Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Chat about just about anything else
User avatar
MALsPa
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2040
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: albuquerque

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by MALsPa »

FedoraRefugee wrote:MALsPa, I am not joking! Again, I am arguing scientific fact here, we not only have a single T-Rex bone but MANY other examples of supposedly millions of years old remnants with intact organic matter still inside. EXPLAIN IT PLEASE?
So the "intact organic matter" that you speak of means, to you, that the "supposedly millions of years old remnants" cannot possibly be that old? And you claim to be arguing scientific fact? Sorry, not buying it.
FedoraRefugee wrote:As far as Jesus Christ being real, that is beside the point, but why do you not believe He was a real person? You do understand that even most secular scholars readily admit He was a real person? I mean, a whole religion was started on His name... :roll:
I don't claim to know if Jesus Christ was a real person or not.

But I have no reason to believe in the existence of your God, and I have no reason to believe that Jesus, if he did exist, was the "Son of God" or whatever you call it. Sorry. You think that I should believe those things. I don't.
FedoraRefugee wrote:Do yourself a favor, take your time and look into both of these questions. The evos have a few answers for the dino blood cells, but they are all unsatisfactory. :wink:
"Do yourself a favor..."

:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
MALsPa
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2040
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: albuquerque

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by MALsPa »

mzsade wrote:Also, whatever errors that may exist in Carbon dating etc. they are certainly cannot be in the range of several million years. To yet insist that Creation is only several thousand years old is ridiculous.
Surely FedoraRefugee will not let that go unchallenged!

:lol:
User avatar
mick55
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:47 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by mick55 »

He probably thinks the Earth is flat. :roll:


"Faith: not wanting to know what is true."

~Friedrich Nietzsche~
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)
User avatar
MALsPa
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2040
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: albuquerque

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by MALsPa »

mick55 wrote:He probably thinks the Earth is flat.
Was it ever mentioned in the Bible that the Earth is round? If not, then it must be flat.

mick55 wrote:"Faith: not wanting to know what is true."

~Friedrich Nietzsche~
Appears to be true.
User avatar
mick55
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:47 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by mick55 »

He can believe whatever he wants.

It just annoys me when people present opinions as facts.

Why debate with someone who "knows he is right". :roll:




"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the
flag and carrying the cross."

~ Sinclair Lewis ~
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)
User avatar
mick55
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:47 am

Re: Gunman goes on ramage in Cumbria

Post by mick55 »

FedoraRefugee wrote:T Rex lived 4,000 years ago. Can you refute that statement?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



OK you win. :o :shock: :P :mrgreen: :lol:


EVERYONE else is wrong. :lol:
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)
User avatar
mick55
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:47 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by mick55 »

Wow!!

You're right...


..............look out little girl...


.....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrghhhhhhhhh

Image
Last edited by mick55 on Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)
User avatar
mick55
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:47 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by mick55 »

..

Peek-a-Boo

Image

:mrgreen:

:mrgreen:
Last edited by mick55 on Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)
User avatar
mzsade
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:36 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by mzsade »

:lol: Adam and Eve really had it tough, first having to deal with the serpent in the Garden of Eden and then T-Rex on earth.
Attachments
dinosaurs-in-eden.jpg
dinosaurs-in-eden.jpg (99.65 KiB) Viewed 1387 times
Linux User #481272 Reg: 15th Sept., 2008
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by FedoraRefugee »

Now that everyone has had a good laugh...Do any of you have ANY facts to support your position? :D
Also, whatever errors that may exist in Carbon dating etc. they certainly cannot be in the range of several million years.
Yes, that is certainly true! Carbon dating is for organic matter only, and organic matter is totally decayed at around ~40,000 give or take a decade... :roll:

