ikester7579

I can change it but it's not going to draw any evolutionists in here. They avoid the subject for a reason. You are not the first to put up a thread that has the sounds of crickets as far as evolutionists are concerned. Just chalk it up as learning which subjects cannot be addressed scientifically to solely support evolution.

I guess because it's morning and my brain is not quite woke up yet. I did not understand the OP. But I'm glad you put it into easier to understand terms. Thanks.

Welcome to the forums.

Just so everyone knows from an admin point of view. Most Christians here when warned will straighten up and they do not challenge or question mod or admin actions here. 99% of the atheists and agnostics won;t listen, won;t straighten up. And will challenge the mod and admin actions here every time. So which group will get leeway for listening and which group won't because they don't listen? The way I see it as to the reason it's this way: Atheists cannot stand being told what to do by people they consider to be pond scum. So therefore they won't and get banned for it. So that's not our problem nor is it bias. Because the difference in how we have to treat the two groups is made clear because the reaction to authority here is always the same from one group. But there are exceptions to the rule. We have had Christians here who would not listen either and they got banned. We have had atheist here who would listen and got to stay longer then most. One even made it to almost three years here once. But if you are going to act the fool, break the rules, and not listen you will get banned and it does not matter what group you belong to.

Another reason is that most evolutionists consider themselves above creationist pond scum and therefore feel that they most lower themselves to that level to debate. And also for that same reason it's very embarrassing when pond scum out debates them. The other reason is because they believe and promote humanism and hate it when creationists won't to their claimed supreme intellect.

What is it that is basically impossible but yet is was found to exist? We find that about 99% of the people who come here and claim agnostic are really atheists looking for an edge in debating.

It's not the fossil that needs to be carbon dated. But since it is more than obvious that the atheists won't do it we will wait until a creationist does it then that will force you guys to do it. So no more problem.

What I find ironic is the fact that you ignored the other video that proves what Ben Stein's movie said was true. Why was the Mary S scared to present her findings? Because she knew that because her evidence did not go along with the current accepted truth, she would be attacked. And that this attacked could end up in the credibility of her and everyone associated with her being destroyed. 1. Do you deny that Mary S. said she was afraid of being attacked for her find? 2. Do you deny that her fear was solely based on that her evidence did not support evolution? 3. Do you deny that this happened even though anyone here can watch the video and see her admit that? 4. Is Mary S. lying? What I find ironic is that the creationists has given the atheists a chance to test this and it was denied. Now because you guys are not the only ones who hold fossils like this what do you think will happen next? The creationists will test this. And if the results come out in their favor guess what? The only way you guys are going to be able to save face is do the test anyway to try and prove us wrong. So you are going to end up doing it anyway, why not be the first to do it? But that will be hanged over your head as well. That we offered you guys the chance to be first, even offered to pay for it along with grant money. You refused forcing us to test first so whatever happens it can be blamed on you guys because we tried to do the right thing. Now that's what I call ironic.

What I find funny and ironic about this claim of cross contamination is that to keep the evidence from being tested and the possibility of it supported YEC, you come up with this. While all along the geologic column is also "organic" and is full of C12 and C14, yes or no? If cross contamination is so easy to get how can you prove that the column did not cross contaminate the fossil? So if you are going to claim this on one instance to stop evidence from possibly supporting YEC and ignore it in another instance because it supports old earth and evolution what does that tell us? So explain if you will how the C12 and C14 in the geologic column are able to cross contaminate the fossils buried there? Which by the way using logic would explain the find. If the fossils are really less than 6,000 years old, but were cross contaminated by the layers they were buried in. It would explain how a fossil that dates millions of years old can have soft tissue. It was never that old in the first place, Also this would explain the circular reasoning behind the layers dating the fossil and the fossils dating the layers. What else would one expect in a case of cross contamination? So let's boil this all down to simpler terms of what we have so far. Nuada claims that the organic solution that fossils are put in would cross contaminate the evidence making the dating date more like young earth evidence. But yet would ignore that the same cross contamination also would take place in the geologic column that would make the fossils date older than they normally would. Proof of cross contamination of the fossils from the layers is that a fossil found would never date differently from the layer. And to prove that time did not lay the layer the atheists would not be able to provide an actual process or mechanism that requires time to sort the layers. What this inability does is prove that time did not lay the layers which would make everything else fit. Because if time did not lay the layers then the flood did. And unlike the atheist problem of show how time sorting layers the water can be shown to sort layer and is observable test that cane be repeated in any lab. Sorting layers from flood is empirical evidence because it is observable and repeatable. Time sorting layers is not observable or even explainable. Another problem that everyone seems to miss is that if one thing can cross contaminate another with C12 and C14 then how does the same thing keep from cross contaminating itself? Think about that for a minute. You have something as big as the geologic column that is trying to release C12 and C14 into the atmosphere. So as it tries to release this upward it cross contaminates everything around it and would make the upper layers date younger because the C12 and C14 from the lower layers cross contaminated the upper layer making them date younger while the layers below will date older. So what needs to be explained is how one works as to the reason one should not be tested, while the other in a similar situation won't and therefore is considered reliable? Also since you said "most solutions used is organic". There are solutions that are not, right? So why not put the evidence is a non-organic solution and solve the problem and then test it?

