atheist sites.  Science backs them up.


----------



## Phillip

james bond said:


> The atheist geologists changed it to time and in perfectly organized by time layers because it had to explain billions of years in the past.  This is the fake part called uniformitarianism.  It's like how atheists and their scientists believed in an eternal universe in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The names of the Earth's layers represent location (look up the names lol) and not time as fake represented in millions of years.  The names came first and had nothing to do with time.  Doesn't that make more sense?


I would trust nothing that puts trees on Earth before the Sun! Shows how much Moses knew about it....Nothing!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> That's where you're wrong as science backs up the Bible.  I keep telling you science doesn't back up evolution, but for some reason the atheists use it to guide their lives  It's life without any logic or biographies.  We found you do not have any history to equate to with Neanderthals.  None of them had names.  Even Lucy was a name given by scientists looking back into the past.  The chimp didn't call herself that nor other "ape-humans."  Compare that to creation where God created adult humans and they had names and a biography to tell and write.  Your atheist scientists make up whatever they want like the Chicxulub asteroid or meteor killed all the dinosaurs.  They ignore the other animals there at the time.  With creation, we have God the creator as witness.  He created light to divide night and day and we can see that's how time and space started.  When it comes to logic, we find the simplest answer is the best -- Occam's Razor.  Basically, I can't change my histories, but you keep ignoring your evolution's.  We do not have anyone after Lucy nor know who she mated with.  Your story doesn't even follow logic and there were no witnesses.  We don't even know what Lucy did nor how she met her mate and where they lived.  I doubt they lived in caves because most animals don't usually live in caves because of the darkness, cold, dampness, and lack of food.  Thus, if Neanderthals were smart, then they would not have chosen a cave to live in.


Science does not “back up” the Bible. You parrot that slogan in most every thing you cut and paste, always failing to support the claim.

The rest of your tedious rant is just rabid creationer / Flat Earther nonsense  stolen from creation.com.

So, tell us more about science backing up talking snakes, a flat earth, men living to be 900 years old.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> Pay attention.  It's where the poor creatures died.  Afterwards, we had the global flood, undersea volcanoes, or other catastrophes which moved the fossils and layers.  It's not as neatly and nicely organized as the geology of uniformitarianism claims.  Remember the atheist scientists claimed that a huge asteroid killed all the dinosaurs?  Well, that was proven false.



So, dinosaurs died, and then scientists were on hand to fossilize the dinosaurs at that point in time?

I'm not sure paying attention is going to help right now.


----------



## james bond

Phillip said:


> I would trust nothing that puts trees on Earth before the Sun! Shows how much Moses knew about it....Nothing!


The trees were in heaven or the garden of paradise.  It wasn't Earth in the beginning.  After Adam's sin, God folded up the universe and created a new universe with Earth and sin.  He left our current universe as he can't be where there is sin.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Science does not “back up” the Bible. You parrot that slogan in most every thing you cut and paste, always failing to support the claim.
> 
> The rest of your tedious rant is just rabid creationer / Flat Earther nonsense  stolen from creation.com.
> 
> So, tell us more about science backing up talking snakes, a flat earth, men living to be 900 years old.


Science doesn't back up evolution.  It has no observable nor testable evidence.  Science isn't perfect by a long shot as humans make mistakes and we end up correcting them.  If it comes down to God's word in the Bible vs. science, then we trust God's word.  Science is done by humans and can be wrong.  God is never wrong.  I'm getting into things that you'll never believe so it's your loss.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> So, dinosaurs died, and then scientists were on hand to fossilize the dinosaurs at that point in time?
> 
> I'm not sure paying attention is going to help right now.


What you say doesn't make sense or maybe I don't understand you.  How are scientists going to fossilize the dinosaurs?  They have to be dead first and it happens pretty rapidly.  Even atheist scientists agree on this.  Many soft organisms do not fossilize.  It would have to be organisms with hard bony parts and what else has to happen?  I think you mentioned it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> What you say doesn't make sense or maybe I don't understand you.  How are scientists going to fossilize the dinosaurs?  They have to be dead first and it happens pretty rapidly.  Even atheist scientists agree on this.  Many soft organisms do not fossilize.  It would have to be organisms with hard bony parts and what else has to happen?  I think you mentioned it.



"Atheist scientists just place them in the orderly fake time levels that they've established."

You said scientists place fossils in place.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Science doesn't back up evolution.  It has no observable nor testable evidence.  Science isn't perfect by a long shot as humans make mistakes and we end up correcting them.  If it comes down to God's word in the Bible vs. science, then we trust God's word.  Science is done by humans and can be wrong.  God is never wrong.  I'm getting into things that you'll never believe so it's your loss.


Science has overwhelming observable and testable evidence for evolution. 

Denialism is a common attribute of religious extremists.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> "Atheist scientists just place them in the orderly fake time levels that they've established."
> 
> You said scientists place fossils in place.


So you don't know where fossils have to be in order to form?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Science has overwhelming observable and testable evidence for evolution.
> 
> Denialism is a common attribute of religious extremists.


It's funny (lmao) how the atheists here are in denial.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It's funny (lmao) how the atheists here are in denial.


There's no denying the evidence and facts of biological evolution, except, of course, by religious extremists.

Biological evolution is built on the principles of the Scientific Method. Bible theory, YEC'ism, Flat Earth'ism, and the laughably entitled “creation science” is entirely lacking in supportable evidence as your rants demonstrate. In the realm of the physical and biological sciences, there simply is no room for the fears and superstitions imposed by religious extremists and unfounded claims to magic.

Your bibles making claims to zombies and walking dead might suggest that your extremist views are out of place in the Science forum


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> There's no denying the evidence and facts of biological evolution, except, of course, by religious extremists.
> 
> Biological evolution is built on the principles of the Scientific Method. Bible theory, YEC'ism, Flat Earth'ism, and the laughably entitled “creation science” is entirely lacking in supportable evidence as your rants demonstrate. In the realm of the physical and biological sciences, there simply is no room for the fears and superstitions imposed by religious extremists and unfounded claims to magic.
> 
> Your bibles making claims to zombies and walking dead might suggest that your extremist views are out of place in the Science forum


I already said that.  Science backs up creation and so does the Scientific Method.  The SM was created by creationist Sir Francis Bacon.  We can't even see what atheist scientists created besides their papers to get funding.

Again, you're in denial that flat Earth hypothesis came from atheists.  After all, they believe in evolution.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> So, how do these scientists place fossils deep under ground?


By lying.  Another famous example of you, atheists, and their scientists caught in another HUGE lie.

The coelacanth was claimed to be extinct for about 70 million years.  It was thought by atheist scientists to have been among the first to walk out of the ocean on its way to becoming the ascendant of modern man lmao.  There was great excitement and surprise in the scientific community when a fisherman caught a living coelacanth off the island of Madagascar in 1938.  Many evolutionists _believed_ the reason this fish disappeared from the fossil record is that it had evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods.

The reason this is important is that many fossils have been dated to be roughly 70 million years old mostly because their remains were found in the same stratum as remains of a coelacanth.  And yet there are coelacanths alive today that look exactly like those fossils -- so use of coelacanth fossils to date other fossils is stupid asf.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> We have never *found *humans in a layer with dinosaurs. There is not a rock layer there are literally tens of millions.


While we have not found humans and dino fossils together, we have found their fossilized footprints together at Paluxy River in Glen Rose, TX.  These footprints have been found around the world.  This blows your evolution out of the water.  Did I win again?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I already said that.  Science backs up creation and so does the Scientific Method.  The SM was created by creationist Sir Francis Bacon.  We can't even see what atheist scientists created besides their papers to get funding.
> 
> Again, you're in denial that flat Earth hypothesis came from atheists.  After all, they believe in evolution.


You say many things that aren't true. Science does not "back up" magical, supernatural creationism. There are no means by which science can investigate magic and supernaturalism as defined by creationers. You explicitly agree with the above as you fail to present any science data that "backs up" magical, supernatural creationer claims to gods, a flat earth, a 6,000 year old planet, men living to be 900 years old, the walking dead or other claims to magical, supernatural events.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> While we have not found humans and dino fossils together, we have found their fossilized footprints together at Paluxy River in Glen Rose, TX.  These footprints have been found around the world.  This blows your evolution out of the water.  Did I win again?



You lost again....bigly.....as usual.

Creationers embarrass themselves with the fraud of humans and dinosaurs coexisting. It's just another of their desperate tactics to promote the fraud of a 6,000 year old planet. 



			CC101:  Paluxy River footprints


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You lost again....bigly.....as usual.
> 
> Creationers embarrass themselves with the fraud of humans and dinosaurs coexisting. It's just another of their desperate tactics to promote the fraud of a 6,000 year old planet.
> 
> 
> 
> CC101:  Paluxy River footprints


It wasn't fraud like the Piltdown man.  The Paluxy dinosaur tracks are valid, but over time one couldn't state the same for the human tracks.  I see Kuban has backed off his book and film on it.  But the battle will continue as fossil evidence and more dinosaur tracks are found around the world --  Real Dinosaur Tracks- 15 Places in the World to See Them.

Here's what the atheist scientists have said about what solid evidence of humans and dinosaurs together mean.  It would blow evolution _out of the water_ like I said -- Implications of Dino-human coexistence: EVOLUTION OBLITERATED!!!. It would mean the atheists wouldn't have to die to realize they were wrong. Will you be ready to get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness when this happens?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It wasn't fraud like the Piltdown man.  The Paluxy dinosaur tracks are valid, but over time one couldn't state the same for the human tracks.  I see Kuban has backed off his book and film on it.  But the battle will continue as fossil evidence and more dinosaur tracks are found around the world --  Real Dinosaur Tracks- 15 Places in the World to See Them.
> 
> Here's what the atheist scientists have said about what solid evidence of humans and dinosaurs together mean.  It would blow evolution _out of the water_ like I said -- Implications of Dino-human coexistence: EVOLUTION OBLITERATED!!!. It would mean the atheists wouldn't have to die to realize they were wrong. Will you be ready to get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness when this happens?


That was pretty funny. It was a classic example of "quote mining" where religious extremists troll Bible sites where they copy and paste phony, edited, parsed and altered "quotes". 

Niles Eldidge is among the favorites of the dishonest "quote miners" and his actual comments are listed here:









						Misquoted Scientists Respond | National Center for Science Education
					

I never cease to be amazed at the skill with which Dr. Morris employs the writings of the top evolutionists themselves to develop an air-tight case against evolution.




					ncse.ngo
				





As usual, creationer loons offer nothing to support their various gods, they simply troll silly fundie Bible sites with phony "quotes".


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It wasn't fraud like the Piltdown man.  The Paluxy dinosaur tracks are valid, but over time one couldn't state the same for the human tracks.  I see Kuban has backed off his book and film on it.  But the battle will continue as fossil evidence and more dinosaur tracks are found around the world --  Real Dinosaur Tracks- 15 Places in the World to See Them.
> 
> Here's what the atheist scientists have said about what solid evidence of humans and dinosaurs together mean.  It would blow evolution _out of the water_ like I said -- Implications of Dino-human coexistence: EVOLUTION OBLITERATED!!!. It would mean the atheists wouldn't have to die to realize they were wrong. Will you be ready to get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness when this happens?


You failed to realize that the site you linked to lists the age of dinosaurs in the hundreds of millions of years. 

Cutting and pasting what you don't understand.... it's hilarious


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> While we have not found humans and dino fossils together, we have found their fossilized footprints together at Paluxy River in Glen Rose, TX.  These footprints have been found around the world.  This blows your evolution out of the water.  Did I win again?


Only if those prints are real.  As I recall they are unconvincing and could be just poor dino prints.


----------



## Phillip

james bond said:


> The trees were in heaven or the garden of paradise.  It wasn't Earth in the beginning.  After Adam's sin, God folded up the universe and created a new universe with Earth and sin.  He left our current universe as he can't be where there is sin.


Your has full a shit as my Christmas turkey, even more....Have you even read Genesis 1?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> That was pretty funny. It was a classic example of "quote mining" where religious extremists troll Bible sites where they copy and paste phony, edited, parsed and altered "quotes".
> 
> Niles Eldidge is among the favorites of the dishonest "quote miners" and his actual comments are listed here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misquoted Scientists Respond | National Center for Science Education
> 
> 
> I never cease to be amazed at the skill with which Dr. Morris employs the writings of the top evolutionists themselves to develop an air-tight case against evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ncse.ngo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, creationer loons offer nothing to support their various gods, they simply troll silly fundie Bible sites with phony "quotes".


What I said was finding dinos and humans during the same time hurts evolution.  The link I found stated the atheist scientists saying it would destroy evolution.  Wouid it destroy evolution to you?

To me, evolution is already destroyed.  It never was true in the first place.  Humans did not come from ape-humans and dinosaurs did not become birds (prove given).  Furthermore, it shows it doesn't take much to destroy a lie.  If evolution was true, then it's just an anomaly.


----------



## james bond

Phillip said:


> Your has full a shit as my Christmas turkey, even more....Have you even read Genesis 1?


Lol, it looks like I won again.  BTW, I wouldn't eat your Christmas turkey.  Just go out this year.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Only if those prints are real.  As I recall they are unconvincing and could be just poor dino prints.


It looks like it will take more to destroy evolution.  Will you admit evolution is a lie if I do find the evidence?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You failed to realize that the site you linked to lists the age of dinosaurs in the hundreds of millions of years.
> 
> Cutting and pasting what you don't understand.... it's hilarious


The hundreds of millions of years is based on atheist scientists timeline.  On mine, it was at the end of the OT and beginning of NT.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The hundreds of millions of years is based on atheist scientists timeline.  On mine, it was at the end of the OT and beginning of NT.


The hundreds of millions of years is from the link you cut and pasted. Obviously, you never botherd to read what you cut and pasted. Why are you cutting and pasting material that contradicts your extremist beliefs?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> What I said was finding dinos and humans during the same time hurts evolution.  The link I found stated the atheist scientists saying it would destroy evolution.  Wouid it destroy evolution to you?
> 
> To me, evolution is already destroyed.  It never was true in the first place.  Humans did not come from ape-humans and dinosaurs did not become birds (prove given).  Furthermore, it shows it doesn't take much to destroy a lie.  If evolution was true, then it's just an anomaly.


Finding dinos and humans during the same time doesn't ''hurt evolution'' because dinosaurs and humans lived in vastly different time periods. The link you posted identifies that. 

To the religious extremist, evolution is destroyed because religious extremists understand that there are irreconcilable contradictions to the fact of an ancient planet vs. a young, flat earth.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> So you don't know where fossils have to be in order to form?



I know they're not there because "scientists place them there".


----------



## Phillip

james bond said:


> Lol, it looks like I won again.  BTW, I wouldn't eat your Christmas turkey.  Just go out this year.


Won what? Moses was not a scientist he was a sheep herder and knew little about what he was looking at. We all all know plants need sunlight if he created plants and trees on the third day how did they survive until 
the Sun was made? It makes for good Sci-Fi but it's not worth a damn for anything else.


----------



## Phillip

james bond said:


> The hundreds of millions of years is based on atheist scientists timeline.  On mine, it was at the end of the OT and beginning of NT.


What exactly are atheist scientists? Are they that because they do not hold your fanatical left wing worldview? Your Creationists bullshit..You been reading to many fairytales...


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Finding dinos and humans during the same time doesn't ''hurt evolution'' because dinosaurs and humans lived in vastly different time periods. The link you posted identifies that.
> 
> To the religious extremist, evolution is destroyed because religious extremists understand that there are irreconcilable contradictions to the fact of an ancient planet vs. a young, flat earth.


You're in denial.  It would be the destruction by contradiction of evolution.  Besides, dinosaur fossils in _millions of years ago_ layers has not been proven.


----------



## james bond

Phillip said:


> Won what? Moses was not a scientist he was a sheep herder and knew little about what he was looking at. We all all know plants need sunlight if he created plants and trees on the third day how did they survive until
> the Sun was made? It makes for good Sci-Fi but it's not worth a damn for anything else.


Lol, it was only the next day.  Such weirdo claims.

It's just amusement for me as I count one point for me when I win an argument or get no answers or rebuttals to my questions or science arguments.  It's a way to keep score because I answer the atheists' questions while they never answer mine.


----------



## james bond

Phillip said:


> What exactly are atheist scientists? Are they that because they do not hold your fanatical left wing worldview? Your Creationists bullshit..You been reading to many fairytales...


I guess you don't know science has been take over by scientists who assume evolution and do not accept creation and the science that backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  For example, there were birds and other animals found in the dinosaurs level, but the atheist paleontologists, geologists, archaeologists ignore the hard evidence.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Finding dinos and humans during the same time doesn't ''hurt evolution'' because dinosaurs and humans lived in vastly different time periods. The link you posted identifies that.
> 
> To the religious extremist, evolution is destroyed because religious extremists understand that there are irreconcilable contradictions to the fact of an ancient planet vs. a young, flat earth.


Sure, it does as dinosaur and humans would be another piece of science that backs up the Bible.

I am done with discussing the scientific arguments against evolution and how science backs up the Bible, but am interested in finding more about how dinosaurs and humans lived together.  Humans may have trained and rode dinosaurs.  They may have become extinct due to humans hunting and eating them besides dying in the global flood.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> I know they're not there because "scientists place them there".


Lol, I thought you didn't know.  The correct answer was they had to be buried _deep_ underground.  

Here's a chance to show others here that you aren't stupid as an atheist.  Do you know why?


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> Lol, I thought you didn't know.  The correct answer was they had to be buried _deep_ underground.
> 
> Here's a chance to show others here that you aren't stupid as an atheist.  Do you know why?



Fuck me? Let me guess, they had to be buried deep underground, because otherwise the Mormons would come along and dig them up and sell them for two bucks a pop?

Oww, oww, let me have another try. They had to be buried deep underground because otherwise Stephen King would write a novel about them?

Oh... I need another go. They needed to be buried deep underground so james bond could be shaken, not defrosted?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You're in denial.  It would be the destruction by contradiction of evolution.  Besides, dinosaur fossils in _millions of years ago_ layers has not been proven.


Dinosaur fossils in _millions of years ago_ layers certainly has been proven. You reject a spherical, ancient planet because a flat, 6,000 year old planet is the literal Bible description. 

Dinosaurs being hundreds of millions of years old is identified specifically in the link you provided. How funny that you utterly contradict your position by not reading what you copy and paste.


----------



## Phillip

james bond said:


> I guess you don't know science has been take over by scientists who assume evolution and do not accept creation and the science that backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  For example, there were birds and other animals found in the dinosaurs level, but the atheist paleontologists, geologists, archaeologists ignore the hard evidence.


So what has all that got to do with the price of tea in China? And if what you say is true then should not Adam and Eve been confronted by a T Rex instead of a mythical devil in a snake suit? There is no hard evidence to support Creationism because the way it happens in Genesis is stupid and makes no sense. But that was not Mose's fault I mean after all  the crack you make out of sheep shit is not the best in the world.


----------



## james bond

Phillip said:


> So what has all that got to do with the price of tea in China? And if what you say is true then should not Adam and Eve been confronted by a T Rex instead of a mythical devil in a snake suit? There is no hard evidence to support Creationism because the way it happens in Genesis is stupid and makes no sense. But that was not Mose's fault I mean after all  the crack you make out of sheep shit is not the best in the world.


I knew you were stupid as sh*t from your concern about plants haha.

Are you related to Colin norris?


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> Fuck me? Let me guess, they had to be buried deep underground, because otherwise the Mormons would come along and dig them up and sell them for two bucks a pop?
> 
> Oww, oww, let me have another try. They had to be buried deep underground because otherwise Stephen King would write a novel about them?
> 
> Oh... I need another go. They needed to be buried deep underground so james bond could be shaken, not defrosted?


More blather.  I bet you don't even have "a ♥ of your life."  Someone you'd want fossilized and hung in your bedroom b/c you can afford it.

That's life.  It sucks for you, but not for me.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> It looks like it will take more to destroy evolution.  Will you admit evolution is a lie if I do find the evidence?


Of course.  I'd be honored (if not famous) to say I have talked to you, the most famous scientist of the last 150 years.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Of course.  I'd be honored (if not famous) to say I have talked to you, the most famous scientist of the last 150 years.


Nice sarcasm, but if the evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together will destroy evolution, then you know it's not true.  Truth can't be destroyed, but lies can be by the evidence.

Another _future_ victory for me?


----------



## james bond

Phillip said:


> What exactly are atheist scientists? Are they that because they do not hold your fanatical left wing worldview? Your Creationists bullshit..You been reading to many fairytales...


Lol, you just keep revealing yourself.  Nothing interesting to see here.  I'm moving along.

BTW, I'm tired of discussing creation science which contradicts evolution as the atheists here do not believe REAL SCIENCE.  Maybe someone, another believer will take over.  

However, the dinosaur and humans living together is something new, so will discuss that.  I already found that ducks, other birds and other animals were found in the _prehistoric_ layer (layman name) and that contradicts evolution, but the atheist scientists have ignored it. That's lying science, but it is what it is. That said if humans and dinosaurs together will fucking DESTROY evolution and they already said it will, then I'll find that. Easy to destroy lies with evidence.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> BTW, I'm tired of discussing creation science which contradicts evolution as the atheists here do not believe REAL SCIENCE. Maybe someone, another believer will take over.


You have never discussed the science behind the first 6 days of the Genesis. You have not discussed the the actual science of Noah's flood. You only discussed generalities that have no physical backing.
.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> You're in denial.  It would be the destruction by contradiction of evolution.  Besides, dinosaur fossils in _millions of years ago_ layers has not been proven.


