# Why Does Evolutionary Science Only Believe In Things In Which There Is No Evidence?



## james bond (Mar 24, 2019)

It starts with the theory of evolution in biology.  Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it.  Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.

One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel.  We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time.  This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time.  The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times.  What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26).  This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime.  He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book.  We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end.  It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet.  As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6).  _*This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.*_

That said, this is what NASA states:
"General relativity also provides scenarios that could allow travelers to go back in time, according to NASA. The equations, however, might be difficult to physically achieve.

One possibility could be to go faster than light, which travels at 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second) in a vacuum. Einstein's equations, though, show that an object at the speed of light would have both infinite mass and a length of 0. This appears to be physically impossible, although some scientists have extended his equations and said it might be done.

A linked possibility, NASA stated, would be to create "wormholes" between points in space-time. While Einstein's equations provide for them, they would collapse very quickly and would only be suitable for very small particles. Also, scientists haven't actually observed these wormholes yet. Also, the technology needed to create a wormhole is far beyond anything we have today."

Time Travel: Theories, Paradoxes & Possibilities

Here is how we travel into the future which we can do on a limited basis today (skip to 7:33)..


----------



## the other mike (Mar 24, 2019)

Science is a thing.
It doesn't _believe_ anything .
Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.


----------



## the other mike (Mar 24, 2019)




----------



## S.J. (Mar 24, 2019)

The left have the same philosophy toward all of their lies.  If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it.  Where have I heard that before?


----------



## denmark (Mar 24, 2019)

S.J. said:


> The left have the same philosophy toward all of their lies.  If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it.  Where have I heard that before?


You yourself blabbered that before.


----------



## denmark (Mar 24, 2019)

Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
He thinks scientists believe humans came from monkeys?
I hope he is not a teacher!


----------



## S.J. (Mar 24, 2019)

denmark said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > The left have the same philosophy toward all of their lies.  If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it.  Where have I heard that before?
> ...


Oh, now I remember...Joseph Goebbels
Thank you, you must have reminded me of a Nazi.


----------



## denmark (Mar 24, 2019)

S.J. said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


You like to blabber, I see.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> "General relativity also provides scenarios that _*could *_allow travelers to go back in time,



Conjecture is different from fact.

Saying something isn't against the laws of physics as we currently understand them isn't the same as stating it to be a fact.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> It starts with the theory of evolution in biology.  Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it.  Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.
> 
> One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel.  We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time.  This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time.  The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times.  What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26).  This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime.  He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book.  We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end.  It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet.  As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6).  _*This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.*_
> 
> ...


First off, you're completely wrong about no transitional fossils.  EVERY fossil is transitional.  Geologists measure time in many ways and they do NOT contradict.

If you really believe God is above nature why do you limit his options for time travel?  If he made space and time, I'd certainly think he can make time travel possible.  He has given us the ability to do lots of things previously thought impossible, going to the moon for example, so why is time travel so different?


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 24, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Science is a thing.
> It doesn't _believe_ anything .
> Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.


Perhaps "Evolutionary" Science is an ambiguous term. It's like saying Roman Catholic Church. Evolution is specific in what it accepts as scientific (it is in fact very judgmental in reference to itself as correct, accurate and exclusive). The term Roman Catholic Church is very much the same. Catholic is a Latin term meaning Universal; however ROMAN is an exclusive term. So the Roman Catholic church isn't all inclusive. It is exclusive to itself. 

I do believe in the Universal Church, just not a Roman Catholic version. In that respect I hold that all true believers in Our Lord Jesus Christ are in fact all SAINTS and part of this "CATHOLIC/UNIVERSAL" CHURCH that was founded by CHRIST!

As a result, I do not feel that Evolutionary Science is true science, because it is limited to the pursuit of establishing EVOLUTION as correct at the exclusion of contrary data. Creationism on the other hand tries to understand all data in light of the revelation of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 24, 2019)




----------



## sealybobo (Mar 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> It starts with the theory of evolution in biology.  Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it.  Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.
> 
> One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel.  We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time.  This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time.  The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times.  What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26).  This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime.  He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book.  We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end.  It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet.  As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6).  _*This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.*_
> 
> ...


We have the same evidence of the Big Bang as we do evolution. Lots of facts point to evolution.

No evidence your hypothesis is true yet you believe.

In fact you believe a holy book that’s full of lies and miracles. You believe a fairytale. With no possible evidence. 

So stfu


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 24, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Science is a thing.
> It doesn't _believe_ anything .
> Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.


Science is already starting to question the Big Bang theory. Their starting to realize the Big Bang is just the start of our observable universe. That’s all we know. There’s probably other universes outside ours.

But we don’t have any evidence yet. We might be on to something but for now science is waiting for more evidence.

Clearly they have a lot of evidence for evolution.

Religious nuts ignore the evidence we have and fixate on the evidence we don’t have


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> It starts with the theory of evolution in biology.  Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it.  Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.
> 
> One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel.  We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time.  This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time.  The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times.  What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26).  This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime.  He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book.  We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end.  It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet.  As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6).  _*This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.*_
> 
> ...


By the way, micro or macro, I forget which, but one does say we evolved from monkeys. They don’t believe we are related to fish, snakes, dogs, etc. 

But all us apes came from one original ape.

Just like all dogs came from wolves. Even cha wha waas.  That’s how we know all apes are related because all dogs are. And we did that.


----------



## the other mike (Mar 24, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> By the way, micro or macro, I forget which, but one does say we evolved from monkeys. They don’t believe we are related to fish, snakes, dogs, etc.
> 
> But all us apes came from one original ape.
> 
> Just like all dogs came from wolves. Even cha wha waas.  That’s how we know all apes are related because all dogs are. And we did that.


We evolved from fungus actually.
But they're spiritual fungus.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 24, 2019)

Sunni Man said:


>




As a goofy convert to Islamism, you’re allowed to be stupid, actually, it’s expected. 

Carry on.


----------



## the other mike (Mar 24, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Acknowledging evolution doesn't make a person an atheist.
It's so difficult for some people to grasp.


----------



## the other mike (Mar 24, 2019)

Fungi Are Responsible For Life On Land As We Know It


----------



## BULLDOG (Mar 24, 2019)

Sunni Man said:


>



If that is what you think atheism is, I can understand why you might make so many stupid posts.


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 24, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Acknowledging evolution doesn't make a person an atheist.
> It's so difficult for some people to grasp.


True, not all people who believe in evolution are atheists.

But the majority of atheists believe in evolution.  ...


----------



## BULLDOG (Mar 24, 2019)

Sunni Man said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Acknowledging evolution doesn't make a person an atheist.
> ...



Of course they do. They are usually rational thinking individuals who evaluate available information instead of just believing what they were told.


----------



## S.J. (Mar 24, 2019)

denmark said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


Is "blabber" your favorite word?  Tell ya what, if you don't like the way I respond to your trolling, don't fucking troll me.  Problem solved.


----------



## denmark (Mar 24, 2019)

S.J. said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


More blabber. Nothing intelligent to contribute that advances knowledge?


----------



## DGS49 (Mar 24, 2019)

Just for basic info:  A scientific THEORY is an explanation for something that cannot be proven empirically.  If it is a "good" theory, it takes into account everything that is known and observed, and it still holds.  When some new fact is introduced that seems to contradict the theory, the theory and the new fact are examined, and one of a number of things may result:  The theory may have to be modified to accommodate the new fact, the fact may prove to have been in error, or the theory may have to be tossed out until a better theory is found.

"Evolution" will ALWAYS be a "theory" because it cannot be observed and documented.  But over the years it has had to explain a large number of facts that seemingly contradicted it.  Darwin himself mentioned the EYE as a "problem" for Evolution, because there appeared to be no evolutionary process that could result in a very complex organ like the eye coming into existence through natural selection.

But we have reached the point where Evolution has gone from being a "theory" to being a "religion."

That is, when an apparently inconsistent fact comes to light, rather than re-examining the THEORY to see why it can't explain the inconvenient fact, the fact itself is castigated, along with those who brought it up, because the Theory is PRESUMED to be unassailable.

That, my friends is the difference between religion and theory.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 24, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> Just for basic info:  A scientific THEORY is an explanation for something that cannot be proven empirically.  If it is a "good" theory, it takes into account everything that is known and observed, and it still holds.  When some new fact is introduced that seems to contradict the theory, the theory and the new fact are examined, and one of a number of things may result:  The theory may have to be modified to accommodate the new fact, the fact may prove to have been in error, or the theory may have to be tossed out until a better theory is found.
> 
> "Evolution" will ALWAYS be a "theory" because it cannot be observed and documented.  But over the years it has had to explain a large number of facts that seemingly contradicted it.  Darwin himself mentioned the EYE as a "problem" for Evolution, because there appeared to be no evolutionary process that could result in a very complex organ like the eye coming into existence through natural selection.
> 
> ...



Biological evolution has both a documented history of observation and a fossil record to record changes in species. 

Your reference to the EYE as a problem for biological science is not a problem at all. Your read on an ID’iot / creation website, right?


----------



## S.J. (Mar 24, 2019)

denmark said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


And what have you posted in this thread that advances knowledge?  I'll wait.


----------



## denmark (Mar 24, 2019)

S.J. said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


My Post #6 refutes the OP text that claims humans come from monkeys.
Other than that, in this thread, I am not making claims. Those that do need to support their claims and not babble like you do.


----------



## S.J. (Mar 24, 2019)

denmark said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


You ignored the OP's point entirely and instead focused on one word, followed by a wisecrack for the purpose of prodding him like you would poke a bee hive...to get a reaction.  The OP contained links and presented an intelligent and substantive argument.  Your response was trolling.
My post was to point out that the left (who advance an unprovable theory as fact) subscribe to the belief that repeating a lie often enough will convince people that it's true.  Your response to that was similar to your response to the OP...trolling.


----------



## denmark (Mar 24, 2019)

S.J. said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


It is clear by the OP’s thread title and his opening paragraph that he does not understand science. He did not present any intelligent argument, just cut/paste some material that suited his beliefs.
No science expert in the world who studies biological nature would agree with the thread’s title.

Even the OP agreed that “microevolution” is valid, so he must realize its concept has so much evidence that its considered a fact.
Scientists have plenty of evidence for “macroevolution” and consider the phylogenetic data that represents it as a strong theory.
Origin of life is another matter, dealing with mostly speculation.

If you are really interested in science, you should educate yourself on those subjects before trying to argue about them.


----------



## Astrostar (Mar 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> It starts with the theory of evolution in biology.  Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it.  Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.
> 
> One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel.  We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time.  This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time.  The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times.  What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26).  This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime.  He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book.  We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end.  It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet.  As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6).  _*This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.*_
> 
> ...


The same as religion.  No proof of "god" whatsoever.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> It starts with the theory of evolution in biology.  Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it.  Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.
> 
> One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel.  We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time.  This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time.  The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times.  What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26).  This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime.  He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book.  We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end.  It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet.  As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6).  _*This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.*_
> 
> ...


Well, it's good know the Bible doesn't directly address time travel but of course there is some verse in the Bible to prove it can't happen.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 24, 2019)

denmark said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


One of the comforting things about religion is you don't have to be concerned or confused about the world around you because all you need to know is in the book and if ain't in the book, you don't need to know it.

The Bible is not a book of science or history but rather a book that teaches us principals to live by.  Why is it that people try make it into something that it is not and thus alienates millions of people.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 24, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> Just for basic info:  A scientific THEORY is an explanation for something that cannot be proven empirically.  If it is a "good" theory, it takes into account everything that is known and observed, and it still holds.  When some new fact is introduced that seems to contradict the theory, the theory and the new fact are examined, and one of a number of things may result:  The theory may have to be modified to accommodate the new fact, the fact may prove to have been in error, or the theory may have to be tossed out until a better theory is found.
> 
> "Evolution" will ALWAYS be a "theory" because it cannot be observed and documented.  But over the years it has had to explain a large number of facts that seemingly contradicted it.  Darwin himself mentioned the EYE as a "problem" for Evolution, because there appeared to be no evolutionary process that could result in a very complex organ like the eye coming into existence through natural selection.
> 
> ...


There have always been people that support or reject a theory to the extent that it becomes a religion.  That was the case with Germ theory which was widely ridiculed. Even when the research of Pasteur and Koch was published, it was 50 years before the scientific community would fully accept it.  The Miasma Theory and Four Humors were defended with religious zeal.  However as their work was duplicated in laboratories around the world, the scientific community dismissed these alternative theories and those that support them.  

When it comes to matters of science, scientific research will eventually determine what is fact and what is just faith.  If supporters of the biblical version of the creation of the species are correct, eventually their will be enough scientific research to convince scientists that that the theory of evolution is faulty.  However, I doubt there will ever be enough evidence in support of the theory of evolution to convince the religious faithful.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 24, 2019)

`
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

*Contents*

1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry

2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy

3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology

4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography

5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates

6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates

7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage

8 Evidence from mathematical modeling
9 See also
10 References
11 Sources
12 External links




`


----------



## S.J. (Mar 24, 2019)

denmark said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


This comment (post #6) does not refute anything.  All I see is a hint that he is wrong, followed by a snide remark.  Where's the argument?


denmark said:


> Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
> He thinks scientists believe humans came from monkeys?
> I hope he is not a teacher!


----------



## denmark (Mar 24, 2019)

S.J. said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


OP’s comment on “coming from monkeys” shows that he’s ignorant of phylogeny and common descent concepts.
To learn about them and see some evidence, refer to the recent post #35 just prior to your last one (by Abu Afak).


----------



## S.J. (Mar 25, 2019)

denmark said:


> OP’s comment on “coming from monkeys” shows that he’s ignorant of phylogeny and common descent concepts.


Again, you focus on one word and hammer away at it like it means anything.  It's a sarcastic statement to show the absurdity of your theory but since you're either unable or too lazy to make your case, you throw out an insult.  You haven't presented an argument, you've simply claimed to have refuted the OP when you haven't even addressed it.  Well, I've wasted too much time on you already and continuing to indulge you in your trolling would be pointless so cya later.  Have a nice evening.


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Science is a thing.
> It doesn't _believe_ anything .
> Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.



Wrong.  Science isn't a thing.  It's supposed to be a disciplined study in a quest for knowledge that uses observable, testable and falsifiable explanations and predictions.  I was talking about evolutionary science which isn't a really a study, but is a made up philosophy based on natural selection in order to show that God or the creator doesn't exist and that everything originated naturally.  Not much follows the scientific method, but is circumstantial evidence and imaginary hypotheses.  Thus, it's you who doesn't make any sense you low brow internet atheist.


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

denmark said:


> Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
> He thinks scientists believe humans came from monkeys?
> I hope he is not a teacher!