This video here makes it very clear that people are afraid to present any evidence that does not go along with what is currently accepted as fact. http://vimeo.com/36846059 All this basically supports Ben Steins movie expelled which all evolutionists deny goes on.

While surfing Real Science Friday website I ran across this video. In the video Bob E of the Radio talk show challenged Jack Horner to carbon date the soft tissue that's supposed to be millions of years old. Bob knew full well that "if" the tissue was millions of years old that the carbon dating would not work. But Bob also knew that if the tissue was not millions of years old and fell into the range of carbon dating there would be a accurate reading. http://vimeo.com/36871025 Now Jack Horner is trying to protect his own interests and pretty much makes that clear by saying there is no way he was going to do this testing. Even though Bob E told him he would pay for all of it and even went up to 20,000 dollar grant to the museum. Jack's response was that he did not want to turn this into a circus because of the spin that could be done with this testing. Now was that Jack admitting that there is a possibility that the carbon dating might work and that would destroy the credibility of the evidence because it would now support creation instead of evolution? The way I look at this is if evolution is such a true proven fact with mountains of evidence, what are the evolutionists afraid of here? Is this one prediction that will fail? Now why would Bob E ask them to do it and also make it a blind test? That's because if a creationist does it the evolutionists around the world will claim foul. So even though Bob E was trying to give them the chance to do it under their supervision they don;t want nothing to do with it. This pretty much proves what creationist have known for a long time. The reason creation evidence is not accepted as evidence by science is because the ones that are in power of doing these things with any credibility are afraid that their credibility will be destroyed if the results do not go in the favor of evolution. How can something be falsifiable when there is this much bias and protection that runs a muck making sure that it will never happens?

I'm glad someone else see's that besides me that evolutionists have a God did it excuse that is without God whether they admit to it or not.

This is to add to what has already been brought up... The other part is the processing of the information so that in a visual display it can be seen as it really is. Yet this process according to most evolutionist was easy to come by even though no observable mechanism can be provided that shows exactly how any part of the evolution process would know exactly what to mutate next and when to stop mutating when the goal is reached. Because there is nothing naturally that can "guide" all the mutations required unto a certain direction to evolve the finished product. Because when a evolutionist has to step into that realm of explanations, he soon realizes there is not one unless intelligence is added. So even though they could show an eye at this point, that point, or the last point of the supposed evolution process. They will never be able to explain what guides the mutation process to go to any point without intelligence. Example: 1) How did evolution determine that we needed to see in order to survive? 2) How did evolution know what to evolve in order to see? 3) How did evolution know that there needed to be a separate processing center of the brain to process site? 4) And how did evolution know which to evolve first? The eye or the vision center of the brain? 5) How did evolution know how to design the eye so that it would work like it does? 6) Last but not least is how did evolution know how to program the vision center of the brain to process the information from the eye so that we could comprehend what we see? Saying that it just happens is like saying you can hook up a hardware with no drivers and the computer would eventually learn how to use the hardware. Not going to happen. Good thread. Good luck in finding a evolutionist that will post and be able to address these issues.

Yes. a whole new theory of how DNA works to fit the new found evidence must be worked out. And one again that will not have observable evidence to prove it. Only words. Yes words that are so powerful they can leap buildings with a single bound. It's super word. Defies reality by making new realities. Defies truth by making new truth. Defies being wrong by always being right. The reason you don;t see any evolutionist post in threads like this is that their main problem is facing real reality and real facts. To post in a thread like this and discuss this would make them have to face their worst fears. That evolution might be wrong.

What I find ironic about this is that evolutionists think that without evolution we would not have made the strives we have in medical science. Problem with that reasoning is that it does not take a whole theory to understand one mechanism or process. 1) Evolution is not required to understand Natural selection. 2) Evolution is not required to understand what a mutation is. The only thing evolution is required for understanding of is for atheists to justify their disbelief in God. Because if you actually weight the percentage of how it's being used here or there what use do you think would dominate all others? It's continued use and following to claim that there is no God.