You mean it hasn't been proven to YOU.  Science, mainstream science, considers it proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Nice sarcasm, but if the evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together will destroy evolution, then you know it's not true.  Truth can't be destroyed, but lies can be by the evidence.


Funny how we have trillions of fossils and not one conclusively contradicts ToE.  I admire your patience, nay faith.



james bond said:


> Another _future_ victory for me?


You've had other victories in the future?  Now that is impressive (if true).


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> More blather.  I bet you don't even have "a ♥ of your life."  Someone you'd want fossilized and hung in your bedroom b/c you can afford it.
> 
> That's life.  It sucks for you, but not for me.



You made a discussion that was total and utter fucking blather, and now you're complaining it's blather because you write such crap that it doesn't make sense.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You mean it hasn't been proven to YOU.  Science, mainstream science, considers it proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


It hasn't been proven to the majority of creationists and evolutionists.  We have the dinosaur fossil with soft tissue and C14 remaining.  It means < 50,000 years old and blows evolution out of the water.  It backs up what I keep saying that evolution is a lie.  

Besides, you don't have any history.  What was the first man's name assuming Judy the chimp was your first woman?  You can't even explain how asexual went to sexual.  We have the perfect good looking couple in Adam and Eve in a garden of paradise that has all the animals at their beck and call.  They also could grow crops easily.  They didn't have to live in a cave.  While you have an ape-human which no one ever saw and looks like a chimpanzee.  No one ever saw Judy walk bipedal either.

You base billions of years to 1956 and some geek who no one remembers.  He didn't have any clean room.  That kind of bad science and assumptions that no one is sure of does not prove millions of years.  Your geek didn't even check for C14 or soft tissue remaining because he wanted billions of years.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> You made a discussion that was total and utter fucking blather, and now you're complaining it's blather because you write such crap that it doesn't make sense.


Jeez, you're a sore and poor loser.  Now wonder you have no one you want fossilized haha.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> Jeez, you're a sore and poor loser.  Now wonder you have no one you want fossilized haha.



No sure how you came to that conclusion. You wrote nonsense and I'm expected to know what the fuck you're on about...... So that makes me a "sore and poor loser", what did I lose? Expect a little time I'll never get back on this pointless crap.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Funny how we have trillions of fossils and not one conclusively contradicts ToE.  I admire your patience, nay faith.
> 
> 
> You've had other victories in the future?  Now that is impressive (if true).


You don't understand fossilization.  There aren't trillions of fossils as fossils don't just happen.  Else I would've easily found evidence of humans living with dinosaurs and destroyed evolution.  Instead, I found evolutionists admitting that humans living with dinosaurs would blow evolution out of the water.  What are the atheists going to do then lol?

Furthermore, Judy being a female chimp and no male chimp contradicts evolution.  You can't even give me the name of the ape-human who could walk upright instead of being quadripedal.  What happened when they had children and what were their names?  How did they learn to grow crops?  How did they defend themselves against the other wild animals?  Why are there no stories around the world for these creatures and their history?  See, it's easy to show contradictions in evolution.  Yet, these ape-humans decided to live in in pitch black caves with bats and other nasty animals like bears that would want to eat them.  They were moron level subhumans, but drew paintings of other animals in their environment including birds.  They knew about art technique.  

Birds would be another contradiction living at the same time as dinosaurs.  Wouldn't that just as well blow evolution out of the water?  Only one natural museum in the US dares to show birds living with dinosaurs, i.e. their bones and exhibition.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> No sure how you came to that conclusion. You wrote nonsense and I'm expected to know what the fuck you're on about...... So that makes me a "sore and poor loser", what did I lose? Expect a little time I'll never get back on this pointless crap.


Why don't you make it interesting and answer my questions since you have the truth lol?  Where's your history?  Who was Judy's mate?  How did sexual evolve from asexual organisms?  What were these ape-humans names?  Or were they moron level, but yet were able to make art in caves?  You are easily tricked into believing anything.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> Why don't you make it interesting and answer my questions since you have the truth lol?  Where's your history?  Who was Judy's mate?  How did sexual evolve from asexual organisms?  What were these ape-humans names?  Or were they moron level, but yet were able to make art in caves?  You are easily tricked into believing anything.



Stringing this one out a bit aren't you? I can't be bothered with this nonsense. I'm done.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> It hasn't been proven to the majority of creationists and evolutionists.  We have the dinosaur fossil with soft tissue and C14 remaining.  It means < 50,000 years old and blows evolution out of the water.  It backs up what I keep saying that evolution is a lie.


There is plenty written about dinosaur fossil with soft tissue so that is not an issue, however, I've been unable to find any C14 dating info.  Can you point me to that info?  The best I found was from an ancient, fossilized turtle shell that was C14 dated to post-1950.



james bond said:


> You base billions of years to 1956 and some geek who no one remembers.  He didn't have any clean room.  That kind of bad science and assumptions that no one is sure of does not prove millions of years.  Your geek didn't even check for C14 or soft tissue remaining because he wanted billions of years.


Real science is peer-reviewed.  No single scientist can develop a revolutionary process that is accepted as valid until it is duplicated by others.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> You don't understand fossilization.  There aren't trillions of fossils as fossils don't just happen.


Trillions was an understatement.  These are the White Cliffs of Dover, they are composed of the remains of microscopic diatoms.  There are trillions in this one small image.






james bond said:


> Else I would've easily found evidence of humans living with dinosaurs and destroyed evolution.  Instead, I found evolutionists admitting that humans living with dinosaurs would blow evolution out of the water.  What are the atheists going to do then lol?


Keep the faith, baby.



james bond said:


> Furthermore, Judy being a female chimp and no male chimp contradicts evolution.  You can't even give me the name of the ape-human who could walk upright instead of being quadripedal.  What happened when they had children and what were their names?  How did they learn to grow crops?  How did they defend themselves against the other wild animals?  Why are there no stories around the world for these creatures and their history?  See, it's easy to show contradictions in evolution.  Yet, these ape-humans decided to live in in pitch black caves with bats and other nasty animals like bears that would want to eat them.  They were moron level subhumans, but drew paintings of other animals in their environment including birds.  They knew about art technique.


Your understanding of human prehistory is nonsensical.  Names don't get fossilized and it is easy to show contradictions in evolution if you don't understand it.



james bond said:


> Birds would be another contradiction living at the same time as dinosaurs.  Wouldn't that just as well blow evolution out of the water?  Only one natural museum in the US dares to show birds living with dinosaurs, i.e. their bones and exhibition.


Turtles lived with dinosaurs.  Many things alive today lived with dinosaurs, just not humans.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> Stringing this one out a bit aren't you? I can't be bothered with this nonsense. I'm done.


Then go with this thought.  The Grinch lives in a _cave_; Who else would be stupid enough to live in a cave? The atheists are _grinches_ this time of year. I was lmao thinking about the atheists and their weirdo evolution beliefs. Think about how jb knows more science than you. You couldn't even explain fossilization haha.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> There is plenty written about dinosaur fossil with soft tissue so that is not an issue, however, I've been unable to find any C14 dating info.  Can you point me to that info?  The best I found was from an ancient, fossilized turtle shell that was C14 dated to post-1950.
> 
> 
> Real science is peer-reviewed.  No single scientist can develop a revolutionary process that is accepted as valid until it is duplicated by others.


Last point first.  It really wasn't a peer review.  The atheist scientists had to keep evolution alive with their fake papers in order to keep their funding coming.  You must've read a few of them and were convinced.  Are you going to fall down on your knees and beg for forgiveness when I get the human fossil in the prehistoric layers that humans and dinosaurs lived together lol?  In the US, it would likely come from the Midwest.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Trillions was an understatement.  These are the White Cliffs of Dover, they are composed of the remains of microscopic diatoms.  There are trillions in this one small image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep the faith, baby.
> 
> 
> Your understanding of human prehistory is nonsensical.  Names don't get fossilized and it is easy to show contradictions in evolution if you don't understand it.
> 
> 
> Turtles lived with dinosaurs.  Many things alive today lived with dinosaurs, just not humans.


More evidence of being fooled.  I showed limestone on top of Mt. Everest caused by global flood.  That's chalk, a _form_ of limestone, but not the same as limesotone (needle, needle), and more evidence for creation.  We just discussed how fossils had to be buried_ deep_ in the ground so oxidation would not occur. That doesn't look deep into the ground. Why don't you explain how they formed then? Did I win and you lose once more? Man, I'm loving this Christmas season here. My sides hurt.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It hasn't been proven to the majority of creationists and evolutionists.  We have the dinosaur fossil with soft tissue and C14 remaining.  It means < 50,000 years old and blows evolution out of the water.  It backs up what I keep saying that evolution is a lie.
> 
> Besides, you don't have any history.  What was the first man's name assuming Judy the chimp was your first woman?  You can't even explain how asexual went to sexual.  We have the perfect good looking couple in Adam and Eve in a garden of paradise that has all the animals at their beck and call.  They also could grow crops easily.  They didn't have to live in a cave.  While you have an ape-human which no one ever saw and looks like a chimpanzee.  No one ever saw Judy walk bipedal either.
> 
> You base billions of years to 1956 and some geek who no one remembers.  He didn't have any clean room.  That kind of bad science and assumptions that no one is sure of does not prove millions of years.  Your geek didn't even check for C14 or soft tissue remaining because he wanted billions of years.



How do you know the fictional characters A&E were a “good looking couple”.

Are you assuming that the tall, blue-eyed, fair-haired, fair-skinned pictorials of the Jeebus apply to A&E?

Westerners have made the Jeebus in their own image. That’s a pretty common attribute applied to all civilizations who made _their_ gods in _their_ own image.

Do you find it odd that the Hindu gods are not tall, blue-eyed, fair-haired, fair-skinned individuals?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You don't understand fossilization.  There aren't trillions of fossils as fossils don't just happen.  Else I would've easily found evidence of humans living with dinosaurs and destroyed evolution.  Instead, I found evolutionists admitting that humans living with dinosaurs would blow evolution out of the water.  What are the atheists going to do then lol?
> 
> Furthermore, Judy being a female chimp and no male chimp contradicts evolution.  You can't even give me the name of the ape-human who could walk upright instead of being quadripedal.  What happened when they had children and what were their names?  How did they learn to grow crops?  How did they defend themselves against the other wild animals?  Why are there no stories around the world for these creatures and their history?  See, it's easy to show contradictions in evolution.  Yet, these ape-humans decided to live in in pitch black caves with bats and other nasty animals like bears that would want to eat them.  They were moron level subhumans, but drew paintings of other animals in their environment including birds.  They knew about art technique.
> 
> Birds would be another contradiction living at the same time as dinosaurs.  Wouldn't that just as well blow evolution out of the water?  Only one natural museum in the US dares to show birds living with dinosaurs, i.e. their bones and exhibition.


“fossils don't just happen”.

It’s really scary that the most extreme of the religious extremists live their miserable lives consumed by conspiracy theories.

Christians have their own competing version of the Taliban.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Last point first.  It really wasn't a peer review.  The atheist scientists had to keep evolution alive with their fake papers in order to keep their funding coming.  You must've read a few of them and were convinced.


Why fake papers, only evolution gets funded or only evolution is science?



james bond said:


> Are you going to fall down on your knees and beg for forgiveness when I get the human fossil in the prehistoric layers that humans and dinosaurs lived together lol?  In the US, it would likely come from the Midwest.


Of course but I don't expect to live that long.  Are you going to fall down on your knees and beg for forgiveness when Mohammad returns and asks if you've followed the 5 pillars?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> More evidence of being fooled.  I showed limestone on top of Mt. Everest caused by global flood.


How did that limestone form?



james bond said:


> That's chalk, a _form_ of limestone, but not the same as limesotone (needle, needle), and more evidence for creation.


Evidence for creation?  Please explain?



james bond said:


> We just discussed how fossils had to be buried_ deep_ in the ground so oxidation would not occur. That doesn't look deep into the ground. Why don't you explain how they formed then?


These fossils don't oxidize since they are the shells of dead diatoms, not the soft parts.  They are accumulating today in seas with little current, far from land runoff.  Why are they exposed?  Continental drift.



james bond said:


> Did I win and you lose once more? Man, I'm loving this Christmas season here. My sides hurt.


  You have to show you know something first.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

"Fossils don't just happen"


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> How do you know the fictional characters A&E were a “good looking couple”.
> 
> Are you assuming that the tall, blue-eyed, fair-haired, fair-skinned pictorials of the Jeebus apply to A&E?
> 
> Westerners have made the Jeebus in their own image. That’s a pretty common attribute applied to all civilizations who made _their_ gods in _their_ own image.
> 
> Do you find it odd that the Hindu gods are not tall, blue-eyed, fair-haired, fair-skinned individuals?


Guess in Who's image A&E were made?  They certainly didn't look like chimpanzees as evolution claims.

I have the answers and evidence while you have _ugliness_ to start with. Females aren't usually hairy like a chimp and have a different gait than a male human, TG. How does evolution explain that?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Why fake papers, only evolution gets funded or only evolution is science?
> 
> 
> Of course but I don't expect to live that long.  Are you going to fall down on your knees and beg for forgiveness when Mohammad returns and asks if you've followed the 5 pillars?


I don't have to worry about those things because _faith_ has put me on the path to The Rapture.

That said, I understand atheists' faith or viewpoint.  It's similar to what happened with Adam and Eve's decision.  It's part of the reason why I respect Satan.  His powers are quite formidable on this Earth.


----------



## Colin norris

Mac-7 said:


> Never the less evolution cannot explain creation



Really? Well you tell us all how we got here. Don't bother using your religious God shit because  I come after you.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I respect Satan.  His powers are quite formidable on this Earth.


Then how do know God didn't create us through evolution and Satan has convinced you to ignore God tool?  Off topic, no need to answer.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Guess in Who's image A&E were made?  They certainly didn't look like chimpanzees as evolution claims.
> 
> I have the answers and evidence while you have _ugliness_ to start with. Females aren't usually hairy like a chimp and have a different gait than a male human, TG. How does evolution explain that?



So, I’ll take your “A&E were a good looking couple” comment to be just nonsensical blathering. You have no evidence of any magical, supernatural invention of humans in any garden replete with talking snakes all on a flat earth. You let your extremist beliefs lead you to make unfounded and outlandish claims.

Because you’re science illiterate, I should point out that _Homosapiens_ and Chimpanzees are different species.

Odd that you make the false claim about having answers and evidence when you are unable to present any answers and evidence for the claims you make.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Then how do know God didn't create us through evolution and Satan has convinced you to ignore God tool?  Off topic, no need to answer.


Evolution isn't in the Bible.  Lies on in the Bible.  More evidence.

Satan would tempt us.  For example, he tempts people with greed, self-benefits, lies, becoming like God, and more.  For example, if you believe in evolution and no God/gods, then you will not have to obey or answer to anyone, but yourself.  I suppose he tempts atheists to go with faith in no God/gods and strengthen their opinion of no God/gods.  I don't think he benefits from the ultimate results, but he gains confidence in his own powers in the short run.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> So, I’ll take your “A&E were a good looking couple” comment to be just nonsensical blathering. You have no evidence of any magical, supernatural invention of humans in any garden replete with talking snakes all on a flat earth. You let your extremist beliefs lead you to make unfounded and outlandish claims.
> 
> Because you’re science illiterate, I should point out that _Homosapiens_ and Chimpanzees are different species.
> 
> Odd that you make the false claim about having answers and evidence when you are unable to present any answers and evidence for the claims you make.


>>You let your extremist beliefs lead you to make unfounded and outlandish claims.<<

>>Odd that you make the false claim about having answers and evidence when you are unable to present any answers and evidence for the claims you make.<<

How many times do I have to state science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book?  That's evidence enough for me that you are in denial of losing and my winning.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> How many times do I have to state science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book? That's evidence enough for me that you are in denial of losing and my winning.


You don't have to keep stating that science backs up the bible. You should tell us exactly how it backs up the first six days of Genesis.

The heavens and earth were created on the first day? What about the sun. We at least need a sun first. What is the science on that?

Then he created light and darkness? Without a sun? What is the science on that?

So the sun is finally created on the fourth day. That is kind of backwards. Also the stars were created on the fourth day? That certainly isn't anything like the big bang. That is really backwards. Where is the science in that?

If you want to talk creation science you have got to talk about the science -- how the universe and earth was formed in six days and not billions of years.
.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> >>You let your extremist beliefs lead you to make unfounded and outlandish claims.<<
> 
> >>Odd that you make the false claim about having answers and evidence when you are unable to present any answers and evidence for the claims you make.<<
> 
> How many times do I have to state science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book?  That's evidence enough for me that you are in denial of losing and my winning.


How many times will you say “science backs up the Bible”, when you always fail to provide any evidence to support such a claim?

What are you winning?


----------



## Mac-7

Colin norris said:


> Really? Well you tell us all how we got here. Don't bother using your religious God shit because I come after you.


I will “use” God because its the only viable explaination


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> I will “use” God because its the only viable explaination


Ah yes, the circular argument. Chase that tail, Fido.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> How many times will you say “science backs up the Bible”, when you always fail to provide any evidence to support such a claim?
> 
> What are you winning?


I am winning everything.  I just destroyed alang1216 and his White Cliffs of Dover as he could not explain how tiny fossilized micro organisms got there.  More evidence for a global flood -- https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/White-Cliffs-Dover.pdf.  With Mt. Everest, it's the real limestone -- Summit Limestone - Everest Education Expedition | Montana State University.

You're in denial and famous here for being the only one atheist who believes in a flat Earth.  You're now known as Flattie Hollie.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> Then go with this thought.  The Grinch lives in a _cave_; Who else would be stupid enough to live in a cave? The atheists are _grinches_ this time of year. I was lmao thinking about the atheists and their weirdo evolution beliefs. Think about how jb knows more science than you. You couldn't even explain fossilization haha.



Happy Christmas.


----------



## james bond

frigidweirdo said:


> Happy Christmas.


Merry Christmas, peace on Earth, and goodwill to all peoples.


----------



## james bond

I don't think finding the evidence of humans and dinosaurs will be easy.  Satan is too smart to just let his evolution be destroyed.  It will take time or the creationists and I will have to go another direction.


----------



## frigidweirdo

james bond said:


> Merry Christmas, peace on Earth, and goodwill to all peoples.



Except the Jews, blacks, whites, Asians, males, gays, females, hetrosexuals, weirdos, normal people, workers, the unemployed, Africans, Europeans, Aliens, Mexicans, Trump, Biden, all world leaders and penguins.


----------



## Colin norris

Mac-7 said:


> I will “use” God because its the only viable explaination



You are delusional at best. You have no evidence of any God and never will. When you godbotherers start preaching about immaculate conception and virgin births etc, you lose all credibility immediately. 

You have been conned by a very old trick and you're  a blight on the human  race to believe that bullshit. A mature human  being with access to every bit of information on earth yet you still hold to the hereditary madness like a child. 
The sad part is you approve of teaching the same shit to children as if it is fact. You should be charged with child abuse.


----------



## Mac-7

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ah yes, the circular argument. Chase that tail, Fido.


You just dont get it, do you?

I dont care what YOU believe or dont believe


----------



## Mac-7

Colin norris said:


> You are delusional at best. You have no evidence of any God and never will. When you godbotherers start preaching about immaculate conception and virgin births etc, you lose all credibility immediately.
> 
> You have been conned by a very old trick and you're  a blight on the human  race to believe that bullshit. A mature human  being with access to every bit of information on earth yet you still hold to the hereditary madness like a child.
> The sad part is you approve of teaching the same shit to children as if it is fact. You should be charged with child abuse.


See post #294


----------



## Colin norris

Mac-7 said:


> See post #294



Not interested in your shit.  You're a dickhead.


----------



## Mac-7

Colin norris said:


> Not interested in your shit. You're a dickhead.


You call me a dickhead because I said I dont care if you believe in God or not and that pisses you off?

you need to find a godless shrink because you have issues


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I am winning everything.  I just destroyed alang1216 and his White Cliffs of Dover as he could not explain how tiny fossilized micro organisms got there.  More evidence for a global flood -- https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/White-Cliffs-Dover.pdf.  With Mt. Everest, it's the real limestone -- Summit Limestone - Everest Education Expedition | Montana State University.
> 
> You're in denial and famous here for being the only one atheist who believes in a flat Earth.  You're now known as Flattie Hollie.


Odd that you claim to be “winning everything” when you do nothing more than spam the thread with “I’m winning everything” nonsense.

Cut and paste nonsense from AIG is meaningless when they have an agenda to press fundamentalist religious dogma.









						About Answers in Genesis
					

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.




					answersingenesis.org
				



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.





As you have demonstrated, nothing about religious extremism is focused on accuracy, facts or truth. The agenda of the religious extremist is to propagate their version of extremist beliefs.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I am winning everything.  I just destroyed alang1216 and his White Cliffs of Dover as he could not explain how tiny fossilized micro organisms got there.


That you don't understand or refuse to accept my explanations does not destroy me or evolution.



james bond said:


> More evidence for a global flood -- https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/White-Cliffs-Dover.pdf.  With Mt. Everest, it's the real limestone -- Summit Limestone - Everest Education Expedition | Montana State University.


Your flyer states "The White Cliffs of Dover *confirm *the biblical account of a global Flood just about 4,000 years ago".  I won't bother to point out the errors and contradictions in their theory, I just like how they propose how the Flood *might *have formed the chalk but never bother to perform any experiments to prove or disprove their theory.  That in a nut shell is the difference between creationism and science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I don't think finding the evidence of humans and dinosaurs will be easy.  Satan is too smart to just let his evolution be destroyed.  It will take time or the creationists and I will have to go another direction.


Cults have a history of “go another direction”.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Mac-7 said:


> You just dont get it, do you?
> 
> I dont care what YOU believe or dont believe


Not sure what that has to do with your argument being  circular. This isn't the religion section. These specious errors and divine declarations hold no weight, here.