You are thinking of radiometric dating. There are many forms of radiometric or radioisotope dating techniques including Potassium, Rubidium, Samarium, Lutetium, Rhenium and Thorium/Uranium tests. Many elements undergo radioactive decay as they age, producing other elements. If we measure the quantities of radioactive elements in a sample and compare them to the measure of the element into which they decay we can theoretically determine how much time has elapsed since the sample was formed or cooled from a molten state. The problem with this is the age result is just an interpretation, the actual scientific data are the isotope ratios, not elapsed years. To derive an age measurement from the test unprovable assumptions have to be made. These assumptions are the starting ratio of parent/daughter isotopes, that the rate of decay is constant, and that no parent or daughter material has been added or removed. There are countless examples of rocks of known origin being dated wrong! The Mt. St. Helens eruption alone gives us countless samples of basaltic lava formed in 1980 that are dated from 1 million to one and a half million years old. The evo answer? Their tests just are not that accurate with rock that young...That is a good answer. But the question is if radiometric dating is accurate. Instead they turn it, once again, as we can see in this very forum, into an attack against creationists. But the question is still not answered. If we have all these KNOWN samples that are being dated way out of the ballpark, why should we trust ANY of the tests? In fact, if you look at the results of ANY radiometric dating you will see wild, millions of years fluctuations on the SAME SAMPLE!
So the "intact organic matter" that you speak of means, to you, that the "supposedly millions of years old remnants" cannot possibly be that old? And you claim to be arguing scientific fact? Sorry, not buying it.
What are you not buying? We have found much organic matter where it should not be! This is a fact:

http://www.mediafire.com/?nzwznjjzwej

Please explain this? I am not ASKING you to buy anything, I want an explanation!
He probably thinks the Earth is flat.
Mick, I am very disappointed in you! :( Is that really called for? I have presented a few facts, can you explain them? No. Instead you have to resort to personal attack. I really do not believe man EVER thought the earth was flat, I believe this to be an old wives tale. Certainly the Bible recognizes a round earth as do the ancient Greeks. You only have to look up in the sky to see round planets, a round sun, a round moon...You can watch the sun and moon and mars all travel through our sky with great precision day after day...You can stand out in a desert or in a ship out of sight of land and see the curvature of the earth with the naked eye.

Listen, you all keep resorting to faith based arguments. I am the one trying to get you to argue facts! I have not presented opinion, I have presented fact. There are red blood cells in dinosaur bones, explain it. I am not trying to sway you to my beliefs, I want YOU to show me why my beliefs are wrong. Why is it so crazy that the universe might only be a few thousand years old? Think about it, what do you have to prove it is any older? Radiometric dating? Ice core samples? Starlight? I can show where these MAY not be valid measurements. I also have MANY pieces of evidence that point to a young earth. Why can you not argue facts? Because you do not have any? Easier to just drink your beer and laugh at the nut? :D I understand. But I actually have good reasons for what I believe, do you? Other than that was what they taught you in school? Have you ever demanded proof? You want proof to believe in God, why do you believe in evolution without any proof? If you have proof then present it.
User avatar
mzsade
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:36 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by mzsade »

If scientific proofs and arguments are the basis of your faith then it will just as easily be shaken by a stronger counterpoint or proof, and even though i may not be able to provide one, there will surely come a time when you will stumble onto one that convinces you.

Found this for you to wrestle with, enjoy :D
http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/lttmetct.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm
and this one's especially for your pet T-Rex soft tissue argument,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html,
Above all please remember that we are just chewing the fat here, and it's all right to take a little dig at each other now and then. We are all fellow Minters, right? :wink:
Linux User #481272 Reg: 15th Sept., 2008
User avatar
MALsPa
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2040
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:17 pm
Location: albuquerque

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by MALsPa »

FedoraRefugee wrote:I have not presented opinion, I have presented fact.
Sir, you have presented beliefs and you call them facts.
FedoraRefugee wrote:I want YOU to show me why my beliefs are wrong.
I don't think that's possible. You are going to believe what you believe, and it won't matter what anyone else says if doesn't fit in with your beliefs about God and Jesus and the Bible.

