Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sasquatch

Greetings

Recommended Posts

I do find it ironic that creationists are hung up on the whole "goo to you thing" but somehow "dust to man" and the belief that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky who grants wishes if you telepathically accept him as your master or you will burn in hell for all of eternity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical fruit tree. I dunno it's just odd IMO. But heck, believe what you want. I have a friend who thinks flying saucers have visited Earth. There's no way I can convince him otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my evidence of reduction, whereby science removes the potential of a non-designed method thus leaving a designed method... Is going to be ignored?....

 

 

Thus confirming what I said about evolutionists ignoring the biochemical when they discuss evolution...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main difference here is I can say I dont know how it all started and that I dont have all of the answers. However I dont fill in that blank with "God did it" as that is ludacris in my view. On the other hand you claim to have the answers to the "where it all started" question with your "God" and bible. But when it comes down to it, you dont know anymore than I do, I can admit that i dont know. I run far away from any group or organization that claims to have "the answers". I think for myself and dont follow the flock. I have never been presented with any convincing evidence for the supernatural, but my my mind is open(organized religion excluded).

 

 

Atheists also claim to "have the answer" its just that the answer, (for them), is not God... How can they say its not God if they do not know the answer?

 

Perhaps you should judge your own worldview with the rules you judge others, if you really feel that no one has the answer then be an agnostic and be open to ANY answer, God or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not qualified to comment straight away Gilbo

Point me in the direction of a biology textbook or some real scientific research.(not links to creationist websites) and I'll be glad to look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will openly say I don't know Gilbo. My question is will you? Because in all fairness, you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not qualified to comment straight away Gilbo

Point me in the direction of a biology textbook or some real scientific research.(not links to creationist websites) and I'll be glad to look at it.

 

Read my post and respond to that

 

Look up anything to do with Biochemistry, one of the easier examples is cellular respiration.

 

 

 

I will openly say I don't know Gilbo. My question is will you? Because in all fairness, you don't.

 

So you're not an atheist?.... If you do not know then you should be an agnostic since that is their belief system, (whereas the possibility of God exists and we have no way of knowing which conclusion is correct)

 

If you read my post then you'd realize I do know, as I said its not hard logic, but may be hard to swallow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, new guy here. I've been following this forum for awhile now and decided to join. I enjoy learning why people believe what they do. More from a psychological as well as a cultural viewpoint I suppose. Just to put it out there, I have no beliefs in deity's God/Gods or the supernatural. I'm Just here to observe and occasionally join conversaions and ask questions.

 

Welcome Sasquatch, I hope you have many good discussions here. And remember, just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean they hate, or disrespect you. It’s not a personal attack (Ad Hominem abusive), but rather a disagreement with your statement, assertion (etc…).

 

For example, in your statement “I have no beliefs in deity's God/Gods or the supernatural”, in no way means that you have no beliefs; what it means is that you ‘believe’, based upon your world-view, that there is NO “God/Gods or the supernatural”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont belong to a group, (unless you consider Rockabilly subculture) a group, but that doesnt apply here. I stand by what I say that God of the gaps is not a sound answer for what we do not know about the natural world. It is ludacris.

 

I do find it ironic that creationists are hung up on the whole "goo to you thing" but somehow "dust to man" and the belief that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky who grants wishes if you telepathically accept him as your master or you will burn in hell for all of eternity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical fruit tree. I dunno it's just odd IMO. But heck, believe what you want. I have a friend who thinks flying saucers have visited Earth. There's no way I can convince him otherwise.

 

If that's your excuse for for disbelief it's quite weak. But let's test your belief and see if you use the god did it excuse of evolution or ignore it so you don;t get exposed.

 

1) In the natural realm and under natural laws. How does nothing create something?

2) How does first cause fit into naturalism?

3) If energy cannot be created or destroyed where did the first energy come from?

4) If origins and evolution were done out of processes that call for randomness, why do we see the Fibonacci numbers where ever we look? http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1189

5) If the earth is as old as you guys claim, and the dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. Then how does Blood and tissue last that long?