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> I am winning everything. I just destroyed @alang1216 and his White Cliffs of Dover as he could not explain how tiny fossilized micro organisms got there.



Ho, you constantly fail.  You simply ignore anything and anybody that does not agree with you.  Hell, I had to literally shove it in your face on at least two different occasions that your evidence was fake, and you still believe it.

That is not winning, that is a mental disorder.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> That you don't understand or refuse to accept my explanations does not destroy me or evolution.
> 
> 
> Your flyer states "The White Cliffs of Dover *confirm *the biblical account of a global Flood just about 4,000 years ago".  I won't bother to point out the errors and contradictions in their theory, I just like how they propose how the Flood *might *have formed the chalk but never bother to perform any experiments to prove or disprove their theory.  That in a nut shell is the difference between creationism and science.


You couldn't explain how The White Cliffs of Dover got there.  It wasn't by evolution.

You couldn't explain how the limestone got on top of Mt. Everest.  Again, it wasn't by evolution.

The best explanation is the global flood for both.  It showed you were wrong.

What I said would finally destroy evolution is finding hard evidence of humans and dinosaurs together.  You are wrong once more and keep contradicting yourself with evolution.


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> Ho, you constantly fail.  You simply ignore anything and anybody that does not agree with you.  Hell, I had to literally shove it in your face on at least two different occasions that your evidence was fake, and you still believe it.
> 
> That is not winning, that is a mental disorder.


>>That is not winning, that is a mental disorder.<<

You need to stop bragging about your accomplishments with mental disorder.

Having the mental disorder of atheism with no evidence is nothing to say nor brag about to people.

How can I fail when science backs the Bible and me up?  It's why I started to use the Bible and creation science here.

I've already destroyed you with Pasteur's swan neck experiment.  It disproved abiogenesis.  Without that, evolution couldn't have a beginning.

As for the rest, I presented creation days, KCA and explained the Big Bang perfectly to demonstrate how spacetime, universe, Earth, and everything in it started.

On top of that, I get everything while the atheists get what they get.  The atheists don't know what _everything_ is.  That's besides winning the arguments here against evolution and the atheists.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> You couldn't explain how The White Cliffs of Dover got there.  It wasn't by evolution.
> 
> You couldn't explain how the limestone got on top of Mt. Everest.  Again, it wasn't by evolution.
> 
> The best explanation is the global flood for both.  It showed you were wrong.


No, the worst explanation is a global flood.  Neither the chalk nor the mountain top limestone could form in the chaos of a flood.  Both take long periods of quiet deposition followed by gradual uplift from continental drift.



james bond said:


> What I said would finally destroy evolution is finding hard evidence of humans and dinosaurs together.  You are wrong once more and keep contradicting yourself with evolution.


You're not right than finding hard evidence of humans and dinosaurs together would finally destroy evolution.  But it hasn't happened yet and almost certainly never will.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Cults have a history of “go another direction”.


I assume the people you posted are your buddies in the flat Earth society.  I wouldn't brag about them to others.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> No, the worst explanation is a global flood.  Neither the chalk nor the mountain top limestone could form in the chaos of a flood.  Both take long periods of quiet deposition followed by gradual uplift from continental drift.
> 
> 
> You're not right than finding hard evidence of humans and dinosaurs together would finally destroy evolution.  But it hasn't happened yet and almost certainly never will.


The _best_ explanation is the global flood for both.  It explains how something buried deep below the seafloor rose up.  You admitted flooding causes chalk deposits like the Dover cliffs and they're found in other places around the world.

I still think the easiest way for atheists to learn the truth about evolution is to die, but now there is something else that will disprove evolution and not have to die.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I assume the people you posted are your buddies in the flat Earth society.  I wouldn't brag about them to others.


As you know, they were religious extremists who you seem to model your behavior upon.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The _best_ explanation is the global flood for both.  It explains how something buried deep below the seafloor rose up.  You admitted flooding causes chalk deposits like the Dover cliffs and they're found in other places around the world.
> 
> I still think the easiest way for atheists to learn the truth about evolution is to die, but now there is something else that will disprove evolution and not have to die.



“I still think the easiest way for atheists to learn the truth about evolution is to die,”

When religious extremism becomes a mental disorder.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> The _best_ explanation is the global flood for both. It explains how something buried deep below the seafloor rose up. You admitted flooding causes chalk deposits like the Dover cliffs and they're found in other places around the world.


If the water volume deep in the mantle is the same as all the water in the ocean, there are 332,500,000 cubic miles of water in the mantle.

The surface area of the earth is 197,000,000 sq mi. A simple division shows that the water in the ocean would rise by 1.6 miles if all the mantle water were added to it.

The tallest mountain is over 4 miles high.

That means the mantle water will not cover all the mountains of the earth. You would need added ocean water to to at least 3 times more to cover all the mountains. Even then, how would you get 3 oceans full of water to drain off in a few months?

Creationism needs a whole lot of 'splainin to do.
.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> The trees were in heaven or the garden of paradise. It wasn't Earth in the beginning. After Adam's sin, God folded up the universe and created a new universe with Earth and sin. He left our current universe as he can't be where there is sin.


This is Science and Technology, right?


----------



## Mushroom

Wuwei said:


> A simple division shows that the water in the ocean would rise by 1.6 miles if all the mantle water were added to it.



And it is even more complex than that.  As the loss of water from the mantle in some kind of magical event would mean that something would have to take it's place.  Most likely through subsidence, lowering the surface by just as much and in the end creating a total increase of zero feet.

This is the same kind of junk science that causes people to scream that the melting of the arctic ice pack would cause sea levels to rise.  The entire arctic could melt, and the oceans would not rise a single inch.  But those that do not comprehend science just do not believe that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

cnm said:


> This is Science and Technology, right?


This is james bond  the troll sucking all the oxygen out of another science thread. Notice he never posts in the religion section. Or in any other section.

 Weird, huh? Reeks of sock puppet....


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> If the water volume deep in the mantle is the same as all the water in the ocean, there are 332,500,000 cubic miles of water in the mantle.
> 
> The surface area of the earth is 197,000,000 sq mi. A simple division shows that the water in the ocean would rise by 1.6 miles if all the mantle water were added to it.
> 
> The tallest mountain is over 4 miles high.
> 
> That means the mantle water will not cover all the mountains of the earth. You would need added ocean water to to at least 3 times more to cover all the mountains. Even then, how would you get 3 oceans full of water to drain off in a few months?
> 
> Creationism needs a whole lot of 'splainin to do.
> .


Evolution can't explain anything.

Anyway, you troll, the answer is here.  I'm surprised you're not dead yet.  It's coming.  You're one of the early ones to go.









						Where did all the water come from? - creation.com
					

Water for Noah's Flood probably came from Earth's mantle and atmosphere.




					creation.com


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Evolution can't explain anything.
> 
> Anyway, you troll, the answer is here.  I'm surprised you're not dead yet.  It's coming.  You're one of the early ones to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did all the water come from? - creation.com
> 
> 
> Water for Noah's Flood probably came from Earth's mantle and atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com



“You're one of the early ones to go.”




Antisocial personality disorder
Also called: ASPD
Description
A mental health disorder characterized by disregard for other people.
Those with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) may begin to show symptoms in childhood, but the condition can't be diagnosed until adolescence or adulthood.


----------



## cnm

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is @james bond the troll sucking all the oxygen out of another science thread.


What amuses me is that an avowed Christian would choose an adulterous murderer as an avatar.
Something strange going on there fer shure...


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The _best_ explanation is the global flood for both.  It explains how something buried deep below the seafloor rose up.  You admitted flooding causes chalk deposits like the Dover cliffs and they're found in other places around the world.


I wrote: *Neither the chalk nor the mountain top limestone could form in the chaos of a flood*
You wrote:* You admitted flooding causes chalk deposits*

Really????  Am I using words you don't understand?


----------



## Wuwei

Mushroom said:


> And it is even more complex than that. As the loss of water from the mantle in some kind of magical event would mean that something would have to take it's place. Most likely through subsidence, lowering the surface by just as much and in the end creating a total increase of zero feet.
> 
> This is the same kind of junk science that causes people to scream that the melting of the arctic ice pack would cause sea levels to rise. The entire arctic could melt, and the oceans would not rise a single inch. But those that do not comprehend science just do not believe that.


It's even more complicated than that. Researchers (I forgot the reference) think that 600 miles below the mantle the "water" is in the form of a magnesium hydroxide. If that hydroxide was let loose and rose the mantle would contain magnesium. The volume of that hydroxide may be as large as the ocean itself. After the flood, how the water could drain down 600 miles and rejoin with the magnesium as it is today would be, shall we say, problematic. Especially since the mantle would collapse, as you said.
.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I wrote: *Neither the chalk nor the mountain top limestone could form in the chaos of a flood*
> You wrote:* You admitted flooding causes chalk deposits*
> 
> Really????  Am I using words you don't understand?


That's even worse.  We know you can't explain The White Cliffs of Dover even though you tried to use it in an example.  Now, you think it can form in the chaos of a flood???!!!???!!!  How stupid can anyone be lol? 

Now, a flood can cause the fossils to rise, but you don't know how.  The evidence is The White Cliffs of Dover and Mt. Everest, but it has gone over your head .

I'll post it for the ones who can read and figure it out -- White Cliffs of Dover.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Evolution can't explain anything.
> 
> Anyway, you troll, the answer is here.  I'm surprised you're not dead yet.  It's coming.  You're one of the early ones to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did all the water come from? - creation.com
> 
> 
> Water for Noah's Flood probably came from Earth's mantle and atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com


The source you referenced cites another reference for their information which states.
_But this water is not a series of immense seas. Rather, it is scattered in droplets, some as small as a single molecule, with most trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressures. How much there is down there is still fiercely debated._​What water that is trapped in the earth is not all that available. What strains the physical reality even more is the process of getting the water back into the mantel as we think it is today -- dispersed and locked inside crystal lattices.

Do you have an explanation for how receding flood water could force it's way down many miles and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures?

The reference goes on to state,
_The Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago from a swirling cloud of dust, and gases such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane._​That reference is a bit counter productive to the point the authors from your creation site are trying to make. The authors still did not give a physical mechanism. They just gave some maybe's. "Maybe" is not science unless there is a clear physical hypothesis.
.


----------



## james bond

Honestly, I was trying to give credit to alang1216 for at least knowing how the fossils deep below the ocean rose to form the white cliffs.  Didn't we talk about this?  Some evos think the Colorado River rose and other geological events happened about a couple billion years ago to form the Grand Canyon.


----------



## Mushroom

Wuwei said:


> It's even more complicated than that. Researchers (I forgot the reference) think that 600 miles below the mantle the "water" is in the form of a magnesium hydroxide.



Hence, why I implied it could only happen through magic.


----------



## Mushroom

Wuwei said:


> The Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago from a swirling cloud of dust, and gases such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane.



And we know that is not true.  

Earth Mark I was created at around 4.7-4.8 gya.  4.5 gya is when Earth Mark I and Theia collided, leaving us with the current Earth Mark II.

The issue with the earlier dates of 4.5 gya is that they were formed based only on direct observation of the Earth itself, before it was realized that was when a massive collision happened that left us with the planet we have now.  That was actually an old theory, but only started to gain traction thanks to computer modeling then becoming available in the 1970's, along with analysis of rocks from the Moon that suggested that they were of terrestrial origin.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> Honestly,


Can it get funnier?


----------



## james bond

The atheists are practically on their death knell now as evolution will be destroyed in front of their eyes in this forum with hard evidence of dinosaurs and humans living together.  It would be like me putting my hand into the hearts of the atheists here and tearing it out.  It would be painful, yes lol?  







I don't think I mentioned St. George and the dragon in this forum, but suddenly it has come into prominence -- Saint George and the Dragon lol.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> The atheists are practically on their death knell now as evolution will be destroyed in front of their eyes in this forum with hard evidence of dinosaurs and humans living together. It would be like me putting my hand into the hearts of the atheists here and tearing it out. It would be painful, yes lol?


My god you are getting gruesome especially for a Christian. I have never seen Christians nor non-Christians on this board relishing death on others like it is done in that post. Don't let you hatred destroy you!
.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The atheists are practically on their death knell now as evolution will be destroyed in front of their eyes in this forum with hard evidence of dinosaurs and humans living together.  It would be like me putting my hand into the hearts of the atheists here and tearing it out.  It would be painful, yes lol?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I mentioned St. George and the dragon in this forum, but suddenly it has come into prominence -- Saint George and the Dragon lol.


Ah. Fantasy of yourself as a wannabe crusader. Real creepy, actually.


----------



## BackAgain

I know what one fossil just said:


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Ah. Fantasy of yourself as a wannabe crusader. Real creepy, actually.


Yes, he is taking his religion back to the worst times that modern Christianity would like to forget.


----------



## Wuwei

BackAgain said:


> I know what one fossil just said:


For god sake Troll. What does that have to do with the OP of this thread. Just go away.


----------



## BackAgain

Wuwei said:


> For god sake Troll. What does that have to do with the OP of this thread. Just go away.


You don’t grasp talking fossils as relevant to *this* thread? You are one dumbass motherfucker.

But as long we’re offering unsolicited advice:  *go suck another bag of dicks*. 👍


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Ah. Fantasy of yourself as a wannabe crusader. Real creepy, actually.


This is like the global flood myths that circled the world.  These stories were based on a true occurrence of humans living with dinosaurs -- “The Dragon and the Prince” | Stories from Around the World | Traditional | Lit2Go ETC.  I suspect the sauropods were hunted down by humans for their meat.

What if the dinosaurs are still alive to this day?  That would be the ultimate death knell for the atheists here.


----------



## Hollie

Wuwei said:


> Yes, he is taking his religion back to the worst times that modern Christianity would like to forget.


I agree. He seems to lament a time long ago when mobs could burn old women at the stake.  It seems for some, their religion is just a vehicle for intense hatred of themselves and others. I can't help but notice the Lad has gotten progressively more outspoken about his wish for others to meet their death at the hands of his angry gods. 

He's quite far removed from the attitudes of many Christians I know.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> That's even worse.  We know you can't explain The White Cliffs of Dover even though you tried to use it in an example.  Now, you think it can form in the chaos of a flood???!!!???!!!  How stupid can anyone be lol?


I'm starting to really worry about you.  YOU were the one who claimed the Flood caused the cliffs, is that not true?



james bond said:


> Now, a flood can cause the fossils to rise, but you don't know how.  The evidence is The White Cliffs of Dover and Mt. Everest, but it has gone over your head .


Do you know how a flood can cause the fossils to rise?  I don't but the fact that they have risen doesn't tell us how.


----------



## cnm

james bond said:


> What if the dinosaurs are still alive to this day? That would be the ultimate death knell for the atheists here.


007 would have to make it look like an accident...


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> I don't think I mentioned St. George and the dragon in this forum, but suddenly it has come into prominence



So what, are you actually trying to claim that there were dinosaurs in Southern Europe in the 4th Century CE?

This is why most of us laugh at you.  Your claims make absolutely no sense, other than to yourself.


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> What if the dinosaurs are still alive to this day?



They are.  We call them "birds".

Can you say "birds"?  Good, I knew you could.


----------



## Mushroom

alang1216 said:


> Do you know how a flood can cause the fossils to rise? I don't but the fact that they have risen doesn't tell us how.



Well, not really.  What flooding does is scour away the sediment that covers them and brings them to the surface.

This is something that all into some form of geology know.  I know that as soon as the spring rains ended, I used to go to the Point A Dam in Andalusia in Alabama and look for shark teeth.  And I was hardly the only one, when the weather broke the area would be flooded with others like me doing the same thing.

And also after the spring runoff ends in California.  The runoff would bring down a lot of gold, and once the waters receded and stream levels lowered was the best time to set up your equipment and extract it.  A few years ago after the Oro Dam disaster the banks of the Feather River almost all the way to Sacramento were packed with prospectors like my wife and I.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I'm starting to really worry about you.  YOU were the one who claimed the Flood caused the cliffs, is that not true?
> 
> 
> Do you know how a flood can cause the fossils to rise?  I don't but the fact that they have risen doesn't tell us how.


Let's just agree that you can't figure out science for yourself.  I'm not sure if you understood how fossilization worked.  Also, you don't sound like the type to have a limestone driveway and walkway.  You can have a chalk one.


----------



## cnm

I love the way limestone has the same three ingredients in the same proportions.


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> So what, are you actually trying to claim that there were dinosaurs in Southern Europe in the 4th Century CE?
> 
> This is why most of us laugh at you.  Your claims make absolutely no sense, other than to yourself.


You don't sound smart enough to understand that birds and dinosaurs lived together at the same time.  There were fossils found of ducks and other birds, but the atheist scientists are lying and ignoring the evidence because it contradicts their macroevolution.  Moreover, you couldn't explain how the ape-human Judy ever got a mate.  If she was bipedal, where are her footprints?


----------



## Wuwei

Mushroom said:


> Well, not really.  What flooding does is scour away the sediment that covers them and brings them to the surface.
> 
> This is something that all into some form of geology know.  I know that as soon as the spring rains ended, I used to go to the Point A Dam in Andalusia in Alabama and look for shark teeth.  And I was hardly the only one, when the weather broke the area would be flooded with others like me doing the same thing.
> 
> And also after the spring runoff ends in California.  The runoff would bring down a lot of gold, and once the waters receded and stream levels lowered was the best time to set up your equipment and extract it.  A few years ago after the Oro Dam disaster the banks of the Feather River almost all the way to Sacramento were packed with prospectors like my wife and I.


How much gold did you get. How do you sell it?


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> You don't sound smart enough to understand that birds and dinosaurs lived together at the same time. There were fossils found of ducks and other birds, but the atheist scientists are lying and ignoring the evidence because it contradicts their macroevolution.



No, there was not.

The closest thing to a "duck" was the Vegavis Iaai, but it was not even an ancestor of a duck.  Just a bird that had similarities with it.

Funny how you see scientists as "lying".  You are aware that you are showing distinct signs of sociopathy, are you not?  The more you scream that everybody else is lying, while posting frauds and lies yourself only gives you less than zero credibility.

And these constant insults from you are just petty.


----------



## Mushroom

Wuwei said:


> How much gold did you get. How do you sell it?



I think the best we pulled out was a little over 1/4 ounce over a weekend.  My wife and I were not real serious about it, was just a hobby to us.

And the local pawn shop bought it.  They bought gold from most of the prospectors in the area.  Most pawn shops will buy gold in any form.


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> No, there was not.
> 
> The closest thing to a "duck" was the Vegavis Iaai, but it was not even an ancestor of a duck.  Just a bird that had similarities with it.
> 
> Funny how you see scientists as "lying".  You are aware that you are showing distinct signs of sociopathy, are you not?  The more you scream that everybody else is lying, while posting frauds and lies yourself only gives you less than zero credibility.
> 
> And these constant insults from you are just petty.


BTW, I'm back.  God wants me to continue doing what I've been doing here.  I'm not really political, so will continue to support and point out creation science here.

I'm not going to argue with you Mushroom.  You don't seem qualified to discuss science, i.e. have the education.  For example, you have no evidence for dinosaurs became birds while I provided that ducks and other birds lived with dinosaurs.


----------



## Wuwei

Mushroom said:


> No, there was not.
> 
> The closest thing to a "duck" was the Vegavis Iaai, but it was not even an ancestor of a duck.  Just a bird that had similarities with it.
> 
> Funny how you see scientists as "lying".  You are aware that you are showing distinct signs of sociopathy, are you not?  The more you scream that everybody else is lying, while posting frauds and lies yourself only gives you less than zero credibility.
> 
> And these constant insults from you are just petty.


I think you guys are feeding a manic troll. He really doesn't care what you say. He will keep replying the same.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> BTW, I'm back.  God wants me to continue doing what I've been doing here.  I'm not really political, so will continue to support and point out creation science here.
> 
> I'm not going to argue with you Mushroom.  You don't seem qualified to discuss science, i.e. have the education.  For example, you have no evidence for dinosaurs became birds while I provided that ducks and other birds lived with dinosaurs.



“God wants me to continue doing what I've been doing here.”

Some of the most despicable religious cult leaders made the same pronouncements.

To suggest you’re hearing commands from the gods Is an indication of a mental disorder.

Did you realize you just announced your intention to spam the science forum? Please take your street corner proselytizing to the religion forum.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> “God wants me to continue doing what I've been doing here.”
> 
> Some of the most despicable religious cult leaders made the same pronouncements.
> 
> To suggest you’re hearing commands from the gods Is an indication of a mental disorder.
> 
> Did you realize you just announced your intention to spam the science forum? Please take your street corner proselytizing to the religion forum.


My meanest thoughts would be to give the atheists here the bullwhip.  And when they beg for mercy and water, a bucket of vinegar instead.  Ouch.

Yet, they say burning is the worst pain in the world.  That's beyond my scope.

Now, you're stuck on religious cult leaders in the science section instead of flat Earth as Flattie Hollie.  Shouldn't you take your bitterness and embarrassing diatribe to the religious section?

Anyway, back to dinosaurs.  For some reason, what other animals they lived with destroys evolution.  For example, they lived with ducks but the atheist scientists will no admit it was a duck even though it looked like a duck, walked like a duck, and swam like a duck.

"In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries. When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a surprise.




> “I interviewed a scientist at the Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley who discussed a parrot fossil they had found in Cretaceous layers (‘dinosaur rock’). But the parrot fossil was not on display in the museum.”


 
With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the sources can be found in _Living Fossils_)."









						Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com
					

Fossils of many modern birds are found with dinosaurs, but almost no museums display them, thus misleading the public.




					creation.com


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> My meanest thoughts would be to give the atheists here the bullwhip.  And when they beg for mercy and water, a bucket of vinegar instead.  Ouch.
> 
> Yet, they say burning is the worst pain in the world.  That's beyond my scope.
> 
> Now, you're stuck on religious cult leaders in the science section instead of flat Earth as Flattie Hollie.  Shouldn't you take your bitterness and embarrassing diatribe to the religious section?
> 
> Anyway, back to dinosaurs.  For some reason, what other animals they lived with destroys evolution.  For example, they lived with ducks but the atheist scientists will no admit it was a duck even though it looked like a duck, walked like a duck, and swam like a duck.
> 
> "In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries. When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the sources can be found in _Living Fossils_)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com
> 
> 
> Fossils of many modern birds are found with dinosaurs, but almost no museums display them, thus misleading the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com



“My meanest thoughts would be to give the atheists here the bullwhip. And when they beg for mercy and water, a bucket of vinegar instead.
Ouch.”

This is the wrong place for your lurid,  psycho-sexual fantasies.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> “My meanest thoughts would be to give the atheists here the bullwhip. And when they beg for mercy and water, a bucket of vinegar instead.
> Ouch.”
> 
> This is the wrong place for your lurid,  psycho-sexual fantasies.


Lol.  I just had a meaner thought.  

When I discover hard evidence for humans living with dinosaurs, then I just keep it to myself.  That will force the atheists to learn the truth of the wrath of God _after_ they die. It's par for the course daily for atheist scientists to keep the real evidence from the atheists and evolutionists.

What difference would it make?  You don't believe the evidence I present anyway.


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> When I discover hard evidence for humans living with dinosaurs, then I just keep it to myself.



Well, since every time you did try to present such it was easily proven to be a fraud that is probably a good idea.

Like the cave that magically was teleported from France to Kuwait, and got drawings that never existed at the same time.


----------



## Blues Man

The fossil record is far from complete.

Lasting fossils only occur under very specific conditions and the vast majority of life dies leaving little or no trace of its existence


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> *Anyway, back to dinosaurs.  For some reason, what other animals they lived with destroys evolution.  For example, they lived with ducks but the atheist scientists will no admit it was a duck even though it looked like a duck, walked like a duck, and swam like a duck.
> 
> "In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries. When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a surprise.*
> 
> 
> 
> With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the sources can be found in _Living Fossils_)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com
> 
> 
> Fossils of many modern birds are found with dinosaurs, but almost no museums display them, thus misleading the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com


Did Parrots Evolve From Dinosaurs?​Parrots share characteristics with certain dinosaurs that ruled the earth millions of years ago. They have similar biological features, such as short arms, beaks, and three-toed feet. This is because all birds evolved from dinosaurs.

*Parrots are descended from a group of dinosaurs called theropods. Theropods were small, carnivorous dinosaurs that first appeared on earth over 200 million years ago. Over time, they grew smaller in size, lost their teeth, and their short arms evolved into wings.*
Most paleontologists consider modern birds, including parrots, to be “living dinosaurs.” *That’s because the first birds appeared on earth around 100 million years ago. *Though they have changed considerably over time, their dinosaur-like features can still be identified.


How Are Birds Related to Dinosaurs?​It may be hard to look at a bird and imagine that it had a ferocious, scaly, reptilian beast as an ancestor. However, every bird that currently walks (or flies) on this earth is descended from dinosaurs.

This includes wild birds like crows, farmed birds like chickens, and pet birds like parrots. If it has feathers and two wings, there are dinosaurs in its family tree. Biologists often refer to birds as “avian dinosaurs” or “living dinosaurs.”

It’s thought that *birds separated from dinosaurs around 100 million years ago. Before then, birds didn’t exist, but theropods did. These were the small, carnivorous, bipedal dinosaurs that our feathered friends evolved from.*

There’s evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Paleontologists have examined ancient fossils and found similarities between the skeletons of dinosaurs and modern birds.

They have also discovered a transitional fossil called Archaeopteryx. This species is thought to be the oldest bird and was very dinosaur-like in appearance. Upon its discovery, it was regarded as the missing link between birds and non-avian dinosaurs.

Do Birds and Dinosaurs Have a Common Ancestor?​Because birds evolved from dinosaurs, it would be incorrect to say that birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor. Rather, dinosaurs _are_ the ancestors of modern birds. Specifically, birds are descended from a clade of dinosaurs called theropods.

Theropods evolved during the late Triassic period, around 200-250 million years ago. There were many different species of theropods, but they all shared certain characteristics:


*Carnivorous*. All theropods were originally meat-eaters, though some groups evolved to eat plants over time.
*Bipedal*. All theropods walked on two legs, just like modern birds. Most theropods had shortened, clawed forelimbs that may have been used to hold fish or climb trees.
*Three-toed*. Theropods had three functional, clawed, scaly toes (most modern birds eventually evolved a fourth).
*Feathered*. Some theropods were fully feathered (only retaining scales on their feet). Others had a mixture of feathers and scales in varying proportions.
The best-known theropod is the _Tyrannosaurus rex_. This ferocious dinosaur _did_ share a common ancestor with birds. _Tyrannosaurus rex_ was still walking the earth 65 million years ago, long after birds had already begun to evolve.

All birds originally evolved from theropods, as did other carnivorous dinosaurs. Over the millennia, birds diversified into several distinct families, all with different evolutionary adaptations.

The remaining dinosaurs, of course, perished in a mass extinction.

What Are the Similarities between Birds and Dinosaurs?​[.......]
[.......]








						Did Parrots Evolve from Dinosaurs? — All About Parrots
					

Parrots share characteristics with certain dinosaurs that ruled the earth millions of years ago. Dinosaurs have similar biological features, such as short arms, beaks, and three-toed feet. That’s because all […]




					www.allaboutparrots.com
				





`


----------



## james bond

Mushroom said:


> Well, since every time you did try to present such it was easily proven to be a fraud that is probably a good idea.
> 
> Like the cave that magically was teleported from France to Kuwait, and got drawings that never existed at the same time.


This is why it's useless to talk with you about science, so you can be ignored.  There was no fraud by me.  You make a mountain out of a molehill.  It's evidence of you being small minded.  The huge fraud was with evolutionists and their scientists such as Dawson's Piltdown Man and Haeckel's embryo because there isn't any evidence for evolution.  The atheists lose again.















						The Piltdown Man Fraud
					

“Britain’s Greatest Hoax” is the title of the Timewatch investigation of the Piltdown Man fraud, shown on BBC2 television recently.




					answersingenesis.org
				

















						Major Evolutionary Blunders: Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination
					

“Generations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.”1 Science magazine is referring to Haeckel’s sketches of diverse animal embryos first published in 1874 (Figure 1). They report that Haeckel...




					www.icr.org


----------



## Mushroom

james bond said:


> There was no fraud by me.













"no fraud".


----------



## alang1216

Mushroom said:


> Well, not really.  What flooding does is scour away the sediment that covers them and brings them to the surface.
> 
> This is something that all into some form of geology know.  I know that as soon as the spring rains ended, I used to go to the Point A Dam in Andalusia in Alabama and look for shark teeth.  And I was hardly the only one, when the weather broke the area would be flooded with others like me doing the same thing.
> 
> And also after the spring runoff ends in California.  The runoff would bring down a lot of gold, and once the waters receded and stream levels lowered was the best time to set up your equipment and extract it.  A few years ago after the Oro Dam disaster the banks of the Feather River almost all the way to Sacramento were packed with prospectors like my wife and I.


Erosion won't raise mountains.  I think that is what james bond is claiming.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Let's just agree that you can't figure out science for yourself.


Nope.  I don't think you're any authority to make that judgement.



james bond said:


> I'm not sure if you understood how fossilization worked.


I know quite a bit about fossils and geology at least compared to the knowledge you've displayed so far.



james bond said:


> Also, you don't sound like the type to have a limestone driveway and walkway.  You can have a chalk one.


Concrete lasts longer than limestone here in VA so that is what I have.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Did Parrots Evolve From Dinosaurs?​Parrots share characteristics with certain dinosaurs that ruled the earth millions of years ago. They have similar biological features, such as short arms, beaks, and three-toed feet. This is because all birds evolved from dinosaurs.
> 
> *Parrots are descended from a group of dinosaurs called theropods. Theropods were small, carnivorous dinosaurs that first appeared on earth over 200 million years ago. Over time, they grew smaller in size, lost their teeth, and their short arms evolved into wings.*
> Most paleontologists consider modern birds, including parrots, to be “living dinosaurs.” *That’s because the first birds appeared on earth around 100 million years ago. *Though they have changed considerably over time, their dinosaur-like features can still be identified.
> 
> 
> How Are Birds Related to Dinosaurs?​It may be hard to look at a bird and imagine that it had a ferocious, scaly, reptilian beast as an ancestor. However, every bird that currently walks (or flies) on this earth is descended from dinosaurs.
> 
> This includes wild birds like crows, farmed birds like chickens, and pet birds like parrots. If it has feathers and two wings, there are dinosaurs in its family tree. Biologists often refer to birds as “avian dinosaurs” or “living dinosaurs.”
> 
> It’s thought that *birds separated from dinosaurs around 100 million years ago. Before then, birds didn’t exist, but theropods did. These were the small, carnivorous, bipedal dinosaurs that our feathered friends evolved from.*
> 
> There’s evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Paleontologists have examined ancient fossils and found similarities between the skeletons of dinosaurs and modern birds.
> 
> They have also discovered a transitional fossil called Archaeopteryx. This species is thought to be the oldest bird and was very dinosaur-like in appearance. Upon its discovery, it was regarded as the missing link between birds and non-avian dinosaurs.
> 
> Do Birds and Dinosaurs Have a Common Ancestor?​Because birds evolved from dinosaurs, it would be incorrect to say that birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor. Rather, dinosaurs _are_ the ancestors of modern birds. Specifically, birds are descended from a clade of dinosaurs called theropods.
> 
> Theropods evolved during the late Triassic period, around 200-250 million years ago. There were many different species of theropods, but they all shared certain characteristics:
> 
> 
> *Carnivorous*. All theropods were originally meat-eaters, though some groups evolved to eat plants over time.
> *Bipedal*. All theropods walked on two legs, just like modern birds. Most theropods had shortened, clawed forelimbs that may have been used to hold fish or climb trees.
> *Three-toed*. Theropods had three functional, clawed, scaly toes (most modern birds eventually evolved a fourth).
> *Feathered*. Some theropods were fully feathered (only retaining scales on their feet). Others had a mixture of feathers and scales in varying proportions.
> The best-known theropod is the _Tyrannosaurus rex_. This ferocious dinosaur _did_ share a common ancestor with birds. _Tyrannosaurus rex_ was still walking the earth 65 million years ago, long after birds had already begun to evolve.
> 
> All birds originally evolved from theropods, as did other carnivorous dinosaurs. Over the millennia, birds diversified into several distinct families, all with different evolutionary adaptations.
> 
> The remaining dinosaurs, of course, perished in a mass extinction.
> 
> What Are the Similarities between Birds and Dinosaurs?​[.......]
> [.......]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Parrots Evolve from Dinosaurs? — All About Parrots
> 
> 
> Parrots share characteristics with certain dinosaurs that ruled the earth millions of years ago. Dinosaurs have similar biological features, such as short arms, beaks, and three-toed feet. That’s because all […]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.allaboutparrots.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


Welcome back.  The hard evidence for atheists to accept.

"In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries. When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a surprise.




> “I interviewed a scientist at the Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley who discussed a parrot fossil they had found in Cretaceous layers (‘dinosaur rock’). But the parrot fossil was not on display in the museum.”


 
With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the sources can be found in _Living Fossils_)."









						Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com
					

Fossils of many modern birds are found with dinosaurs, but almost no museums display them, thus misleading the public.




					creation.com
				




So, why do the mythological stories continued to be believed by the atheists and their scientists?  It's from the many articles that atheist scientists have wrote in order to support evolution.  The hard evidence isn't there.  Your example isn't even verified.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Welcome back.  The hard evidence for atheists to accept.
> 
> "In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries. When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins, owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the sources can be found in _Living Fossils_)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern birds with dinosaurs - creation.com
> 
> 
> Fossils of many modern birds are found with dinosaurs, but almost no museums display them, thus misleading the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do the mythological stories continued to be believed by the atheists and their scientists?  It's from the many articles that atheist scientists have wrote in order to support evolution.  The hard evidence isn't there.  Your example isn't even verified.


Silly conspiracy theories from creationer loons are pretty standard.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Erosion won't raise mountains.  I think that is what james bond is claiming.


A global flood would cause what happened with the Himalayas and Mt. Everest (with limestone on top).

With The Cliffs of Dover, the oceans rose over the cliffs and left the chalk fossils from the seafloor on the sides of the cliffs with a volcanic action.

With The Grand Canyon, I agree it was erosion, but it happened in a short amount of time, i.e. not millions of years.

I doubt we will agree on geology as your side believes in uniformitarianism while my side is strictly catastrophism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> A global flood would cause what happened with the Himalayas and Mt. Everest (with limestone on top).
> 
> With The Cliffs of Dover, the oceans rose over the cliffs and left the chalk fossils from the seafloor on the sides of the cliffs with a volcanic action.
> 
> With The Grand Canyon, I agree it was erosion, but it happened in a short amount of time, i.e. not millions of years.
> 
> I doubt we will agree on geology as your side believes in uniformitarianism while my side is strictly catastrophism.


Creationers believe in many nonsensical things; a flat, 6,000 year old earth, talking snakes, etc.

There is no belief required in science. Science relies on hypothesis, testing and fact gathering.

BTW, the planet is spherical.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Nope.  I don't think you're any authority to make that judgement.
> 
> 
> I know quite a bit about fossils and geology at least compared to the knowledge you've displayed so far.
> 
> 
> Concrete lasts longer than limestone here in VA so that is what I have.


>>I know quite a bit about fossils and geology at least compared to the knowledge you've displayed so far.<<

Okay, this is what I was going to post to abu afak as what needs to occur for birds from dinosaurs.  You know my side doesn't believe in millions nor billions of years.  Please explain what they are talking about.



			https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/pala.12445


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> A global flood would cause what happened with the Himalayas and Mt. Everest (with limestone on top).


How exactly would that work?  Did the flood uplift the limestone or did it deposit the limestone?  In either case, why there and not everywhere if it was global?



james bond said:


> With The Cliffs of Dover, the oceans rose over the cliffs and left the chalk fossils from the seafloor on the sides of the cliffs with a volcanic action.


Is there any evidence of volcanism associated with the cliffs?  Spoiler alert: there is none.



james bond said:


> With The Grand Canyon, I agree it was erosion, but it happened in a short amount of time, i.e. not millions of years.


Where did the water come from, where did it go, and why only at that location?



james bond said:


> I doubt we will agree on geology as your side believes in uniformitarianism while my side is strictly catastrophism.


I doubt we will agree on geology as my side is strictly evidence-based.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> >>I know quite a bit about fossils and geology at least compared to the knowledge you've displayed so far.<<
> 
> Okay, this is what I was going to post to abu afak as what needs to occur for birds from dinosaurs.  You know my side doesn't believe in millions nor billions of years.  Please explain what they are talking about.


Seems obvious to me, they are talking about differential preservation of feather components, not "birds from dinosaurs".


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> Did Parrots Evolve From Dinosaurs?​Parrots share characteristics with certain dinosaurs that ruled the earth millions of years ago. They have similar biological features, such as short arms, beaks, and three-toed feet. This is because all birds evolved from dinosaurs.
> 
> *Parrots are descended from a group of dinosaurs called theropods. Theropods were small, carnivorous dinosaurs that first appeared on earth over 200 million years ago. Over time, they grew smaller in size, lost their teeth, and their short arms evolved into wings.*
> Most paleontologists consider modern birds, including parrots, to be “living dinosaurs.” *That’s because the first birds appeared on earth around 100 million years ago. *Though they have changed considerably over time, their dinosaur-like features can still be identified.
> 
> 
> How Are Birds Related to Dinosaurs?​It may be hard to look at a bird and imagine that it had a ferocious, scaly, reptilian beast as an ancestor. However, every bird that currently walks (or flies) on this earth is descended from dinosaurs.
> 
> This includes wild birds like crows, farmed birds like chickens, and pet birds like parrots. If it has feathers and two wings, there are dinosaurs in its family tree. Biologists often refer to birds as “avian dinosaurs” or “living dinosaurs.”
> 
> It’s thought that *birds separated from dinosaurs around 100 million years ago. Before then, birds didn’t exist, but theropods did. These were the small, carnivorous, bipedal dinosaurs that our feathered friends evolved from.*
> 
> There’s evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Paleontologists have examined ancient fossils and found similarities between the skeletons of dinosaurs and modern birds.
> 
> They have also discovered a transitional fossil called Archaeopteryx. This species is thought to be the oldest bird and was very dinosaur-like in appearance. Upon its discovery, it was regarded as the missing link between birds and non-avian dinosaurs.
> 
> Do Birds and Dinosaurs Have a Common Ancestor?​Because birds evolved from dinosaurs, it would be incorrect to say that birds and dinosaurs share a common ancestor. Rather, dinosaurs _are_ the ancestors of modern birds. Specifically, birds are descended from a clade of dinosaurs called theropods.
> 
> Theropods evolved during the late Triassic period, around 200-250 million years ago. There were many different species of theropods, but they all shared certain characteristics:
> 
> 
> *Carnivorous*. All theropods were originally meat-eaters, though some groups evolved to eat plants over time.
> *Bipedal*. All theropods walked on two legs, just like modern birds. Most theropods had shortened, clawed forelimbs that may have been used to hold fish or climb trees.
> *Three-toed*. Theropods had three functional, clawed, scaly toes (most modern birds eventually evolved a fourth).
> *Feathered*. Some theropods were fully feathered (only retaining scales on their feet). Others had a mixture of feathers and scales in varying proportions.
> The best-known theropod is the _Tyrannosaurus rex_. This ferocious dinosaur _did_ share a common ancestor with birds. _Tyrannosaurus rex_ was still walking the earth 65 million years ago, long after birds had already begun to evolve.
> 
> All birds originally evolved from theropods, as did other carnivorous dinosaurs. Over the millennia, birds diversified into several distinct families, all with different evolutionary adaptations.
> 
> The remaining dinosaurs, of course, perished in a mass extinction.
> 
> What Are the Similarities between Birds and Dinosaurs?​[.......]
> [.......]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Parrots Evolve from Dinosaurs? — All About Parrots
> 
> 
> Parrots share characteristics with certain dinosaurs that ruled the earth millions of years ago. Dinosaurs have similar biological features, such as short arms, beaks, and three-toed feet. That’s because all […]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.allaboutparrots.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> `


No, parrots aren't dinosaurs.  The evidence shows they lived at the same time with the dinosaurs.  There's no evidence of evolution.

Humans lived with dinosaurs though.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> No, parrots aren't dinosaurs.  The evidence shows they lived at the same time with the dinosaurs.  There's no evidence of evolution.
> 
> Humans lived with dinosaurs though.


Such is the profound ignorance spewed by religious extremists.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Such is the profound ignorance spewed by religious extremists.


Don't you love creation science?  It's real science and is backed up by real science.  Not the fake birds from dinosaurs bullshit.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> No, parrots aren't dinosaurs.  The evidence shows they lived at the same time with the dinosaurs.  There's no evidence of evolution.


If evolution is true and birds evolved from dinosaurs we'd expect to find:

dinosaurs with feathers
birds with scales
dinosaurs with hollow, bird-like bones
birds with teeth
birds with dinosaur tails
birds and dinosaurs with similar skeletons
dinosaurs with beaks
And lo and behold, we find ALL these things.



james bond said:


> Humans lived with dinosaurs though.


I thought creation science was based on evidence?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Don't you love creation science?  It's real science and is backed up by real science.  Not the fake birds from dinosaurs bullshit.


There is no such discipline as 'creationer science'. The term is a false label used by Christian extremists.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> >>I know quite a bit about fossils and geology at least compared to the knowledge you've displayed so far.<<
> 
> Okay, this is what I was going to post to abu afak as what needs to occur for birds from dinosaurs.  You know my side doesn't believe in millions nor billions of years.  Please explain what they are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/pala.12445


It's important to understand that the creationer 'side' is a very small collection of religious extremists.

Your 'side' has an important role in contradicting your own feeble attempts at argument.

From the link you supplied: '' FOSSIL feathers play a pivotal role in our understanding of the evolutionary processes underlying the transition from non-avian dinosaurs to birds''. 

Your insistence that fossils don't exist, that ''evilution'' is false was just contradicted.... by you.

Well done, Laddie.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> >>I know quite a bit about fossils and geology at least compared to the knowledge you've displayed so far.<<
> 
> Okay, this is what I was going to post to abu afak as what needs to occur for birds from dinosaurs.  You know my side doesn't believe in millions nor billions of years.  Please explain what they are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/pala.12445


The text of the reference you posted mentions dinosaurs 2 times, and birds 3 times. It mentions feathers 63 times. 
They are talking about the fossilization of fucking feathers.
It is obvious that you have no understanding at all of what you are parroting. (<-- Using an appropriate bird idiom.) And it is obvious why you want someone else to explain it for you.
.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Such is the profound ignorance spewed by religious extremists.


The atheists and you can't figure this out, huh?

One of the things I wondered is why the USG funds these atheist papers on evolution?  After all, we're one nation under God, aren't we?  Of course, we are.  God is in the US Constitution and every state's constitution.  I hear even "Jesus" is in the US Constitution.

