Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8963 total)
173 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 170 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 870,778 Year: 2,526/23,288 Month: 717/1,809 Week: 149/225 Day: 8/44 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Creation Website For Children
Wheely
Junior Member (Idle past 3951 days)
Posts: 7
From: Canada
Joined: 01-25-2009


Message 16 of 41 (496060)
01-26-2009 1:04 AM


Wheely
Hey Razd

I just wanted to clear the air. You said:

“...your task is to defend your arguments here or be treated as a hit and run spammer.”

I had never intended on getting into a debate. That is why I posted my link on the LINKS page. I was challenged into a debate and as such the moderators moved my link here. I wasn’t going to except the challenge, but I obviously changed my mind.

Hi Stagamancer

You said:

“Which is, in a sense, true. However, you've just assumed that entropy, scavengers, and the natural elements work to destroy shark teeth before " 'millions of years' can become a reality". But where is your evidence for this? Do you have the deterioration rate for shark teeth, or more importantly fossilized shark teeth since that's what we're actually dealing with?”

The teeth that we are dealing with are fossilized teeth, as you pointed out. It is because the are fossilized that they won’t deteriorate, because a fossil is basically rock. However fossilization is a rapid process if you leave an animal out for it to be buried by sediments it would be composed before it becomes a rock. All of our fossils is due to Noah’s flood.

In your post you commented on a few things. Please review my resources indicated above. The answers to your questions are in there.

You said:

“As for giant floods leaving the sharks teeth on mountains, there is absolutely no evidence for this.”

Yes there is! :) There is a smorgasbord of it! View the resources above; enjoy.

Wheely


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Stagamancer, posted 01-26-2009 1:21 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2009 8:18 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Wheely
Junior Member (Idle past 3951 days)
Posts: 7
From: Canada
Joined: 01-25-2009


Message 17 of 41 (496061)
01-26-2009 1:08 AM


I posted this once, but it didn't take. Forgive me if this is ends up being posted 2
Hi everyone, I had posted his once before, but it didn't take. So I am posting it again and hopuflly it will get posted. I don't know what went wrong.

Wheely

***

Hey Razd

I just wanted to clear the air. You said:

“your task is to defend your arguments here or be treated as a hit and run spammer.”

I had never intended on getting into a debate. That is why I posted my link on the LINKS page. I was challenged into a debate and as such the moderators moved my link here. I wasn’t going to except the challenge, but I obviously changed my mind.

Hi Stagamancer

You said:

“Which is, in a sense, true. However, you've just assumed that entropy, scavengers, and the natural elements work to destroy shark teeth before " 'millions of years' can become a reality". But where is your evidence for this? Do you have the deterioration rate for shark teeth, or more importantly fossilized shark teeth since that's what we're actually dealing with?”

The teeth that we are dealing with are fossilized teeth, as you pointed out. It is because the are fossilized that they won’t deteriorate, because a fossil is basically rock. However fossilization is a rapid process if you leave an animal out for it to be buried by sediments it would be composed before it becomes a rock. All of our fossils is due to Noah’s flood.

In your short post you commented on a few things. Please review my resources indicated above. The answers to your questions are in there.

You said:

“As for giant floods leaving the sharks teeth on mountains, there is absolutely no evidence for this.”

Yes there is! :) There is a smorgasbord of it! View the resources above; enjoy.

Wheely


  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3326 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 18 of 41 (496062)
01-26-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Wheely
01-26-2009 1:04 AM


Re: Wheely
However fossilization is a rapid process if you leave an animal out for it to be buried by sediments it would be composed before it becomes a rock

This is a confusing statement. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you meant to say: However fossilization is NOT a rapid process if you leave an animal out for it to be buried by sediments it would be DEcomposed before it becomes a rock. Otherwise your statement makes no sense.

Again, I ask you: how do you know this? Bones last a very, very long time even when they're not fossilized. And they obviously last long enough to become fossils because we have them. Which you acknowledged when you said

All of our fossils is due to Noah’s flood
. So if bones can't last long enough to become fossils, yet, as you say, Noah's flood gave us all our fossils, how did that happen?

Also, it would be nice if you could actually give some of your arguments instead of telling me to go watch 19 you tube videos. I don't need you to assign me homework. By all means, cite your precious videos, but defend your position in your own words.

So what evidence is there for a global flood? Where did all that water come from, and where did it go afterward?


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Wheely, posted 01-26-2009 1:04 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 41 (496064)
01-26-2009 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wheely
01-25-2009 6:38 PM


I guess it might fool children.

Why do you suppose that this sort of bullshit doesn't fool scientists, who, unlike children and creationists, are intimately familiar with the facts? People who, for example, know what "entropy" means, and who know that "scavengers" don't eat sharks' teeth?

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin. --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

But yes, you might deceive a few children by reciting nonsense about subjects that you've never bothered to study. Are you proud of yourself?

Thou shalt not bear false witness --- The Eighth Commandment

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. --- Jesus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 6:38 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Wheely
Junior Member (Idle past 3951 days)
Posts: 7
From: Canada
Joined: 01-25-2009


Message 20 of 41 (496071)
01-26-2009 2:12 AM


Wheely: Last Reply
Hi Stagamancer

You said:

“However fossilization is NOT a rapid process if you leave an animal out for it to be buried by sediments it would be Decomposed before it becomes a rock. Otherwise your statement makes no sense.”

Fossilization IS a rapid process. If an animal dies it will decompose before it is ever becomes fossilized. If an animal is left out in the elements, scavengers, the elements and the natural process of entropy will turn the animal into compost before it can be slowly buried into sediment, which Evolution propounds: that over the course of millions of years, animals got slowly buried. You are correct that bones do last a long time and one thing that my friend says in the resources I provide above is that it has been scientifically proven that ‘fish’ decompose within no time; that is days. To my recollection he doesn’t say how fast shark bones decompose, but sharks are fishes, so I am making an assumption that they also disintegrate very quickly; perhaps not as fast as say the fish in your fish tank will, but still very quickly. In addition, even though bones do take a fair length of time to disintegrate, I am pretty positive it doesn’t take millions of years, perhaps hundreds, but I highly doubt ‘millions’ or even ‘hundreds of thousands’. Furthermore in order for a shark to be buried it needs to be on the ground. When a shark dies it floats, just as any other fish. The sharks and every other sea creature that we see in the fossil record was deposited in the rocks and buried.

You said:

“So if bones can't last long enough to become fossils, yet, as you say, Noah's flood gave us all our fossils, how did that happen?”

A flood is not just like a tide on a beach shore. A flood is a powerful event; it is powerful enough to pick up dirt. A world wide flood will pick up a lot of dirt and pour it on top of the animals. Every fossil that have has been buried in the flood.

I understand your frustration regarding me directing me to the videos state above. But if you really want your questions answered, I really advise that you watch them and let my friend answer them for you. He is the professional here. This is what he does for a living and he has been studying Geology for an example for more than 20 years. He can give you your answers a lot better than I can. I know the answers, but he is a gifted teacher and he can portray them to you a lot better than I can. In addition, I am writing from Canada and it is currently 2:07 AM. I am a little tired and so I am not thinking straight. If you want your answers please heed my advise; view the videos, that I provided and I am sure many if not all of your questions will be answered.

Hi Dr Adequate

I never suggested that scavengers eat teeth. I was saying that if an animal was to die, with a combination of scavengers, entropy and the elements the animal will be gone before it can be encased into a layer of sediment and fossilized. In order for that to happen, it has to happen very fast.

Also that big paragraph you posted: Most of that consists of ‘Academic Institutions’. What exactly the point of writing that? Just because an academy of science says something doesn’t make it true. The fact that the many ‘Academy of Sciences’ support and teach ‘evolution’ proves that. Perhaps your argument was to suggest that since the majority of the academy of sciences support the ‘evolution theory’ as doctrine, that makes it true. Well, science is about the study of the natural world, not supporting the majority’s interpretation. The study of the natural world provides us with the results that support God and the associated biblical claims. (Genesis creation account, Global Flood account, etc)

Okay well, now I am serious I am going to sign off and go to sleep. This was fun and thanks for the conversation and for the most part the politeness’.

Have a goodnight,

Wheely

PS. I am sorry for the double post of my previous post. I didn’t realize that it went onto the second page until I submitted the second copy, lol. Sorry!


Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2009 2:58 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Stagamancer, posted 01-26-2009 3:04 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 23 by anglagard, posted 01-26-2009 3:08 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Coragyps, posted 01-26-2009 8:21 AM Wheely has not yet responded
 Message 33 by rueh, posted 01-26-2009 11:36 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 41 (496076)
01-26-2009 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Wheely
01-26-2009 2:12 AM


Re: Wheely: Last Reply
I never suggested that scavengers eat teeth. I was saying that if an animal was to die, with a combination of scavengers, entropy and the elements the animal will be gone before it can be encased into a layer of sediment and fossilized.

You are, of course, wrong.

I wonder what you think entropy is?

Also that big paragraph you posted: Most of that consists of ‘Academic Institutions’. What exactly the point of writing that? Just because an academy of science says something doesn’t make it true.

Right. The facts make it true --- and scientists look at the facts. Unlike you.

Perhaps your argument was to suggest that since the majority of the academy of sciences support the ‘evolution theory’ as doctrine, that makes it true. Well, science is about the study of the natural world, not supporting the majority’s interpretation.

Right. And these are the people who, unlike you, spend their lives in the study the natural world, and don't support creationism.

The fact that the many ‘Academy of Sciences’ support and teach ‘evolution’ proves that.

Petitio principii much?

Compare with the following analogous debate:

You: There are no skyscrapers in New York.
Me: Everyone who's ever seen New York agrees that there are skyscrapers there.
You: Just because people who've seen New York say something doesn't make it true. The fact that they say there are skyscrapers in New York proves that.

Why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and have done with it?

The study of the natural world provides us with the results that support God and the associated biblical claims. (Genesis creation account, Global Flood account, etc)

There's no point in reciting this garbage to me; unlike you, I am familiar with the evidence. Save it for the kids. You might fool some of 'em.

You have never studied the natural world, have you? Scientists have. What you have studied is dumb creationist propaganda. This is why everything you think you know about science is absurdly false.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Wheely, posted 01-26-2009 2:12 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 3326 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 22 of 41 (496077)
01-26-2009 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Wheely
01-26-2009 2:12 AM


Re: Wheely: Last Reply
Fossilization IS a rapid process. If an animal dies it will decompose before it is ever becomes fossilized.

This is nonsensical. If fossilization is so rapid then why is there not enough time for skeletons to fossilize? We have fossils! They exist!

it has been scientifically proven that ‘fish’ decompose within no time; that is days.

Sure, given enough scavengers and bacteria, the soft tissue of any organism can easily be gotten rid of in days, but the don't eat bones. The skeleton usually gets scattered, which is why fossils are rare. No one is saying that fossils are created every time something dies. It requires very specific circumstances.

but sharks are fishes, so I am making an assumption that they also disintegrate very quickly; perhaps not as fast as say the fish in your fish tank will, but still very quickly.
Again, skeletons don't just disintegrate in a matter of days.

Furthermore in order for a shark to be buried it needs to be on the ground. When a shark dies it floats, just as any other fish.

First of all, your pet fish floats when it dies because there is still oxygen left in its swim bladder, a feature not found in sharks, so there's no guarantee that it would float when dead. Secondly, we were talking about shark teeth, not whole shark skeletons. So even if the shark's skeleton was scattered by scavengers, the teeth would still fall to the bottom of the ocean, were it would be quickly covered in sediment and then slowly fossilized.

If Noah's flood brought dirt up and covered everything to make fossils, then why are the types of fossils we find so skewed towards marine life? "most of the fossils we have are of marine organisms, which live on or in the ocean floor, or naturally sink to the floor when they die" (Why Evolution is True by J A Coyne) If Noah's flood did all the fossil making, then why don't land plants and animals have more representation in the fossil record?

The study of the natural world provides us with the results that support God and the associated biblical claims

Hmm, and yet the entire scientific community disagrees with this assertion.

If you want your answers please heed my advise; view the videos, that I provided and I am sure many if not all of your questions will be answered.

No, I want YOUR answers. I want you to be able to defend you argument. If you can't even paraphrase, then how can you even say you believe what you do? I'm not going to wade through hours of video making your case for you. I watched the first 10 minutes of the first video and it was intolerably inaccurate. There were dozens of misrepresentations and lies within that short bit alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Wheely, posted 01-26-2009 2:12 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2214
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 23 of 41 (496078)
01-26-2009 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Wheely
01-26-2009 2:12 AM


Re: Wheely: Last Reply
Wow!

So based upon some video you now can dismiss all accumulated human knowledge of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, anthropology, history, and linguistics.

Well, it is either that or you don't have the slightest idea of what you are up against, including any humane interpretation of Christianity.

Perhaps if you hate and despise all people who have used science to feed the poor and heal the sick you may want to reread the Gospels. My suggestion is to pay particular attention to what Jesus is reported to have said as opposed to the local know-nothing preacher or the get-out-of-hell-free card offered by Paul.

Maybe then you would see how Borlaug is a hero and Hovind is a criminal.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Wheely, posted 01-26-2009 2:12 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 24 of 41 (496091)
01-26-2009 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Wheely
01-26-2009 12:20 AM


Re: Wheely's Response
Hi Wheely,

quote:
You are putting words in my mouth again.

Perhaps. Let's take a look.

Granny writes:

I have to assume that you simply pulled it out of your ass.

Wheely writes:

I have never been given that as an actual argument

Looks like I'm doing pretty well at it.

If you have never heard this argument used, you have no right whatever trying to pass it off as an argument that is used to support evolution. Here on planet Earth, we call this process "lying". Please stop it; Jesus wasn't keen on it. Does your crappy site make clear that you have never heard this argument? No it does not. In fact it implies the opposite.

quote:
As for your ‘moon made of cheese’ argument, I have never heard Creationists or Evolutionists claim the moon is made of cheese or any other silly argument like that.

I have. Does that give me carte blanche to make up any claim I like and insinuate that creationists believe it? Of course not. Your behaviour is dishonest and profoundly un-Christian. You are a bearer of false witness Wheely.

quote:
However I did here one evolutionist say that if the waters filled the entire Earth as the scriptures indicate the earth would be touching Pluto. That is as close as I have gotten so ‘crack-pot’ answers like that.

I am curious to see a source backing up this claim. Nonetheless, even if someone has claimed this, it brings us to another source of dishonesty on your part; your use of the word "evolutionist".

In the course of EvC discussions, this term gets used a lot. When used as a short-hand way of describing those on the evolution side of the debate, I have no problem with it. Your use however, I do object to.

Your site constantly uses "evolutionist" and, certainly on the pages I linked to, makes no attempt to distinguish between professional scientists and internet debaters. Both are simply labelled "evolutionists". This is dishonest.

You attempt to justify your lies by claiming that they are based on claims made on discussion boards by "evolutionists", yet your site does not make clear that you mean anonymous internet debaters. Any child reading your site would think that gasping-for-air is the explanation (for the death pose) favoured by actual scientists.

It doesn't matter what some ignorant git said to you on the internet. It doesn't matter what I think and it doesn't natter what you think. What matters is the enormous body of work that has gone toward forming the opinions of the worlds scientists. If you want to represent the claims made by the Theory of Evolution, look to them. Don't be so dishonest as to attempt to pass off the ramblings of insane net-geeks as being representative of the state of the art in evolutionary theory. That is dishonest, i.e. it is a lie.

Do you really think that Jesus would want you to lie to our kids?

Oh and by the way;

Where are the meat-eating dinosaur+clam fossils that you claim are ubiquitous? I'm dying to take a look at them, since I am curious as to what you think it is about these alleged fossils that contradicts the ToE.

Or did you pull that one out of your ass as well?

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Wheely, posted 01-26-2009 12:20 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3913
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 25 of 41 (496093)
01-26-2009 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Wheely
01-25-2009 10:32 PM


youtube links
Granny Magda, in message 11 writes:

We don't debate strings of bare links on this site. The admin's frown upon it, since it is against the forum's rules. Your friend's videos may be very interesting, but no-one is going to debate Youtube links.

Just officially reinforcing the above statement.

Forum rule/guideline 5:

Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

Choose your reference links carefully. Give the one or at most a few that most relevant and best support your position.

Useful general how to do messages information:

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

The big "Gen Reply" button at the bottom of the page is generally for making general replies, not for replies to specific messages. Getting multiple replies to one of your messages, however, is problematic. It is messy to make individual replies to all those messages, especially when such messages contain redundantly made points. For such a general reply might well be the way to go.

TO MEMBERS OF THE EVOLUTION SIDE - If you are going to make a reply, have some good information in your reply. We really don't want to see messages containing little more than such as "You don't know what you're talking about", "Learn some real science", etc., etc., etc.

Or something like that.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 10:32 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20539
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 26 of 41 (496101)
01-26-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Wheely
01-26-2009 1:04 AM


Wheely, Wheely, Wheely
Just some quick notes, Wheely, I'll give you more later tonight.

I just wanted to clear the air. You said:

“...your task is to defend your arguments here or be treated as a hit and run spammer.”

I had never intended on getting into a debate.

Then this is the wrong forum for you. This forum is to debate the issues.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

Message 14
I checked out your claim and you were right. That is the implication I gave via the picture. That is not what I intended to portray, but that is seemingly the impression it gave you and when I looked at it from your perspective I got that same conclusion. So, thanks for bringing that to my attention. What I wanted to imply what that the 'tooth' was from that type of shark, not 'that shark'. I corrected it.

Great, it shows a willingness to learn, unlike many people that come here, convinced that falsehoods such as those posted on your website are true in spite of evidence that contradicts it.

However, technically, it is still not correct. He compared the fossil tooth to the tooth from a modern shark to show that it was a sharks tooth, however it could have come from one of many different kinds of shark, not necessarily one that the modern shark descended from.

As for me ‘running away’ because I don’t have a backbone and using the claim that I am busy as an excuse, is false. I could see how you could have derived that conclusion though.

Gosh, you said it was your last post. Twice. What gave me the idea that you really meant it was your last post?

“You also said that he found a skeleton”

No I didn’t. I know he found just teeth, but teeth are attached to a jawbone, which is attached to a skull which is attached to a body: a skeleton. I know he didn’t find a skeleton, ...

Sharks continually shed teeth throughout their lives. Thus you can find a lot of teeth and not expect to find a skeleton.

... but if shark’s teeth were on a mountain, then so was the rest of it at some point in time. So, therefore how did it get there, on the mountain embedded into rock layers?

Curiously, Nicholas Steno noted that it could not have been from one flood, because that does not explain the multiple layers of fossils.

Leonardo da Vinci came to the same conclusion
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html

There is also the problem of the kinds of different marine fossils found on mountaintops and deep inside mountains.

See Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? for a discussion of ALL the evidence of marine fossils on and in mountains.

I don’t know how to take the word ‘Child’. Are you calling me a ‘child’?

Speak like a child, take information without investigating the validity like a child, behave like a child and be treated as one.

You are in college: impression confirmed. This also means you do not have an education degree, and thus no basis to teach children.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : msg=-14


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Wheely, posted 01-26-2009 1:04 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5433
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 27 of 41 (496102)
01-26-2009 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Wheely
01-26-2009 2:12 AM


Re: Wheely: Last Reply
To my recollection he doesn’t say how fast shark bones decompose,

Sharks don't have bones, Wheely.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Wheely, posted 01-26-2009 2:12 AM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 515 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 28 of 41 (496105)
01-26-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wheely
01-25-2009 6:38 PM


Two things about your site:

1. In the Biology section, you have a document entitled 'Evolution: to much work', that should be 'Evolution: too much work'. If you're going to target children at least have the courtesy to teach the proper use of spelling and grammar.

2. The name 'Pac-man', and the level layouts, are the intellectual property of Namco.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 6:38 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 29 of 41 (496108)
01-26-2009 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wheely
01-25-2009 6:38 PM


Hi Wheely,

I was impressed by one of technical aspects of your website, the dynamic menus where you use a package from MacroMedia. Dynamic menus aren't something typically attempted by newbie website developers. If you have some software skills (Perl, HTML, Javascript, CSS) then EvC Forum is always looking for programming talent to help improve the website software. Let me know if you're a fit and have any interest, my email is Admin.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wheely, posted 01-25-2009 6:38 PM Wheely has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3370 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 30 of 41 (496112)
01-26-2009 10:06 AM


Baby Dinos
I was pissin myself watchin the video of the tramp prsenting his idea that Noah took baby dinos on the Ark. He never mentioned a time machine once!

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020