An update: And not only is blood and tissue found in that one bone but now every bone they crack open has this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB69zCwbBPY

http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=225

 

6) And the blood and tissue find were as old as thought there would have been randomizing of amino acids to have right handed ones due to the break down over the millions of years. Problem is that randomizing does not exist.

7) And how about a lifeform that refuses to adapt to it's surroundings but instead makes it's surrounding adapt to it's needs. http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=200

 

But let's be honest. These things don;t matter because either evolution did it, or natural processes regardless if it can be seen. It just happens because you believe that it does. Like a god did it excuse except there is no god, right?

 

Also you believe that goo went to life yet that cannot be observed. You believed single cells organisms not only became multi-cells organism but some how knew how to design every system, every organ to create man. Even though that cannot be observe you believe that it's so.

 

And last but not least is your continuous attempts at making fun which I think is funny because it not only shows that you have no more science to support your claims, but you basically lost the debate here. Because if you had anything at all scientific to back up your claims you would have already presented it and there would be no need for all the other stuff. But as usual like every other atheist that comes in here. They have the inability to back up what they put up and get mad when we point that out. Then you whine and complain that things are not fair and that the creationists are the bad guys and loons. Which by the way proves nothing scientifically.

 

Only that your debate skills are weak and so are your claims. So basically insult us some more to prove this even more. Or put up the science to back up what you claim. Well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main difference here is I can say I dont know how it all started and that I dont have all of the answers. However I dont fill in that blank with "God did it" as that is ludacris in my view.

Where did I "fill in the blanks"????

 

I never assert that God exists simply because there is no explanation for why how life originated, but I still think it is a incredibly powerful indication that He did for the reasons I gave.

 

It is funny how athiests like to talk about what is rational and logical, but as soon as it comes to this question it is quickly shrugged off as though it was something trivial.

 

It takes more than a complex mixture of chemicals to produce intelligence. But suggesting that this intelligence was designed is, in your opinion, "ludicrous".

 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I "fill in the blanks"????

 

I never assert that God exists simply because there is no explanation for why how life originated, but I still think it is a incredibly powerful indication that He did for the reasons I gave.

 

It is funny how athiests like to talk about what is rational and logical, but as soon as it comes to this question it is quickly shrugged off as though it was something trivial.

 

It takes more than a complex mixture of chemicals to produce intelligence. But suggesting that this intelligence was designed is, in your opinion, "ludicrous".

 

Why?

 

For the same reasons we aren't allowed to infer design when we look at irreducibly complex systems in Biochemistry which need all its parts functioning before a benefit for selection can occur, thus indicating the system arrived as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my post and respond to that

 

Look up anything to do with Biochemistry, one of the easier examples is cellular respiration.

 

 

 

 

 

So you're not an atheist?.... If you do not know then you should be an agnostic since that is their belief system, (whereas the possibility of God exists and we have no way of knowing which conclusion is correct)

 

If you read my post then you'd realize I do know, as I said its not hard logic, but may be hard to swallow.

 

theists like to insist that I am agnostic, because I cleary state that I have no idea if god(s) exist or not. But I am an atheist because I have no active belief in god(s) and won’t have until suitable evidence is brought forth. I have never bothered with god(s), just like I don’t with other extraordinary entities without extraordinary evidence like Bigfoot and the Pink Unicorn. Though I don’t believe in them, I don’t know if they exist or not. All of these entities are highly improbable. I don’t bother thinking about any of them. Unfortunately, I do have to bother about people who have god belief because they exist and can be quite problematic.Atheism is translated thusly: a=non, theism=belief in a theistic entity. I am an atheist, just like I am an ateapotist, an apinkunicornist, and an atoothfairyist. Give me extraordinary evidence for the existence of theistic entities, celestial teapots, and Bigfoot, and I will accept their existence. Doubt I would worship any of them though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's your excuse for for disbelief it's quite weak. But let's test your belief and see if you use the god did it excuse of evolution or ignore it so you don;t get exposed.

 

1) In the natural realm and under natural laws. How does nothing create something?

2) How does first cause fit into naturalism?

3) If energy cannot be created or destroyed where did the first energy come from?