We have creation science and it is being taught in public schools in some states.  We always had it, but around the 1850s evolution tried to take it out of the school curriculum and it gained momentum.  Humans were created.  They didn't evolve.  One of the transitions is from tailed to tailless monkeys.  We're supposed to have vestigial tails. However, this is all imaginary BS made up by secular or atheist scientists.


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> First off, you're completely wrong about no transitional fossils.  EVERY fossil is transitional.  Geologists measure time in many ways and they do NOT contradict.
> 
> If you really believe God is above nature why do you limit his options for time travel?  If he made space and time, I'd certainly think he can make time travel possible.  He has given us the ability to do lots of things previously thought impossible, going to the moon for example, so why is time travel so different?



Fossils are just fossils and show where some animal died.  None of it is transitional.  You just believe anything they tell you so you can follow Hollywood values of drugs, hedonism and homosexuality.

Our spirit or life force is evidence of God.  Man can't recreate it nor bring back the dead despite all the zombie movies you've seen.

And I explained in the OP, God didn't allow for time travel back in time.  He did allow for time travel into the future as the video explained.  Time travel into the past is verboten.  This is because God knows each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27).  You should have been able to figure out that if humans were able to go back in time, then they can change their time of death.

Thus, NASA comes up with some imaginary explanation of how this could be done.  There isn't evidence for any of it just like macroevolution, aliens and multiverses.


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 25, 2019)

Sunni Man said:


>



I've already explained that even nothing has something in it.  Charged particles coming in and out of existence.  This happened in black empty space.  So there never is really "nothing"

Unfortunately, the biggest thing is what it doesn't tell us. We still don't know if the universe is finite or infinite. If we could measure its curvature, we could know that we're in a finite universe, and get a sense of what its actual true size is, out beyond the observable universe we can measure.

We know that the volume of the universe is at least 100 times more than we can observe. At least. If the flatness error bars get brought down, the minimum size of the universe goes up.



And remember, an infinite universe is still on the table.

Another thing this does, is that it actually causes a problem for the original Big Bang theory, requiring the development of a theory like inflation.

Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing.

In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×1057 parts.

Which seems like an insane coincidence. The development of inflation, however, solves this, by expanding the universe an incomprehensible amount moments after the Big Bang. Pre and post inflation universes can have vastly different levels of curvature.

In the olden days, cosmologists used to say that the flatness of the universe had implications for its future. If the universe was curved where you could complete a full journey with less than four turns, that meant it was closed and destined to collapse in on itself.

blablabla.  Point is, we are finding things out that lead us to believe we are just one of many universes.  Deal with it.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > First off, you're completely wrong about no transitional fossils.  EVERY fossil is transitional.
> ...


Completely wrong!  I know because I'm a transitional fossil.  I'm old, I just haven't been turned to stone, yet.  More to the point, I'm transitional between my parents and my kids.  The changes are slight since there is little selection pressure on my family, but if we were bacteria and someone put an anti-biotic into our environment, the generations might be noticeably different.


----------



## deanrd (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> It starts with the theory of evolution in biology.  Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it.  Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.
> 
> One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel.  We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time.  This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time.  The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times.  What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26).  This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime.  He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book.  We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end.  It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet.  As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6).  _*This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.*_
> 
> ...


No proof? You mean like fossils? And DNA?

Chicken grows face of dinosaur

 You can’t grow feathers on humans because humans in all their long evolutionary path never had feathers. But birds were dinosaurs so they can unlock genetic information and give them what they had millions of years ago in the past. How do we know? They did it.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > First off, you're completely wrong about no transitional fossils.  EVERY fossil is transitional.  Geologists measure time in many ways and they do NOT contradict.
> ...



Vestigial bones are what, the gods way of showing they have a sense of humor?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
> ...


As already correctly noted: there is ample objective evidence of the fact of evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
> ...



Firstly, you don't have creation science because that is a phony label for christian fundamentalism. Your fundamentalist ministries do no science. Secondly, you might be surprised to find that science, and the tools used by science have become vastly more sophisticated and exacting since 1850. While you would like to vilify the advancements in science since the 1850's, and while those advancements and discoveries have obviously had an impact in terms of displacing bible myths and superstitions, you simply can't expect to drag the western world backwards with you.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 25, 2019)

Evolution happens
It is an undeniable fact

Simple creatures evolved into more complex creatures. Biological, Fossil, Geological and DNA evidence confirms it


----------



## anynameyouwish (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> It starts with the theory of evolution in biology.  Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it.  Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.
> 
> One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel.  We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time.  This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time.  The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times.  What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26).  This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime.  He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book.  We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end.  It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet.  As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6).  _*This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.*_
> 
> ...




Why do religious people?

there is no evidence of god


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

sealybobo said:


> Charged particles coming in and out of existence. This happened in black empty space. So there never is really "nothing"



Do you have any evidence for this?  We know that this would break the law of conservation of energy.  Otherwise, it's all "faith-based" myths based on science fiction.


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 25, 2019)

Ever play blackjack ?


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> Why do religious people?
> 
> there is no evidence of god



We have the Bible.  What's in it is evidence for God.  One can take just the science parts and we find that the scientific method backs up the Bible.

OTOH, there is no evidence of evolution.  The scientific method does not back it up.


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

Likkmee said:


> Ever play blackjack ?



The probabilities say that the atheists will lose in the long-run.


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 25, 2019)

Majick.....know how to spell it correctly ?


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Hahahahahahahahahahaha.  Do you even know what a fossil is?


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 25, 2019)

'twas a spell dummies............


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 25, 2019)

It's not imaginary


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

deanrd said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > It starts with the theory of evolution in biology.  Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it.  Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.
> ...



The evidence is that we found soft tissue in the bones of these hundreds of millions of years old dinosaurs.  It means that they aren't that old.  Probably thousands of years old.

You conveniently ignore the facts to fit Darwin's dumb theory of macroevolution of which only two has been claimed -- humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  As to the chicken, they just made it an elongated beak and have sharp teeth.  It isn't dinosaur teeth.  It's not even alive.  Furthermore, there are questions what the velociraptor looked like since they are described and drawn differently.  If you get fooled this easily, then you just may be a fool.


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...



If it IS a fact, then we should all know it.  The polls say most people don't believe in evolution so you lose.


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

Likkmee said:


> It's not imaginary



I must've struck a nerve.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 25, 2019)

Nothing for me 'James Bong' you Deluded and Dishonest DOUCHEBAG?
"NO evidence"?


Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

*Contents*





1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry


2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Vestigial structures
2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy


3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples from paleontology


4 Evidence from biogeography
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.3 Ring species
4.4 Specific examples from biogeography


5 Evidence from selection
5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
5.2 Invertebrates
5.3 Microbes
5.4 Plants and fungi
5.5 Vertebrates


6 Evidence from speciation
6.1 Fossils
6.2 Invertebrates
6.3 Plants
6.4 Vertebrates


7 Evidence from coloration
7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
7.2 Camouflage


8 Evidence from mathematical modeling

9 See also

10 References

11 Sources

12 External links


Have nice page.
This one is mine.
Read it and weep.
`


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Nothing for me 'James Bong' you Deluded and Dishonest DOUCHEBAG?
> "NO evidence"?
> 
> 
> ...



What a horrible cut and paste job abu a-fake.


----------



## deanrd (Mar 25, 2019)

World's biggest Tyrannosaurus rex found by Canadian paleontologists

Wow!


----------



## abu afak (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> What a horrible cut and paste job abu a-fake.


IOW, *you have NO real answer to TONS OF EVIDENCE.*

You're a Raging Liar who refuses Honest debate and cannot respond honestly.
No to mention... a Brainwashed Mental case Cultist and *GENEPISS literalist.

*
`


----------



## james bond (Mar 25, 2019)

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > What a horrible cut and paste job abu a-fake.
> ...



It was TLDR.  You can't even explain what it is and what it means because you're one of the low brow internets, so why should I waste my time reading what you can't explain nor understand?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


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



Why do the hyper-religious retreat to conspiracy theories when their tales of supernaturalism are refuted by science.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> *
> It was TLDR.  You can't even explain what it is and what it means because you're one of the low brow internets, so why should I waste my time reading what you can't explain nor understand?*


You DISHONEST Moron.
I have already explained much of it. 
You WHIFFED you DISHONEST PIECE OF SHlT.
ie, my just bumped for YOU:
More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

WHERE WERE YOU MUTHAFUKKA?
The thread up for 3 weeks like many other of my individual explanations of just one element.
ANSWER IT YOU DISHONEST 12 IQ MUTHFUKKA!
YOU CAN'T.
SO YOU WHIFF/IGNORE whole threads, while ALL of us on the science/Evo side engage under your and other Moronic anti-Evo headlines.


And when I'm I'm not wasting time cutting your stupid tiny Balls off, I post on a well know High IQ society message board you'll never see. 

`


----------



## abu afak (Mar 25, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> Just for basic info:  A scientific THEORY is an explanation for something that cannot be proven empirically.  If it is a "good" theory, it takes into account everything that is known and observed, and it still holds.  When some new fact is introduced that seems to contradict the theory, the theory and the new fact are examined, and one of a number of things may result:  The theory may have to be modified to accommodate the new fact, the fact may prove to have been in error, or the theory may have to be tossed out until a better theory is found.
> 
> "Evolution" will ALWAYS be a "theory" because it cannot be observed and documented.  But over the years it has had to explain a large number of facts that seemingly contradicted it.  Darwin himself mentioned the EYE as a "problem" for Evolution, because there appeared to be no evolutionary process that could result in a very complex organ like the eye coming into existence through natural selection.
> 
> ...


RONG goofy.
Scientific theories are the strongest statements science can make about the universe.
Science does not have "Proofs", and no theories are 'proven.'
Only Math has "proofs".

Evolution is a theory and a Fact.
160 years and counting: an explosion of New sciences. (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc)
No contradictions in sight. Others all consistent with, or outright help confirm it.
Hundreds of thousands of Fossils all found in the correct strata.
A mere one of which could have thrown it into doubt.
Nope.

You know Nothing.
You are full of shlt, and as stupid as a Jesus Freak.
`


----------



## james bond (Mar 26, 2019)

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



Well, explain one part you can explain and I'll show that you are wrong.  I must have hit a nerve with you and you have gone ad hominem attacks on me.  It goes to show that you cannot explain what these things mean or else you would have.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Actually I do know a lot about what a fossil is and you saying "Fossils are just fossils" demonstrates that you do not.  Yes they may show where some animal died but they do show when it died and much about it's biological history.  Fossils may also reveal where and how the animal lived.  In context they may reveal when the animal first appeared and when it disappeared.


----------



## the other mike (Mar 28, 2019)

Humans have access to an infinite amount of information.
The Internet, schools and universities, libraries, museums and book stores.
So in the 21st century, if you're reading this, and you still believe the earth is only 6000 years old, there's only one explanation. 






You're not very smart.


----------



## denmark (Mar 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing for me 'James Bong' you Deluded and Dishonest DOUCHEBAG?
> ...


Why don’t you TRY reading the SAMPLE cited evidence before responding with an irrelevant comment?
I don’t think you want to read it!


----------



## the other mike (Mar 28, 2019)




----------



## the other mike (Mar 28, 2019)




----------



## abu afak (Mar 28, 2019)

denmark said:


> Why don’t you TRY reading the SAMPLE cited evidence before responding with an irrelevant comment?
> I don’t think you want to read it!


Listen Beginner Boy..
I have been posting on this for years, started strings on it, and pointed AND Bumped up a sampling of one issue in it just to deal with the DISHONEST OP and Dopes like you IN this thread
ie, this
More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges
(there are others too)
You stupid male Twat, can't you see the board?

And since the OP said there is NO EVIDENCE, a Credible link with TONS of evidence would have alone be valid rebuttal.
Understand 2 digit guy?

Now it's back to a High IQ mb for me, and back to remedial ed for you 12 IQ Clown..
`


----------



## james bond (Mar 28, 2019)

denmark said:


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



Why don't you explain it to us believers briefly or explain what is important to you?

Abu a-fake could not do it.  Can you?


----------



## james bond (Mar 28, 2019)

abu afak said:


> And when I'm I'm not wasting time cutting your stupid tiny Balls off, I post on a well know High IQ society message board you'll never see.



I think the demons will be doing that to you soon enough.  And you do not qualify for any Mensa-type board.  Not when you have to copy and paste stuff from an fake internet encyclopedia to make an argument.  Can you explain what's important to you?


----------



## abu afak (Mar 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> Why don't you explain it to us believers briefly or explain what is important to you?
> 
> Abu a-fake could not do it.  Can you?


*You DISHONEST Indoctrinated Fukkhead.*
*You said there was NO Evidence.*
*I presented a credible source with TONS of evidence. (TWICE)*
*You stand 100% REFUTED.*
*Period.*

Beyond that, I linked to and Bumped up a thread dealing with one very poignant aspect: anatomical Vestiges. 
*More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges*

YOU DISHONESTLY WHIFFED AS ALWAYS.
You are Deluded and should be in an institution, and may be so already.

*You have not and CANNOT Answer anything I post- just emptily/gratuitously "reply".*

*You are DISHONEST Trolling FILTH.*


*`*


----------



## denmark (Mar 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
Why don’t you read a detailed summary of its concepts before criticizing it without merit?
Here is a reliable source with relevant citations:
Common descent - Wikipedia


----------



## james bond (Mar 28, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Beyond that, I linked to and Bumped up a thread dealing with one very poignant aspect: anatomical Vestiges



So what about these "anatomical Vestiges?"  Can you explain the article in your own words?  I don't think you understood the article if you can't.


----------



## denmark (Mar 28, 2019)

abu afak said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Why don’t you TRY reading the SAMPLE cited evidence before responding with an irrelevant comment?
> ...


You appear to have emotional issues that don’t compensate for a schizophrenic mind!
Or, you are playing too many games.


----------



## james bond (Mar 28, 2019)

denmark said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...



Obviously, it wasn't a direct humans from monkeys.  It started with tailed to tailless monkeys, but you do not even know that.

Instead of DNA, why don't you look at the common molecules?  There are lot more differences with that.  Certain DNA has more effect than others.  The similarity in DNA means that God reused the same parts, but it doesn't mean that we are related.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 28, 2019)

denmark said:


> The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
> Why don’t you read a detailed summary of its concepts before criticizing it without merit?
> Here is a reliable source with relevant citations:
> 
> Common descent - Wikipedia


*I criticized you WITH Merit.
I refuted James Turd's blanket claim 100% with or without explanation/aspect.

THEN I did go on to explain and bump a thread I already started a while back to deal with "an aspect" you asked for because YOU MISSED My linking to it in this thread AND MISSED it looking at the section.
More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges

Your concerns were already addressed by me you (previous dufus) and now Dishonest Clown.
You remain 100% Refuted on those concerns.
Fukk you junior.