So there's really no point in discussing any of it any further. This is how things always end up whenever I foolishly try to have this type of discussion with believers. I thought that I had learned to just keep my mouth shut, but I stepped into the muck again, like an idiot. :(
FedoraRefugee
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:25 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by FedoraRefugee »

mzsade wrote:If scientific proofs and arguments are the basis of your faith then it will just as easily be shaken by a stronger counterpoint or proof, and even though i may not be able to provide one, there will surely come a time when you will stumble onto one that convinces you.

Found this for you to wrestle with, enjoy :D
http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/lttmetct.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm
and this one's especially for your pet T-Rex soft tissue argument,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html,
Above all please remember that we are just chewing the fat here, and it's all right to take a little dig at each other now and then. We are all fellow Minters, right? :wink:

Yes of course you are right.

I just thought that perhaps we could have a mature discussion, maybe exchange ideas. I am not about to get into a link war here. I could counter every website you link with one of my own...What is the point?

I give up. Thanks for at least supplying an actual argument, it was more than anyone else could do.
User avatar
Kaye
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:05 pm
Location: Boston College
Contact:

Re: Gunman goes on ramage in Cumbria

Post by Kaye »

FedoraRefugee wrote:Listen my friend, when you can show me how life can be formed from non-life, or when you can show me one species turning into another, then you come back and we will talk. Till then you are just another sucker buying all the hype.
Your misunderstanding of scientific principle and your complete perversion of logic make conversion with you pointless at best. Let me take a second to remind you that you are stating completely unfounded beliefs as facts and you are also supporting your beliefs with other beliefs. Not to mention your assumption that you understand anything about science when you clearly understand nothing. I refuse to waste my time going through point by point to prove you wrong about anything because I'm sure you can pull up some grossly flawed "experiment" that you will stand by no matter how disrespected it is among the scientific community. But I will say one thing.

Saying evolution is hype is like saying gravity is hype. You speak of biogenesis and how that disproves evolution, but all that shows is that you have an extreme deficiency in your understanding of how life started on Earth. A fish did not pop into the sea one day and turn into a monkey and then a human. It is completely plausible for a self replicating cell to form from organic elements and compounds through millions of years of mutation. From that point, natural selection takes over and that single cell (the common ancestor) differentiates into many different forms depending on many external factors. The problem with people like you is that you pervert evolutionary theory in order to "disprove" it. I've taken the time to learn about theology in the form of university courses, but it is clear that you have put very little effort into learning science in anything other than a bible college. It shouldn't be my job to teach you these things considering you have a master's degree, but apparently you care too much about your faith to learn the facts of the natural world.

Listen my friend, when you can show me that an all-powerful supernatural being exists that created the entire universe just for us and then stuck around to closely monitor our sex lives, come back and we will talk. Till then you are just another sucker buying all the hype. Unlike others, I am not afraid of offending you in saying that you have been blinded by your upbringing and are nothing more than a slave to religious dogma. Have fun in fantasy land.

OldMarcus: I apologize for the hijacking of this thread, but as a rational person it's very difficult to read such ridiculous posts and not respond to them.
"In somnis veritas"
Antivirus or defragging?
Image
User avatar
mzsade
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:36 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by mzsade »

Thanks for reminding me who this thread belongs to, Kaye; please accept my apologies too, OldMarcus, i came in on a little late, but we have to bring this to an affable conclusion somehow, so if you permit, i will continue with this for awhile.
Kaye, your belief in evolution and mutation is just as fanatical. I do not dispute that the age of the Universe is certainly more than a few thousand years, but if as you say, you are open to rational argument, you should be equally ready to accept that evolution is only a theory based entirely on the evidence of fossils and their ages. Isn't attributing mutation. from a primary single cell or whatchamacallit, to the existence of each life form, the same as that of believing that all human beings are the offspring of two people, namely Adam and Eve? Couldn't the various forms have existed simultaneously, and the evidence of which has been somehow destroyed by freak geological phenomenon, i mean are you so rigid in your faith in evolution that you will not make allowances for that? Also, there has to be a first cause if you go by the basic principle of science, so why not a supreme being till science pins it down?
Linux User #481272 Reg: 15th Sept., 2008
User avatar
Kaye
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:05 pm
Location: Boston College
Contact:

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by Kaye »

mzsade wrote:Thanks for reminding me who this thread belongs to, Kaye; please accept my apologies too, OldMarcus, i came in on a little late, but we have to bring this to an affable conclusion somehow, so if you permit, i will continue with this for awhile.
Kaye, your belief in evolution and mutation is just as fanatical. I do not dispute that the age of the Universe is certainly more than a few thousand years, but if as you say, you are open to rational argument, you should be equally ready to accept that evolution is only a theory based entirely on the evidence of fossils and their ages. Isn't attributing mutation. from a primary single cell or whatchamacallit, to the existence of each life form, the same as that of believing that all human beings are the offspring of two people, namely Adam and Eve? Couldn't the various forms have existed simultaneously, and the evidence of which has been somehow destroyed by freak geological phenomenon, i mean are you so rigid in your faith in evolution that you will not make allowances for that? Also, there has to be a first cause if you go by the basic principle of science, so why not a supreme being till science pins it down?
Sorry, but almost none of what you wrote here is accurate. The amount of evidence for evolutionary theory is absolutely massive - it extends far beyond the fossil record and carbon dating. Evolution is not a "belief" or a "faith" any more than to say that I "believe" in gravity. The notion of a supreme being violates almost every basic principle of the known universe; it makes very little sense to believe in one.
"In somnis veritas"
Antivirus or defragging?
Image
User avatar
mzsade
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:36 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by mzsade »

[quote=Kaye]Sorry, but almost none of what you wrote here is accurate.[/quote]
I have not quoted a single thing as fact, only possibility. When you scorn FedoraRefugee for the very same reasons, you should account for this. Furthermore, don't tell me that you have identified a plausible origin of the existence of the first impulse that ever existed that brought everything into existence, the first molecule, the first atom..hence just lets hold our peace and temporarily believe that there is a first cause that we have not yet identified, if at all we are to argue logically, and not insist that stuff just happened, that there was a big bang in vacuum, and nothing ever existed before that. Science itself insists that the age of the Universe is finite, in that case there has to be a beginning and if you can't present something more plausible than evolution, please take everything with a pinch of salt.
Linux User #481272 Reg: 15th Sept., 2008
User avatar
Kaye
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:05 pm
Location: Boston College
Contact:

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by Kaye »

Evolution is not an answer to the question "how did everything get here." It's an answer to the question "how did life come about." There is a big difference.
"In somnis veritas"
Antivirus or defragging?
Image
User avatar
mzsade
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:36 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by mzsade »

Evolution is not an answer to the question "how did everything get here." It's an answer to the question "how did life come about." There is a big difference.
Aah! just a process among many possibilities then, certainly not something to hold onto with religious conviction. :lol:
Linux User #481272 Reg: 15th Sept., 2008
User avatar
mick55
Level 6
Level 6
Posts: 1485
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:47 am

Re: Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

Post by mick55 »

FedoraRefugee wrote:
He probably thinks the Earth is flat.
Mick, I am very disappointed in you! :( Is that really called for?
Probably not, but considering your literal interpretation of most things.......

I find your smug dismissal of everyone else's beliefs and opinions objectionable.

There is no wiggle room, no place to meet in the middle,
no concessions, because you say "that is irrelevant. I know the truth".

It defeats the point of communicating, you're mind is made up and you refuse
to accept facts that do not fit your narrow minded beliefs.

Conjecture, opinion, and theory are not facts.

I will make this my last contribution to this thread, as I do not want this to devolve
any more than it has, and I don't want to be insulting.(although it may be too late for that). :(

mick
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890 - 1969)
Locked

Return to “Open chat”