Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Science is continually finding stuff that tosses "known" beliefs on it's head. They recently found mastadon bones deep in a lake bed covered in small boulders (with no other boulders anywhere near) that had tool markings on the ribs. Carbon dating placed these tool marked ribs as old as 100,000 years old. I can't remember what state they were in..Wyoming or Montana I think.

So what does that tell you ?

That there is a God? That the earth is 6000 years old? and these mastadons were placed there by Jeebus before God invented a lot of gravity..hence the boulders.

That Jeebus ate mastadon meat? Then got shrunk down by gawd and stuffed up Mary's twat and then Joseph was pissed cuz he wasn't havin it... He being the cautious one was sure his wife was a fuckin tramp. But...he didn.t want to stone the biach cuz he looked in a mirror and figured ...a lying bitch is probably all he could land anyway.

You fail in your explanations of evidence and God.

 

[UltimateReality]

Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.

 

[HUGGY]

Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.

How can HUGGY be incredibly angry at something that does not exist?

HUGGY is incredibly angry at the level of stupidity embedded in the human culture.

HUGGY is incredibly happy just to be here and help you goofs break out of your fantasy zombie cloud fairy nonsense.

 

[newpolitics]

Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.

Angry at what God? We are angry at the assholes who try and tell the rest of us about him, yet can't listen to logic or reason, or apply it to their own beliefs.

 

[HUGGY]

Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.

How nice of you to notice! I would like to thank the acadamy and all of the little people....

 

[Montrovant]

Back your claim.

Some of the very first scientists were creationist and they used their presuppositions in explaining evidence the same as the secular scientists of today.

a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com

Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.

But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.

And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.

Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.

 

[daws101]

a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com

Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.

But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.

And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.

Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.

 

[daws101]

Back your claim.

Some of the very first scientists were creationist and they used their presuppositions in explaining evidence the same as the secular scientists of today.

a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com

Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.

But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.

that's man's ..
and how does one presuppose time?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.

Angry at what God? We are angry at the assholes who try and tell the rest of us about him, yet can't listen to logic or reason, or apply it to their own beliefs.

Tell me you were not being serious.

 

[Youwerecreated]

a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com

Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.

But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.

And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.

Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.

Not foolish, but logical and reality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever
Found in South Africa, the meaning of this colorful 100,000-year-old relic is a mystery

Stone Age pebble may be oldest engraving ever - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com - msnbc.com

Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.

But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.

that's man's ..
and how does one presuppose time?

So you don't understand dating methods,should have known it.

 

[UltimateReality]

Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.

How nice of you to notice! I would like to thank the acadamy and all of the little people....

You aren't just a star... you're a SUPERSTAR!!!

 

[daws101]

Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.

But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.

that's man's ..
and how does one presuppose time?

So you don't understand dating methods,should have known it.

ahh.... wrong the rub here is you don't understand the question.

 

[newpolitics]

Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.

Angry at what God? We are angry at the assholes who try and tell the rest of us about him, yet can't listen to logic or reason, or apply it to their own beliefs.

Tell me you were not being serious.

I'm pretty fuckin serious.

 

[daws101]

Angry at what God? We are angry at the assholes who try and tell the rest of us about him, yet can't listen to logic or reason, or apply it to their own beliefs.

Tell me you were not being serious.

I'm pretty fuckin serious.

be careful you might just get saved ..without your consent!

 

[Montrovant]

Still relying on mans dating methods that are spawned by man presuppositions.

But they still can't be accurate enough to tell us the time and date of a death of someone recent unless they observe the time and day of the recent death.

And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.

Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.

Not foolish, but logical and reality.

So it is logical to compare a dating method that deals with tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or one that deals with millions of years, with a method that deals with hours? And it is logical to assume that, since the one method is only accurate under certain circumstances, the other, completely different method cannot be accurate?

Finding a time of death for a body is completely different from dating a fossil. If you cannot see that, you are clearly being foolish. Go do just a minimal internet search on fossil dating methods and the methods for determining time of death.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Huggy is a star example of the fact there are no atheists, only people who are incredibly angry at God.

How nice of you to notice! I would like to thank the acadamy and all of the little people....

You aren't just a star... you're a SUPERSTAR!!!

 

[Youwerecreated]

that's man's ..
and how does one presuppose time?

So you don't understand dating methods,should have known it.

ahh.... wrong the rub here is you don't understand the question.

Alright let's just show how you don't understand your own question shall we.

If you start with the assumption that life has not been around for very long let's say 12,000 years it will Affect how your dating methods work.

If you presuppose that life has been on this planet for a very long time the same will happen.

If you presuppose the universe and the earth is very old it to will be affected by the dating methnods used.

Let me give you a few articles that point out presuppositions used in dating methods.

Chapter 4: Unlocking the Geologic Record - Answers in Genesis

RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old?

www.answers101.org/articles/isotipicdating.pdf

 

[Youwerecreated]

Angry at what God? We are angry at the assholes who try and tell the rest of us about him, yet can't listen to logic or reason, or apply it to their own beliefs.

Tell me you were not being serious.

I'm pretty fuckin serious.

It can be easily shown logic can be used on both sides.

You are very seriously wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And this might be important, if when dating fossils scientists claimed the ability to accurately determine age to the hour.

Your comparison of dating methods continues to be extremely foolish.

Not foolish, but logical and reality.

So it is logical to compare a dating method that deals with tens or hundreds of thousands of years, or one that deals with millions of years, with a method that deals with hours? And it is logical to assume that, since the one method is only accurate under certain circumstances, the other, completely different method cannot be accurate?

Finding a time of death for a body is completely different from dating a fossil. If you cannot see that, you are clearly being foolish. Go do just a minimal internet search on fossil dating methods and the methods for determining time of death.

This should show how rediculous your view is that dating methods are so reliable.