`*


----------



## denmark (Mar 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Why do you need to bring a god into your explanation? You don’t know what God may have done!
By using God, you are always putting the cart before the horse, instead of looking for evidence that is objective.


----------



## denmark (Mar 28, 2019)

abu afak said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > The “common descent” evolutionary perspective does NOT mean humans “came from monkeys”, but both species have a common DNA ancestor.
> ...


Is it difficult to control your irrational emotions?
In this thread, I was responding mostly to the OP and later SJ, not you.


----------



## deanrd (Mar 29, 2019)

First Dinosaur Tail Found Preserved in Amber

 Looks like most dinosaurs were probably covered with feathers.


----------



## deanrd (Mar 29, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Nothing for me 'James Bong' you Deluded and Dishonest DOUCHEBAG?
> "NO evidence"?
> 
> 
> ...


 This is why most Republicans think college is bad for America.


----------



## james bond (Mar 29, 2019)

abu afak said:


> I criticized you WITH Merit.



I criticized you with having no merit and feces for brainz.  You have not and cannot explain vestiges.  We have never seen a tailed monkey become a tailess one, i.e. primates to anthropoidea.  This is part of atheist scientists' explanation of modification with descent for humans (transistion).

Furthermore, we do not have useless organs.  The appendix, for example, stores beneficial bacteria for the digestive system.  If there is a_ function_ for the organ, then it is not vestigial.

Thus, you have to put on your dunce cap and sit in the corner.


----------



## james bond (Mar 29, 2019)

denmark said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...



Because that is how it is explained in Genesis.  We have a supernatural creator who created the universe and everything in it.  This the creation science theory based on the Bible.  The only supernatural part is God and Genesis.  The proof is that the five manifestations that are needed ot have this condition is force (God), space, time, matter and motion.  Evolution is also based on "faith-based" science of an impossible dark energy, dark matter, infinite singularity, quantum particles that pop into and out of existence and cosmic inflation. None of these can happen under classical physics nor quantum mechanics.  They are all philosophy of cosmology.  I should ask you why do you have to bring in impossibilities, philosophy and the atheist religion into science?


----------



## james bond (Mar 29, 2019)

abu afak said:


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



There, there.  You do not have to get angry like I kicked you in the balls or something.  Instead of small balls, you need to grow a pair and stand up to criticism of false scientific "faith-based" atheist beliefs.  It's part of arguments over evolutionary imaginings.

What you state about the coccyx is low brow internet atheist pop culture.  No reputable scientist will state there is no function with the coccyx.  It is the point of connection for various tendons and muscles.  Moreover, it stabilizes the body when a person is in an upright seated position.  A person would have difficulties sitting and walking without a coccyx.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > I criticized you WITH Merit.
> ...


Your post is a non sequitur
Just because "You have not seen" something doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
(One of the Main bases of Yours/other Kweationist FALLACIOUS attempts)

Vestiges are EVIDENCE It did.
*WE are tailless apes with our Coccyx as a Remnant.*

Many More undeniable examples my thread on the topic here which you (have STILL) WHIFFED On.
*More Strong Evidence for Evolution: Anatomical Vestiges*

FUKK YOU, YOU GRATUITOUS/FALLACIOUS/DISINGENUOUS 'replying' INDOCTRINATED TROLLING ASSHOLE.



`


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



The gods reused the same parts?

That would explain vestigial bones, for example. As the gods were directing Santa’s Elves on the assembly line of human/animal production, it’s not surprising that a few bones would get mixed up and placed in the wrong human and animal. 

5 Useless Body Parts


I think what really happened is that it was Miller time too early and the gods just decided to have a little fun with the hyper-religious.


----------



## harmonica (Mar 31, 2019)

more believable than a human being energized by ''god''


----------



## harmonica (Mar 31, 2019)

denmark said:


> Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
> He thinks scientists believe humans came from monkeys?
> I hope he is not a teacher!


he doesn't know what he believes


----------



## denmark (Mar 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


My objective investigative perspective is AGNOSTIC, as is real science. Beliefs (and knowledge claims) should be based on personal experiences, data/evidence, and logical interpretations.

The Bible is an ancient relic from ignorant people. Why do you want to believe in those primitive stories? Do you maintain emotional baggage from your family & cultural influences during childhood?
Your scientific understanding is low grade. You would benefit from more education in those objective fields of study.


----------



## james bond (Mar 31, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...



Vestigial organs are still a hypothesis that atheist scientists and you believe in due to the stupid religion of atheism.  There are no vestigial organs.  Why don't your atheist men cut their nipples off and you remove your coccyx then?  I would pay to see how you do afterward .


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

james bond said:


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



Not true at all. Denial of vestigial bones / organs is standard fare for ID’iot creation ministries. 

Among the relevant science and medical communities, they are well known and documented. 

A sad thing that you ridicule what you don’t understand. Your ID’iot creation ministries must have done the research so that the hyper-religious could present a clear, defendable case. 

I’m sure that you can provide a link to those research studies, right?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> It starts with the theory of evolution in biology.  Just because microevolution happens and both sides agree, it does not lead to macroevolution of change via mutation such as humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  We just do not have the transitional fossil evidence for it.  Moreover, there is contradiction in terms of how long-time was calculated using radiometric dating.
> 
> One of the latest that I read was that NASA believes that one day we will be able to time travel.  We already are able to travel forward in time, but we cannot travel back in time.  This is impossible as God has made it so that we will not be able to travel back in time.  The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel because such science fiction did not exist in ancient times.  What Scripture indicates is that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27) and that this is known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5, Acts 17:26).  This would be possible if God existed in a higher dimension beyond spacetime.  He would be able to read what happened to so-and-so as if he were reading a history book.  We've already have seen space and time expand until we reach our end.  It's just that our time has not caught up to that point yet.  As we continue to read the Bible, it often speaks of events occurring according to God's timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8, 1 Timothy 2:6).  _*This runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel going back in time.*_
> 
> ...




How the fuck are we going to be able to time travel when no one from the future came here?


You and NASA are stupid.


.


----------



## james bond (Mar 31, 2019)

There are libs who enjoy looking freaky due to wanting to be different.  I'd love to see them get operations in order to prove their fake vestigial claims.  Darwin should have been a role model for this instead of being one for Adolph Hitler.  Maybe some atheists will be that way in their second life.  Oh noes!

15 Human "Vestigial" Organs and Functions
15 Human Vestigial Organs and Functions


----------



## james bond (Mar 31, 2019)

bear513 said:


> You and NASA are stupid.



You can read worth shit you dolt!


----------



## james bond (Mar 31, 2019)

harmonica said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
> ...



Of course, I know what is real science and what is fake science.  Both you and denmark are one who have been lied to and fooled badly.  Some saps believe anything as long as they do not have to answer to Jesus.  However, we all know that everyone will have to answer to Jesus for their second life.  The evidence for this is in the Bible and the life of Jesus as Christ and his resurrection.  OTOH, we do not even have evidence of bipedalism in monkeys/apes/chimps, but we do see that they still have the same cranial capacity as both you and denmark.  I'll take that as true science because creation scientists observed monkeys like this today, and past australopithicine fossils like this, too.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> There are libs who enjoy looking freaky due to wanting to be different.  I'd love to see them get operations in order to prove their fake vestigial claims.  Darwin should have been a role model for this instead of being one for Adolph Hitler.  Maybe some atheists will be that way in their second life.  Oh noes!
> 
> 15 Human "Vestigial" Organs and Functions
> 15 Human Vestigial Organs and Functions



It is funny that you’re forced to link to cartoons as a way to support your ID’iot creation ministries and their nonsense claims.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...



There was no so-called resurrection of a guy named Jesus. No witnesses and no evidence to support it.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...



The problem with the term “creation scientists” is that it is just a false label for hyper-religious loons who really have no business in science.


----------



## abu afak (Mar 31, 2019)

james bond said:


> *
> .... However, we all know that everyone will have to answer to Jesus for their second life.
> The Evidence for this is in the Bible and the life of Jesus as Christ and his resurrection....*


You're a 12 IQ Proselytizing Numb Nuts Clown.
This is the SCIENCE section you Piece of Shlt.
And 100% DISHONEST as well.. Lying for Jesus you DELUDED Abortion.

Circular Reasoning

*CIRCULAR REASONING*
_circulus in demonstrando_
......
Description: A type of reasoning in which *the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition*, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared.
This Fallacy is often quite Humorous.
......
Example #2:

*The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.*

Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives.
*This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune* -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” *Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail*.​

`
`


----------



## james bond (Mar 31, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > There are libs who enjoy looking freaky due to wanting to be different.  I'd love to see them get operations in order to prove their fake vestigial claims.  Darwin should have been a role model for this instead of being one for Adolph Hitler.  Maybe some atheists will be that way in their second life.  Oh noes!
> ...



Hahahahahahahahaha.  She's claiming these _are_ vestigial organs you twit.  While some are not like the appendix, coccyx and male nipple.  According to the writer, some still have functionality, but some like wisdom teeth do not.  I haven't looked up all the so-called "vestigial" organs, so do not have a reply for all of them.  This proves to me that you are an idiot who does not read my links and further not worthy of my time.  You need to pull your head out of your atheist arse-hole before being worthy again.


----------



## james bond (Mar 31, 2019)

abu afak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



I provided historical information and a logical one.  You provided more ad-hominem attacks, so you lose again abu afak.  The circular reasoning is evolution and ToE.

First, your examples are not valid.  The word of God in the Bible has been validated.  It is the only religion with a Trinity and Jesus as God and human.  We know that Jesus existed, was crucified and buried, but rose again on the third day.  If you want to show circular reasoning, then you have to invalidate the Resurrection.  We also had science back up the Bible which was another thread that you failed at.  For example, we found that the universe is a flat shape like that of a scroll and not saddle shaped.

Now, let's get back on topic.  What has science found to back up evolution?  Your present is the key to the past has been rendered mixed up in regards to what happened to the dinosaurs.  Creation science has said that it was catastrophism that killed them off, i.e. Noah's flood.  Secular scientists now say that it was catastrophism by a gigantic asteroid, volcanic activity from India and global warming.  Where is the uniformitarianism?  They also admit that we were one supercontinent that was broken up into seven continents.  That's catastrophism, too, as the creation scientists came up with continental drift theory and nobody believed it, at first.  So science backs up the Bible while science does not back up evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2019)

james bond said:


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



Your silly tirade is another indication of your complete lack of a science vocabulary. Here you are agreeing you don’t know what vestigial organs are but as usual, you launch into a tirade denying they exist. 

You will always be at a disadvantage in these threads because you are limited to what you are indoctrinated with at your ID’iot creation ministries.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 1, 2019)

james bond said:


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



Science does not support a biblical flood 6,000 years ago. Your ID’iot creation ministry tales and fables don’t stand up to the scrunity of modern science. 

The planet is far older than your biblical tales allow for. Your notion that the gods wiped humanity from the planet and then provided for familial / incestuous relations to repopulate the planet is rather.... creepy.


----------



## harmonica (Apr 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


what happens in the [ hahahah ] second life? can we see/hear/talk/etc?
or are we like _Star Trek_ aliens where they communicate with their brains?  will we have a brain?


----------



## james bond (Apr 1, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Science does not support a biblical flood 6,000 years ago. Your ID’iot creation ministry tales and fables don’t stand up to the scrunity of modern science.
> 
> The planet is far older than your biblical tales allow for. Your notion that the gods wiped humanity from the planet and then provided for familial / incestuous relations to repopulate the planet is rather.... creepy.



Creation has fossils found atop Mt. Everest.  We do not falsely claim them to be hundreds of millions years old, but use the location as evidence of a global flood and fountains rising up from the deep.  This is how mountains develop very rapidly with catastrophism.

It's not creepy at all when necessary and they were more genetically sound than humans today.  After the flood humans were doused with gamma rays to shorten their lives as further punishment.  I think God the Father has control of the gamma ray frequencies or higher wave frequencies.

It seems you have fallen for Satan's lies and now belittle and put God in a negative light.  We can all be angry with God as something tragic or difficult has happened in our lives, but it is difficult to believe God is good from your vantage point.


----------



## james bond (Apr 2, 2019)

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



It will be a new Earth and new universe.  I think it will be what is described as paradise with Adam and Eve and we will have perfect spiritual bodies, but no temptation to sin since Satan and his demonic angels have been cast down into hell.  I think our life spirits will be similar to way we are now.  Our personalities do not change.  There may still be earthly things that we enjoy doing now.and new and wondrous experiences to enjoy.  Of course, there will be a lot of questions to find the answers for in regards to what happened.  In this world, we put God first, our families second and our jobs or work third.  It may not be that much different in the next world.  Just different.  No lines.  No getting cut off in traffic.  No frustrations, discomfort and pain and suffering that we experience now.  Here is one view which I have seen and heard of...


Unfortunately, you get the other gate with your attitude.  Do you remember what Satan told Eve through the snake?  He told her that she will not die.  It is ironic that Satan tells you the same thing.  That your spiritually perfect body will not die, but you are headed to be one of the spiritual dead.


----------



## james bond (Apr 2, 2019)

Hey, Hollie with the clueless symbol as an avatar.  Here is an example of use for male nipples haha.  I guess he wants to show them off.  Like for women, it is for sexual stimulation and not just breast feeding.  It is stupid to assume they are vestigial organs in order to provide evidence for vestigial organs (both evolutionary and circular thinking) when there is a function for them.  I won my fantasy b-ball league and this is the vid that I played to celebrate to the league.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hey, Hollie with the clueless symbol as an avatar.  Here is an example of use for male nipples haha.  I guess he wants to show them off.  Like for women, it is for sexual stimulation and not just breast feeding.  It is stupid to assume they are vestigial organs in order to provide evidence for vestigial organs (both evolutionary and circular thinking) when there is a function for them.  I won my fantasy b-ball league and this is the vid that I played to celebrate to the league.



I gave you the link earlier to vestigial organs. It’s obvious that struck a nerve as you’re now spamming the thread with pointless YouTube videos. 

You offered nothing to refute the data, You simply launched into another tirade replete with your usual “hahahahaha” commentary. At least for me, “hahahahahaha” is not a convincing argument but it seems to be the best that ID’iot creationists can offer. 

Here’s another anti-evilutionist claim. Note that it comes from one of the most extreme hyper-religious loons who obviously wont be persuaded by fact.


*Claim CB361:*
Vestigial organs (if any really exist) are not evidence of evolution. They just show decay consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
*Source:*
Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 75-76.
*Response:*

Vestigial organs include more than atrophied organs. The bones of the middle ear, for example, are vestiges of jaw bones of ancestral tetrapods. 