4) If origins and evolution were done out of processes that call for randomness, why do we see the Fibonacci numbers where ever we look? http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1189

5) If the earth is as old as you guys claim, and the dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. Then how does Blood and tissue last that long?

An update: And not only is blood and tissue found in that one bone but now every bone they crack open has this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB69zCwbBPY

http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=225

 

6) And the blood and tissue find were as old as thought there would have been randomizing of amino acids to have right handed ones due to the break down over the millions of years. Problem is that randomizing does not exist.

7) And how about a lifeform that refuses to adapt to it's surroundings but instead makes it's surrounding adapt to it's needs. http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=200

 

But let's be honest. These things don;t matter because either evolution did it, or natural processes regardless if it can be seen. It just happens because you believe that it does. Like a god did it excuse except there is no god, right?

 

Also you believe that goo went to life yet that cannot be observed. You believed single cells organisms not only became multi-cells organism but some how knew how to design every system, every organ to create man. Even though that cannot be observe you believe that it's so.

 

And last but not least is your continuous attempts at making fun which I think is funny because it not only shows that you have no more science to support your claims, but you basically lost the debate here. Because if you had anything at all scientific to back up your claims you would have already presented it and there would be no need for all the other stuff. But as usual like every other atheist that comes in here. They have the inability to back up what they put up and get mad when we point that out. Then you whine and complain that things are not fair and that the creationists are the bad guys and loons. Which by the way proves nothing scientifically.

 

Only that your debate skills are weak and so are your claims. So basically insult us some more to prove this even more. Or put up the science to back up what you claim. Well?

 

I'm pretty sure this has been debunked already. If this was real, where is the DNA from it? If a living dinosaur tissue was found, there would have been DNA, and that would have been all over the news for a long time. Sweitzer says herself that Creaionisss have hijacked and misrepresnted her work for their own fundamental agenda. Her's something from the same researchers who discovered the fossil in question:

"We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time. "

Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/58…

 

And more about soft tissue (which is becoming increasingly common now that we know to look for it:

 

Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado…

 

Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/c…

 

Anyone who believes, in this day and age, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, should have their head examined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who believes, in this day and age, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, should have their head examined.

 

I'll leave the rest for Ike, just thought it was amusing that this post is evidence of the belief that, you can't have a discussion with an atheist without the obligatory insult.

 

 

What makes you claim with such certainty that the Earth is older than 6000 or so years?

 

 

 

Its also interesting that my Biochemistry evidence has been ignored :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll leave the rest for Ike, just thought it was amusing that this post is evidence of the belief that, you can't have a discussion with an atheist without the obligatory insult.

 

 

What makes you claim with such certainty that the Earth is older than 6000 or so years?

 

 

 

Its also interesting that my Biochemistry evidence has been ignored :(

 

No insult intended. As I said Gilbo I'm not well versed in the subject of bIochemestry so I'd rather not comment now. Also various disiplines of mainstream science show Earth to be more than 6000 years old. Question, are there any non-creationists or Atheists that believe that Earth is 6000 years old? The reason I ask is that it seems pretty clear that the foundation for this belief is rooted in the bible and not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No insult intended. As I said Gilbo I'm not well versed in the subject of bIochemestry so I'd rather not comment now. Also various disiplines of mainstream science show Earth to be more than 6000 years old.

 

No probs, though saying people who believe X needs to get their head examined is an insult regardless of your intent. (I could say the same of people who believe everything came from literally nothing, whereby no space, no time, no energy, no laws of physics, Nothing... However I won't).

 

 

There are also various forms of data that support a 6000-10,000 year old Earth.

 

 

 

16. Eve's Mitochondrial DNA:

Mitochondrial DNA is different from nucleus DNA in that it has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..." 90 It is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, 90,91,92,93 or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below.

 

In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.90,91,92 This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported.94 This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000. This greatly revised date is very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didn't make the headlines. See also: "The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve" and Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through our Genes.

 

17. Population Growth:

Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. 95,96,97 See Population Statistics for more on this.

 

 

22. Zircons:

Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals. They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- IF the earth were "billions of years old." Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well, and in their summary they said that:

 

"We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons ... Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures ... of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible." 106 Emphasis Added

 

 

 

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs, though saying people who believe X needs to get their head examined is an insult regardless of your intent. (I could say the same of people who believe everything came from literally nothing, whereby no space, no time, no energy, no laws of physics, Nothing... However I won't).

