|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So far I haven't been able to access a copy. Do you have a link I could use or perhaps I could borrow yours. Have you tried the library?
Top Customer Reviews 4.0 out of 5 starsAmazing summary of research into sub-annual ring-growth patterns ByDavid M. Barkeron October 3, 2013 Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase So often we hear of "annual tree-rings" yet few people are aware of sub-annual rings, and multiple rings. This is a scholarly research report of experiments and studies showing that under some circumstances trees can and do grow more than one ring within a year. Profound! This is what I mean by deceit ... he doesn't mention missing rings, he doesn't say anything about the techniques used that identify missing and false rings, and he doesn't make any effort to show that those "circumstances" apply to the trees in question. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Some more age correlations for you
quote: The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology | National Center for Science EducationJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees: At the extreme lower forest border (Smithsonian miscellaneous collections) Paperback — 1960 by Waldo S Glock (Author) Amazon.com Top Customer Reviews4.0 out of 5 starsAmazing summary of research into sub-annual ring-growth patterns ByDavid M. Barkeron October 3, 2013 Format: Paperback|Verified Purchase So often we hear of "annual tree-rings" yet few people are aware of sub-annual rings, and multiple rings. This is a scholarly research report of experiments and studies showing that under some circumstances trees can and do grow more than one ring within a year. Profound! [edit] So far I haven't been able to access a copy. Do you have a link I could use or perhaps I could borrow yours. So, if for the sake of the argument I let you have some chance of multiple rings muddying the chronology of the Bristlecone pines, then what can you say about the oak chronologies in Message 3:
quote: Do you have a source that says oaks are prone to multiple layers? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Message 40 marc9000 whines to admin that suggesting he doesn't debate things like the age of the earth was off topic ... in order to avoid answering the question.
Well marc, it is the topic on this thread: will you continue to avoid the issue or will you attempt an actual argument about defending your perception of the age of the earth? I won't hold my breath. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Well marc, it is the topic on this thread: will you continue to avoid the issue or will you attempt an actual argument about defending your perception of the age of the earth? I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. It's not important to me. It's not going to effect how I live my life, how I interact with other people, establishing the date I'm going to die, or how I make decisions concerning how I try to please God in living out the plan he has for my life. Some notable creationists like Ken Ham do have a firm belief in a young earth. Like much of what passes for "science", it's not observable science. Anything that's not observable science comes up short in being testable and falsifiable enough to be without controversy. The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists who first came to a conclusion, (the earth MUST be old for Darwinism to work) then choose evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignores evidence that doesn't. We live in a world of re-arrangement. That's all humans can do, they can't create material, and they can't destroy material. The only thing anyone can do is re-arrange material that's already here. We can do some pretty profound re-arrangements, like changing something in such a way that we can't change it back. (like burning something, etc) But the material is not destroyed. We live in a world of ONE time dimension, and three space dimensions. Few people seem to think that humans are capable of understanding all of reality. The endlessness of space, the meaning of life and all of that. I've seen a few at forums like this say something like; "we don't know it all yet, but we're going to figure it all out someday if we could get rid of all these science blocking Christians", or something similar. But they're a tiny minority, and have no proof that they're intellectually superior to everyone else. A very basic of Christianity is that there is more than one time dimension and three space dimensions that God operates/has operated in. And yet whenever the scientific community addresses something non-observational, it is always assumed that it must fit the paradigm of re-arrangement, of one time and three space dimensions. The scientific community doesn't immediately clash with Christianity or the supernatural, it just goes past it. The clash part usually comes soon after. Some who claim to be Christians try to bend and shape Christianity to conform with what the godless scientific community claims, if it takes issue with a traditional Christian belief. As if to say, "if there's a choice between the supernatural and re-arrangements that humans can understand, then the human understandable part has to be given preference. If we were to ask a science guy like Bill Nye what percentage of reality can humans not be capable of understanding versus what we can understand, he'd probably say we can understand...80 to 90% of all of reality. Only 10 or 20% to go. As I consider only re-arrangement in just about everything we can do or comprehend, I'd almost have to reverse those percentages - I believe there's A LOT about all of reality that humans have no chance of ever being able to comprehend.
To try to jam pack all of reality into a re-arrangement realm isn't just an easily reversed minor mistake - it's WRONG. It's far worse than just a trip to nowhere, it's a wrong road that can continue to lead to more and more wrong conclusions, with society destroying consequences. Today's liberalism is a good example. If God did use his ability to use more than one time dimension and three space dimensions to create the earth and the universe, ALL this time and energy spent on speculation that naturalistic processes blundered along for billions of years to do the same thing more than just a gigantic waste, it's VERY detrimental to all of human existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Like much of what passes for "science", it's not observable science. Anything that's not observable science comes up short in being testable and falsifiable enough to be without controversy. The dichotomy between science and "observable" science is simply another (of many) ways creationists try to disparage any scientific evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. And as usual there is no factual basis behind their claims. And "controversy?" That's reminiscent of "teach the controversy." That's another creationist ploy to disparage science that conflicts with their beliefs. Regarding evolution, there is no controversy within science, its just a "controversy" cooked up by creationists in their never-ending but futile attack on science in general and evolution in particular.
The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists who first came to a conclusion, (the earth MUST be old for Darwinism to work) then choose evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignores evidence that doesn't. Abject nonsense. Any scientist who could prove a young earth with evidence would be showered with Nobel prizes. But its interesting that you say, "...scientists who first came to a conclusion, (the earth MUST be old for Darwinism to work) then choose evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignores evidence that doesn't" as that's just the method creationists use to support their religious beliefs. Projection, eh?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined:
|
The claim that the idea of long ages for the age of the Earth started with atheists trying to prove the Bible wrong has been rebutted at EvC many times.
The Geoscience research Institute was set up by the SDA church to prove creation and after more than 50 years still cannot. However in their early years they had some good articles frankly looking at difficulties. Go to Geoscience Research Institute | Origins and look for vol 8 p59-71 and vol 9 p28-51 for discussion about the early CREATIONIST geologists. Vol 8 also has an assessment of dating techniques, vol 10 looks at the difficulties of palaeomagnetism for YEC , and vol 17 a similarly YEC difficulty of the Oklo phenomenon.And these articles are from an organisation looking for YEC evidence. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add the more specific links.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ... So you don't know, don't care. Fascinating.
Some notable creationists like Ken Ham ... ... lie through their teeth and make their living off scamming the gullible.
... The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists who first came to a conclusion, (the earth MUST be old for Darwinism to work) then choose evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignores evidence that doesn't. Actually there were a lot Christian geologists looking for evidence of the purported flood and came to the conclusion that the earth was older than a few thousand years, but regardless the estimates for an age in the billions of years predates Darwin's trip to the Galapagos on the HMS Beagle:
quote: This claim about the age of the earth being made old to accommodate Darwinism is just more typical Creationist non-science crapola. Your opportunity to admit error.
We live in a world of re-arrangement. That's all humans can do, they can't create material, and they can't destroy material. The only thing anyone can do is re-arrange material that's already here. We can do some pretty profound re-arrangements, like changing something in such a way that we can't change it back. (like burning something, etc) But the material is not destroyed. We live in a world of ONE time dimension, and three space dimensions. And one of the things we rearrange is our understanding of the age of the earth based on testable empirical objective evidence. We've been doing that for thousands of years, and getting better at it. Just as science is doing a very good job of rearranging our understanding of how the universe works, how the climate works, how the effects of us doing things like burning fossil fuels at such an extraordinary pace that it changes the climate will be felt for decades and getting worse (for humans) than it already has. Arranging our understanding based on objective empirical evidence has proven to be much superior to achieving practical applications compared to emotional opinion or fantasy, especially as the evidence keeps getting stronger.
If we were to ask a science guy like Bill Nye what percentage of reality can humans not be capable of understanding versus what we can understand, he'd probably say we can understand...80 to 90% of all of reality. Only 10 or 20% to go. ... Well I won't claim to talk for Bill, but my opinion is that the answer is the other way around, that we currently are not capable of understanding most of reality. But that capability increases the more we find what we do understand.
... The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists ... ... over a thousand years by science minded individuals and groups looking for the reality through the use of objective empirical evidence and the testing of theories developed to explain the reality they observe. The methods and results and data presented here are available for review and criticism and testing -- and creationists have tried, and failed, to show the methods are wrong. The best they can do is lie about the results to delude the gullible into rejecting reality.
I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ... After all, if you stay ignorant then you can believe anything. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
marc9000 writes:
... lie through their teeth and make their living off scamming the gullible. Some notable creationists like Ken Ham ... What a snake!!! ABE: the quote below came from RAZD's link make their living off scamming the gullible.
quote: WOW!, just wow. HBD Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ... So you don't know, don't care. Fascinating. Why is it fascinating? You don't understand that people have diverse views and interests? Life is short, mine is quite full, there are no huge voids in my life because I don't spend time on non-observational science that isn't provable. I'm only in this thread because you invited me. I am curious about a few things though, I hope you can lose a little of the anger and address them. After I address a few dates from your link;
quote: Darwin's book "Origin of Species" was written in 1859. All the above dates come shortly after that. Meaning that the interest in an old earth increased greatly with the publication of that book.
And one of the things we rearrange is our understanding of the age of the earth based on testable empirical objective evidence. We've been doing that for thousands of years, and getting better at it. I was only referring to material, not little philosophical cuties about "rearranging understanding".
Arranging our understanding based on objective empirical evidence has proven to be much superior to achieving practical applications compared to emotional opinion or fantasy, especially as the evidence keeps getting stronger. You are the one who quickly went from "howling with laughter" to sputtering with rage in our last discussion. Those who promote an old earth for political reasons can hardly consider themselves exempt from emotion.
marc9000 writes: If we were to ask a science guy like Bill Nye what percentage of reality can humans not be capable of understanding versus what we can understand, he'd probably say we can understand...80 to 90% of all of reality. Only 10 or 20% to go. ... Well I won't claim to talk for Bill, but my opinion is that the answer is the other way around, that we currently are not capable of understanding most of reality. But that capability increases the more we find what we do understand. You missed my question completely, let me try again. I referred to what humans are CAPABLE of understanding. It has nothing to do with building new knowledge on previous information. Do you believe that humans, at any time in the future, are CAPABLE of understanding the endlessness of space, as one example?
The methods and results and data presented here are available for review and criticism and testing -- and creationists have tried, and failed, to show the methods are wrong. The best they can do is lie about the results to delude the gullible into rejecting reality. Since I don't have FIVE YEARS to read through it all, could I get a summary about one thing that I seldom ever see addressed? What percentage of these dating methods show only old material, (old rocks, etc) without showing proof for a life-as-we-know-it friendly climate? It would be possible for the earth's core and crust and all of that to be old, without evidence that the earth has been going around the sun with similar temperatures that we have today for millions of years. Life is fragile, temperature-wise. There's no species on earth that can survive long at all outside its narrow temperature range. It's been awhile, but every so often we get warnings on the news that yet another of the man-made satellites orbiting the earth is coming in for a crash landing. I guess we don't hear about it when one loses its gravity grip and drifts away. What would happen if we had a NASA guy say, "uh folks, we have a little evolution problem - it seems that our data on satellites shows that it's not possible for a satellite, or a planet, to orbit something more than 10,000 or 20,000 times without drifting away or being drawn in. I only know one thing that would happen for sure - he'd lose the top two thirds of his head in an unfortunate shaving accident before his discovery would see the light of day. There really is politics involved in scientific study.
marc9000 writes: I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ... After all, if you stay ignorant then you can believe anything. How ignorant are you about world history? About socialism and tyrants? About Biblical teaching on morality? About finances and national debt? If you stay ignorant of those subjects, you'll believe anything Bernie Sanders tells you. I'm 62 and I've been to funerals of several people that were younger than me. Do you have any priorities, or is the age of the earth everything your life is about? Working, paying taxes, living a life, these are all things that automatically take care of themselves for you? I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm trying to get across to you, as I have for others here for the past several years, that science isn't the only source of knowledge. Maybe one more terrorist attack, maybe a financial crash that the U.S. has never seen before, will wake a few more people up to that fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
...non-observational science that isn't provable. This one line alone shows you have little understanding of science and how it works. First, NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS PROVED OR PROVABLE. Sorry for the caps, but this is far from the first time I've had to post this, as creationists either don't listen or don't accept what science is and how it actually functions. Here are some definitions which might help:
Secondly, your "non-observational science" is just one of the recent creationists efforts to try and pry apart the scientific method and get rid of those sciences which contradict religious beliefs. A more basic creationist line is, "Where you there?" This is just creationist nonsense which shows a lack of understanding of science--or more likely a desire to destroy the results of a wide range of different scientific fields for non-scientific reasons. These tactics might work among creationists and the ignorant, but they don't work against those with a basic knowledge of science. They shouldn't even be attempted in a place like this.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Why is it fascinating?
I find it interesting because it could be that you are subconsciously avoiding the topic because you know that the facts are not on your side.
It's been awhile, but every so often we get warnings on the news that yet another of the man-made satellites orbiting the earth is coming in for a crash landing. I guess we don't hear about it when one loses its gravity grip and drifts away. What would happen if we had a NASA guy say, "uh folks, we have a little evolution problem - it seems that our data on satellites shows that it's not possible for a satellite, or a planet, to orbit something more than 10,000 or 20,000 times without drifting away or being drawn in. I only know one thing that would happen for sure - he'd lose the top two thirds of his head in an unfortunate shaving accident before his discovery would see the light of day. There really is politics involved in scientific study.
Hmm, I don't see a problem at all. We know that, especially in near-earth orbits, satellites are continuously declining. Just look at the altitude record of the ISS. It is repeatedly boosted back into a higher orbit. I think that most people know this. It certainly isn't hidden from public. And there is at least one satellite that is receding from the earth and that is the moon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
After I address a few dates from your link;
quote: Darwin's book "Origin of Species" was written in 1859. All the above dates come shortly after that. Meaning that the interest in an old earth increased greatly with the publication of that book. Rather it had been building for a while, as people were discovering that the Christian religious concept was increasingly unworkable (same wiki article):
quote: Bold for emphasis. That wasn't Darwin, that was the increase in knowledge as scientific methods were beginning to be used. More:
quote: Bold again for emphasis. Still before Darwin. It wasn't "Darwinism" ... it was the pursuit of facts and reality by the scientific methods. Still more:
quote: So you have it backwards, in typical creationist misinformed fashion. The discoveries in geology drove Darwin's thinking, not the other way around. The concept of the age of the earth in Darwin's time was plenty long enough for evolution to work. The ensuing updates were not necessary. They continued, not to validate Darwin's theory but to find the answers to the question of the actual age of the earth.
You are the one who quickly went from "howling with laughter" to sputtering with rage in our last discussion. Those who promote an old earth for political reasons can hardly consider themselves exempt from emotion. If it makes you happy to believe this, then wrap yourself up in it. You were the one dodging and dragging the thread into politics and dictionaries rather than just the creationists use of quote-mines when they claim a moral superiority that more and more is very apparently absolutely missing.
You missed my question completely, let me try again. I referred to what humans are CAPABLE of understanding. It has nothing to do with building new knowledge on previous information. ... What you are capable of understanding is tied directly to your ability to understand, and that is built on current knowledge, so it keeps changing.
... Do you believe that humans, at any time in the future, are CAPABLE of understanding the endlessness of space, as one example? Can you define what quantity of knowledge that is? In order to be able to ascertain what proportion humans will eventually be able to understand, don't you need to know that? Currently we know ~10% of what we think the universe is. Will that increase? yes. Will the "what we think the universe is" increase? yes, as we learn more, we also learn what we don't know but hypothesis. So your question was silly.
Since I don't have FIVE YEARS to read through it all, could I get a summary about one thing that I seldom ever see addressed? ... The correlations, the consilience, the continued evidence of old age from numerous different sources coming to the same results.
... What percentage of these dating methods show only old material, (old rocks, etc) without showing proof for a life-as-we-know-it friendly climate? ... The most recent 50,000 years are all based on signals left by living organisms, year after year with the same basic "life-as-we-know-it friendly climate" as exists today. The dating methods for more ancient times, like the ice-cores extending over 250,000 years in Greenland and 900,000 years in Antarctica have DNA in samples that show life was thriving at those times. They also validate radiometric methods, so the 4.5 billion year age of the earth and 3.5 billion year age of known life and all the fossils in between that flourish in the rocks of different ages all show a "life-as-we-know-it friendly climate" ... without evidence of a world wide magic flood or segregation of organisms into discrete "kinds" ... You may not be interested in how old the earth actually is, but the reality makes YECists just as loony, schizophrenic and deluded as belief in a flat earth, for the same reason: evidence of reality says otherwise.
... I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm trying to get across to you, as I have for others here for the past several years, that science isn't the only source of knowledge. ... Except that it is the one way to have repeatably consistent information. Opinions and biased beliefs are notorious bad sources ... especially ones based on invalid myth, and moonstruck fantasy from listening to hucksters that are interested in one thing: making money off you (Ken Ham for example).
Since I don't have FIVE YEARS to read through it all, ... Curiously it takes me much less than that to do the research to find the information I can use, and then organize it and assemble it, and you only need to read the first 13 posts to get the information I have condensed for you ... and anyone else interested in reality. The newest version is broken down a little more and has a lot of background information to assist understanding. Part 1 is the biological systems and it runs to some 20 posts of information, while Part 2 is the physical/chemical systems, currently at 7 posts and growing, while Part 3 will be about radiometric and cosmological systems (including one on why and how fast the Moon orbit is increasing and one on solar sunspot cycles and their footprints in the data). Mostly they include updated information that expands -- rearranges -- our knowledge of these systems. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hmm, I don't see a problem at all. We know that, especially in near-earth orbits, satellites are continuously declining.... Most satellites are in low orbits that still have trace atmosphere, and so they slow them down bit by bit. The NASA engineers are well aware of this.
And there is at least one satellite that is receding from the earth and that is the moon. Indeed, and at the same time the spin of the earth is slowing down, both due to the gravitational effects of daily tides ... and this too results in data that shows that the earth is old, very very very old. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
marc writes: I guess we don't hear about it when one loses its gravity grip and drifts away. Did he really post something that utterly stupid? I can understand TV news reporters saying such stupid things but I did not know marc was a TV news reporter. A gravity grip. And I suppose rapists and bank robbers have a Vice Grip? I understand it is not quite germane to the topic but it is also so amazingly outlandish that I cannot possible not acknowledge it as perhaps the funniest thing a creationist has said here since the days of WillowTree.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024