Loss of organs is sometimes an advantage. For example, loss of legs is adaptive in whales. Thus, losses of organs often are evolution driven by natural selection. They are evidence of evolution when their vestigial forms show similarities to earlier nonvestigial forms. 

Here’s an introductory guide to biological evolution that touches on vestigial organs. 

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

You’re free to counter with research papers from the Henry Morris school for the afflicted. 




Here’s more data to ruin your day: The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Note that there is an entire page of references and links at the bottom of the article. 

You could counter the above with peer reviewed studies performed by the charlatans at your ID’iot creation ministries but we both know that those charlatans do no research.


----------



## harmonica (Apr 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


people love to sin 
sex/hate/gluttony/etc


----------



## Hollie (Apr 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Interesting you refer to Satan and the snake. In the Genesis fable, Satan told the truth to Adam and Eve. Your gods lied. 

Ain’t that a kick in the pants?


----------



## james bond (Apr 2, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, Hollie with the clueless symbol as an avatar.  Here is an example of use for male nipples haha.  I guess he wants to show them off.  Like for women, it is for sexual stimulation and not just breast feeding.  It is stupid to assume they are vestigial organs in order to provide evidence for vestigial organs (both evolutionary and circular thinking) when there is a function for them.  I won my fantasy b-ball league and this is the vid that I played to celebrate to the league.
> ...



Gawd.  More foolishness and you do not address my argument.  I'm not sure how we ever got on this topic.  All I can think of is "vestigial" organs is a made up argument against God.  I think the logic goes God would not create humans with non-functioning body parts.  Otherwise, this is an evolutionary fail like monkeys that are not bipedal.  Or chickens that evolved from dinosaurs.  You can't have it both ways.

How can my Queen vid be pointless when Freddie Mercury is titillating his fans?  I doubt he was wearing his spandex backwards like a woman would do.

Many times I just hahahahahahahaha to your post as in smh, lolz, lolz, lolz due to its lack of academic basis and foolishness.  You should at least get that message.

Moreover, why can't you explain what your links say in your own words?  How does vestigial organs relate to evolution?  How does it relate to the argument you are presenting.  I'm not a mind reader.

I'll address Dr. Henry Morris' argument that you copy and pasted.  It sounds like he's claiming entropy or the transfer of heat when animals use up their energy to counter the evolutionary claims.  There are no basis for these claims in the first place as we do not have transitional fossils of whales losing their legs.  I think someone made an argument that whales came from tiktaalik as an example of how animals can evolve another way instead of the sea-to-land-and-back-to-sea evolution.  Even Dr. C. Owen Lovejoy thinks apes evolved from humans.  These are valid theories under evolution, but the liberal media spin their own stories for the mainstream to digest and be brainwashed with.  That's how people believe in the Earth and universe being so old.  I knew the argument for the evolution of whales, so was able to respond to it.

Will you answer my questions?  Can you briefly answer in your own words?  What does the middle ear bone have to do with evolution?


----------



## james bond (Apr 2, 2019)

harmonica said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



You are not getting God's message from the Bible about the snake and what he said.  You also did not get the message about losing your perfect spiritual bodies and being spiritually dead.  This is your doom or weakness as a low brow internet atheist.  Do you hit yourself in the head with an iron sledgehammer before posting?  We've gone from your mocking Star Trek beings who communicate telepathically as part of the second life to even more foolishness.

Anyway, isn't this evidence for Satan?  And you got it wrong.  People do not love to sin, but _hate_ to sin.  They know deep inside what is right and wrong.  God made us like himself.  I think you are referring to illicit sex, hate, gluttony or the seven deadly sins (Catholic ideas of people's vices from Pope Gregory).  The message is not the one sin is greater than the other.  It's that _all_ sin leads to spiritual death.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 2, 2019)

james bond said:


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



I was not at all surprised you chose to sidestep the data I linked for you. One honestly reaches conclusions by examining the evidence.

Conjecture, speculation and rejection of facts are what we see from the hyper-religious and the ID'iot creation ministries. Dogma, as a means to support predefined conclusions, does not deserve the same consideration as peer reviewed data. Conjectures which generate claims in conflict with observed physical evidence can be summarily discarded.

Young-earth creationism ID'iot creationism is conjecture and wilfully discarding of facts. That is obviously in conflict with the available evidence. As such, it does not deserve equal consideration or time with volumes of data, evidence and and well-tested theories from science.

I'm sure you noticed that nowhere did you offer a single bit of evidence to refute the links I supplied. Aside from your denials and inability to offer any support for your claims to magic and supernaturalism, what did you hope to accomplish?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



The message from the snake in the genesis tale is quite clear. It is also quite a dilemma: the snake (Satan) told the truth. Your gods lied.

Why did your gods lie?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 2, 2019)

What an embarrassingly stupid thread. Anyone who believes the thread title would fail a middle school science test.


----------



## james bond (Apr 2, 2019)

Hollie said:


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



Your points were refuted by finding fuctions for these "useless" organs.  They're just organs, but for some queer reason atheists believe they are left over organs from previous common ancestors.  You can't even answer my simple questions, so you go back to being ignored for the ignorant being you are .  You notice I do not follow you around, but you follow me around.


----------



## james bond (Apr 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What an embarrassingly stupid thread. Anyone who believes the thread title would fail a middle school science test.



Yet, you felt the need to post all over the place here.  And not one piece of evidence to back up your theory.  We had "vestigial" organs that turned out to be regular organs.  We found out about the spiritual living and the spiritual dead and what they believe and not believe.  There was evidence provided for the spiritual living in the universe was shown to have a beginning and is flat shaped like a scroll per the Bible while the non-believers side came up with a walking whale with no fossil evidence of them having feet.  Also the spiritual dead side got, "We love to sin."  And one non-believer said Christianity was based on circular reasoning, but had no examples to back it up.  OTOH, we had the universe just popped into and out of existence and then started expanding and the sun, moon and planets in the Milky Way ended up just right with very little explanation how all this matter came to be.  Something about infinite this and infinite that and all this matter, motion and energy just fell into place.  You can tell a middle schooler about the choices and I know which side is more credible, believable and where they would want to live.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 2, 2019)

james bond said:


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



That was a lot of your usual dancing around the issue. I noticed you made no attempt to refute what I supplied to you. You made no attempt to address the fact of vestigial bones. The scientific community has much peer reviewed data to document their existence.

Here's some information from those evil medical doctors:

appendix vestigial structures - Health.Zone - Content Results



Any comment on the poor design of your gods who apparently dumped spare parts around? Why are your gods such incompetent designers?

The Curious Case of the Designer's Bad Design



Maybe you could comment on the lack of any studies prepared by your ID'iot creation ministries.

CI100:  Intelligent Design


----------



## james bond (Apr 2, 2019)

Hollie said:


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



Come now, we found that all organs have functions.  If someone had an extra toe or something, then it was a mutation which is a deviation from the norm, not something that is the basis for evolution.  Forget anything to do with evolution and then it still works.  In fact, I think you'll start to become more right in your thinking and opinions.  It is what it is.

As for the rest, I'll ignore because you keep confusing me with IDers.


----------



## idb (Apr 2, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Science is a thing.
> ...


"Science" welcomes contrary data...that's how theories are refined and understanding increased.

Creationism seems to me to be the opposite of Faith.
If you truly had Faith, why would you feel the need to prove anything?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 2, 2019)

james bond said:


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



Who is the "we" you rattle on about? As we know, the ID'iot creation ministries do no research and publish no data. 

On the other hand, you have been presented with peer reviewed data and references to that data. 

You have refuted nothing, challenged nothing and offered no countering facts.


----------



## harmonica (Apr 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


we CAN'T get god's message because there is no god---no god = no message


----------



## james bond (Apr 2, 2019)

harmonica said:


> we CAN'T get god's message because there is no god---no god = no message



Wow.  Jesus, the Son of Man himself, speaks to you, "“You refuse to come to me to have life” John 5:40


----------



## Hollie (Apr 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > we CAN'T get god's message because there is no god---no god = no message
> ...




The jeebus also said, “Don’t be’eth cryin’ to me’eth when the old man smite’eth you with death and destruction. Floyd 5:40


----------



## LittleNipper (Apr 2, 2019)

idb said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...


Creationism is for all those naysayers who do not believe in GOD and are headed towards hell. They are without excuse. There is an alternative to Darwinism/Materialism/Secularism/Atheism...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 2, 2019)

idb said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...


‘Creationism’ is faith, a façade behind which to hide religion.


----------



## the other mike (Apr 2, 2019)

Music is my religion.


----------



## james bond (Apr 3, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Creationism’ is faith, a façade behind which to hide religion.



It may be religion, but it's not a facade and religion is philosophy.  It has creation science which is real science that is observable, testable and falsifiable.  OTOH, atheism is also a religion and philosophy that has faith in no gods.  The atheists have evolutionary thinking, history and ToE which is mostly philosophy instead of science.  It's forensic science with lots of made up circumstantial evidence.  More philosophy or facade as you call it.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > ‘Creationism’ is faith, a façade behind which to hide religion.
> ...



So-called “creation science” is not science at all. Nothing in ID’iot creation science is observable, testable or falsifiable. ID’iot creation ministries do no research and publish in no peer reviewed papers because appeals to magic and supernaturalism are not open to investigation by science. 

Your nonsense conspiracy theories about the science of biological evolution are stereotypical rants one can find at any one of the crank fundamentalist ministries.


----------



## harmonica (Apr 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > we CAN'T get god's message because there is no god---no god = no message
> ...


son of man or god?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> Just for basic info: A scientific THEORY is an explanation for something that cannot be proven empirically.


Utter nonsense. You should do yourself a favor and never comment on that again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 3, 2019)

@moderators    : doesnt this thread belong in the conspiracy theory section?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 3, 2019)

I kind of enjoy these nostalgic philosophy threads from the Dark Ages. Makes me long for the days of the Inquisition vs. sun worshipers.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > Just for basic info: A scientific THEORY is an explanation for something that cannot be proven empirically.
> ...


you should take your own advice,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> @moderators    : doesnt this thread belong in the conspiracy theory section?


yep.,,,since evolution is a make believe theory,,,

probably should be in the religion section


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 3, 2019)

denmark said:


> Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
> He thinks scientists believe humans came from monkeys?
> I hope he is not a teacher!


If he was a teacher he would believe humans came from monkeys, so that must not be his profession.


----------



## the other mike (Apr 3, 2019)

I think cats are more spiritual than dogs.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 3, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > @moderators    : doesnt this thread belong in the conspiracy theory section?
> ...


Should be in the "schizoid personality disorder" section.
It's located between the "Hitler" and "Marxism" sections.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 3, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > @moderators    : doesnt this thread belong in the conspiracy theory section?
> ...



It's remarkable what damage the hyper-religious have suffered.


----------



## denmark (Apr 27, 2019)

koshergrl said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Is the OP poster implying that religious texts reflect evidence?
> ...


Why do you insult teachers?
In USA, teachers should get more respect and pay that reflects that.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

denmark said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...




teacher deserve no more respect than the man that fixs your toilet,,,

true teaching begins and ends at home,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

denmark said:


> Why do you insult teachers?


Because they make her feel stupid. Same for the attention-begging troll above.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2019)

Angelo said:


>



Lewis Black was one of the earlier Hatedians. He is filled with bigotry and hatred which is what his shows are. But he's never even been in the same room as funny.


----------



## denmark (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


That is true only if the home teacher is competent and has time to teach.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2019)

denmark said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...



About 90% of child molesters are public school employees/teachers.

Why do you insult catholic priests?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> About 90% of child molesters are public school employees/teachers.


I see it's "pull stuff out of your ass" day.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you insult teachers?
> ...



Says the troll with arguably an IQ in the bottom 5% of the board...


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

denmark said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...




other than the basics of reading, writing, history and math teachers have no purpose,,,its because they are trying to teach morals and life lessons is when the real problems started and also whats caused the downfall of education


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > About 90% of child molesters are public school employees/teachers.
> ...



I see it's "show what a dumbfuck  you are" day for you, again...


Public School Child Abuse


----------



## anynameyouwish (Apr 27, 2019)

S.J. said:


> The left have the same philosophy toward all of their lies.  If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it.  Where have I heard that before?




That is, of course, a lie....one of the many lies of the right....

apparently roger ailles knew that if you repeat a lie often enough stupid conservatives will believe it.....


----------



## denmark (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Are you an example of the “downfall of [USA] education”?


----------



## Flash (Apr 27, 2019)

Something to ponder.

Neither rock or fossil dating are determined by radiocarbon analysis. 

The age of the earth is mostly determined by sedimentary dating.  At least going back for the last half billion years.

The age of fossils is mostly determined by the sedimentary layer in which they are found.

The age of sedimentary layers is mostly determined by the fossils within the layers.

Circular logic that can't be scientifically validated.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> Something to ponder.
> 
> Neither rock or fossil dating are determined by radiocarbon analysis.
> 
> ...


Utter horseshit. Stupid YEC talking point meant for people too ignorant to know better.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

denmark said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


what does that actually mean???

but I've managed to after 54 yrs become almost debt free with 250K assets and retired 3 yrs ago and the future looks bright as long as I can keep dems and republicans from fucking it up

other than that how about we let god decide the rest???


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> Something to ponder.
> 
> Neither rock or fossil dating are determined by radiocarbon analysis.
> 
> ...




thhats assuming that what they claim is that the layers were created over millions of yrs, which is just crazy since we can create it in a few minutes on a smaller scale,,


in other words to date the fossil by the rock is circular since they date the rock by the fossil in it,,,


----------



## the other mike (Apr 27, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Lewis Black was one of the earlier Hatedians. He is filled with bigotry and hatred which is what his shows are. But he's never even been in the same room as funny.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> other than the basics of reading, writing, history and math teachers have no purpose,,,its because they are trying to teach morals and life lessons is when the real problems started and also whats caused the downfall of education



When I was working on my Doctorate, I had an adviser out of the Eli Goldratt group who was phenomenal in guiding our team. He isn't really a teacher, but rather a physicist, still the amount I and my team learned was substantial. Real teachers can save lives.

The problem is that our public schools are not designed to teach; just the opposite. Our schools are dedicated to crushing academic curiosity and eradicating critical thinking.

Those in our public schools are "teachers" in the same way Guy Montag was a "fireman" in Fahrenheit 451


----------



## denmark (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Best wishes to you. I understand your social security and medicare systems are projected to bust within 15-20 years, while the rich are getting richer and USA’s overall evonomic debt is increasing,


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Lewis Black was one of the earlier Hatedians. He is filled with bigotry and hatred which is what his shows are. But he's never even been in the same room as funny.



Carlin was funny.

What does that have to do with the current Hatedians?

Comedy, like journalism, is something from our past that no longer exists.

Here, here is every "comedy" routine Lewis Black has ever done.

"I hate Donald Trump, FUCKING HATE." 

"White people suck, white people should be put in the ovens"

"Christians are hypocrites, I fucking hate them."


He mixes the order up for different shows, but that is EVERY routine he has ever done.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

denmark said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...




I have purposely set things up expecting those to be nonexistent,,,


----------



## the other mike (Apr 27, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Carlin was funny.
> 
> What does that have to do with the current Hatedians?
> 
> ...


I call it doing a Dennis Miller.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Apr 27, 2019)

denmark said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...




yes, he is.

and he has 30-50 million conservative allies as more evidence.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


who said I was a conservative???


----------



## the other mike (Apr 27, 2019)

S.J. said:


> denmark said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


WMDs.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Carlin was funny.
> ...


----------



## the other mike (Apr 27, 2019)

Angelo said:


>


^Can't get a gig outside of Fox news anymore .
You want the best PH*, go see Jimmy D.
political humor*
(And yes, I'm sure Dennis Miller still does okay in stand up
and plays regular Vegas shows.... He's an asshole, but not stupid.)


----------



## Flash (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> [
> 
> in other words to date the fossil by the rock is circular since they date the rock by the fossil in it,,,



I am not a geologist but I think that is pretty much what they do.  At least that is what I have read.

They determine the age of the rock by the fossils and they determine the age of the fossils by rock.

Circular indeed!

A dead skeletal body was recently discovered in an abandoned house.

Without any other collaborating evidence somebody said the person died in that house in 1950.

Without any other collaborating evidence other than the assumed time when the person died the house is determined to have existed in 1950.

Now all houses that look that one and all bodies found would be assumed to have existed in 1950. 

They use the body to determine the age of the house and they use the house to determine the age of the body.

That is circular logic.


----------



## the other mike (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Nope.

Isotopes decay. If you cannot accept this fact then their is no point in dealing with you. 

We discovered that carbon isotopes have a steady rate of decay. Most isotopes don't, rate of decay is more rapid or less rapid due to environmental events. But not carbon, carbon isotopes decay at a constant and steady rate over a period of just about 50,000 years. It is not affected by temperature or moisture. 

What this means is that using the famous equation of  *A = A0* 2^(-t/k) *we can accurately tell the date of organic materials.

Of course this is only good for the last 50,000 years or so.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> I am not a geologist but I think that is pretty much what they do.


And you're wrong. The age of the earth and of rocks is determined by radiometric dating, itself based on rates of radioactive decay.  The ages of the layers are well established, and quite independently so of any fossils found within. Only because they are can we use them to determine the ages of fossils within, which is called "relative dating". As fossils ARE rocks, we can use "absolute dating" to get precise ages using radiometric dating techniques. And only because our fossil record is so robust can we then safely constrain the age of a sedimentary layer from the fossils within, for certain purposes; again, that's "relative dating", which itself can be verified or made more accurate using "absolute dating". It's not circular.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


you left out how they determined the house was there in 1950???

the answer is someone knew it was there so NO that is not circular reasoning,,,and that in no way proves they died in 1950 ,,,its all assumption 

but with rocks they assume they were there millions of yrs ago without any proof


----------



## Flash (Apr 27, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




They don't use isotope dating for fossils or sedimentary rock.  Neither is organic.  If you cannot accpet that fact then their is no point in dealing with you.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


from what I've read the max is 50K yrs,,

and that doesnt even get into if you test the same sample 3 times you get 3 different readings that vary by thousands of yrs,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> They don't use isotope dating for fossils or sedimentary rock.


100% wrong. Where are you getting this nonsense?


----------



## Flash (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> [Q
> 
> you left out how they determined the house was there in 1950???
> 
> ...



You hit on the flaw.

My example assumed that nobody had any record of when the house was built but just guessed.   Not much different that the Geological Time Charts that lays out the epochs. 

The Geological Time Charts were invented in the 18th century by scientists that actually had very limited data.  Since then everything has been conveniently fitted into the charts including dating fossils by sedimentary rock and sedimentary rock by fossils.  Not much different than somebody just guessing on the age of the house in my example.

For the record. I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.I believe that there has been life for a billion years and more advanced life for a half billion years.

However, that doesn't mean there are not serious flaws in our understanding of the history of the earth.

The fossil and sedimentary record is a great example of circular logic and the flaws we have in science.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...




you do realize you just described a religion???

belief without proof in the face of clear flaws in logic,,,

as for what I believe,,,well I dont because evo has clear flaws and flat out lies and I havent achieved the faith it takes to believe in creation

with that said there are clear traits of intelligent design and thats where I lean at this point,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...


You are providing a good example of someone who is embarrassed of his own faith. Instead of just marching under your true flag of faith, you perform this little song and dance by which you pretend there is evidence that causes you to doubt our scientific knowledge. And even when shown you are saying false things, you persist. You would rather be wrong and embarrass yourself by saying false things about science than just admit you don't know anything about it and don't care to know anything about it, because your faith dictates your beliefs.

Think about that. You are so embarrassed of your faith that you find it less embarrassing to say things that would get you laughed out of a science class than just to admit that the evidence means nothing to you, and that, instead,  your faith dictates your beliefs.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




everything you just said can and does apply to the religion of evolution,,,


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



I said clearly that it is only for organic matter.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




Carbon 14 is limited to about 50,000 years, true. The second part of your statement is debunked nonsense. Radio-carbon dating is astoundingly accurate. That nonsense of getting different results is from nonsense that certain religious morons (Hal Lindsey) spewed in the 1970's. From what I can tell, it was flat out made up at the time.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




from "what you can tell" is the point,,,

its been proven time and time again since then,,,


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I'd love to see this "proof" from a reputable source.

Sounds like the level of "proof" that democrats in congress offer...


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




I feel the same about your claim,,,

and dont single out the democrats,,,the repubes do the same things


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




Inaccuracies in radiocarbon dating


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




Carbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery


----------



## Flash (Apr 27, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...




Very well but you were challenging what I was saying about fossils and rocks.


----------



## Flash (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




I also believe very much in Intelligent Design.  I don't believe that the concept of God is in conflict with Science.

Having said that there are serious flaws in Science as understood by Man.  Dating the Epochs with circular logic is one of them.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> Something to ponder.
> 
> Neither rock or fossil dating are determined by radiocarbon analysis.
> 
> ...


Written by someone who has no geological clue.  Well done.


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 27, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Science is a thing.
> It doesn't _believe_ anything .
> Therefore the question in the title doesn't actually make sense.




Science is better thought of as a PROCESS.  Of taking observation, developing theories to explain those observations, then testing them to find out their veracity or not.  And there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support evolution as the natural process for the origin of species.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Something to ponder.
> ...


Another who knows nothing about geology.  You two were meant for each other.


----------



## Flash (Apr 27, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Something to ponder.
> ...




Stated by someone who has no geological clue.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Actually I have degrees in geology so I know you are clueless.  I know how geologists work and, this may be a shock to you, they know more about their field than someone who can make these ridiculous statements.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

couldnt agree more,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Science is a thing.
> ...


the flaw in your reasoning is that no one has ever once observed evolution,,
no one has ever seen life form from non living matter or any species giving birth to anything other than their kind or observed layers in strata forming over millions of yrs


so in light of these  facts evolution is pure make believe mixed with bold faced lies,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


so youve been well indoctrinated into what they want you to believe,,,
got it,,,


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...



Look, I'm tired of debating topics with armchair professors who haven't the FIRST CLUE the topic they think they know about much less propagate such nonsense.

Save us all a lot of bother and go buy the book _The Malay Archipelago _by Alfred Wallace.  It is interesting reading and will open your eyes.  He was actually the one who proved evolution through the coincidental break in the Earth's crust later named The Wallace Line and then sent his material to Darwin who took credit for it.  

https://www.amazon.com/Malay-Archipelago-Alfred-Russell-Wallace/dp/1602066337&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> so youve been well indoctrinated into what they want you to believe,,,
> got it,,,


No quite.  I've been taught what geologists know and HOW they know it.  There is no circular reasoning, but there is evidence available to anyone who cares to examine it.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > so youve been well indoctrinated into what they want you to believe,,,
> ...




so show me one time that anyone observed strata layers forming over millions of yrs,,,

because I can show you how to form them in minutes,,,


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> so show me one time that anyone observed strata layers forming over millions of yrs,,,
> 
> because I can show you how to form them in minutes,,,


So you can form a layer in minutes or a rock layer in minutes?  There is a difference.  

So you can form a layer in minutes, how long will it take you to form 1,000,000 layers?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> I don't believe that the concept of God is in conflict with science


Right, you believe your preferred brand of YEC dogma is in conflict with science .Which is why you say dumb, false things like:



Flash said:


> Dating the Epochs with circular logic is one of them.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 27, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > so show me one time that anyone observed strata layers forming over millions of yrs,,,
> ...


where in the world are there a million layers???


----------



## Flash (Apr 27, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




Actually you don't know jackshit about geology if you disagree with my ordinal post.  What I stated was a cold hard fact.

Are you lying about having degrees in geology?  It seems so.  Where did you get your degrees?  You better think about a lawsuilt to get your money back because it is obvious you didn't learn jackshit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 27, 2019)

Flash said:


> Actually you don't know jackshit about geology if you disagree with my ordinal post.


No. Your post was stupid and wrong, and I explained to you precisely why.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


It is rude to ignore my question yet expect me to answer yours.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

Flash said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


*Neither rock or fossil dating are determined by radiocarbon analysis. - *True but meaningless since there are many radioisotopes that are used for dating and they all generally agree
*
The age of the earth is mostly determined by sedimentary dating.  At least going back for the last half billion years. - *False, there is no such thing as "sedimentary dating".  Got a link?  There are some minor local conditions where a single sediment layer is laid down annually but no where is this able to provide the age of the earth
*
The age of fossils is mostly determined by the sedimentary layer in which they are found. *_*The age of sedimentary layers is mostly determined by the fossils within the layers. - *_This is false, it is an oversimplification of how geologists work.  Fossils are usually the same age as the rocks they were found in.  Once a rock layer is dated the fossils found in it may be used to date other rocks.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




your question is loaded since you first have to have sediment layers that later turn into rock layers,,,


you evos just cant be honest about anything can you,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Attention begging troll isn't making sense


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




but how is the rock layer dated???


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




your the only troll I see,,,

peddle your lies and attack anyone that challenges them


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> your question is loaded since you first have to have sediment layers that later turn into rock layers,,,
> 
> you evos just cant be honest about anything can you,,,


Loaded??  Will you admit you can't form a rock layer in minutes?

Do you know how a layer of sediment becomes a layer of rock?  Any idea how long the process takes?


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> but how is the rock layer dated???


As has been explained to you before, there are absolute dates and relative dates.  Absolute dates are new to geology but they correlate well with the relative dates previously determined over centuries.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > your question is loaded since you first have to have sediment layers that later turn into rock layers,,,
> ...


 I never said I could ,,

which kind of rock are you talking about


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > but how is the rock layer dated???
> ...


so you dont know,,,got it,,,


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Loaded??  Will you admit you can't form a rock layer in minutes?
> ...


You did say you could but never mind that.  Do you know the sediment to rock process for ANY kind of rock?


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


As I said, I know how geology works so I DO know.  It is you who are ignorant of the science that does NOT know.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


no I didnt say that,,,

yes,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


maybe thats why I asked you,,,


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > You did say you could but never mind that.  Do you know the sediment to rock process for ANY kind of rock?
> ...


You claimed:
so show me one time that anyone observed strata layers forming over millions of yrs,,,

because I can show you how to form them in minutes,,,​
So what is the process and how long does it take?


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


 It’s called an oxymoron. Like jumbo shrimp.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You admit you are ignorant of geology yet you somehow know that I'm wrong?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


the procces on a small scale is just take a handful of dirt/minerals and put it in a bottle of water and shake it,,,as for how long that depends on the contents of the the minerals


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


 Probably everywhere when you consider the fact the earth is billions of years old. Some of the layers are probably just dust from a big storm and other layers can be feet deep from an exploding volcano.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I dont know one way or the other since youre keeping it a secret,,,


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > your question is loaded since you first have to have sediment layers that later turn into rock layers,,,
> ...


 One word. Volcano.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> I dont know one way or the other since youre keeping it a secret,,,


And yet you know that the accepted theories are wrong.

Haha....you're a fraud.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know one way or the other since youre keeping it a secret,,,
> ...


and hows the cute little troll doing this morning???


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> the procces on a small scale is just take a handful of dirt/minerals and put it in a bottle of water and shake it,,,as for how long that depends on the contents of the the minerals


Does that process end in the creation of a layer of sediments or a layer of rock?  Hint not a rock, you can shake it up again.  So what is the next step to creating a layer of sedimentary rock?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > the procces on a small scale is just take a handful of dirt/minerals and put it in a bottle of water and shake it,,,as for how long that depends on the contents of the the minerals
> ...


time and pressure,,,


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > You admit you are ignorant of geology yet you somehow know that I'm wrong?
> ...


See that's the beauty of science, it is out there for everyone to see for themselves.  There are no secrets (except maybe nuclear weapons design and the like).

Lithification is the process that turns loose, unconsolidated sediment into solid sedimentary rock. The two main ways lithification is accomplished, are compaction and cementation.  Compaction requires sediments to be deeply buried by other sediment layers.  Cementation requires water to flow through the sediments and slowly deposit dissolved mineral into the sediments.  Both these processes can take thousands to millions of years and we see them happening today.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


That's right.  Lots of time and lots of pressure.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




but how do they know it takes that amount of time???

not a single person or group of people have ever observed that,,,


they once said that about coal, oil and diamonds, but today we can do all those in hours


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


the question is how much time,,


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


If a river deposits a few inches of sediment every year, how long will it take for it to deposit layers that are 25 miles thick?  Once they are deposited how long will it take the deepest of them to be pushed to the top of a 3 mile high mountain if they rise as fast as your fingernail grows?  Once there how long will it take them to erode and be redeposited as sediments again, starting the process over again. Those are the geological cycles.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


OK,,,but thats not proof for billions of yrs

and you left out a lot of specifics like where it left those sediments,,,and how water deposited it 25 miles above water level
sorry but you got nothing but speculation based on flawed assumptions


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> OK,,,but thats not proof for billions of yrs
> 
> and you left out a lot of specifics like where it left those sediments,,,and how water deposited it 25 miles above water level
> sorry but you got nothing but speculation based on flawed assumptions


Billions or millions, does it matter?  It is certainly not thousands of years.  The vast majority of sediments are first deposited below sea level or just above.  No sediments are deposited miles above water level.  Sedimentary rocks found on the tops of mountains were deposited below sea level or just above and elevated by plate tectonics.  The Himalayas are being raised by the crash of India into Asia.  We can see how fast that is happening.


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> sorry but you got nothing but speculation based on flawed assumptions


There is evidence for everything I've said.  Calling them flawed assumptions shows you are just retreating into your ignorance of science.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > OK,,,but thats not proof for billions of yrs
> ...


you can only see whats happening today,,,and not in history especially millions or billions of yrs ago


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > sorry but you got nothing but speculation based on flawed assumptions
> ...


then why do you keep that evidence a secret???


and what science???
that first requires observation,,,and to date not a single person has observed what happened yrs ago whether that be thousand millions or billions


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> you can only see whats happening today,,,and not in history especially millions or billions of yrs ago


Thinking that what happened in the past is different from what is happening today in the absence of evidence is a flawed assumption.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

a


alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > you can only see whats happening today,,,and not in history especially millions or billions of yrs ago
> ...


only if I claim a specific thing happened,,,which I didnt

evos are the only ones claiming fact without proof


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Thinking that what happened in the past is different from what is happening today in the absence of evidence is a flawed assumption.
> ...


Not correct.  Claiming something didn't happen when the evidence says it did is a flawed assumption.  I could say that it didn't ever hail in the past.  Flawed assumption.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


again why are you  keeping the evidence a secret,,,,


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> again why are you  keeping the evidence a secret,,,,


Hardly a secret.  I'm sure even non-geologist know it.  Basically processes we see today are the same processes that have shaped the earth.

u·ni·form·i·tar·i·an·ism
/ˌyo͞onəˌfôrməˈterēənizəm/
_noun_
GEOLOGY

the theory that changes in the earth's crust during geological history have resulted from the action of continuous and uniform processes.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > again why are you  keeping the evidence a secret,,,,
> ...




thats not scientific because no one has EVER observed it,,,in other words its make believe,,,

and still a theory without proof


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


That's how diamonds are made.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


----------



## deanrd (Apr 28, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 29, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> thats not scientific because no one has EVER observed it,,,in other words its make believe,,,
> 
> and still a theory without proof


So unless you see something with your own eyes you don't believe it?  Do you believe in atoms or gravity or God?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 29, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > thats not scientific because no one has EVER observed it,,,in other words its make believe,,,
> ...


sorry jr atoms and gravity are real and we see can see them everyday,,,where as god is based on faith because there is no proof,,,,just like evolution,,,


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 29, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You've seen an atom?  You're eyes are better than mine, what do they look like?  What does gravity look like?  They truth is you've never seen either, no one has. 

You only see the results of gravity, you can't see it, you don't even know what it is or how it works.  Do you think gravity was different in the past than it is today?  Why?  You've never seen an atom why do you believe in them?

Evolution is no different.  If you look at the fossil record you can see the results of evolution.  If you find a fossil that is not found in rock layers either above or below, that is evidence for evolution and against a single act of creation.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 29, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




the fossil record is complete bullshit,,,all it shows is something died,,,it doesnt say it gave birth to anything let alone to anything other than its own  kind or that life formed from non living matter,,,,

and how do they  tell the age of fossils???

that would bring us back to rock layers and their age,,,

back to the circular reasoning problem,,,


you are more than free to worship the religion of your choice but dont push it on me as fact or expect me to pay to have it taught as fact with my taxs


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 29, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> the fossil record is complete bullshit,,,all it shows is something died,,,it doesnt say it gave birth to anything let alone to anything other than its own  kind or that life formed from non living matter,,,,
> 
> and how do they  tell the age of fossils???
> 
> ...


The fossil record has been studied by smart and educated people for centuries.  It is incredibly arrogant to dismiss them just because you don't like their findings.  Again you're not thinking you're just reacting to inconvenient facts.  

Here's a common example from the fossil record.  A rock layer contains a unique species of clam, species A.  The rock layers above and below contain other species of clam but not species A.  The rock layer below the species A layer must be older than species A layer since it was already there when species A lived and died.  The rock layer above species A layer must be younger than species A layer since species A already lived and died when the layer above was formed.  Absolute age of the species A layer doesn't matter, only that it is younger than layers below it and older than layers above it.  Evolution has an explanation, what is your alternative explanation?


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 29, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > the fossil record is complete bullshit,,,all it shows is something died,,,it doesnt say it gave birth to anything let alone to anything other than its own  kind or that life formed from non living matter,,,,
> ...




you just showed that its all speculation based on made up assumptions,,,
what if we found  fossilized clams on a top layer???or on top of a mountain,,,

even if all that is true it in no way shows clams gave birth to anything but a clam


the assumption is that the layers  happened over millions of yrs when its far more likely they happened much faster as seen in a large scale hydro event,,,

one of the things I find hard to believe in the millions of yrs theory is that they are saying only one mineral was blowing around creating the layer and then the next set of millions of yrs a totally different one was doing it,,,and where did they come from???

but in a hydro event it makes perfect sense how it happened,,,also we can see it happen all the time on a smaller scale with local floods


----------



## Hollie (Apr 29, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



There is proof of evolution. You haven’t emerged from your coma, right?


----------



## alang1216 (Apr 29, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> you just showed that its all speculation based on made up assumptions,,,
> what if we found  fossilized clams on a top layer???or on top of a mountain,,,
> 
> even if all that is true it in no way shows clams gave birth to anything but a clam


What you seem to be missing is that a particular species of clam suddenly appears in the fossil record.  Where it come from?



progressive hunter said:


> the assumption is that the layers  happened over millions of yrs when its far more likely they happened much faster as seen in a large scale hydro event,,,
> 
> one of the things I find hard to believe in the millions of yrs theory is that they are saying only one mineral was blowing around creating the layer and then the next set of millions of yrs a totally different one was doing it,,,and where did they come from???
> 
> but in a hydro event it makes perfect sense how it happened,,,also we can see it happen all the time on a smaller scale with local floods


Excellent points but points that have been studied and answered before you were born.  Some layers are formed in a geological instant, some are not.  A flood event is indeed an example of an instant event.  However, limestone forms from the skeletons of dead plankton, and we can see and measure how quickly such sediments are being laid down today.  Exact rates vary but it is far from instantaneous.

You question about "one mineral was blowing around creating the layer and then the next set of millions of yrs a totally different one was doing it" is also settled geology and is usually the result of changing sea levels.


----------



## S.J. (Apr 29, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > The left have the same philosophy toward all of their lies.  If you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it.  Where have I heard that before?
> ...


Communism has never been a right wing ideology.  The left, however, fully embraces it (as you know).


----------



## S.J. (Apr 29, 2019)

Angelo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > denmark said:
> ...


Yeah, Angelo, tell us about those weapons of mass destruction.  Go ahead.


----------



## the other mike (Apr 29, 2019)

S.J. said:


> Yeah, Angelo, tell us about those weapons of mass destruction.  Go ahead.


Sure you want to go down this rabbit hole ?
Saddam was a CIA asset armed with anthrax made in the USA.

*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1359802/Iraqs-chemists-bought-anthrax-from-America.html*


----------



## S.J. (Apr 29, 2019)

Angelo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, Angelo, tell us about those weapons of mass destruction.  Go ahead.
> ...


Sorry pal, but I'm not gonna engage in an adult discussion with somebody who posts videos of "Madeline, AKA Galactic Story Teller" as their source.  Better luck next time, loser.


----------



## the other mike (Apr 30, 2019)

S.J. said:


> Sorry pal, but I'm not gonna engage in an adult discussion with somebody who posts videos of "Madeline, AKA Galactic Story Teller" as their source.  Better luck next time, loser.


Ignorance is bliss, as most Americans like you illustrate all the time, ...pal..

*The Ugly Truth - Cody Snodgres*

*Choosing The Light - by Cody Snodgres*






*The Truth Behind The Oklahoma City Bombing -With Special Guest: Former Operative Cody Snodgres*


----------



## the other mike (Apr 30, 2019)

Hilarious. I post an interview of someone who wrote a book and you totally disregard the authors' legitimacy on the grounds that the interviewer happens to be a spiritualist.

btw ....to the OP, sorry to go off topic....I was just answering a question at first, and here's a thread I started about CS in January...
*Oklahoma City, Mena, Clintons & 9/11 Exposed by Black Ops Contractor Cody Snodgres.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Hilarious. I post an interview of someone who wrote a book and you totally disregard the authors' legitimacy on the grounds that the interviewer happens to be a spiritualist.
> 
> btw ....to the OP, sorry to go off topic....I was just answering a question at first, and here's a thread I started about CS in January...
> *Oklahoma City, Mena, Clintons & 9/11 Exposed by Black Ops Contractor Cody Snodgres.*


Why should anyone watch the videos you googled that are merely reiterations of your opinion? If you have a valid, well supported to point to make,you can make it yourself.


----------



## the other mike (Apr 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious. I post an interview of someone who wrote a book and you totally disregard the authors' legitimacy on the grounds that the interviewer happens to be a spiritualist.
> ...


I don't see any further explanation necessary on my part here.

Oh and if you like the Clintons, haha, you definitely will not like Cody S.


----------



## the other mike (Apr 30, 2019)




----------



## deanrd (Apr 30, 2019)

I don’t understand this determination by Republicans that a lack of education is the best qualification. It’s like not knowing is a good thing. And look who they voted into office, Reagan, Bush, and now Trump. Three of the most ignorant presidents we ever had it in the history in the US.
 At least Reagan had an excuse. He had Alzheimer’s.


----------



## the other mike (Apr 30, 2019)

deanrd said:


> I don’t understand this determination by Republicans that a lack of education is the best qualification. It’s like not knowing is a good thing. And look who they voted into office, Reagan, Bush, and now Trump. Three of the most ignorant presidents we ever had it in the history in the US.
> At least Reagan had an excuse. He had Alzheimer’s.


Thank you but you left out Obama (extension of Bush ) and you forgot Clinton and GHW Bush, two of the most damaging individuals before and during their presidencies in American history.


----------



## Likkmee (Apr 30, 2019)

Curriculum.
$$$


----------



## deanrd (Apr 30, 2019)

Angelo said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > I don’t understand this determination by Republicans that a lack of education is the best qualification. It’s like not knowing is a good thing. And look who they voted into office, Reagan, Bush, and now Trump. Three of the most ignorant presidents we ever had it in the history in the US.
> ...


 Republicans hate Obama so much, that when they see this: 






 All they can see is the black and not the white or the red. 
 The same with this one. All they can see is the black,   And they totally missed the blue in the brown. 

 If Trump gets re elected it’s because of the economy, the economy is Obamas biggest legacy. After what Republicans left him and what he left Republicans.


----------



## the other mike (Apr 30, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


Those charts may be accurate, but they are deceptive in not showing the wages to production ratios or the number of people who either retired early, are on disability or stopped looking for work and several other factors..  The beltway Democrats and Republicans are all lying about it.


----------



## the other mike (Apr 30, 2019)

Ok back on topic.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 30, 2019)

Angelo said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...


 You can malign every indicator you want but we have all the numbers we know exactly what happened. 





 And we already knew where we were heading. 






 It takes a while to ruin a big economy. But Bush and the Republicans managed to do it even though it took them years. Trumps been able to do it much faster even though the effects just haven’t shown up yet.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 30, 2019)

S.J. said:


> The left, however, fully embraces it (as you know).


Painfully stupid


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

Flash said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Correct. These types are, in the above-mentioned examples, attempting to prove a circular argument. They are committing the circular argument fallacy.

One can't logically prove the age of something that way...


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Nobody is denying the isotopes decay.

They have a steady rate of decay RIGHT NOW. That doesn't mean that they ALWAYS had a steady rate of decay, nor that they ALWAYS had the SAME steady rate of decay as they do today.  We don't have a time machine to go back in time to observe these things; they are accepted or rejected on a faith basis. They are religious theories, not scientific ones...

That equation is based on the assumptions I mentioned above.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

Flash said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...


Yup, one can hold your beliefs, yet recognize the logical flaws in dating methods.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> you do realize you just described a religion???


Yes, he described (and showed why it is) a religion, but not for the reasoning you think.



progressive hunter said:


> belief without proof in the face of clear flaws in logic,,,


This is not what a religion is. Religion doesn't have to involve the rejection of logic in any way. Religion, plain and simple, is "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it". There is nothing wrong with religion; only when one attempts to prove it. That commits the circular argument fallacy and makes one into a fundamentalist.



progressive hunter said:


> as for what I believe,,,well I dont because evo has clear flaws and flat out lies and I havent achieved the faith it takes to believe in creation


The Theory of Evolution is a religion. So is the Theory of Creation. So is the Theory of Abiogenesis. They all are based on initial circular arguments. They all cannot be falsified in any currently accessible manner. They remain circular arguments; they remain religions.



progressive hunter said:


> with that said there are clear traits of intelligent design and thats where I lean at this point,,,


I also hold your belief of intelligent design. My belief is that there is a creator god behind it all (specifically, the Christian God). That may or may not be true (same with intelligent design itself).


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Correct. He is a fundamentalist of his evolution faith. If I recall correctly, he is also a fundamentalist of his atheist faith.  He commits circular argument fallacies and argument from ignorance fallacies on a regular basis due to his religious fundamentalism.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Science is better thought of as a PROCESS.  Of taking observation, developing theories to explain those observations, then testing them to find out their veracity or not.


Science is not a process. It is, plain and simple, a set of falsifiable theories.



progressive hunter said:


> And there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support evolution as the natural process for the origin of species.


A "mountain" of supporting evidence doesn't in any way bless, sanctify, nor otherwise make holy, any theory of science. Science only concerns itself with conflicting evidence, as that is what falsifies theories.

Evolution is not science; it is religion. Evolution is based on the initial circular argument that current life forms are a result of mutations of earlier life forms. We have no way to go back in time to see whether these earliest life forms actually mutated or not, so Evolution remains an argument of faith (a circular argument).

What HAS been falsified, however, is the related theory, the theory of natural selection. Extending that theory to its logical conclusion would result in a single "perfect selection", as the variety becomes less and less. Essentially, this theory argues a paradox, as it would reduce the very variety it needs to select from. It is also falsified by the existence of animals with traits that do not help them survive, such as the albino trait.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...


You are correct in noting one flaw in his reasoning. And that flaw is why it is not science, but rather, a religion. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened with those earliest life forms. In addition, observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology (a branch of philosophy). One could observe the same thing, use the same data, yet come to a completely different conclusion about said observation. Reality is colored by our individual perceptions of the universe and how it works. It is uniquely experienced by each of us.

I will add that, contrary to what you claimed, evolution is not "pure make believe". It may or may not be true. We simply do not know, as there is no way to falsify the theory. It can only be accepted or rejected on a faith basis.