 

 

There are also various forms of data that support a 6000-10,000 year old Earth.

 

 

 

16. Eve's Mitochondrial DNA:

Mitochondrial DNA is different from nucleus DNA in that it has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..." 90 It is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, 90,91,92,93 or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below.

 

 

In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.90,91,92 This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported.94 This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000. This greatly revised date is very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didn't make the headlines. See also: "The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve" and Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through our Genes.

 

17. Population Growth:

Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. 95,96,97 See Population Statistics for more on this.

 

 

22. Zircons:

Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals. They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- IF the earth were "billions of years old." Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well, and in their summary they said that:

 

"We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons ... Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures ... of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible." 106 Emphasis Added

 

 

 

http://www.earthage....young_earth.htm

 

Do you have any informaion on the subject from sources from other than creationist websites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any informaion on the subject from sources from other than creationist websites?

 

"Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals. They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- IF the earth were "billions of years old." Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well,and in their summary they said that:"

 

I believe there is a book on this line of evidence called "Thousands not Millions"

 

 

 

Furthermore it doesn't matter if the article or website is creationist, (just like how I presume you prefer to read atheist articles), what does matter is the content and if it is supported with links to the information or if it is using a well known concept

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question, are there any non-creationists or Atheists that believe that Earth is 6000 years old?

I think You are asking the wrong question. What you should first be asking yourself is why a non-creationist or athiest would be motivated to abandon what they have been spoonfed from an early age, just to get insulted.

 

You have already demonstrated the kind of insults that are associated with a belief in a young earth. Why would an atheist want to be insulted for something that he probably doesn't give a hoot about?

 

And if a non-creationist took the time to really study this from the creationist side then would he remain a non-creationist? I know of at least one guy who became a creationist after studying the issues and realizing that the claims made by evolutionists are not reasonable. That is how he became a creationist and a believer.

 

But now that he has become a creationist, I guess he doesn't count!

 

There is not a shred of evidence that proves an old earth, it is all based on the assumption that rates that we see and measure today have always been the same. No one knows that. Gilbo mentioned a few limiting factors but there are many more.

 

Now I am one of those that believe in a young earth. So please explain why you think I should get my head examined.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nasa tends to disagree with you. http://science.nasa....001/ast17jan_1/ I dont know how to quote this "Scientists are drawing a portrait of how Earth looked soon after it formed 4.56 billion years ago, based on clues within the oldest mineral grains ever found.

Tiny zircons (zirconium silicate crystals) found in ancient stream deposits indicate that Earth developed continents and water -- perhaps even oceans and environments in which microbial life could emerge -- 4.3 billion to 4.4 billion years ago, remarkably soon after our planet formed". I accept Nasa's findings on this as it's pretty clear cut from the evidence. I find it hard to believe that there is some grand conspiracy to dupe people into thinking that the earth is billions of years old or that experts in various fields are somehow "misinformed or wrong" Makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept Nasa's findings on this asit's pretty clear cut from the evidence. I find it hard to believe that there is some grand conspiracy to dupe people into thinking that the earth is billions of years old or that experts in various fields are somehow "misinformed or wrong" Makes no sense.

 

What evidence was there? All I see in the article is unsupported statements.... Please post up the evidence you are claiming to be "clear cut"

 

Further you haven't responded to the 20 or so lines of evidence for a young Earth, (if you followed my link, I only posted 3 since I didn't want to make a "wall of text")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that there is some grand conspiracy to dupe people into thinking that the earth is billions of years old or that experts in various fields are somehow "misinformed or wrong" Makes no sense.

 

I don't know of any creationist that believes in a consipiracy among scientists. This is an unfounded prejudice that preachers of evolution try to spread about creationists.

 

There is no need for a conspiracy! Bias alone is enough.

 

Once someone has been preconditioned through years of education about what the "facts" of the matter are then everything is interpreted according to what they are taught. They are practically having their worldview chosen for them.

