Originally posted by Robtard
You little troll... when you first posted Gentry's work on "Polonium Haloes", 'AngryManatee' replied and refuted Gentry's work with a link, as before, you simple chose to ignore it, yet now come back screaming, clown.Also, Gentry's work on "Polonium Haloes" has nothing to do with Evolution and/or disproving Evolution, it's about the formation of the Earth, numskull. A "Young Earth" doesn't disprove Evolution by default.
Let me guess, you'll run and hide again; when your idiocy has been covered by a few pages, you'll come back again "attacking" with the same B.S.?
A Young earth does disprove evolution because if the earth is only thousands of years old then evolution could not have enough time to happen! Evolution need a earth that is at lest hundred million years old.
Originally posted by Phenoix12
A Young earth does disprove evolution because if the earth is only thousands of years old then evolution could not have enough time to happen! Evolution need a earth that is at lest hundred million years old.
The young Earth theory, in my oppinion, is very poor science. The Earthe is around 4 billion years old.
Please read...
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
Originally posted by Phenoix12
A Young earth does disprove evolution because if the earth is only thousands of years old then evolution could not have enough time to happen! Evolution need a earth that is at lest hundred million years old.
Prime example of Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam folks...
Anyhow, there is a mountain of evidence to support that the Earth is not just a few thousand years old. I could give examples from the formation of the Hawaiian Islands, Mountains to tectonic plates shifting; I know you'll just dismiss it though as "lies".
Edit: You're still dodging AngryManatee's post/refutal...
Originally posted by Phenoix12
http://www.halos.com/
Originally posted by AngryManatee
hmm...Oh yeah, Gentry's a hack as well, and has been shown to alter data to suit his "findings"
Edit: Ceationism = Theory, Evolution = Scientific Theory
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
It is a fact, is it responsible for creation of life is in question but evolution is not.
JIA has invested so much time and energy into believing something, that it is now impossible for him to even try and think outside of the box, err, in this case "book", no matter what facts or irrefutable proof comes to light.
Originally posted by Robtard
JIA has invested so much time and energy into believing something, that it is now impossible for him to even try and think outside of the box, err, in this case "book", no matter what facts or irrefutable proof comes to light.
This is how he replies when ever I stump him.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
.
I would laugh if it wasn't so tragic.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is how he replies when ever I stump him.I would laugh if it wasn't so tragic.
That is what partially makes me think he's just trolling us all... If he was that adamant about "Jesus" and such, he'd debate the points and not act the fool... then again, he could be just another religious ass-clown. Either way, it's entertaining refuting his rants.
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I think a normal person would assume that if you talk to 50 random people and everyone of them thinks you are wrong that there is a good chance that you are, but that is just me. 😉
But you have to understand the Christian Fundamentalist mind set. The more that other people, outside of their Church, say they are wrong, the more they are right, because they are being persecuted. They are at war with a world filled with demons and devils, and every time someone disagrees with them, it is Satan trying to destroy the truth.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonYou think they would realize they are loosing the war considering that there are over 6 billion people and less than 2 billion Christians. 😱
But you have to understand the Christian Fundamentalist mind set. The more that other people, outside of their Church, say they are wrong, the more they are right, because they are being persecuted. They are at war with a world filled with demons and devils, and every time someone disagrees with them, it is Satan trying to destroy the truth.
JUMP TO THE WINNING SIDE
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
You think they would realize they are loosing the war considering that there are over 6 billion people and less than 2 billion Christians. 😱JUMP TO THE WINNING SIDE
They are supposed to loss. Losing is part of being right to them. They will loss, loss, and loss, then they will be ruptured. 🙄
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI also suspect there are some in this forum who pretend to be of that mindset and are just having some fun with those who aren't.
But you have to understand the Christian Fundamentalist mind set. The more that other people, outside of their Church, say they are wrong, the more they are right, because they are being persecuted. They are at war with a world filled with demons and devils, and every time someone disagrees with them, it is Satan trying to destroy the truth.
🙄
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is very possible, but it is a real mind set, I used to be one. 😉
I suspect he wasn't talking to you, but to our good Christian savior.
However you are correct, when you corner something the way many of these far-right evangelicals feel they are being their resolve only grows.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The young Earth theory, in my oppinion, is very poor science. The Earthe is around 4 billion years old.Please read...
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
Are Radioactive Dates Wrong?
John Woodmorappe (1979) went through the scientific literature looking for radioactive dates which are 20% too old or too young. He specifically excluded from his search any date which matched the expected age. This type of selective editing is exactly what Young earth Creationists charge the Evolutionists with. Woodmorappe says
"An objective comparison between the number of fitting vs. the number of anomalous dates in the Phanerozoic is hindered (if not prevented) by the fact that anomalous dates frequently (or usually) are not reported in scientific journals." (Woodmorappe 1979, p. 113)
Thus while he criticizes the old-earther for selectively publishing radioactive dates, he does the very same thing by only publishing bad dates. This seriously hurts his credibility. In his article he listed these bad dates but did not plot them. If he had, he would have seen something remarkable. Above the 350 dates are plotted . A perfect dating result should appear on the line. Note that there are more dates under the line than above the line. If radioactivity is producing dates which are too old, you would expect that there would be more dates above the line than below the line. What this proves is that if a radioactive date is wrong it is far more likely to be too young than too old! Young earth creationists need the dates to be too old if their viewpoint is correct.
Figure 1. Radioactive dates ploted from Woodmorappe's 1979 article. Notice that even though Woodmorappe edited his data to only accept bad values, there is still a general lineup of expected vs radioactive age. Also notice that if anything a bad radioactive date is more likely to be too young than too old.
Originally posted by Phenoix12
Ok I looked thrugh it and found this tidbit of Info:Are Radioactive Dates Wrong?
John Woodmorappe (1979) went through the scientific literature looking for radioactive dates which are 20% too old or too young. He specifically excluded from his search any date which matched the expected age. This type of selective editing is exactly what Young earth Creationists charge the Evolutionists with. Woodmorappe says
"An objective comparison between the number of fitting vs. the number of anomalous dates in the Phanerozoic is hindered (if not prevented) by the fact that anomalous dates frequently (or usually) are not reported in scientific journals." (Woodmorappe 1979, p. 113)
Thus while he criticizes the old-earther for selectively publishing radioactive dates, he does the very same thing by only publishing bad dates. This seriously hurts his credibility. In his article he listed these bad dates but did not plot them. If he had, he would have seen something remarkable. Above the 350 dates are plotted . A perfect dating result should appear on the line. Note that there are more dates under the line than above the line. If radioactivity is producing dates which are too old, you would expect that there would be more dates above the line than below the line. What this proves is that if a radioactive date is wrong it is far more likely to be too young than too old! Young earth creationists need the dates to be too old if their viewpoint is correct.
Figure 1. Radioactive dates ploted from Woodmorappe's 1979 article. Notice that even though Woodmorappe edited his data to only accept bad values, there is still a general lineup of expected vs radioactive age. Also notice that if anything a bad radioactive date is more likely to be too young than too old.
[list=1][*]Scientists use radiometric dating, not radioactive dating.
[*]Use research that is not nearly 30 years out-of-date.[/list]