----------



## deanrd (May 6, 2019)

It’s interesting the way the person that started this thread categorizes evolutionary science as a belief.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 6, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > toobfreak said:
> ...


on several aspects is it easy to show its wrong,,,

take the claim that no human has ever seen a dinosaur,,,there are footprints of humans found along side dino tracks all over the world,,,

and what about the thousands of written and illustrated claims dating back thousands of yrs??? cant have those unless they saw them first hand,,,,


----------



## Flash (May 6, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Science is better thought of as a PROCESS.  Of taking observation, developing theories to explain those observations, then testing them to find out their veracity or not.
> ...




As someone who strongly believes in God I am not bothered by the idea of evolution.  God created a magnificent universe with all kinds of wondrous things in it.

I don't even think it conflicts with the Bible.  The Book of Genesis where the story of Creation is told is neither a Science or History book.  It is a book about the relationship between Man and God.

The idea that I have heard being attributed to fundamentalist that the earth is only 6K years old is not really supported by any fact in science or even in the Bible.  It is a theory by one leader in the church several hundred years ago.  Trying to figure out the age of the earth by backtracking the genealogy mentioned in the Bible may be a fun thing to do if you are bored but has no foundation in reality.  

Like you I am also bothered about the circular logic and flaws I see in science with the Epoch charts.  The more I learn about them the more I can see it is not supported by real science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2019)

Of course, the ages of the strata are well established via radiometric dating and do not rely on the fossils. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know anything about it.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course, the ages of the strata are well established via radiometric dating and do not rely on the fossils. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know anything about it.




sorry but it can t date that far back and is also subject to false readings


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> on several aspects is it easy to show its wrong,,,
> 
> take the claim that no human has ever seen a dinosaur,,,there are footprints of humans found along side dino tracks all over the world,,,
> 
> and what about the thousands of written and illustrated claims dating back thousands of yrs??? cant have those unless they saw them first hand,,,,


The claim that no human has ever seen a dinosaur can't be proven or disproven.  The footprints of humans alongside dinosaur tracks (as well as all the thousands of years old written and illustrated claims) is evidence only. Evidence is not a proof.

Evolution is unfalsifiable (therefore, a religion) and can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis. It may or may not be true. I personally believe that it is true (albeit my faith is weak).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, the ages of the strata are well established via radiometric dating and do not rely on the fossils. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know anything about it.
> ...


Lie and lie. I would say you are just mistaken, but that wouldnt be accurate. When you make up false things and say them, those are lies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Evolution is unfalsifiabl


False.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 6, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > on several aspects is it easy to show its wrong,,,
> ...




well its evidence that they coexisted and based on how many there are it can be considered proof,,,which undermines everything evolution claims


----------



## progressive hunter (May 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




well thats better than the shit you just make up and claim those that disagree are  ignorant or liars,,,

sorry but the facts dont fall your way,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


As if you could name any of your life depended on it, attention begging troll....


----------



## progressive hunter (May 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




so youre admitting you have no facts,,, just speculation based on assumptions,,,

I already knew that,,,

and what facts would you like??
I already proved man and dinos coexisted which undermines all of evolution,,,


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

Flash said:


> As someone who strongly believes in God


If you are referring to the Christian God, which I assume you are, then we both have strong faith in the same God. I am a believer that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is (per the Holy Bible).



Flash said:


> I am not bothered by the idea of evolution.  God created a magnificent universe with all kinds of wondrous things in it.


Indeed he has! He truly is an awesome God!

I, like you, am not bothered by the theory of evolution. As is the case with my Christian faith, Evolution may or may not be true. It can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis. Personally, I accept the theory of evolution to be true (albeit, with a much weaker faith than the strong faith of which I accept the Christian God to be true).



Flash said:


> I don't even think it conflicts with the Bible.  The Book of Genesis where the story of Creation is told is neither a Science or History book.  It is a book about the relationship between Man and God.


You are correct in that it does not conflict with the Bible. The Theory of Evolution in no way contradicts with Christianity; neither does the Big Bang Theory. I have no issues with that theory either (as, likewise with Evolution, it may or may not be true; we simply do not know). I, however, personally remain an agnostic with regard to the Big Bang Theory (ie, I don't accept OR reject it).  Genesis doesn't get into any specifics concerning those matters, just that God is the source of all creation.



Flash said:


> The idea that I have heard being attributed to fundamentalist that the earth is only 6K years old is not really supported by any fact in science or even in the Bible.  It is a theory by one leader in the church several hundred years ago.  Trying to figure out the age of the earth by backtracking the genealogy mentioned in the Bible may be a fun thing to do if you are bored but has no foundation in reality.


Correct again. The 6K years old thing may or may not be true. We simply do not know the age of the Earth, and The Bible doesn't say how old it is either. Usually, the 6Kers believe in a literal six day [24 hour days] creation (7th day God rested). I personally do not hold that belief; I believe that each day could be any extended period of time, and believe that we are currently living in the 7th day mentioned in Genesis. Maybe the Earth is 6K years old, maybe it is millions/billions of years old... We simply do not know how old it is.



Flash said:


> Like you I am also bothered about the circular logic and flaws I see in science with the Epoch charts.  The more I learn about them the more I can see it is not supported by real science.


Agreed. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. If there is no accessible way to falsify a theory, then it is not a theory of science, but rather, a religious theory.

Many people seem to think that if a theory is supported by evidence, if it is rigorously tested, peer reviewed, published in an acceptable publication, determined by consensus, etc. etc. etc., then that theory magickally becomes a theory of science. That's not how science works...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> so youre admitting you have no facts


Not once did i say anything iimplying that. I see we have us another shameless little liar.



progressive hunter said:


> I already proved man and dinos coexisted


Haha....no you didn't, you embarrassing little freak..


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is unfalsifiabl
> ...


Yes, I am aware that you are a fundamentalist of the Evolution religion...  we've been through this... We have no way of seeing what happened all those millions of years ago... if those earliest life forms actually mutated or not...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...


Thats not what you said, weasel. You said the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable. And that was a lie.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Yup, one could argue that to be good evidence. Yet, no matter how many examples one comes up with, it won't be proof. Proof is an extension of foundational axioms ("rules"). Only closed functional systems such as logic and mathematics make use of proofs, since they both have foundational axioms to extend from. Neither science nor religion have said axioms.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Insult Fallacy. Redefinition Fallacy. (disagreement > lie).

I'm saying the same thing that I have always said. By saying that we have no way of seeing, I am saying that it is unfalsifiable. We have no accessible null hypothesis test to perform against the theory. It remains a circular argument...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> I'm saying the same thing that I have always said.


no weasel, you said the theory was not falsifiable. That was a lie. You're not going to slither out from under this lie.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm saying the same thing that I have always said.
> ...


Dude, pay attention... I've said it before, I said it in the prior comment, and I will say it once again... It is unfalsifiable.  It is unfalsifiable because we can't go back in time to see whether the earliest life form mutated or not...  Idk how to make my position any clearer to you...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> It is unfalsifiable because we can't go back in time to see whether the earliest life form mutated or not.


That's stupid and wrong. There are many ways to falsify evolution as the origin of species, from genetics, to fossils, to physiology.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > It is unfalsifiable because we can't go back in time to see whether the earliest life form mutated or not.
> ...


Provide them.


----------



## Flash (May 6, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> [
> 
> If you are referring to the Christian God, which I assume you are,



I am a Lutheran  That is kinda like being Catholic but with one less Pope.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 6, 2019)

Flash said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Same here. I am specifically a WELS Lutheran (WI Evangelical Lutheran Synod). That doesn't mean that I believe everything that WELS teaches, as I also study The Bible as an individual and come to my own theological conclusions about certain debated topics, such as what Genesis 6 is saying, but I think WELS generally does a decent job.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > so youre admitting you have no facts
> ...


compared to you thats not saying much,,,,

and sorry but there is more evidence that humans saw dinos than there is they never did as evo claims,,,

so I base my opinion on facts where as you are still in make believe land,,,


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



You spend a lot of time worshipping Ken Ham and the silly creation museum, right? People in buckskin outfits frolicking with dinosaurs.

You folks are scary.


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



You’re dealing with another graduate of the Henry Morris madrassah for the silly, class of Wednesday afternoon.


----------



## Flash (May 6, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...




Missouri Synod here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2019)

Flash said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Yep, they teach young earth nonsense in the Missouri synod. Got me kicked out of cathechism class.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 6, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...


The one jerkoff said he proved, in this thread, that humans coexisted with dinosaurs.


----------



## Hollie (May 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



The more excitable of the hyper-religious are as much a danger to themselves as to others.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 7, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...


Yup, he is completely stuck in his religious view and won't consider other ways of thinking. The funny thing is, I'm not even disagreeing with his belief in Evolution... I'm just offering up a way to logically arrive at that belief instead of fallaciously arriving there (due to his fundamentalism)...


----------



## gfm7175 (May 7, 2019)

Flash said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Right on!


----------



## gfm7175 (May 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...


It is not "nonsense", Fort... It may or may not be true, just like the 'old earth' view may or may not be true. They are both religious beliefs, and there is no way to prove/disprove those beliefs.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Without looking back, I'm not sure that he claimed it was proof; I think he claimed evidence of it.  Humans very well might have coexisted with dinosaurs; we simply do not know. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 7, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




well with all the evidence its far more likely than not,,,


----------



## gfm7175 (May 7, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Yup. Religion, in and of itself, is perfectly fine. It's fine to believe something on a faith basis; we can't prove/disprove everything. Fundamentalism of particular religions is what becomes the problem, when people think they can prove their religions, or think there is "no evidence to the contrary".


----------



## progressive hunter (May 7, 2019)




----------



## Hollie (May 7, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


>



Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Carl baugh

Carl Edward Baugh is a young earth creationist who is most infamous for claiming to have “discovered human alongside dinosaur footprints near the Paluxy River in Texas”. Yes, Baugh is the big promoter of the infamous (fake) Paluxy footprints, and he still believes they’re genuine.


*Diagnosis: Raving clodhead for which the evidence would scream "fraud", but Baugh so caught up in wishful thinking that he is unable not to believe in his own falsehoods and deliberate forgery. Moderately dangerous, since his insanely ignorant, idiotic ideas seem to be frighteningly widely distributed.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 12, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> It is not "nonsense", Fort... It may or may not be true, just like the 'old earth' view may or may not be true.


Embarrassing equivocation.... Like pointing to a sky without clouds and saying, "it may or may not rain in 30 seconds"...anti intellectual horseshit....


----------



## SandSquid (May 21, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What?  Don't Carbon Dating, strata levels, ice testing, all agree that there was a 65 million year gap give or take between humans and dinosaurs?  

Yeah I didn't live at the same time as Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln.   But to say "the evidence doesn't matter, since you didn't live then, you can't go back to see that they actually didn't live in the same time period" is pure BS.  Even if some conspiracy nutjob wants to go out and show his scam that historians are wrong about those two's lives, that theory is BS.   

Especially when the best they can use to attempt to debunk proven science ends up again and again being found to be intentional lies.  Baugh for example bought a skeleton, and it was proven at time of purchase he knew it to be 200-300 years old.  Then he intentionally misrepresented that same skeleton as from the Cretacious period 145 million or so years ago.


----------



## SandSquid (May 21, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > on several aspects is it easy to show its wrong,,,
> ...



What???   

That's like saying you believe that humans 10k years ago used to fly to the moon and live on the sun since there's nobody alive today who can prove that human design 10k years ago didn't make us able to survive in space, and there's no proof we didn't have rocket ships, and just forgot how to make them.  

Evolution is a scientific theory.  Which means we have proven it works, we just don't know every intricacy in how.  Just like the general theory of relativity.   Jump off a building and 100,000 times out of 100,000 gravity is going to pull you down to earth.  Sure, we may not be 100% sure why it doesn't perfectly line up with what we expect when looking at photons, but to make a claim that Gravity won't pull you to earth if you jump out of a plane because "it's only a scientific theory" is hot garbage.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




those test are based on assumptions that cant be proven,,,

all carbon dating is not reliable and also there is noway to know the history of the item being tested

 and strata layers are based on millions of yrs that cant be proven while a rapid layering is easily proven 

and ice layer are as wrong as they come because you can get several layers per yr where they are only counted as one per yr


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




just because the theory works only means it gets the results intended from a predetermined set of outcomes,,,


----------



## Hollie (May 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



Obviously you know nothing of the scientific method.


----------



## Hollie (May 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



Carbon dating and other methods are reliable. Obviously you know nothing of the methodology.


----------



## james bond (May 21, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Obviously you know nothing of the scientific method.



Pot.  Kettle.  Black.


----------



## Hollie (May 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously you know nothing of the scientific method.
> ...



Another instance of your lashing out with an emotional outburst.

Anytime you wish to challenge the body of peer reviewed science with the fears and superstitions from the charlatans at creation.com, let me know.


----------



## james bond (May 21, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Anytime you wish to challenge the body of peer reviewed science



We weren't talking about peer-review in this post, but the scientific method.  Explain how Darwin used the scientific method?  No cheating and using natural selection.


----------



## Hollie (May 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Anytime you wish to challenge the body of peer reviewed science
> ...



You were not talking about the scientific method. I referenced the scientific method in post 330.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 21, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> Especially when the best they can use to attempt to debunk proven science ends up again and again being found to be intentional lies.


There is no such thing as "proven science". Science does not make use of proofs. It is an open functional system. Only closed functional systems such as logic and mathematics make use of proofs.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 21, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> What???


You saw what I typed.



SandSquid said:


> That's like saying you believe that humans 10k years ago used to fly to the moon and live on the sun since there's nobody alive today who can prove that human design 10k years ago didn't make us able to survive in space, and there's no proof we didn't have rocket ships, and just forgot how to make them.


Correct.



SandSquid said:


> Evolution is a scientific theory.


No, it is not. It is a theory of religion. It is not falsifiable in an accessible, practical, specific way that yields a specific result.



SandSquid said:


> Which means we have proven it works,


Science does not make use of proofs. It is an open functional system.



SandSquid said:


> we just don't know every intricacy in how.


Mhmmmmmm...



SandSquid said:


> Just like the general theory of relativity.


Yup, that is a theory of science.



SandSquid said:


> Jump off a building and 100,000 times out of 100,000 gravity is going to pull you down to earth.


Yup. That theory, concerning the fundamental force of gravity, has not been falsified as of yet.



SandSquid said:


> Sure, we may not be 100% sure why it doesn't perfectly line up with what we expect when looking at photons, but to make a claim that Gravity won't pull you to earth if you jump out of a plane because "it's only a scientific theory" is hot garbage.


I'm not making that claim. I'm just saying that it isn't proof. The theory simply hasn't been falsified as of yet.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 21, 2019)

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


Science is not a method. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Karl Popper got that bit right...


----------



## gfm7175 (May 21, 2019)

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


They make assumptions which we simply do not know whether they are actually correct or not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 21, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Lie.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




instead of calling him a liar why not prove it and show us you arent an attention seeking troll


----------



## Hollie (May 21, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I’m not sure who the “we” is you writing on behalf of but the decay rate for certain isotopes used for dating are not assumed. They are known quantities. 

“We” have that data.


----------



## harmonica (May 21, 2019)




----------



## james bond (May 22, 2019)

Aliens lol.


----------



## gfm7175 (May 22, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...


Precisely.  But the "you lie!" mantra is much easier to chant than actually taking the time to form an argument...


----------



## gfm7175 (May 22, 2019)

Hollie said:


> gfm7175 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Yes, we have that data as of "right now", but we don't have that data "since the beginning".  Thus, it always being a constant is an assumption.


----------



## Hollie (May 22, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



I'm not sure I understand what you're trying go convey. The decay rate for isotopes is a known value. That rate can be applied to samples and the available isotope can be used to estimate an age. I don't understand your "since the beginning", comment. 

You can find a detailed discussion here:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale


----------



## SandSquid (May 22, 2019)

gfm7175 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > gfm7175 said:
> ...



The thing is we have moments across history, paleo-events which occurred all over the world.  So we can compare across.  Uranium dating, carbon dating, ice core dating, tree rings, ocean sediment dating and thermoluminescence, and they all come amazingly close.  We can say "hey the ash from this volcano in this test, matches the methane release we found in this test, which matches the volcanic sulfate in this test and all show the same time period based on how the sample was studied".  Then when compared against relative dating (stratigraphy and flourine dating and such), things match up where they should be for another layer of confidence.  

That's the issue.   Yes, we can say "well I've only been alive for 40 years, so I can't prove that Lincoln and Julius Caesar lived at different times".   But in reality, you can look back through different historical evidence and make a sound determination that their lives did not in fact cross paths.  


Which is why you have to have those like Morris who created the young earth movement needing to lie in their writings to create a base of their beliefs.   Using incorrect dating systems.  Intentionally misquoting, changing quotes and eliminating context of actual scientists.  

For example: 

Folds that originated at the time represented by plate 53B but that have been accentuated and locally broken by the later pressures, are visible in ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls both in the mountains south of Glacier National Park and in the part of the Great Plains within some 20 miles of the mountain edge at the eastern border of the park. All the sedimentary rocks that were present were squeezed and folded, but the Belt series, being strong and buried under a blanket of other rocks, was deformed the least. Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt of strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many million years ago. Actually they are folded, and in certain zones they are intensely so. From points on and near the trails in the park it is possible to observe places where the beds of the Belt series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls, are folded and crumpled almost as intricately as the soft younger strata in the mountains south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the park to the east.

Was the quote.  To prove that while they look unchanged, there was a scientific reason behind that change over millions of years. 

Young Earth conspiracists like Moore, took that quote down to: 

"Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the impression that the Belt of strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many *million* (removed this word) years ago.

To try and pretend that science was unable to explain the reasoning (which it did in the full paper).  Why INTENTIONALLY erase the quote and parts of the quote to attempt to convey something to the exact opposite of what the writer was stating?




Sure you can quote a scientist saying "in a test, 9 out of 10 mice fed whole grains died early".   But are you leaving out the part where the "laced with cyanide" bit was excluded from the quote?   Are you reading an article a geologist who doesn't work in any sort of life science field wrote?  Did his data to come to that conclusion pass peer review, or did he keep his test group in worse conditions than his control group for those results?

That's what the Young Earth conspiracy theorists do.   They try and debunk science, not through fact, but intentionally misrepresenting facts.

Here's another from John Reader, another prominent young earth conspiracist.  His quote said ""Not many (if any) [fossil hominids] have held the stage for long; by now laymen could be forgiven for regarding each new arrival as no less ephemeral than the weather forecast."

Making it seem that human fossil remains of early hominids are routinely discredited. 

The real quote:

"_Australopithecus afarensis_ is the latest fossil hominid to be thrust before the public as the *oldest evidence* of mankind's existence. Not many (if any) have held the stage for long; by now laymen could be forgiven for regarding each new arrival as no less ephemeral than the weather forecast."

In reality it is that new ancient fossils are appearing so quickly the record for "oldest fossil" isn't being held for long, and has NOTHING to do with any discrediting of them.  

Or another YE conspiratist Walter Brown saying ""Eugene Dubois conceded forty years after he discovered Java "man" that it was just a large gibbon."

In reality the quote was "Pithecanthropus was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, however superior to the gibbons on account of its exceedingly large brain volume and distinguished at the same time by its faculty of assuming an erect attitude and gait."

Or Doug LaPointe quoting Howell saying "In fact, its brain is said to extend "... into the *middle* range of Homo sapiens."

When Howell wrote "The first man of our own genus, _Homo erectus_ is modern of limb but more primitive of hand and brain, with a cranial capacity extending only into the *lower range* of _Homo sapiens_."

Why would someone need to INTENTIONALLY misquote and lie?   If the facts are there, shouldn't they be able to stand on their own?  


Why attempt to do that?   Well people wanting to believe something are just looking for confirmation.   They aren't going to check the original authors quote for accuracy, the context, the authors actual belief based on the evidence, the evidence used for the quote.  They just want to see "earth scientist says X" which they believe in.  

They also don't bother checking whether a YE conspiracy test was up to date, if the evidence and trial was studied and passed a peer review, how the test was completed, etc.   There are dozens of these "studies" which the authors will not allow peer review by field experts on their methodology or what they used.   Yeah, I can prove whole grains killed 9 of 10 test subjects, if I don't peer review my article to show that the "whole grains" were a mix of wheat and cyanide.  

Then there's those smart enough to realize the conspiracy isn't fact based but like protecting it.   So they use logical fallacies, they intentionally misquote and mislead.  They intentionally ignore relevant facts.   

I guess for me that is too much.   Even if I REALLY want to believe something, if it isn't that my team is winning the Superbowl this year, I'm not willing to be intentionally ignorant to believe it.


----------



## james bond (May 27, 2019)

Ants stopped by a small rock.  Where's the evolution?


----------



## Hollie (May 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> View attachment 262778
> Ants stopped by a small rock.  Where's the evolution?



Perhaps they suffer from the same limitations as fundie cranks.


----------



## james bond (May 28, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 262778
> ...



Evolution didn't happen!  It never does.

God wanted me to ask you two questions, 1) Of all the things that I said about Christianity, what do you consider true?  2) Of all the things that I said about creation science, what do you consider true?  (I'm just doing my job.)


----------



## Hollie (May 28, 2019)

james bond said:


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


The gods wanted me to suggest that you consider taking an introductory course in the biological sciences. I'm passing that on to you as I'm just doing my job.


----------



## deanrd (May 28, 2019)

This is the problem with Republicans, they believe there’s no such evidence for science but there’s plenty of evidence for magic spirit beings who wear white wizard robes.
 And they get so angry when people laugh at them.  Well if they don’t want to be laughed at, stop being funny.


----------



## james bond (May 28, 2019)

Hollie said:


> The gods wanted me to suggest that you consider taking an introductory course in the biological sciences. I'm passing that on to you as I'm just doing my job.



I already did under evolution.berkeley.edu and compared the two.  Used to believe in evolution, but around 2007 - 2011 stopped believing it.  In 2012, I became Christian and started to compare with what they had to say.

Anyway, since you rarely answer my questions, I'll take both as a nothing under Christianity nor creation science is true.

Personally, all I can say to you is you can't disprove any of it.


----------



## james bond (May 28, 2019)

deanrd said:


> they believe there’s no such evidence for science



Haha.  Like what deanrd?  What do _you_ have evidence for?


----------



## Hollie (May 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The gods wanted me to suggest that you consider taking an introductory course in the biological sciences. I'm passing that on to you as I'm just doing my job.
> ...



Actually, I can disprove ID’iot creationism. Prove I can’t.

See how that works? 

I'm addressing your false and unsubstantiated claims here again. 

See how that works? I task you with composing a coherent, defendable argument and when you fail at that task, you resort to childish tantrums. 

You cannot require “disproof of that which is not” as a standard because you are establishing a fallacious standard by definition. If you can demand “prove there are no gods” but not demand that the asserter of gods prove there is, then anyone can counter your demand using your own standard:

 Thus, I do have proof disproving the existence of your gods, prove that I do not. See? You have established that “prove it isn’t” is a viable standard, therefore I'm holding you to your own standard.

Therefore, it must be the asserter of all positive (i.e., such and such exists) premises to prove their assertion. With equal validity, I cannot “prove there isn’t” a Santa Claus, Leprechauns, gnomes, werewolves, gawds, etc., etc., but we do not go around insisting there be an establishment of proof of non-existence for those things. Why does the assertion of gods get past this same standard?

Further, I have no "belief" in biological evolution, There is no requirement for belief when facts are at hand.  While the Flat Earth /  ID'Iot creationists will rail against the the facts of science, they cant refute the facts. Use of evidence and _reason_ to discriminate between discoverable science and regurgitated tales of supernatural entities leads us very quickly to discern  which model of existence deserves the greatest confidence. And since we actually have *direct observational evidence* that natural law exists (and have existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have *no observational evidence of any kind* that one or more gawds" exists, the choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective judge who has managed to divorce themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

When I listen to how people (theists, et al) describe their gods, I am always taken by two things: How really weak they make their gods while trying to make them omnipotent, and how indistinguishable those gods are from both humans and the demons that humans live in trembling fear of.

The gods would have had to purposely create a very old looking, very spread out universe to see what we clearly see today. One wonders how is doing that -at the same time offering the creation story as inerrant (as you believe it is) much different from the gods perpetrating and perpetuating a lie?


----------



## james bond (May 28, 2019)

Hollie said:


> Actually, I can disprove



You don't even know what you are suppose to disprove.  Your brain is mush.  I already disproved evolution.  No way for life to start through abiogenesis.  No way for the universe to start with no physics nor space and time.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I can disprove
> ...



On the contrary, I have nothing to disprove. 

I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your gawds, it falls to you to disprove my disproof. 

I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.


----------



## james bond (May 29, 2019)

Hollie said:


> The decay rate for isotopes is a known value.



Yes, but the radiometric believers of long time make wrong assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes and their ratios leading to erroneous results.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The decay rate for isotopes is a known value.
> ...



Your " because I say so" claims are not convincing. I'm sure you can find some silly conspiracy theory on Creation.com to cut and paste, but those quacks are not a part of the relevant science community.


----------



## james bond (May 29, 2019)

Hollie said:


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



It's garbage in, garbage out.  It happens with thought processes, science, computer programs, and the like.


----------



## Hollie (May 29, 2019)

james bond said:


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



Nothing in your screeching refutes the validity of established dating methods.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> Yes, but the radiometric believers of long time make wrong assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes and their ratios leading to erroneous results.


I heard this before. What wrong assumptions do you think they make?

.


----------



## james bond (Jun 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but the radiometric believers of long time make wrong assumptions of parent-daughter isotopes and their ratios leading to erroneous results.
> ...



The biggest one is that assuming that on average decay rates have been constant.  This is based on the radioactive materials having exponential decay.  The exponential decay is an universal law of radioactive decay, so that is not in question; this is observed in experiments and in nature.  

Where the error occurs is in the assumptions of initial amounts that somehow we know how much uranium was there at the beginning (when no one was there to measure) for uranium-lead dating.  If all was considered uranium and no lead when no one could possibly measure it, the the samples would be too old.  The scientists who recognized the problem used rocks that contained zircon or baddeleyite which contain uranium and strongly reject lead.  Unfortunately, this was not the case for uranium-lead dating.

Another assumption was that the rate of decay was the same for long-time, i.e. hundreds of millions or billions of years.  No one can observe this, but is based on exponential decay.  The controversy is over how energy levels changed enormously over such long time.  If energy levels changed drastically, then exponential decay would not hold.  The secular scientists who believe in the big bang theory claim that there was infinite temperature and infinite density at the beginning.  This defies the laws of physics.  Then microseconds after there was cosmic expansion (also defies laws of physics), so how could the energy be the same over long-time?  The creation scientists do not believe in a big bang occurring, so they make a similar argument, but for different reasons.

Then there are outside influences.  For uranium-lead dating of the crystallization of magma, it remains a closed system until the uranium decays.  Then it allows the lead to move.  If the rock became heated, then that would affect the uranium-lead ratios.  The assumption is that there was no outside influences such as large temperature changes or contamination.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> ...Where the error occurs is in the assumptions of initial amounts that somehow we know how much uranium was there at the beginning ....
> ...Another assumption was that the rate of decay was the same for long-time, i.e. hundreds of millions or billions of years. No one can observe this, but is based on exponential decay....


There are a number of other radiometric dating methods that are all quite different. You would have to find fault with all of them. Here are a few:

Alpha decay of samarium-147 to neodymium-143 with a half-life of 1.06 x 10^11 years

Electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years​
Beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years

Decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, which has a half-life of about 80,000 years.​
Electron capture and beta decay rates involve the "fine structure constant", alpha. The constant was measured by examining the spectral lines of distant stars and found to be no different than it is today.

If the physical constants involved in nuclear or atomic phenomena were to vary over the millennia, it would be quite obvious from the observation of distant galaxies. It doesn't take much of a change in the physical constants to radically change the nature or stability of stars or everyday substances. So it's not possible that radiometric methods are wrong because the physics was confirmed at galactic scales.

.


----------



## james bond (Jun 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > ...Where the error occurs is in the assumptions of initial amounts that somehow we know how much uranium was there at the beginning ....
> ...



I thought you were going for the others, but it has the same type of problems.  Face it, the Earth and universe are not billions of years old.  It means that secular/atheist scientists are wrong about their conclusions based on it being billions of year old like with magnetic field being a dynamo on Earth and other planets.  The magnetic field is decaying like the battery in your phone and is observable to creation scientists, but the atheist ones are not convinced like you.  Can it be recharged or kick started?  We don't know, but we'll never try if you believe in dynamo.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> I thought you were going for the others, but it has the same type of problems. Face it, the Earth and universe are not billions of years old. It means that secular/atheist scientists are wrong about their conclusions based on it being billions of year old like with magnetic field being a dynamo on Earth and other planets. The magnetic field is decaying like the battery in your phone and is observable to creation scientists, but the atheist ones are not convinced like you. Can it be recharged or kick started? We don't know, but we'll never try if you believe in dynamo.


All I was saying is that if you want to disbelieve one aspect of physics, there are consequences that permeate the entire field. You have to re-invent the entire field of physics and astronomy. There are too many physical observations that you would have to deny. Physics has nothing to do with religion. It is a mathematical model, or codification of observations.

.


----------