 

Now how many scientists do you think there are that study all the issues that have to do with the age of the earth and then choose what age they think is correct? It doesn't work that way. Most scientists do what everyone else does - they choose to go along with the evidence that fits their worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of any creationist that believes in a consipiracy among scientists. This is an unfounded prejudice that preachers of evolution try to spread about creationists.

 

There is no need for a conspiracy! Bias alone is enough.

 

Once someone has been preconditioned through years of education about what the "facts" of the matter are then everything is interpreted according to what they are taught. They are practically having their worldview chosen for them.

 

Now how many scientists do you think there are that study all the issues that have to do with the age of the earth and then choose what age they think is correct? It doesn't work that way. Most scientists do what everyone else does - they choose to go along with the evidence that fits their worldview.

 

I'm not reading unsupported statements, I'm reading about the results of research that was conducted. "Both research teams used instruments called ion microprobes to date and analyze the zircon crystals, which often contain uranium, rare earth elements and other impurities. Uranium decays to lead at a known rate. Uranium-lead ratios in the zircons showed they formed as early as 4.4 billion to 4.3 billion years ago when they crystallized in molten granite"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not reading unsupported statements, I'm reading about the results of research that was conducted. "Both research teams used instruments called ion microprobes to date and analyze the zircon crystals, which often contain uranium, rare earth elements and other impurities. Uranium decays to lead at a known rate. Uranium-lead ratios in the zircons showed they formed as early as 4.4 billion to 4.3 billion years ago when they crystallized in molten granite"

 

OK, so how do they know what the original saturation of the "uraniam, rare earth elements and other impurities" were?

 

And how do they know that the present "known rate" has always been the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure this has been debunked already. If this was real, where is the DNA from it? If a living dinosaur tissue was found, there would have been DNA, and that would have been all over the news for a long time. Sweitzer says herself that Creaionisss have hijacked and misrepresnted her work for their own fundamental agenda. Her's something from the same researchers who discovered the fossil in question:

"We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time. "

Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/58…

 

And more about soft tissue (which is becoming increasingly common now that we know to look for it:

 

Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado…

 

Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/c…

 

Anyone who believes, in this day and age, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, should have their head examined.

 

LOL, more atheistic evolutionists making more claims about their evidence that must always solely conform to evolution (conformism is not science). What would one expect from a group of people who all believe the same thing. And your continued attempt to make us sound stupid using categorizing tactics about people whom disagree with you as a group that is stupid. Childish games do not prove anything scientific only that it shows that you must act childish to be an evolutionist and to defend evolution itself. Because if it were not needed so many of you would not be doing it.

 

We also laugh at you when you guys use terms like freethinker. If you guys were truly about freethinking you would not care what we thought. And anyone could be apart of yur group because your group of freethinkers would not care either. But let's be honest. Freethinking in your group is only within the realm in which you all determine. And only those who think and believe within that realm of thinking that is acceptable will you accept. Pitiful that you point fingers at us and make accusations while all along from your own own hands you guys have 3 fingers of your own pointing right back at you. I guess your motto is: Do as I say not as I do. Because everything you accuse us of I can point it right back to you. If you don;t believe me make a list of what makes you justified in your belief against us and see,

 

And one more thing, you skipped over half of my post, I guess if you are to ignorant to answer questions and therefore must us categorizations instead what should I expect? Certainly not any scientific answers. But some how knowing it all and ignorance goes together? I guess that's what I should expect from a theory that allows you to be right and wrong at the same time. No wonder there is no real definition for truth scientifically because real truth does not exist in science. And If I am wrong give us the scientific definition of truth.

 

But I guess to define truth you would also have to have written down morals that everyone on your side should follow, but that don't exist either does it. I guess when your side has to constantly change truth actually committing to it is out of the question. Because once you do then you actually would have a standard you might have to live up to. Can't have that can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so how do they know what the original saturation of the "uraniam, rare earth elements and other impurities" were?

 

And how do they know that the present "known rate" has always been the same?

 

Because no one has found evidence that they havent. If you want to overthrow all of geology as well as the other disiplines of earth science go for it, but you have to bring your own research to the table. Work that can be tested, retested and cooborated by other scientists within that respective field of disipline..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms