Not only Intelligent Design - but DIVINE DESIGN!

Why would we want to provide subjective data? Objesctive data is so much more reliable. Oh please, we're not creationists, you know. You have been completely and totaly refuted. And you didn;t learn anyrthing from those previous experiences, it seems. A shame really. So, because we follow the evidence, we're trapped in a box, yet you, who needs to interpret everything in light of your religious view is "thinking outside the box"? What a weird position to hold. Creationists have no scientific data. Oh goody. Source for this claim? Then I'd like you to find the answer to the question "What is 7 times bigger than me?" in the bible. Fictional people will live as long as the author wants them to, there's nothing hard to fathom about that. Or do you have evidence that they lived that long? Heck, do you have evidence they existed at all? So? Does it tell the compostion of this atmosphere? Does it even allude to giant creatures, that are still around, just smaller today, at all? If the earth was surrounded by a vapour canopy everything on the earth would've been cooked. Prove that more oxygen makes things live longer. Source please? It would, if any of that actually happened, which it dind't. The trolling and the deniably ignorant one just typed a message full of nonsense that I responded to, no need to wait any longer.

SourcesSourcesSourcesSourcesYou are addressing a mio. subjects and as coyote says, you avoid to answer his post to you because of.... you claim scientists do not think rationally because of "all your data".Is it not a bit arrogant to say that 99,99% of all scientists are close-minded and irrational? Why is it you supposely know more about science than scientists when you only took a few classes in criminology and read the hebrew bible :S?You come up with the same claims as all other creationists (sites).Furthermore, how come you try to prove god with logic (but you fail though) when the paradox of God is not to understood through logic but faith?

If you don't like being proved wrong, you should spend more time trying to be right and less time whining about the people who prove you wrong. I can't even tell you if this is true, since the claim seems to stem from the notorious creationist liar Carl Baugh. Genesis says no such thing. So, you're going to believe scientists when they study the geological record and tell you that the atmosphere was once richer in oxygen --- and ignore everything else they say about the geological record?Well, that's mighty convenient for you. But I am more fortunate still, because I can take the whole of reality into account, instead clinging to tiny little fragments of it and ignoring all the rest. Show your working. And who likenethedeth it, yea verily, unto a hyperbaric chamber? Only that's not in the Bible either. Oxygen toxicitySo when, according to you, did bacteria come into existence? Obviously for your fantasy world to be consistent they can't have been created by God "in the beginning". They must at least post-date Methusalah. But this is not true, which is one reason why the link you have provided does not say that it is true.The genes for snake toxins have been identified. Guess what, they're in the genomes of snakes, not of imaginary symbiotic bacteria.If you'd even been interested in this subject for thirty seconds or so, you'd know this. Google is your friend here. Evidence? There's not even scientific evidence for creationist fantasies, let alone a scientific explanation.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So you are unable to respond to my last two posts concerning radiocarbon dating, eh?
You come on here and make outlandish statements, but can't back them up.

​

Ever consider the reason for this is that your statements are wrong?

​

(Didn't think so...)

---

Coyote, its not that I’m snowing over your posts concerning radiocarbon dating - just redirecting them. And I am not saying that you are not educated in your field.No my statements are not wrong they just don’t fit into your narrow perspective of understanding. Therefore, I’m simply riding over them to prove my point. You cant just focus on one thing and ignore the other.

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

Nonsense. They are wrong and anyone who knows that field is aware of that. You made outlandish statements about radiocarbon dating, a field about which you know little and understand less. You were corrected, and rather than admit your error you are dodging and weaving. It seems like you are ignoring the criticisms of your statements and just continuing to make additional outlandish and unsupported statements.Are you here to discuss these matters with those who might just know more than you do, and to learn, or are you here to preach? It would seem the latter.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Did you also know that when a snake is placed inside a hyperbaric chamber its venom becomes nontoxic.
You may wonder why? The reason is because venom is a toxin that is created from BACTERIA!
Bacterial Protein Toxins

---

​

quote:

---

But this is not true, which is one reason why the link you have provided does not say that it is true.
The genes for snake toxins have been identified. Guess what, they're in the genomes of snakes, not of imaginary symbiotic bacteria.
If you'd even been interested in this subject for thirty seconds or so, you'd know this. Google is your friend here.