The simple answer is that taxpayers would complain if the US funded Answers in Genesis or creation.com.  Thus, they fund the so-called neutral science of atheism -- evolution -- or whatever flavor is the most popular.  It goes to show how clever Satan is.  Some believe the whore of Babylon to be the US.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The atheists and you can't figure this out, huh?
> 
> One of the things I wondered is why the USG funds these atheist papers on evolution?  After all, we're one nation under God, aren't we?  Of course, we are.  God is in the US Constitution and every state's constitution.  I hear even "Jesus" is in the US Constitution.
> 
> The simple answer is that taxpayers would complain if the US funded Answers in Genesis or creation.com.  Thus, they fund the so-called neutral science of atheism -- evolution -- or whatever flavor is the most popular.  It goes to show how clever Satan is.  Some believe the whore of Babylon to be the US.


Jeebus is nowhere in the body of the Constitution. Dear Zeus but you’re ignorant. 

There is no such thing as ‘neutral science of atheism”. Bring that up at the next meeting at the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Jeebus is nowhere in the body of the Constitution. Dear Zeus but you’re ignorant.
> 
> There is no such thing as ‘neutral science of atheism”. Bring that up at the next meeting at the Flat Earth Society.


You are right. Not only is Jesus not in the constitution but god is nowhere to be seen. I did a text search.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Such is the profound ignorance spewed by religious extremists.


This is why I get to keep saying, "Atheists must die." in order to know the truth.  I ♥ writing that lol.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Jeebus is nowhere in the body of the Constitution. Dear Zeus but you’re ignorant.
> 
> There is no such thing as ‘neutral science of atheism”. Bring that up at the next meeting at the Flat Earth Society.


If I find Jesus in the US Constitution, will you fall down on your knees and beg for forgiveness?  I'll give a discount with 50 lashes instead of customary 100.  I'll even toss in the apple cider vinegar free of charge lol.

You already know God is on our money, so why not Jesus in the US Constitution?

ETA:  Here it is,  "in the Year of Our Lord" 1787.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> This is why I get to keep saying, "Atheists must die." in order to know the truth.  I ♥ writing that lol.


Glad you enjoy it.  Atheists believe we *already *know the truth and you theists will *never *know the truth.  That only makes me sad for you.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> This is why I get to keep saying, "Atheists must die." in order to know the truth.  I ♥ writing that lol.


Of course, dear. What a good thing we have laws to keep people like you on a short leash.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> If I find Jesus in the US Constitution, will you fall down on your knees and beg for forgiveness?  I'll give a discount with 50 lashes instead of customary 100.  I'll even toss in the apple cider vinegar free of charge lol.
> 
> You already know God is on our money, so why not Jesus in the US Constitution?
> 
> ETA:  Here it is,  "in the Year of Our Lord" 1787.



Yours is a common claim of religious extremists. You’re just another run of the mill religious extremist.


Let’s get this straight for the hyper-religious loons. The Constitution is very secular in nature. Not one mention of Christianity. In fact, no mention or reference to any of your gods in the body of the Constitution, which is what I identified for you earlier. Hyper-religious loons like to use the “in the year of our lord” reference but of course, that’s nonsense. A closing salutation of “in the year of our lord” was common for the time. The fact remains, nowhere in the body of the Constitution is there any mention of the Christian gods.

*





						What is the ‘Year of our Lord’ doing on diplomas, government documents, and the Constitution? - Freedom From Religion Foundation
					

"Year of our Lord" is a religious relic that has been mostly discarded. This anachronistic dating convention is reported to FFRF from time to time as...




					ffrf.org
				



*​"Year of our Lord" is a religious relic that has been mostly discarded. This anachronistic dating convention is reported to FFRF from time to time as...


As it turns out, the closing salutation you insist was a reference to the christian gods was not intended to be a part of the Constitution.

From the link:

The "Year of our Lord" language is not actually even part of the Constitution itself, which ends at Article VII. The phrase was not debated or ratified by the Constitutional Convention and it seems unlikely that it was even approved by the delegates. In all likelihood, it was a formalism unthinkingly added by the Constitution's scribe, Jacob Shallus. Perhaps most importantly, the language was not viewed as having any religious significance at the time. In short, the "Year of our Lord" phrase appended to the Constitution has no real legal or historical value


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Glad you enjoy it.  Atheists believe we *already *know the truth and you theists will *never *know the truth.  That only makes me sad for you.


All you have to do is die and you'll know the truth that you have it backwards.  That's the hard truth for the atheists.  Don't be sad for me, but for you and your compadres here.  I already figured it out as _faith_ leads to God and science backs up the Bible.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Yours is a common claim of religious extremists. You’re just another run of the mill religious extremist.
> 
> 
> Let’s get this straight for the hyper-religious loons. The Constitution is very secular in nature. Not one mention of Christianity. In fact, no mention or reference to any of your gods in the body of the Constitution, which is what I identified for you earlier. Hyper-religious loons like to use the “in the year of our lord” reference but of course, that’s nonsense. A closing salutation of “in the year of our lord” was common for the time. The fact remains, nowhere in the body of the Constitution is there any mention of the Christian gods.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the ‘Year of our Lord’ doing on diplomas, government documents, and the Constitution? - Freedom From Religion Foundation
> 
> 
> "Year of our Lord" is a religious relic that has been mostly discarded. This anachronistic dating convention is reported to FFRF from time to time as...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ffrf.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *​"Year of our Lord" is a religious relic that has been mostly discarded. This anachronistic dating convention is reported to FFRF from time to time as...
> 
> 
> As it turns out, the closing salutation you insist was a reference to the christian gods was not intended to be a part of the Constitution.
> 
> From the link:
> 
> The "Year of our Lord" language is not actually even part of the Constitution itself, which ends at Article VII. The phrase was not debated or ratified by the Constitutional Convention and it seems unlikely that it was even approved by the delegates. In all likelihood, it was a formalism unthinkingly added by the Constitution's scribe, Jacob Shallus. Perhaps most importantly, the language was not viewed as having any religious significance at the time. In short, the "Year of our Lord" phrase appended to the Constitution has no real legal or historical value


It's easy to see you are easily fooled.  Just have the atheists send me their dirty money with God on it and I'll be sure it goes to a good cause.  You can give up on the US Constitution and move to another country.  Is there an Atheistland anywhere?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It's easy to see you are easily fooled.  Just have the atheists send me their dirty money with God on it and I'll be sure it goes to a good cause.  You can give up on the US Constitution and move to another country.  Is there an Atheistland anywhere?


So, yes. Trying to force your religious extremism into the Constitution was a total fail.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> That only makes me sad for you.


Don't be sad for me, but for you and the atheists here.  The OT humans didn't make and the wrath of God killed them all, but for one family and pairs of animals including small dinosaurs.  Thus, one has to wonder what will happen with the NT peoples and God's wrath?

It seems to me that atheists think God is easy and will let them go, but their futures are already decided.  Maybe the atheists will be surprised Satan will be in their same boat, i.e. he won't be the one meting out punishments.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Don't be sad for me, but for you and the atheists here. The OT humans didn't make and the wrath of God killed them all, but for one family and pairs of animals including small dinosaurs. Thus, one has to wonder what will happen with the NT peoples and God's wrath?
> 
> It seems to me that atheists think God is easy and will let them go, but their futures are already decided. Maybe the atheists will be surprised Satan will be in their same boat, i.e. he won't be the one meting out punishments.


I don't think your God will smile on you. You have expressed intense hatred and wishing death on billions of people. Maybe Satan will smile on you.
.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Yours is a common claim of religious extremists. You’re just another run of the mill religious extremist.
> 
> 
> Let’s get this straight for the hyper-religious loons. The Constitution is very secular in nature. Not one mention of Christianity. In fact, no mention or reference to any of your gods in the body of the Constitution, which is what I identified for you earlier. Hyper-religious loons like to use the “in the year of our lord” reference but of course, that’s nonsense. A closing salutation of “in the year of our lord” was common for the time. The fact remains, nowhere in the body of the Constitution is there any mention of the Christian gods.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the ‘Year of our Lord’ doing on diplomas, government documents, and the Constitution? - Freedom From Religion Foundation
> 
> 
> "Year of our Lord" is a religious relic that has been mostly discarded. This anachronistic dating convention is reported to FFRF from time to time as...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ffrf.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *​"Year of our Lord" is a religious relic that has been mostly discarded. This anachronistic dating convention is reported to FFRF from time to time as...
> 
> 
> As it turns out, the closing salutation you insist was a reference to the christian gods was not intended to be a part of the Constitution.
> 
> From the link:
> 
> The "Year of our Lord" language is not actually even part of the Constitution itself, which ends at Article VII. The phrase was not debated or ratified by the Constitutional Convention and it seems unlikely that it was even approved by the delegates. In all likelihood, it was a formalism unthinkingly added by the Constitution's scribe, Jacob Shallus. Perhaps most importantly, the language was not viewed as having any religious significance at the time. In short, the "Year of our Lord" phrase appended to the Constitution has no real legal or historical value


It's the Year of the Lord because of conservative Thomas Jefferson who became our 3rd POTUS and one of the greatest.


----------



## Colin norris

james bond said:


> The _best_ explanation is the global flood for both.  It explains how something buried deep below the seafloor rose up.  You admitted flooding causes chalk deposits like the Dover cliffs and they're found in other places around the world.
> 
> There was no global flood. Its religious bullshit. It supposed to have happened after Everest was established. Can you imagine the earth covered with water to the height of Everest? Neither can anyone else.
> Incidentally, where did all the water go after it subsided? It didn't Happen.
> 
> I still think the easiest way for atheists to learn the truth about evolution is to die, but now there is something else that will disprove evolution and not have to die.



What a ridiculous childish statement.  What you really mean is you hate atheists blowing your God shit sky high so you want them eliminated. 
How could dying ensure they learn anything? They are dead. Do you believe they will look down and admit defeat?
You seriously can't believe there is  life after death.  You must be insane boy. Grow up.


----------



## Colin norris

james bond said:


> Don't be sad for me, but for you and the atheists here.  The OT humans didn't make and the wrath of God killed them all, but for one family and pairs of animals including small dinosaurs.  Thus, one has to wonder what will happen with the NT peoples and God's wrath?
> 
> It seems to me that atheists think God is easy and will let them go, but their futures are already decided.  Maybe the atheists will be surprised Satan will be in their same boat, i.e. he won't be the one meting out punishments.



What as load of shit. There us no God  and never has been. You gave no evidence of anything but delusions. 
Satan my arse.  
Threatening people with punishment is very immature and a blatant lie.  Yet you're  the type of godbotherer who would encourage that shit  be taught to children. What a despicable piece  of shit you are.  You Jesus junkies have  the principles of alley cats.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It's the Year of the Lord because of conservative Thomas Jefferson who became our 3rd POTUS and one of the greatest.


That's not what the facts show. 

Just more of your nonsense claims.


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> What a ridiculous childish statement.  What you really mean is you hate atheists blowing your God shit sky high so you want them eliminated.
> How could dying ensure they learn anything? They are dead. Do you believe they will look down and admit defeat?
> You seriously can't believe there is  life after death.  You must be insane boy. Grow up.


I still lmao at you and make you one of the prime examples of dumba*s and POS.  You needed an example of the global flood and I said just look at the Earth covered with 3/4 water.  You're hilarious.  Furthermore, we found limestone on the top of Mt. Everest and the white cliffs of Dover around the world.  How do you explain that with atheist science?  Moreover, your atheist scientists lied to you about birds living with dinosaurs.

Anyway, keep telling us how these things happened.  I need another huge LMAO here in S&I.

After many months of explaining, answering questions and providing hard evidence, I get tired and incredulous that atheists do not understand creation science.  They don't understand the Bible and how it cannot change while evolution theories, i.e. lies, can change and do.  I said from the get go that its is about creation science vs atheist lies, oops science.

While you're here again, I found not only is God on our money as an ultimate Being we can TRUST, He is on the US Constitution and even Declaration of Independence.  What do you think of that knothead?









						God Bless The Religious Values Of The Declaration of Independence
					

Let us celebrate the Declaration of Independence that brought America into being.  And especially now, at a time when mockery, derision, scorn, and contempt dominate our public discourse, let all Americans affirm the central truth of the Declaration: We are all children of God and equal in God's...




					www.huffpost.com


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> While you're here again, I found not only is God on our money as an ultimate Being we can TRUST, *He is on the US Constitution* and even Declaration of Independence. What do you think of that knothead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God Bless The Religious Values Of The Declaration of Independence
> 
> 
> Let us celebrate the Declaration of Independence that brought America into being.  And especially now, at a time when mockery, derision, scorn, and contempt dominate our public discourse, let all Americans affirm the central truth of the Declaration: We are all children of God and equal in God's...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com


Here is a quote from your source which contradicts you:
_"...while the Declaration mentions God, *the Constitution does not*. ..."_​.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> That's not what the facts show.
> 
> Just more of your nonsense claims.


It more of YOUR nonsense which is all you spew.  It shows that we are one nation under God until evilution showed up.  It makes the believers think twice about dying for an atheist country.  What about the atheists?  Did they fight after 9/11?









						Why Do People Get So Upset About Atheists and Humanists in the Military?
					

Recent debates about the role of humanists in the military have sparked strong emotions.




					www.theatlantic.com
				




BTW, it's disgusting that atheists want to be called humanists.  They should be called deadists, or the living dead.

The facts are YOU need to find negativity of believers where you can find it even if you have to make shit up.  Such a Negative Nellie.


----------



## Colin norris

james bond said:


> I still lmao at you and make you one of the prime examples of dumba*s and POS.  You needed an example of the global flood and I said just look at the Earth covered with 3/4 water.  You're hilarious.  Furthermore, we found limestone on the top of Mt. Everest and the white cliffs of Dover around the world.  How do you explain that with atheist science?  Moreover, your atheist scientists lied to you about birds living with dinosaurs.
> 
> Anyway, keep telling us how these things happened.  I need another huge LMAO here in S&I.
> 
> After many months of explaining, answering questions and providing hard evidence, I get tired and incredulous that atheists do not understand creation science.  They don't understand the Bible and how it cannot change while evolution theories, i.e. lies, can change and do.  I said from the get go that its is about creation science vs atheist lies, oops science.
> 
> While you're here again, I found not only is God on our money as an ultimate Being we can TRUST, He is on the US Constitution and even Declaration of Independence.  What do you think of that knothead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God Bless The Religious Values Of The Declaration of Independence
> 
> 
> Let us celebrate the Declaration of Independence that brought America into being.  And especially now, at a time when mockery, derision, scorn, and contempt dominate our public discourse, let all Americans affirm the central truth of the Declaration: We are all children of God and equal in God's...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com



The inclusion of God on the currency was to appease suckers like you who believe there's a god. 
How's those immaculate conception and virgin births etc going? Been to any good miracles lately? What the heck. Let's have a resurrection of some maggoty old bidy and call it God. 

While you're  here again, there is no God and never has been. You have no evidence of anything but your filthy beliefs and faith. Faith does not equate to fact. 
What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence. 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 
See if you can match that and ill laugh my arse off at you. 

A mature him and still believing in fairy tales like a kid. Grow up. You're delusional sucker.


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> The inclusion of God on the currency was to appease suckers like you who believe there's a god.
> How's those immaculate conception and virgin births etc going? Been to any good miracles lately? What the heck. Let's have a resurrection of some maggoty old bidy and call it God.
> 
> While you're  here again, there is no God and never has been. You have no evidence of anything but your filthy beliefs and faith. Faith does not equate to fact.
> What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence.
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
> See if you can match that and ill laugh my arse off at you.
> 
> A mature him and still believing in fairy tales like a kid. Grow up. You're delusional sucker.


>>The inclusion of God on the currency was to appease suckers like you who believe there's a god.<<

You still keep believing in your _dumb_ assertions lmao. I knew I could easily get a lmao out of you because you're stupid asf.

You have no evidence for atheism.  You have nothing observable.  You have nothing testable.  OTOH, I can just say look at your currency assuming you have some.  It points to low IQ level.  The only way you'll get the point is for atheists/strict evolutionists to die ♥.  See how I snuck the last sentence in there so easily, smoothly, and correctly?


----------



## Colin norris

james bond said:


> >>The inclusion of God on the currency was to appease suckers like you who believe there's a god.<<
> 
> You still keep believing in your _dumb_ assertions lmao. I knew I could easily get a lmao out of you because you're stupid asf.
> 
> You have no evidence for atheism.
> 
> Yes I do.  Half the world is atheist.
> 
> You have nothing observable.
> 
> And where is your observable proof of your God. There is no need to assume God did anything because everything has been explained.
> 
> You have nothing testable.
> What do you have that's testable?
> Let's test a miracle and see how it goes. Pathenogenisis is impossible in mammals.  Do you want to test those couple.
> 
> OTOH, I can just say look at your currency assuming you some.  It points to low IQ level.  The only way you'll get the point is for atheists/strict evolutionists to die ♥.  See how I snuck the last sentence in there so easily, smoothly, and correctly?



When has the inclusion of God on the currency EVER helped the country and testable? 

You have no evidence of anything nor is God required for anything.  You have never seen, heard or interacted with any God and to say otherwise, you are a liar yet you believe in immaculate conception etc but I have  a low IQ??? Are you kidding or just stupid. 

As the ministries say, you keep the faith sucker, we'll keep the money. 


Test that you ignorant fool. 
You're not laughing now dickhead.


----------



## james bond

Colin norris said:


> When has the inclusion of God on the currency EVER helped the country and testable?
> 
> You have no evidence of anything nor is God required for anything.  You have never seen, heard or interacted with any God and to say otherwise, you are a liar yet you believe in immaculate conception etc but I have  a low IQ??? Are you kidding or just stupid.
> 
> As the ministries say, you keep the faith sucker, we'll keep the money.
> 
> 
> Test that you ignorant fool.
> You're not laughing now dickhead.


I can see you're getting emotional about God as believers get everything (winners) while the atheists/sinners get punished (losers).

>>When has the inclusion of God on the currency EVER helped the country and testable?<<

We can go to a supermarket or store and see that if someone's credit/debit card gets turned down, then they can use currency to complete the purchase.

As for larger events, we have -- History of U.S. Currency | U.S. Currency Education Program.

Thus, in another post, you have exposed yourself as the sucker, fool, dickhead, and worse .

At least, Mushroom provides his evidence right away like birds are dinosaurs.  You have nothing, but lmaos.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It more of YOUR nonsense which is all you spew.  It shows that we are one nation under God until evilution showed up.  It makes the believers think twice about dying for an atheist country.  What about the atheists?  Did they fight after 9/11?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Do People Get So Upset About Atheists and Humanists in the Military?
> 
> 
> Recent debates about the role of humanists in the military have sparked strong emotions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, it's disgusting that atheists want to be called humanists.  They should be called deadists, or the living dead.
> 
> The facts are YOU need to find negativity of believers where you can find it even if you have to make shit up.  Such a Negative Nellie.
> 
> View attachment 581087


Your sweaty, feverish rants are concerning.

I have this uncomfortable feeling that we will eventually read about you in the newspapers. Something connected with Kool-aid.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Don't be sad for me, but for you and the atheists here.  The OT humans didn't make and the wrath of God killed them all, but for one family and pairs of animals including small dinosaurs.  Thus, one has to wonder what will happen with the NT peoples and God's wrath?
> 
> It seems to me that atheists think God is easy and will let them go, but their futures are already decided.  Maybe the atheists will be surprised Satan will be in their same boat, i.e. he won't be the one meting out punishments.


I guess we're done discussing science, such as it was, but since you were nice enough to share your vision of my next life let me share my vision of your next life.  I see you standing humbly before God professing your faith and your holding to your interpretation of the Bible.  I see God saying to you, "I gave you eyes to see and a brain to think and what did you do with my gifts?  You closed your eyes, turned off your brain and let a book, written by people you never met, do your thinking for you.  Time for you to met Beelzebub who you have been following instead of me".

Don't worry, I don't believe you are in any danger but I do believe you have squandered the universe's gift of the ability to think for yourself.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> Whatever the case, the fossil record certainly doesn't support creationism.


False.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ringtone said:


> False.


Liar.


----------



## Wuwei

Hollie said:


> Your sweaty, feverish rants are concerning.
> 
> I have this uncomfortable feeling that we will eventually read about you in the newspapers. Something connected with Kool-aid.


From his infatuation with death to atheists, it could be worse than that. He is the type of person that would take an AK-47 to an atheist convention. He is getting increasingly abnormal.
.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> False.


Maybe I should clarify.  The fossil record does not support a literal interpretation of Biblical creation in Genesis.  To say there was a single episode of creation when ALL species came into being is exactly NOT what the evidence shows.  If you want to argue that creation of new species is a continuous phenomenon that is very different.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> Maybe I should clarify.  The fossil record does not support a literal interpretation of Biblical creation in Genesis.  To say there was a single episode of creation when ALL species came into being is exactly NOT what the evidence shows.  If you want to argue that creation of new species is a continuous phenomenon that is very different.


The Bible doesn't tell us that all lifeforms were created at the same time.  You're confused.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> The Bible doesn't tell us that all lifeforms were created at the same time.  You're confused.


In a 14 billion year old universe, 7 days is 'at the same time'.  If I'm confused it is because you have failed explain yourself.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Your sweaty, feverish rants are concerning.
> 
> I have this uncomfortable feeling that we will eventually read about you in the newspapers. Something connected with Kool-aid.


Lol, boy do you have me wrong.  I only discuss this stuff here and treat it like watching tv, i.e. waste of time entertainment with a small slice of education once in a while.  Your continued emotional ranting against me could make you the one who goes bonkers and drink the Kool-aid.


----------



## james bond

Ringtone said:


> The Bible doesn't tell us that all lifeforms were created at the same time.  You're confused.


Please explain what you mean or give examples.  I think we both know the days of creation.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Maybe I should clarify.  The fossil record does not support a literal interpretation of Biblical creation in Genesis.  To say there was a single episode of creation when ALL species came into being is exactly NOT what the evidence shows.  If you want to argue that creation of new species is a continuous phenomenon that is very different.


The fossil record was messed up by the global flood.  In for a penny, in for a pound.

>>In a 14 billion year old universe, 7 days is 'at the same time'.<<

There is no 14 B nor 4.5 B years old anything.  There is no deep time.  You have nothing observable nor testable for it.  It's six days + day of rest for creationists as God is our witness.  That's key for a young Earth and universe.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> In a 14 billion year old universe, 7 days is 'at the same time'.  If I'm confused it is because you have failed explain yourself.


You're reading things into the Biblical account that aren't there.  For example, seven days?


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> False.


True.

“Creationism” is a label for Christians frantically pretending that supernaturalism and magic is a part of science.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The fossil record was messed up by the global flood.  In for a penny, in for a pound.
> 
> >>In a 14 billion year old universe, 7 days is 'at the same time'.<<
> 
> There is no 14 B nor 4.5 B years old anything.  There is no deep time.  You have nothing observable nor testable for it.  It's six days + day of rest for creationists as God is our witness.  That's key for a young Earth and universe.


There was no global flood. You’re a day late and a dollar short.

The earth is neither flat nor 6,000 years old.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Lol, boy do you have me wrong.  I only discuss this stuff here and treat it like watching tv, i.e. waste of time entertainment with a small slice of education once in a while.  Your continued emotional ranting against me could make you the one who goes bonkers and drink the Kool-aid.


Obviously, you’re easily amused.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The fossil record was messed up by the global flood.  In for a penny, in for a pound.


Easy claim to make, especially if you don't feel the need to provide any evidence for it.



james bond said:


> There is no 14 B nor 4.5 B years old anything.  There is no deep time.  You have nothing observable nor testable for it.  It's six days + day of rest for creationists as God is our witness.  That's key for a young Earth and universe.


If the universe and the earth are young, why did God make it seem like it is very, very old?

Light from distant objects takes a very long time to get here.  Even light from the other side of our galaxy takes 100,000 years to arrive and we can measure those distances directly
Radioisotope decay (much work has been done since 1956)
Miles of sediments that could not have been laid down in a single flood event
Continental drift, magnetic reversals, mountain building, exotic terrain, etc.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> You're reading things into the Biblical account that aren't there.  For example, seven days?


I don't know what Bible you're reading but that is what mine says.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Lol, boy do you have me wrong. I only discuss this stuff here and treat it like watching tv, i.e. waste of time entertainment with a small slice of education once in a while. Your continued emotional ranting against me could make you the one who goes bonkers and drink the Kool-aid.


That's as much as admitting you are a troll.
.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> I don't know what Bible you're reading but that is what mine says.


According to the biblical account, what did God create on the 7th day of creation?

_crickets chirping_

How much time passed between the creation of the heavens and earth and the moment God said, "Let there be light"?

_crickets chirping_


----------



## Hollie

Ringtone said:


> According to the biblical account, what did God create on the 7th day of creation?
> 
> _crickets chirping_
> 
> How much time passed between the creation of the heavens and earth and the moment God said, "Let there be light"?
> 
> _crickets chirping_



Identify why anyone should accept your claim that one or more gods created anything with nothing more than “… because I read it in the Bible”.  




_crickets chirping_


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Obviously, you’re easily amused.


I'd offer you a _real_ drink, but since you prefer...







I can see you in a Kool-aid woman costume for Halloween '22.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Identify why anyone should accept your claim that one or more gods created anything with nothing more than “… because I read it in the Bible”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _crickets chirping_


Jeez, the Bible is always right and true because God wrote it.  That's why science backs it up.


----------



## Viktor

Mushroom said:


> Ahhh, a video from a group that supports Creationism.  How neutral such a thing is.
> 
> Sorry, not buying whatever it is he is selling.


They do not support Creationism. He has a PhD in Paleontology. What are your qualifications?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Easy claim to make, especially if you don't feel the need to provide any evidence for it.
> 
> 
> If the universe and the earth are young, why did God make it seem like it is very, very old?
> 
> Light from distant objects takes a very long time to get here.  Even light from the other side of our galaxy takes 100,000 years to arrive and we can measure those distances directly
> Radioisotope decay (much work has been done since 1956)
> Miles of sediments that could not have been laid down in a single flood event
> Continental drift, magnetic reversals, mountain building, exotic terrain, etc.


You're another who misses what I explained already.  Where did our seas and oceans that covers 3/4 of the planet come from?  We already discussed how the limestone got on top of Mt. Everest as well as the seafloor chalk fossils onto The Cliffs of Dover and other cliffs and mountains around the world.  Same with The Grand Canyon.  Then there is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge that circles the world.  In a word -- geomorphology -- Geomorphology provides evidence for global flood - creation.com. It is evidence that our geology of Earth is based on catastrophism and not uniformitarianism (or present is the key to the past ).









						Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com
					

Where did the Grand Canyon sand come from?




					creation.com
				




As for your other problems, quid pro quo.  Answer this problem with light from distant objects...

"In the big-bang model, there is the “Horizon Problem,” a variant of the light-travel-time problem which you mentioned.  This is based on the exchange of starlight/electromagnetic radiation to make the universe a constant temperature.

In the supposed big bang, the light could not have been exchanged and the universe was expected to have many variations of temperature, but this was not the case when measured. Such problems cause many to struggle with the bigbang model, and rightly so.

Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.
Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light."
Once you figure out your atheist science's problem, then it can be applied to the light from distant objects.  Hurry.  Hurry.  Step right up.  Get your hypotheses here!

As for you other questions, radioisotope decay was wrong as Patterson did not have a clean room and there could have been contamination.  Also, his assumptions were not correct.  No one knows how much radioisotope was there at the beginning.  So, his billions and millions of years is not correct.  Atheists want it badly because otherwise evolution is dead.

I provided the links to the global flood above.

As for your last problems, why don't you explain them using evolution?  At least my answers are observable and some are testable.  Winners win everything.  Losers lose everything.


----------



## Mushroom

Viktor said:


> They do not support Creationism. He has a PhD in Paleontology. What are your qualifications?



I know he was fired as curator of the State Museum of Stuttgart because he suddenly started to give talks dismissing evolution and promoting "Intelligent Design".

Look, call it whatever you want.  Creationism, Intelligent Design, I really do not care.  But it is all the same thing, and you can't realistically tell me otherwise.  But are you really saying that only people with doctorates can discuss things?

Wow, talk about arrogance.  But either way, if the topic is Creationism or Intelligent Design, that is a religious topic and not one of science.  Therefore, it really does not belong here.


----------



## Viktor

Mushroom said:


> I know he was fired as curator of the State Museum of Stuttgart because he suddenly started to give talks dismissing evolution and promoting "Intelligent Design".
> 
> Look, call it whatever you want.  Creationism, Intelligent Design, I really do not care.  But it is all the same thing, and you can't realistically tell me otherwise.  But are you really saying that only people with doctorates can discuss things?


People with PhD's know more about the subject.


Mushroom said:


> Wow, talk about arrogance.  But either way, if the topic is Creationism or Intelligent Design, that is a religious topic and not one of science.  Therefore, it really does not belong here.


ID does not mention God or the bible. You are wrong,


----------



## Viktor

Mushroom said:


> I know he was fired as curator of the State Museum of Stuttgart because he suddenly started to give talks dismissing evolution and promoting "Intelligent Design".
> 
> Look, call it whatever you want.  Creationism, Intelligent Design, I really do not care.  But it is all the same thing, and you can't realistically tell me otherwise.  But are you really saying that only people with doctorates can discuss things?
> 
> Wow, talk about arrogance.  But either way, if the topic is Creationism or Intelligent Design, that is a religious topic and not one of science.  Therefore, it really does not belong here.




SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
https://www.discovery.org/m/2020/04/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-04072020.pdf


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Jeez, the Bible is always right and true because God wrote it.  That's why science backs it up.


None of your gods wrote any of the Bibles. If you were honest, you would acknowledge that nothing in any of the Bibles indicates your gods wrote anything.

You have only hearsay that John, Paul, George or Ringo authored anything. It’s just a fact that Paul never met god jr.; Jesus, and didn’t pen anything until long after the death of god jr.

Science doesn’t back up your flat earth or 6,000 year old earth fantasy.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> None of your gods wrote any of the Bibles. If you were honest, you would acknowledge that nothing in any of the Bibles indicates your gods wrote anything.
> 
> You have only hearsay that John, Paul, George or Ringo authored anything. It’s just a fact that Paul never met god jr.; Jesus, and didn’t pen anything until long after the death of god jr.
> 
> Science doesn’t back up your flat earth or 6,000 year old earth fantasy.


He told us he did and it was transcribed.  If you had faith in the one true God, then you would know how it was done.

I got some science for your low level.  For fast foods, one of the items I get is Dinty Moore beef stew or chicken and dumplings.  It comes in a can.  Anyway, *why does it explode in a microwave? * Good thing I covered it fully with a vented microwave cover or else it would be all over the microwave.  It's better to heat it over the stove and stir.  I think it tastes better that way.


----------



## Hugo Furst

*Thread has devolved from discussing science, to discussing religion.*

*Moved to General Discussion *


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> According to the biblical account, what did God create on the 7th day of creation?
> 
> _crickets chirping_


Rest.  It was actually a novelty in the ancient world where you were expected to work everyday, except holidays.



Ringtone said:


> How much time passed between the creation of the heavens and earth and the moment God said, "Let there be light"?
> 
> _crickets chirping_


Are you implying that the sequence of events of Genesis is accurate but only the 'day' is wrong?  Any other inaccuracies or misinterpretations we should know about?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> You're another who misses what I explained already.  Where did our seas and oceans that covers 3/4 of the planet come from?  We already discussed how the limestone got on top of Mt. Everest as well as the seafloor chalk fossils onto The Cliffs of Dover and other cliffs and mountains around the world.


I don't recall you providing a mechanism for the formation and uplift of the only a vague 'the flood did it'.  You also never explained how the thickness of chalk could be deposited so quickly when it takes a very long time today.



james bond said:


> Same with The Grand Canyon.


Also never explained.  Why did the water cut the canyon and not every river in the West?



james bond said:


> Then there is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge that circles the world.


And this explains the flood?  How so?



james bond said:


> In a word -- geomorphology -- Geomorphology provides evidence for global flood - creation.com. It is evidence that our geology of Earth is based on catastrophism and not uniformitarianism (or present is the key to the past ).


I say continental drift is an example of uniformitarianism can you explain how catastrophism would cause it?  You link is silly.



james bond said:


> Startling evidence for Noahs Flood - creation.com
> 
> 
> Where did the Grand Canyon sand come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for your other problems, quid pro quo.  Answer this problem with light from distant objects...
> 
> "In the big-bang model, there is the “Horizon Problem,” a variant of the light-travel-time problem which you mentioned.  This is based on the exchange of starlight/electromagnetic radiation to make the universe a constant temperature.
> 
> In the supposed big bang, the light could not have been exchanged and the universe was expected to have many variations of temperature, but this was not the case when measured. Such problems cause many to struggle with the bigbang model, and rightly so.
> 
> Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.
> Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light."
> Once you figure out your atheist science's problem, then it can be applied to the light from distant objects.  Hurry.  Hurry.  Step right up.  Get your hypotheses here!


None of this straw man makes any sense and doesn't refute what we see with our own eyes.



james bond said:


> As for you other questions, radioisotope decay was wrong as Patterson did not have a clean room and there could have been contamination.  Also, his assumptions were not correct.  No one knows how much radioisotope was there at the beginning.  So, his billions and millions of years is not correct.  Atheists want it badly because otherwise evolution is dead.


While young earthers have the exact opposite problem.  Again you go back to the 1950s.  Got anything newer?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Viktor said:


> They do not support Creationism. He has a PhD in Paleontology. What are your qualifications?


Then my question to you is why the 10s of 1000s of paleontologists have also not converted to creationism?

When you consider this, you see you don't have a leg to stand on. And that you pointing out he is a paleontologist does not help you and, in fact, debases your specious appeal to authority.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> Rest.  It was actually a novelty in the ancient world where you were expected to work everyday, except holidays.
> 
> 
> Are you implying that the sequence of events of Genesis is accurate but only the 'day' is wrong?  Any other inaccuracies or misinterpretations we should know about?


You're clearly imposing an unwarranted presupposition on the account, albeit, unconsciously, and you don't even know its historical origin.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> You're clearly imposing an unwarranted presupposition on the account, albeit, unconsciously, and you don't even know its historical origin.


Tell me more.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I don't recall you providing a mechanism for the formation and uplift of the only a vague 'the flood did it'.  You also never explained how the thickness of chalk could be deposited so quickly when it takes a very long time today.
> 
> 
> Also never explained.  Why did the water cut the canyon and not every river in the West?
> 
> 
> And this explains the flood?  How so?
> 
> 
> I say continental drift is an example of uniformitarianism can you explain how catastrophism would cause it?  You link is silly.
> 
> 
> None of this straw man makes any sense and doesn't refute what we see with our own eyes.
> 
> 
> While young earthers have the exact opposite problem.  Again you go back to the 1950s.  Got anything newer?


That's because you can't figure things out while I can.  It was the global flood and science backs it up.  The white cliffs were submerged in water.  OTOH, you can't figure things out for yourself based on your reasoning.  You can't explain how I'm supposed to know your were right after I die.  You won't know whether to LYAO or not.  OTOH, I'll know I was right because of the prediction of Jesus' coming and death coming true and can LMAO at the atheists here right now because it's a fact that everyone must die.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> You're clearly imposing an unwarranted presupposition on the account, albeit, unconsciously, and you don't even know its historical origin.


Are you referring to _Enūma Eliš__?_


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> That's because you can't figure things out while I can.  It was the global flood and science backs it up.  The white cliffs were submerged in water.


For how long?  Long enough for trillions of diatoms to live and die?



james bond said:


> OTOH, you can't figure things out for yourself based on your reasoning.  You can't explain how I'm supposed to know your were right after I die.


Again you show you're reading impaired as I never said that.  In fact just the opposite is true.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> Are you referring to _Enūma Eliš__?_


No.  Stop reading things into the biblical account that aren't there or deceive yourself.  Choose.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Again you show you're reading impaired as I never said that. In fact just the opposite is true.


I just want to know if you agree with the majority of atheists.  So to you, will atheists know atheism was wrong/right once they die?

IOW, no Judgement Day.


----------



## alang1216

Ringtone said:


> No.  Stop reading things into the biblical account that aren't there or deceive yourself.  Choose.


The Bible is a compilation of oral traditions written down and edited over the years by people with an agenda.  You can try and understand the history and context of the Bible or you can just say it is the word of God and leave it at that.  Choose.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I just want to know if you agree with the majority of atheists.  So to you, will atheists know atheism was wrong/right once they die?
> 
> IOW, no Judgement Day.


No Judgement Day.  No life before birth, no life after death.  Sorry but the universe doesn't care a whit about us.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

I don't believe in evolution or the God theory. Not really sure what I believe to be honest. There's as much a possibility that we are descendants of Mars as there is of some omnipotent God or leap from monkeys. Essentially I believe "god" was what our ancient ancestors saw in the sky but couldn't understand


----------



## alang1216

Grampa Murked U said:


> I don't believe in evolution or the God theory. Not really sure what I believe to be honest. There's as much a possibility that we are descendants of Mars as there is of some omnipotent God or leap from monkeys. Essentially I believe "god" was what our ancient ancestors saw in the sky but couldn't understand


Sure, ignore centuries of ToE evidence and go with a speculation without any evidence.  Good plan.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Grampa Murked U said:


> There's as much a possibility that we are descendants of Mars


Would still require both abiogenesis AND evolution.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> No Judgement Day.  No life before birth, no life after death.  Sorry but the universe doesn't care a whit about us.


The universe and the Earth, and most people in it, but some people who love us do.  Most importantly, God does because of what?

>>The Bible is a compilation of oral traditions written down and edited over the years by people with an agenda. You can try and understand the history and context of the Bible or you can just say it is the word of God and leave it at that. Choose.<<

That's wrong.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The universe and the Earth, and most people in it, but some people who love us do.  Most importantly, God does because of what?


If I showed my family the same kind of love I'd be in jail.



james bond said:


> >>The Bible is a compilation of oral traditions written down and edited over the years by people with an agenda. You can try and understand the history and context of the Bible or you can just say it is the word of God and leave it at that. Choose.<<
> 
> That's wrong.


I'll stand by it until I see evidence to the contrary.  That is how we differ, you'll stand on your faith and ignore all evidence to the contrary.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> If I showed my family the same kind of love I'd be in jail.
> 
> 
> I'll stand by it until I see evidence to the contrary.  That is how we differ, you'll stand on your faith and ignore all evidence to the contrary.


Oh my .  I think you just said if you showed the same kind of love as God, then you'd be in jail.  That's a quote for an atheist lifetime.

I gave you plenty of hard evidence to the contrary.  I don't think you'll believe even when the evidence pops up of humans living with dinosaurs.

Here is what the atheist scientists said about it again for those who missed it -- 

Dawkins has gone cuckoo, cuckoo as he has further added:

'Wasn’t it faintly depressing for a scientist in the 21st century to find himself arguing the case for evolution? “There’s an aspect of that,” he says. “But I don’t want to put that in a too depressing, negative way. It’s a challenge — a cheerful sort of challenge because it’s so thrilling and exciting.” When he wrote The God Delusion his stated aim was to convert everybody who read it to atheism. With the new book it is to shake some sense into creationists: “I suppose anybody who reads it should no longer be capable of thinking evolution isn’t a fact,” he says, perhaps rather optimistically, I think. “I’d like to think there’s got to be something wrong with people who finish the book and don’t think that.”

I’m afraid he’s destined to be disappointed, as down deep he himself knows. There’s an hilarious transcript in Chapter 7 of a televised conversation he once had with someone called Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women of America (in his Waspy, amusing way he points out that Wright’s “opinion that ‘The morning-after Pill is a paedophile’s best friend’ gives a fair idea of her powers of reasoning”). Anyway, Wright is asking Dawkins to “show me the evidence of the in-between stages from one species to another”, and Dawkins is telling her over and over again to visit any natural history museum and look at the fossils. But Wright is having none of it: “If evolution has had the actual evidence then it would be displayed in museums, not just illustrations,” she says.

It’s hopeless. And Dawkins concedes that, “[Wright] certainly wouldn’t read the book and even if she did read it, it wouldn’t make any difference. Nothing is going to change the mind of somebody who is so doggedly certain ... I think you have to make a real distinction between people who are religious in the sense that your vicar or bishop is religious but accept that evolution as scientific and people like Wendy Wright, who think the world is 6,000 years old, which is flat contradictory to every scrap of evidence we’ve got. That does drive me to despair because nothing’s going to shift those people.” Nevertheless, he’s optimistic that, “many people just don’t know what the facts are. They are simply uneducated. And that’s a fault of us as scientists for not going out there and communicating with them.”'





__





						Richard Dawkins to prove once and for all that humans did not walk with dinosaurs
					

Richard Dawkins wants to provel that humans did not walk with dinosaurs



					news.jornal.us
				




If Dawkins is dead now, he will be screaming his arse off and _knowing_ he was wrong.


----------



## Ringtone

alang1216 said:


> The Bible is a compilation of oral traditions written down and edited over the years by people with an agenda.  You can try and understand the history and context of the Bible or you can just say it is the word of God and leave it at that.  Choose.


You're dead to me.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Oh my .  I think you just said if you showed the same kind of love as God, then you'd be in jail.  That's a quote for an atheist lifetime.


How many innocent babies did he order to be killed?  Hint: Joshua and Jericho or King David and the plague.



james bond said:


> I gave you plenty of hard evidence to the contrary.  I don't think you'll believe even when the evidence pops up of humans living with dinosaurs.


You have given me zero evidence.  You said the chalk beds are the result of a flood but provided nothing to back that up.



james bond said:


> Here is what the atheist scientists said about it again for those who missed it --


You are guilty of exactly the same thing.  You ignore any evidence you're shown (e.g., birds with teeth and long, lizard-like tails).


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I may be a dumbass but at least I'm *educated *enough to know that chalk is form of limestone.


I'm happy you admitted you are a dumbass, but you still don't know the diff between chalk and limestone .

"The *key difference* between limestone and chalk is that the *limestone contains both minerals, calcite, and aragonite whereas chalk is a form of limestone which contains calcite*.

Limestone is a type of sedimentary rock. It mainly contains different crystal forms of calcium carbonate. Therefore this mineral is highly alkaline. Chalk is a form of limestone. It has many favorable properties, which we will discuss below. Although it is a form of limestone, 99% of this mineral contains calcite type crystal form."

Next, I ♥ for you to admit that you are an atheist POS.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I'm happy you admitted you are a dumbass, but you still don't know the diff between chalk and limestone .
> 
> "The *key difference* between limestone and chalk is that the *limestone contains both minerals, calcite, and aragonite whereas chalk is a form of limestone which contains calcite*.
> 
> Limestone is a type of sedimentary rock. It mainly contains different crystal forms of calcium carbonate. Therefore this mineral is highly alkaline. Chalk is a form of limestone. It has many favorable properties, which we will discuss below. Although it is a form of limestone, 99% of this mineral contains calcite type crystal form."


I do know the difference thank you, what I don't know is what you think the significance of the differences are?  You also have not explained why the same flood would deposit chalk in one place and limestone in another?



james bond said:


> Next, I ♥ for you to admit that you are an atheist POS.


WWJS?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> How many innocent babies did he order to be killed?  Hint: Joshua and Jericho or King David and the plague.
> 
> 
> You have given me zero evidence.  You said the chalk beds are the result of a flood but provided nothing to back that up.
> 
> 
> You are guilty of exactly the same thing.  You ignore any evidence you're shown (e.g., birds with teeth and long, lizard-like tails).


Last point first.  My evidence shows what you are alluding to is false as birds lived with dinosaurs and that's hard evidence, but the evos are ignoring it.

My other point is I think the atheist scientists don't exactly say "Birds are dinosaurs."  They just wrote papers to allude to it like what you just presented.  OTOH, I presented the hard evidence of birds living with dinosaurs but the atheist scientists deny it and ignore the hard evidence.  Common for the atheists here until they die and realize they were wrong.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> WWJS?


You just can't help talking about religion.  Here are a couple of examples:

"To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good." Psalm 14:1

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ..." Romans 1:18-32

Then there is the prophecy of WWJD.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Last point first.  My evidence shows what you are alluding to is false as birds lived with dinosaurs and that's hard evidence, but the evos are ignoring it.
> 
> My other point is I think the atheist scientists don't exactly say "Birds are dinosaurs."  They just wrote papers to allude to it like what you just presented.  OTOH, I presented the hard evidence of birds living with dinosaurs but the atheist scientists deny it and ignore the hard evidence.  Common for the atheists here until they die and realize they were wrong.


Paleontology and geology says that dinos lived for a few hundred million years (whether you believe it or not).  What is undeniable is that the dino of the oldest rocks are not the same as the dinos of the younger rocks.  It is clear to paleontologists that dinos evolved into other dinos, some of the later ones being birds.

You don't believe me I know but saying birds lived with dinos is evidence against evolution is completely, 100% wrong.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> You just can't help talking about religion.


You keep bringing into a discussion of science claiming it is a science textbook.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You don't believe me I know but saying birds lived with dinos is evidence against evolution is completely, 100% wrong.


Birds lived with dinos b/c the fossil evidence proves it.  The atheist scientists are ignoring this evidence in order to get money by writing papers like I linked.  You even explained it yourself that it alludes to birds being dinosaurs.  What you can't figure out is the atheist scientists are doing it for the money and recognition.  I'm just doing this gig here b/c God wants me to continue.  Originally, I wanted to provide the creation science POV, but it got tiresome after over a year.  Yet, I think I am am influencing the believers as well as the non-believers that science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  OTOH, there is no science with evolution.  It's just a bunch of BS papers atheist scientists wrote to get funding and fame.  They're not like the creation scientists who made solid contributions to science.  Even Richard Dawkins admitted that evolution can be destroyed and it has been through creation evidence and the wrongness of the 1956 dating, i.e. no clean room and wrong assumptions like how much radioisotopes were present in the space material at the beginning.  You should be embarrassed writing what you did above as you are a fat liar.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You keep bringing into a discussion of science claiming it is a science textbook.


As usual, you get things backwards.  Should you even belong to the General Discussion section that you put us into lol?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> As usual, you get things backwards.  Should you even belong to the General Discussion section that you put us into lol?


Maybe you should stop using the term 'atheist scientist' in science forums?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Maybe you should stop using the term 'atheist scientist' in science forums?


Should I say death science?  Atheist science is atheism just like death is revelation (he said smugly).


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> How many innocent babies did he order to be killed? Hint: Joshua and Jericho or King David and the plague.


The Wrath of God killed everyone on the planet, including innocent babies and children.  He killed all with the global flood because the majority of people became evil and a threat to harm the innocent.  God thought this was better than having the guilty kill the innocents including babies and children.

The second end of the world will happen with the fire in the sky and the return of Jesus.  The believers will be saved and rise to meet the Lord.  Chances are we'll miss the second coming, but it could happen in the next moment.  Only God the Father knows when this will happen.  Will it be because of evil people harming the innocent?  I don't think so.  It could be due to the rise in atheism -- 10 facts about atheists.  Not even close to 33% right now, but check out Europe.  What about China and the Soviet Union.  33% of the world is my swag as to when God will take action.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The Wrath of God killed everyone on the planet, including innocent babies and children.


That's as wrathful as you can get.  I can't help wonder why you assume your afterlife will be any better than this one?  Same God and he may envision heaven and hell very differently than you envision them.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> That's as wrathful as you can get.  I can't help wonder why you assume your afterlife will be any better than this one?  Same God and he may envision heaven and hell very differently than you envision them.


It's in the Bible like duh . The word “heaven” is found 276 times in the New Testament alone. I won't describe it for you as the Bible states you will be able to view it from where you end up.  Would you like to know how it will be for you?  It's in the smileys here to name a few...


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> It's in the Bible like duh . The word “heaven” is found 276 times in the New Testament alone. I won't describe it for you as the Bible states you will be able to view it from where you end up.  Would you like to know how it will be for you?  It's in the smileys here to name a few...


Is it in the OT or just the NT?  Did God send Jesus to condemn us to hell?  Sounds truly wrathful to me.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Is it in the OT or just the NT?  Did God send Jesus to condemn us to hell?  Sounds truly wrathful to me.


Why don't you read the Bible to answer your question?  What did the OT people had to believe?

Today, you can believe Jesus will come again to condemn you, atheists and the unforgiven to the Lake of Fire.  It should _be_ wrathful for it is the Wrath of God the Father.  That would be the first true thing you said in a while.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Why don't you read the Bible to answer your question?
> 
> You can believe Jesus will come again to condemn you, atheists and the unforgiven to the Lake of Fire.  It should _be_ wrathful for it is the Wrath of God the Father.  That would be the first true thing you said in a while.


Childish, immoral nonsense.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Why don't you read the Bible to answer your question?  What did the OT people had to believe?
> 
> Today, you can believe Jesus will come again to condemn you, atheists and the unforgiven to the Lake of Fire.  It should _be_ wrathful for it is the Wrath of God the Father.  That would be the first true thing you said in a while.


It was a rhetorical question, I've read the OT and the NT.  Jews have never had a strong belief in heaven and hell, historically they were closer to pagans, if your people did right by God you would all be rewarded in this life.  Their God was the God of the Nation of Israel, not really of individuals.  I believe they had other gods for that, at least until they became fully monotheists.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> It was a rhetorical question, I've read the OT and the NT.  Jews have never had a strong belief in heaven and hell, historically they were closer to pagans, if your people did right by God you would all be rewarded in this life.  Their God was the God of the Nation of Israel, not really of individuals.  I believe they had other gods for that, at least until they became fully monotheists.


Good.  I'm tired of answering questions about the Bible when the atheists, sinners and Jewish pagans do _not_ believe me and have faith in atheism or paganism. I can see that you have your own beliefs.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Good.  I'm tired of answering questions about the Bible when the atheists, sinners and Jewish pagans do _not_ believe me and have faith in atheism or paganism. I can see that you have your own beliefs.


Maybe people would believe you if you knew the difference between allegorical, metaphorical, and literal.

I'm sure you a fine person and I enjoy conversing with you but when you talk about evolution it is obvious you really don't know what you're talking about.  Hopefully you know more about the Bible as that is most important to you, but to tell you the truth, I think I know more about than you (and most Christians) do.  A conceit?  Sure, but not having faith means I take what is see without baggage.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Maybe people would believe you if you knew the difference between allegorical, metaphorical, and literal.
> 
> I'm sure you a fine person and I enjoy conversing with you but when you talk about evolution it is obvious you really don't know what you're talking about.  Hopefully you know more about the Bible as that is most important to you, but to tell you the truth, I think I know more about than you (and most Christians) do.  A conceit?  Sure, but not having faith means I take what is see without baggage.


I'm sure you're a good person, too, but from the Bible we know that is not enough.  Due to original sin, we are all doomed, even innocent babies and children.  Satan took over domain of the Earth and now God is gone from our universe.  We do not want to be this way, so wait until the Savior comes again and destroys this world, so we can have another chance for eternal life, i.e. winner who gets everything.

We do not have idols today like those in the ancient past, but we have selfishness and materialism.  We have replaced God with our "self."  It has replaced idolatry.  We covet what our neighbors have that we don't such as spouse, house, cars, money, etc.  We also have pride and ego and our jobs, promotions, and retirement nest egg.  I think after this, we have evolution which has replaced creation and real science which we argue about constantly.  Science has now blended in with religious arguments.

Thus, I don't think this is about "the difference between allegorical, metaphorical, and literal."  Maybe with other religions, but not with YEC.  It is literal as I've been saying all along and you should be the one who knew this already.  It is you.  So much for your claim that you know more about the Bible than me.  It means you lost _everything_ already.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I'm sure you're a good person, too, but from the Bible we know that is not enough.  Due to original sin, we are all doomed, even innocent babies and children.  Satan took over domain of the Earth and now God is gone from our universe.


Does anything happen that God has not foreseen?  Is this world not what God intended all along?



james bond said:


> Science has now blended in with religious arguments.


Because the religious attempt to blend them.  Science is completely removed from religion or the supernatural so religious folk, like yourself, feel the need to refute the reality of the world with their religious visions.  They have never succeeded for long.



james bond said:


> Thus, I don't think this is about "the difference between allegorical, metaphorical, and literal."  Maybe with other religions, but not with YEC.  It is literal as I've been saying all along...


And you graciously prove my point.  Thanks.



james bond said:


> So much for your claim that you know more about the Bible than me.


Not believing doesn't mean I'm ignorant.  Do you know what the Q is with Googling it?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Does anything happen that God has not foreseen?  Is this world not what God intended all along?
> 
> 
> Because the religious attempt to blend them.  Science is completely removed from religion or the supernatural so religious folk, like yourself, feel the need to refute the reality of the world with their religious visions.  They have never succeeded for long.
> 
> 
> And you graciously prove my point.  Thanks.
> 
> 
> Not believing doesn't mean I'm ignorant.  Do you know what the Q is with Googling it?


God foresaw everything, but He still decided to give us free will.  It means that only a certain percentage will be winning everything.

I think I was the one who pointed out it is creation science vs. atheist science (evolution) and that evolution isn't really science (just a bunch of papers on the subject).  I don't think it says anything observable, testable, or that which is conclusive.  It just alludes to humans came from ape-humans and birds from dinosaurs.  In fact, I think I disproved the birds from dinosaurs since birds existed at the same time.  However, that isn't what the papers _conclude_.  They just _allude_ to it.

Am I not allowed to think for myself and follow the Bible as I interpret it?  I also said that science backs up the literal interpretation or YEC one.  I don't care about your point.  That is up to you.  For example, did you honor the Sabbath today since you read the Bible?  To me, that is talking the talk and walking the walk and that you are a person of faith.  This would have led you to a winning road.

Again, it doesn't matter if you believe or don't believe.  I think you ignored what I said about being selfish or putting your self before anything else.  To me, it's about winning everything or losing everything.  It means you got it first and then found out how to get there.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> And you graciously prove my point. Thanks.


I just finished watching Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol.  The Tom Hanks character Robert Langdon believed the Bible was metaphorical and he started looking for a code in it.  So what does metaphorical mean to you?  What does allegorical mean to you?  What about literal?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I just finished watching Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol.  The Tom Hanks character Robert Langdon believed the Bible was metaphorical and he started looking for a code in it.  So what does metaphorical mean to you?  What does allegorical mean to you?  What about literal?


I believe the Bible is all those things.  It contains history but it is not a history book, it is a compilation of oral histories, myths, and theology of the people of Israel.  It is said the winners write the history and that is what we see in the OT.  Written down centuries after the actual events, the stories were written by the Jews in exile with their goals front and foremost.  The NT was similar in its theological evolution.  I see the hand of man in every page, not a single overarching presence.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Childish, immoral nonsense.


Par for your course.  ANTDTGI (to get it).



The last one is Satan, but again it's par for your course.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I believe the Bible is all those things.


It can't be literal and those other things.  Otherwise, you would have told me _already_ what they were (instead of making more claims).

In my posts, I don't waste my time since creation science is the real science.  Yet, the real science never got through to the atheists.  All I can say is you get to watch what happens to me after death.


----------



## james bond

It's par for the course for alang1216, too, even though he has read the Bible.  However, he didn't get it.

If he did get it, then he would KNOW what the truth is instead of evilution and Satan.  He would have the answers instead of questions and be on the winning road.  He can't say that I didn't try nor God didn't warn him.


----------



## james bond

So much for Mushroom claim of birds are dinosaurs.  No atheist science paper states that.

Moreover, the hard evidence shows birds living at the same time as dinosaurs.

Furthermore, there is evidence humans lived with dinosaurs.

Historical documentation of live dinosaur sightings, recorded in history by the Vikings, Herodotus, Alexander the Great, Marco Polo and others.
Many dinosaur bones have been found and documented to be fresh and unfossilized
There are countless historic carvings, statues and cave drawings of humans with dinosaurs


----------



## james bond

alang1216

I think this is fitting for "your" Bible journey.






You missed science backs up the Bible, faith in God and that God is infallible.


----------



## james bond

Here's something else I got to support global warming.  If we look at Mars, we can see a planet that had water on the surface, but it lost its magnetic field and the solar winds, i.e. radiation from the sun, took it away.  That's one of the reasons I believe in global warming/climate change.  It can be devastating.  Our magnetic field is dissipating, so the atheist scientists were WRONG about it being produced by movement within the Earth's core.  Once the magnetic field that God created is gone from Earth, then we are in trouble and the people will die including the atheists and their scientists.

Furthermore, I don't see any science backing up evolution.  Where is it?  It isn't there because evolution is a lie.  Yet, the dumbos have "faith" in evolution and its fake papers that atheist scientists wrote.  I think I've DESTROYED evolution here as something made up to satisfy anti-Christians.  There is no hard evidence for it whatsoever.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Here's something else I got to support global warming.  If we look at Mars, we can see a planet that had water on the surface, but it lost its magnetic field and the solar winds, i.e. radiation from the sun, took it away.  That's one of the reasons I believe in global warming/climate change.  It can be devastating.  Our magnetic field is dissipating, so the atheist scientists were WRONG about it being produced by movement within the Earth's core.  Once the magnetic field that God created is gone from Earth, then we are in trouble and the people will die including the atheists and their scientists.


You speak of things you don't understand.  The magnetic field has changed polarity many times in earth's history and at the midway point the field is probably zero but life has always survived.



james bond said:


> Furthermore, I don't see any science backing up evolution.  Where is it?  It isn't there because evolution is a lie.  Yet, the dumbos have "faith" in evolution and its fake papers that atheist scientists wrote.  I think I've DESTROYED evolution here as something made up to satisfy anti-Christians.  There is no hard evidence for it whatsoever.


Again you speak of things you don't understand.  Only in your fantasies have you DESTROYED evolution.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You speak of things you don't understand.  The magnetic field has changed polarity many times in earth's history and at the midway point the field is probably zero but life has always survived.
> 
> 
> Again you speak of things you don't understand.  Only in your fantasies have you DESTROYED evolution.


LMAO.  It's YOU who doesn't understand.

Again, this is creation science vs atheist's belief in long time.  Creationists believe the Earth's polarity changed due to the global flood and has been getting weaker since.

The hard evidence favors creation as usual.  You can't provide any evidence for you claims or else you would have done so in your last post.

"palaeomagnetic measurements of a lava flow at Steens Mountain in Oregon have shown that one of these magnetic polarity transitions (part of a complete reversal) took place in about two weeks, the time period over which the lava would have cooled. As would be expected, the investigators, both evolutionists, were astonished by these results and had difficulty accepting them, but finally had to admit:



> ‘…even this conservative figure of 15 days corresponds to an astonishingly rapid rate of variation of the geomagnetic field direction of 3∞ per day. …The rapidity and large amplitude of geomagnetic variation that we infer from the remanence directions in flow B51, even when regarded as an impulse during a polarity transition, truly strains the imagination.…We think that the most probable explanation of the anomalous remanence directions of flow B51 is the occurrence of a large and extremely rapid change in the geomagnetic field during cooling of the flow, and that this change likely originated in the (earth’s) core.'



You can look at the sun's polarity reversals in short time of around 11 years.

Creationists even have a model.  You failed to produce any evidence, but lies about me:

"

*Creation* of the magnetic field along with the earth.
*Steady decay* for nearly 2,000 years until the Flood.
*Rapid reversals* during the year of the *Flood*.
*Large fluctuations* continuing for up to two thousand years after the Flood.
Resumption of *steady decay* from about the time of Christ until now."


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> LMAO.  It's YOU who doesn't understand.
> 
> Again, this is creation science vs atheist's belief in long time.  Creationists believe the Earth's polarity changed due to the global flood and has been getting weaker since.


So *how *does a flood cause a magnetic reversal?



james bond said:


> The hard evidence favors creation as usual.  You can't provide any evidence for you claims or else you would have done so in your last post.


There is hard evidence for many past reversals that remain for an average of 5,700 years, although the time for the actual change is unknown and may be rapid.



james bond said:


> You can look at the sun's polarity reversals in short time of around 11 years.


What does that tell us?



james bond said:


> Creationists even have a model.  You failed to produce any evidence, but lies about me:
> 
> *Creation* of the magnetic field along with the earth.
> *Steady decay* for nearly 2,000 years until the Flood.
> *Rapid reversals* during the year of the *Flood*.
> *Large fluctuations* continuing for up to two thousand years after the Flood.
> Resumption of *steady decay* from about the time of Christ until now."


That is not a model, that is a sequence of events without any evidence or mechanism.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> That is not a model, that is a sequence of events without any evidence or mechanism.


Sure, it's a model.  The mechanism is the global flood and that we saw rapid reversals during that year as the Earth's layers were formed during that time.  The Earth's layers didn't happen in millions and billions of years as you think.  Look at the Grand Canyon which I've visited as well as The White Cliffs of Dover which I've discussed.  That's why I say "Atheists are usually wrong."  Also, why I am usually winning using creation science -- https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Reversals-of-Earths-Magnetic-Field-During-the-Genesis-Flood.pdf.

You can't produce squat, but more lies on top of evolution and lies about me.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Sure, it's a model.  The mechanism is the global flood


But you haven't explained *HOW *a flood could affect the Earth's magnetic field?  We have floods every year but, so far as I know, they show ZERO effect.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> But you haven't explained *HOW *a flood could affect the Earth's magnetic field?  We have floods every year but, so far as I know, they show ZERO effect.


*Neither have you.  Did you even look for an evolutionary paper to explain it?*

Moreover, you didn't read the paper I linked which points out testable evidence with a convection sphere.  What's not clear are the numerous past reversals which are still being discussed.

The global flood explains how the layers with magnetized rocks and the fossils that we discuss were laid down in a short period of time, around one year.  The creation scientists have Occam's Razor on their side.

"
Abstract
Strong convection in the Earth’s core during the Deluge would rapidly reverse the magnetic field
while the fossil layers were being laid down. Afterwards the field would fluctuate for several thousand
years and then begin decaying steadily. This young-earth model explains the paleomagnetic and
archeomagnetic evidence better than old-earth “dynamic” theories do."
...

"Basic Physical Constraints
Since the field reversals are recorded in the fossil
strata,  the  reversals  must  have  happened  when
the strata were being laid down. Most young-earth
creationists (including myself) are convinced that the
Genesis Flood produced most of the fossil layers in
a single year. Therefore, since roughly 50 reversals
are recorded in the rocks, our model must average
about one reversal per week (one full cycle every two
weeks). Such changes are very rapid compared to the
ponderous thousand-year or million-year timescales
usually  imagined  for  large  changes  in  the  field.  If
the reversals were indeed rapid, we can immediately
deduce several things about the reversal mechanism
and conditions during the Flood"

...

"young-earth creationists have
accumulated a lot of evidence that the earth is much
younger than millions of years. Such a short timescale
suggests that planetary magnetic fields could just be
remnants of their original fields at creation, that the
fields are essentially caused by freely decaying electric
currents in the conductive cores of the planets. The
predominantly  dipole  (two  poles,  north  and  south)
shape of the earth’s field and its apparent exponential
(constant percent per year) decay for the last 150 years
(Figure 1) (Barnes, 1973, pp. 222–230; Humphreys,
1983,  pp. 89–94)  are  just  what  nineteenth-century
theorists  predicted  for  free  decay  in  a  conducting
sphere  (Lamb,  1883,  pp. 519–549).  Moreover,  the
observed decay rate gives a reasonable value for the
electrical  conductivity  of  the  earth’s  core,  40,000
mhos/meter (Barnes, p. 228). This value agrees with
estimates of the conductivity of likely core materials
at  core  temperatures  and  pressures  (Stacey,  1967,
pp. 204–206).

The  simplicity  of  the  free-decay  theory  is  an
advantage  over  the  complexity  of  the  “dynamo”
theories which advocates of an old earth must invoke
to  explain  the  field.  Unfortunately,  the  free-decay
theory as it stands now does not explain numerous
past  reversals.  One  would  think  that  young-earth
creationists would try to modify the free-decay theory;"


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> *Neither have you.  Did you even look for an evolutionary paper to explain it?*
> 
> Moreover, you didn't read the paper I linked which points out testable evidence with a convection sphere.  What's not clear are the numerous past reversals which are still being discussed.
> 
> The global flood explains how the layers with magnetized rocks and the fossils that we discuss were laid down in a short period of time, around one year.  The creation scientists have Occam's Razor on their side.
> 
> "
> Abstract
> Strong convection in the Earth’s core during the Deluge would rapidly reverse the magnetic field
> while the fossil layers were being laid down. Afterwards the field would fluctuate for several thousand
> years and then begin decaying steadily. This young-earth model explains the paleomagnetic and
> archeomagnetic evidence better than old-earth “dynamic” theories do."
> ...
> 
> "Basic Physical Constraints
> Since the field reversals are recorded in the fossil
> strata,  the  reversals  must  have  happened  when
> the strata were being laid down. Most young-earth
> creationists (including myself) are convinced that the
> Genesis Flood produced most of the fossil layers in
> a single year. Therefore, since roughly 50 reversals
> are recorded in the rocks, our model must average
> about one reversal per week (one full cycle every two
> weeks). Such changes are very rapid compared to the
> ponderous thousand-year or million-year timescales
> usually  imagined  for  large  changes  in  the  field.  If
> the reversals were indeed rapid, we can immediately
> deduce several things about the reversal mechanism
> and conditions during the Flood"
> 
> ...
> 
> "young-earth creationists have
> accumulated a lot of evidence that the earth is much
> younger than millions of years. Such a short timescale
> suggests that planetary magnetic fields could just be
> remnants of their original fields at creation, that the
> fields are essentially caused by freely decaying electric
> currents in the conductive cores of the planets. The
> predominantly  dipole  (two  poles,  north  and  south)
> shape of the earth’s field and its apparent exponential
> (constant percent per year) decay for the last 150 years
> (Figure 1) (Barnes, 1973, pp. 222–230; Humphreys,
> 1983,  pp. 89–94)  are  just  what  nineteenth-century
> theorists  predicted  for  free  decay  in  a  conducting
> sphere  (Lamb,  1883,  pp. 519–549).  Moreover,  the
> observed decay rate gives a reasonable value for the
> electrical  conductivity  of  the  earth’s  core,  40,000
> mhos/meter (Barnes, p. 228). This value agrees with
> estimates of the conductivity of likely core materials
> at  core  temperatures  and  pressures  (Stacey,  1967,
> pp. 204–206).
> 
> The  simplicity  of  the  free-decay  theory  is  an
> advantage  over  the  complexity  of  the  “dynamo”
> theories which advocates of an old earth must invoke
> to  explain  the  field.  Unfortunately,  the  free-decay
> theory as it stands now does not explain numerous
> past  reversals.  One  would  think  that  young-earth
> creationists would try to modify the free-decay theory;"


That is all circular logic. It does not prove anything about a young earth.
.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> That is all circular logic. It does not prove anything about a young earth.
> .


Nyet.  You just don't get the model.  The global flood and its effects took place around a year's time.  The _young_ Earth is to counter atheist scientists arguments that the Earth's layers, fossils, reversals in magnetic fields, etc. took place within millions of years time and that the main thing is about location and not time. How can you show the layers took millions of years to form when our model shows it happens very fast?


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Nyet. You just don't get the model. The global flood and its effects took place around a year's time. The _young_ Earth is to counter atheist scientists arguments that the Earth's layers, fossils, reversals in magnetic fields, etc. took place within millions of years time and that the main thing is about location and not time. How can you show the layers took millions of years to form when our model shows it happens very fast?


You have not given a model. You only gave opinion. A physical model must be more detailed than just a paragraph. You must show how much water is needed to cover all the mountains. And show how it got back to where it came from.

This source is supposed to tell where the flood water came from. 








						Drowned from below - creation.com
					

Water and other material has come out of the earth




					creation.com
				




That creation.com source references a science paper for the information they rely on. It states.








						Deep waters
					

Santa Cruz, California DEEP inside the Earth, the pressure is excruciating. Squeezed into strange shapes and forms, the rocks are so hot that they crawl like super-thick treacle. It is an inferno worthy of Dante, but it also contains something surprising. What's the last thing you would expect...




					www.newscientist.com
				



_But this water is not a series of immense seas. Rather, it is scattered in droplets, some as small as a single molecule, with most trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressures. How much there is down there is still fiercely debated._​Water that is trapped in the earth is not all that readily available. What strains the physical reality even more is the flood receding process -- of getting the water 400 kilometers back down into the mantel as we see it today -- dispersed and locked inside crystal lattices.

Where is a detailed physical model for how dispersed water droplets can coagulate and rise, and how receding flood water could force it's way back down 400 kilometers and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures?
.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> That is all circular logic. It does not prove anything about a young earth.


You keep ignoring that I have the Bible, creation science and that science backs up the Bible as well as my informed opinion in my posts.  My model is simple, understandable and testable with the sphere.















						The Tenets of Creationism
					

Creationism can be studied and taught in any                      of three basic forms, as follows:                                         (1) Scientific creationism (no reliance                        on Biblical revelation, utilizing only scientific data                        to support and...




					www.icr.org
				







OTOH, _you_ can't even produce a paper nor answer my questions.  It shows that all you have are lies and uninformed opinion.

What do I call your posts full of uninformed opinions?  It's crybabyism lmao.


----------



## james bond

You know that sign I keep posting?  It shows there are levels of pain.  It didn't hit me, but I suppose injured is after hurt.  However, I've learned that injured isn't in the book, so it stops at hurt mwahaha...





"
*Injured vs Hurt*


The terms “being injured” and “being hurt” are very different from each other. Being hurt means “having a sensation of pain, physically or mentally” while “injured” implies “to cause or do any kind of harm, such as a tear, severe sprain, etc.”
Taking the example of an athlete, he can play or participate in a tournament when he is hurt. But if he is injured, he must abstain from such events. He must take ample rest and treatment for healing. An injury incurs intense bodily pain and needs treatment for recovering. The part of the body undergoes permanent change where an injury occurs. That part may heal and the player may become fit, but it never returns to its original condition. An injury is associated with sports."





__





						Difference Between Injured and Hurt | Difference Between
					

Difference Between Injured and Hurt Injured vs Hurt The terms “being injured” and “being hurt” are very different from each other. Being hurt means “having a sensation of pain, physically or mentally” while “injured” implies “to cause or do any kind of harm, such as a tear, severe sprain, etc.”...




					www.differencebetween.net


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> My model is simple, understandable and testable with the sphere.


You still haven't cited a source for a model that includes the physics and chemistry of how dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures. That is what a science model demands. If that can't be done then it isn't science.


james bond said:


> OTOH, _you_ can't even produce a paper nor answer my questions. It shows that all you have are lies and uninformed opinion.


Your other questions have already been answered by many others.
.


----------



## g5000

Viktor said:


> Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong


​Gunter Bechly is an "Intelligent Design" creationist.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> *Neither have you.  Did you even look for an evolutionary paper to explain it?*


It is your assertion that a flood could affect the Earth's magnetic field, not mine and not science's so there are no papers anywhere to back your claim.  You make the claim, you supply the evidence.



james bond said:


> Moreover, you didn't read the paper I linked which points out testable evidence with a convection sphere.  What's not clear are the numerous past reversals which are still being discussed.
> 
> The global flood explains how the layers with magnetized rocks and the fossils that we discuss were laid down in a short period of time, around one year.  The creation scientists have Occam's Razor on their side.


Hardly.  The paper says there was one reversal per week during the flood.  There hasn't been another in recorded history.  Why?



james bond said:


> Abstract
> Strong convection in the Earth’s core during the Deluge would rapidly reverse the magnetic field
> while the fossil layers were being laid down. Afterwards the field would fluctuate for several thousand
> years and then begin decaying steadily. This young-earth model explains the paleomagnetic and
> archeomagnetic evidence better than old-earth “dynamic” theories do.


Why was the convection suddenly stronger?  You can't claim science backs up the Bible and also claim a supernatural mechanism.

Curious that the fossil assemblages are very different in the different layers?

Your model would have to explain, using only natural laws, how the Atlantic Ocean was created during the flood.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> You still haven't cited a source for a model that includes the physics and chemistry of how dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures. That is what a science model demands. If that can't be done then it isn't science.
> 
> Your other questions have already been answered by many others.
> .


Sad.  You continue to be ignorant on purpose.  It is I who have answered as well as other believers here and who have provided their papers as evidence.  You are the typical evolutionist who continue to believe in nothing lies which produces fake papers.  I already showed how these papers don't really say there was a common ancestor nor birds from dinosaurs.  You and the atheists here are such fools.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> It is your assertion that a flood could affect the Earth's magnetic field, not mine and not science's so there are no papers anywhere to back your claim.  You make the claim, you supply the evidence.
> 
> 
> Hardly.  The paper says there was one reversal per week during the flood.  There hasn't been another in recorded history.  Why?
> 
> 
> Why was the convection suddenly stronger?  You can't claim science backs up the Bible and also claim a supernatural mechanism.
> 
> Curious that the fossil assemblages are very different in the different layers?
> 
> Your model would have to explain, using only natural laws, how the Atlantic Ocean was created during the flood.


I already posted the paper from Dr. Humphreys and this is the second time you admitted that you cannot read complex scientific papers.

The paper says there was one reversal per week and when all the Earth's fossil layers were formed.

Here's another paper to help answer your questions -- https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Hypercanes-following-the-Genesis-Flood.pdf.

Why can the creationists answer their opponent's questions, but the evolutionists still sit in doo doo?  The atheists and evos are disgusting and smelly.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> I already posted the paper from Dr. Humphreys and this is the second time you admitted that you cannot read complex scientific papers.


When exactly did I say that?  These hardly qualify as complex scientific papers, they are pure speculations.



james bond said:


> The paper says there was one reversal per week and when all the Earth's fossil layers were formed.


That doesn't fit with what we see with our own eyes.  How does one flood create thousands of individual layers?  One really thick layer maybe but that is not what we find.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> When exactly did I say that?  These hardly qualify as complex scientific papers, they are pure speculations.
> 
> 
> That doesn't fit with what we see with our own eyes.  How does one flood create thousands of individual layers?  One really thick layer maybe but that is not what we find.


Now, you're contradicting yourself.

First, I've discovered that atheist science papers on evolution doesn't really _conclude_ anything.  They infer this and they infer that and the press the and lay people just lap it up as a done deal such as birds from dinosaurs and humans from monkeys.

Second, I presented the papers for creation.  We see the global flood happened and what happened during that one year.  That limestone fossils didn't just walk up by itself to the top of Mt. Everest nor decide to paint the cliffs of Dover white lol.  Creationists have papers and hard evidence.  If you had them, then you would've presented them already and be shaking your finger at me.  Instead, I give you .


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Now, you're contradicting yourself.
> 
> First, I've discovered that atheist science papers on evolution doesn't really _conclude_ anything.  They infer this and they infer that and the press the and lay people just lap it up as a done deal such as birds from dinosaurs and humans from monkeys.
> 
> Second, I presented the papers for creation.  We see the global flood happened and what happened during that one year.  That limestone fossils didn't just walk up by itself to the top of Mt. Everest nor decide to paint the cliffs of Dover white lol.  Creationists have papers and hard evidence.  If you had them, then you would've presented them already and be shaking your finger at me.  Instead, I give you .


Is it your position that the Flood was a purely natural event with no supernatural assistance?


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> Sad. You continue to be ignorant on purpose. It is I who have answered as well as other believers here and who have provided their papers as evidence. You are the typical evolutionist who continue to believe in nothing lies which produces fake papers. I already showed how these papers don't really say there was a common ancestor nor birds from dinosaurs. You and the atheists here are such fools.


My post had nothing to do with evolution. It was that no creationist has shown that the fluid mechanics of Noah's flood has any science supporting it. 

You have not cited a source for the physics and chemistry of how deep and dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; cover the mountain tops; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures. That is what a science model demands. If that can't be done then it isn't science.
.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> Is it your position that the Flood was a purely natural event with no supernatural assistance?


The Bible states that the global flood was supernatural as all humans and animals died except for those chosen by Noah to live.  How can you even think it was natural?  Even though you think supernatural events are like beginning of the universe and abiogenesis.  The latter is impossible and not science.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> My post had nothing to do with evolution. It was that no creationist has shown that the fluid mechanics of Noah's flood has any science supporting it.
> 
> You have not cited a source for the physics and chemistry of how deep and dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; cover the mountain tops; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures. That is what a science model demands. If that can't be done then it isn't science.
> .


I gave you the scientific papers for the global flood and now you're just making excuses as you were embarrassed as you couldn't produce papers nor models of birds from dinosaurs and humans' common ancestor that I asked for.  What a maroon lol.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> I gave you the scientific papers for the global flood and now you're just making excuses as you were embarrassed as you couldn't produce papers nor models of birds from dinosaurs and humans' common ancestor that I asked for.  What a maroon lol.


 I read and commented on the papers in post #484. You keep stalling on Noah's flood. I see nobody has an answer for the physics and chemistry of how deep and dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; cover the mountain tops; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures. 

As you obviously know by now there is no science to explain it. So you can only explain it as a miracle. That's OK. Many people including some of my relatives believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and miracles. These people don't confuse it with science. However many scientists who are Christians accept the Bible as allegories and stories. The problem comes when anyone says that the Bible is consistent with science. 
.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The Bible states that the global flood was supernatural as all humans and animals died except for those chosen by Noah to live.  How can you even think it was natural?  Even though you think supernatural events are like beginning of the universe and abiogenesis.  The latter is impossible and not science.


You should stop claiming that science supports the Bible since science deals only with the natural world, not the supernatural one.  If the Flood were a supernatural event it would be, by definition, outside the realm of science.  You could claim that all the fossils were laid down in about a year and science can't say you're wrong because science doesn't deal with the supernatural.  On the other hand, science also can't support the claim that all the fossils were laid down in about a year since there is no known mechanism for such supernatural actions.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> I read and commented on the papers in post #484. You keep stalling on Noah's flood. I see nobody has an answer for the physics and chemistry of how deep and dispersed water can consolidate; travel 400 Km to the surface; cover the mountain tops; and then recede back into the mantle; and disperse and permeate mineral lattice structures.
> 
> As you obviously know by now there is no science to explain it. So you can only explain it as a miracle. That's OK. Many people including some of my relatives believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and miracles. These people don't confuse it with science. However many scientists who are Christians accept the Bible as allegories and stories. The problem comes when anyone says that the Bible is consistent with science.
> .


What a liar.  Of course, science backs up the Bible as I posted an youtube on the points and my hundreds of posts here.  I'm sick of the disgusting, dirty and lying atheists and evolutionists here with their no scientific papers for dinosaurs to birds nor ape-human evolution.  In fact, I already exposed that as these fake papers just make allusions to it and not any conclusions.  Heck, I could do that if someone paid me from the time I was a university student.  You can't even provide your credentials.  It must be lower level.

I already posted the source of Dr. Russel Humphreys and here's another paper he wrote on the global flood model -- Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global Flood model of earth history.

OTOH, you dirty weasel of a science forum member, where are your science papers?  You should be able to produce them easily.  How about the paper that convinced you that you can discuss evolution?  I just laugh trying to write this as you're way out of your league.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> You should stop claiming that science supports the Bible since science deals only with the natural world, not the supernatural one.  If the Flood were a supernatural event it would be, by definition, outside the realm of science.  You could claim that all the fossils were laid down in about a year and science can't say you're wrong because science doesn't deal with the supernatural.  On the other hand, science also can't support the claim that all the fossils were laid down in about a year since there is no known mechanism for such supernatural actions.


As I've said hundreds of time, creation science deals with the origins of creation and the global flood which affected the Earth.  I guess you missed the model I posted:







The catastrophism gets us into the global flood which explains the layers of the Earth and what is found there. 

As for evolution, it's like your fake science just makes my points go in your one eye and out the other.  For me, your fake science goes in both eyes and out my rear end; It's such poo poo.  I can't even remember when you or any other atheists evo here posted a science paper.

Here's the latest one I posted -- Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global Flood model of earth history.  We even have the creationist who founded plate tectonics, Dr. Alfred Wegener.  Now, wasn't that a great scientific discovery?  He was inspired by the Bible.  In fact, it is the creationists who have the greatest discoveries and contributions to science due to the Bible.  We have atheist scientists today and the greatest discovery I've had is the evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together DESTROYS evolution and I've already posted that.  I even found your top atheist scientist admitted that would destroy it for him.

Anyway, since you have a degree in paleontology and have worked in it, perhaps you can contribute something I can read.  It doesn't have to do with what we discuss here, but it would be great if its one that _concludes_ something, i.e. produces some truth or knowledge of how our Earth or universe works. Obviously, any of Darwin's papers prolly wouldn't qualify unless it had to do with uniformitarianism.

ETA:  Here's what could be an atheist scientist contribution (since she is modern), but I don't know.  It doesn't provide her religious background -- Tanya Atwater | Earth 520: Plate Tectonics and People: Foundations of Solid Earth Science.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> What a liar.  Of course, science backs up the Bible as I posted an youtube on the points and my hundreds of posts here.  I'm sick of the disgusting, dirty and lying atheists and evolutionists here with their no scientific papers for dinosaurs to birds nor ape-human evolution.  In fact, I already exposed that as these fake papers just make allusions to it and not any conclusions.  Heck, I could do that if someone paid me from the time I was a university student.  You can't even provide your credentials.  It must be lower level.
> 
> OTOH, you dirty weasel of a science forum member, where are your science papers?  You should be able to produce them easily.  How about the paper that convinced you that you can discuss evolution?  I just laugh trying to write this as you're way out of your league.


You don't have to get furious over me. I have not discussed evolution at all in this thread. You have been consistently mistaking me for others.

However I have been discussing the lack of physical sciences behind the flood.


james bond said:


> I already posted the source of Dr. Russel Humphreys and here's another paper he wrote on the global flood model -- Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global Flood model of earth history.


I did read the Humphreys article and the one you just posted.
Both are hypotheses - a tentative explanation lacking a full scientific investigation. The first paragraph of the abstract says,
_We would like to propose a catastrophic plate tectonics theory as a framework for Earth history_​Propose means to offer a matter for consideration. The whole article is replete with qualifiers such as, _might be, may have, might explain, seems to be. _
On page 4
_We feel that considerable research is still needed to evaluate potential mechanisms in the light of how well they can produce global subduction. _​
You bet your bippy that considerable research is still needed. As I said research must explain how dispersed locked up water can collect, rise 400 Km and drain back down 400 Km. None of your sources covered that.
.


----------



## james bond

Wuwei said:


> You don't have to get furious over me. I have not discussed evolution at all in this thread. You have been consistently mistaking me for others.
> 
> However I have been discussing the lack of physical sciences behind the flood.


Science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book.  Those are facts.  Second, I'm not furious at you, but saying you are wrong as the writer states it is a model.  It's okay if you are wrong as you are a lot in regards to creation science.

>>However I have been discussing the lack of physical sciences behind the flood.<<

So why not explain why you think there is a lack of physical sciences behind a global flood?  I presented the evidence here (maybe it wasn't to you directly and you missed/skipped it), but would like to know what you do not believe and what makes you think that?  Have you read the Bible regarding Noah's Flood?  Why did God kill all the people in the OT except for Noah and his family?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Why oh why do you guys let this idiot ruin every science thread?

You get what he is doing, right? he hijacks these threads and ruins them. Nobody is going to read these threads or attempt to enter the discussion, when they are nothing but 50 pages of you guys all repeating yourselves.

How many times are you guys going to tell him that science does not support the Bible? Gotta be at about a million by now.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why oh why do you guys let this idiot ruin every science thread?


You shouldn't brag about what you do on science threads lol.

I already posted an youtube on how science backs up the Bible.  It is fact.  Science doesn't back up macroevolution.   Where are your ape-humans?  Where is your human history from Judy?  You can't even tell me how what's his name, i.e. Judy's ape-human partner, got her pregnant.  What were their children's names?  How did they deal with the global flood?  This is how I know evolution is a lie.  You will suffer in the Lake of Fire waiting billions of years for the first cell/life to appear, but I won't be able to see it.  It's just as well as that would be incredibly boring, i.e. waiting for something that won't happen.  However, you'll be able to see me enjoying my creation science and afterlife in the new heaven.


----------



## alang1216

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why oh why do you guys let this idiot ruin every science thread?
> 
> You get what he is doing, right? he hijacks these threads and ruins them. Nobody is going to read these threads or attempt to enter the discussion, when they are nothing but 50 pages of you guys all repeating yourselves.
> 
> How many times are you guys going to tell him that science does not support the Bible? Gotta be at about a million by now.


In my defense, you should note the first post in this thread read: "Dr Gunther Bechly says Darwin was wrong".  This was never a real science thread, it was a creationist attack on Darwin.  IMHO.  Besides, he is a hoot, someone I'd never cross paths with in the real world.


----------



## Wuwei

james bond said:


> So why not explain why you think there is a lack of physical sciences behind a global flood? I presented the evidence here (maybe it wasn't to you directly and you missed/skipped it), but would like to know what you do not believe and what makes you think that?


This is what your creationist sources failed to cover.

The volume of all the ocean water is 332,500,000 cubic miles.
The surface area of the earth is 197,000,000 sq mi. 
Divide the two: the average depth of water in the ocean is 1.6 miles

To raise the ocean another 1.6 miles would require another entire ocean of water. The tallest mountain is over 4 miles high.

The amount of water needed to cover the tallest mountain is formidable and not known to exist.

One of the sources you referenced cited another reference for their information about how much water is underground.








						Deep waters
					

Santa Cruz, California DEEP inside the Earth, the pressure is excruciating. Squeezed into strange shapes and forms, the rocks are so hot that they crawl like super-thick treacle. It is an inferno worthy of Dante, but it also contains something surprising. What's the last thing you would expect...




					www.newscientist.com
				



_But this water is not a series of immense seas. Rather, it is scattered in droplets, some as small as a single molecule, with most trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressures. How much there is down there is still fiercely debated._​
Another source says the trapped water is 400 Km below the surface. Creationists have not covered the fact that the water that is trapped in the earth is not available to rise as fountains. What strains the physical reality even more is the process of getting the receding flood water 400 Km back into the mantel where it is today -- dispersed and locked inside crystal lattices.
.


----------