---

---

Dr Adequate, you fail miserably to comprehend! The wheel is turning but the hampster is dead!Everyone can see the idiosyncrasies in your posts. The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded see only the differences.Better luck in your next posting.

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

What are you talking about? What does open-mindedness have to do with it?Snake venom doesn't come from bacteria.A simple glance at wikipedia could've told you that:

quote:

---

Snake venom is highly modified saliva that is produced by special glands of certain species of snakes.

​

...

​

Snake venom consists of proteins, enzymes, substances with a cytotoxic effect, neurotoxins and coagulants.

​

Phosphodiesterases are used to interfere with the prey's cardiac system, mainly to lower the blood pressure.

Phospholipase A2 causes hemolysis through esterolysis of red cell membranes and promotes muscle necrosis.[1]

Snake venom inhibits cholinesterase to make the prey lose muscle control.

Hyaluronidase increases tissue permeability to increase the rate that other enzymes are absorbed into the prey's tissues.

Amino acid oxidases and proteases are used for digestion. Amino acid oxidase also triggers some other enzymes and is responsible for the yellow color of the venom of some species.

Snake venom often contains ATPases which are used for breaking down ATP to disrupt the prey's energy fuel use.
source

---

quote:

---

You made outlandish statements about radiocarbon dating, a field about which you know little and understand less. You were corrected, and rather than admit your error you are dodging and weaving. It seems like you are ignoring the criticisms of your statements and just continuing to make additional outlandish and unsupported statements. Are you here to discuss these matters with those who might just know more than you do, and to learn, or are you here to preach? It would seem the latter.

---

Is that the only thing you have to cling onto, I have yet to see you expand your horizons.With the Carbon dating issue - I have given up in the area with you, not because I’m wrong as you would front, but simply because I quickly realized that there is no winning with you in the different perspectives between Creationism and Evolutionism. Both have their positive and negative points. I merely just point out that there are differences in dating processes which harbor anomalous readings. This is what I have been saying all along. You on the other hand are fully fledged on believing that evolutionary scientist make no mistakes and that their dating methods are 100% accurate.Now I’d like to move beyond this hang-up.Why do you think that a hyperbaric chamber has that kind of effect on a poisonous snake?Is there a science here that we are not understanding?Could this have played a part in the earths history in some way?You know exactly what I am talking about here, so don’t revert to asinine answers. Edited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given.

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

Catholic Scientist,

quote:

---

What are you talking about? What does open-mindedness have to do with it?

​

Snake venom doesn't come from bacteria.

​

A simple glance at wikipedia could've told you that:

---

Move beyond wikipedia in understanding just what snake venom is:Bacterial Protein ToxinsEdited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given.

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

If that's what you would like to believe, then keep on deluding yourself. He uses those methods. Are you telling him he doesn't know what he is doing? Of course, if you can't back it up, move away claiming victory anyway. Because you made that up. Or can you back this one up? No, just stuff you made up. Or other people made up and you are repeating. If it were true. About made up stuff. There settled it. Either back up your claims with actual evidence, or admit you made that stuff about snakes up.

I know the differences. Science follows the data where it leads, while creationism ignores, distorts, misrepresents, and denies data that is inconvenient. You have shown us how that works in this thread. I know about anomalous readings. Scientists examine these, run more dates, try different dating methods, and eventually figure out what is going on and what the correct dates are.Creationists start blowing about a young earth, global flood, or some other cherished religious belief that has nothing to do with the issue. In essence, they lie, misrepresent, and spout nonsense. Nonsense. You clearly know nothing about this subject. On my last large project I ran 31 radiocarbon dates to make sure that I understood the time periods I was dealing with. If radiocarbon dating was as inaccurate as you seem to believe I should have been getting random results. That was not what I got. And I cross-checked my results with other dating methods.Just admit that you were spouting creationist nonsense and wishful thinking about the diamonds and the general inaccuracy you claim for radiocarbon dating, and we can move on.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Anita,Nowhere in that article does it say that snake venom comes from bacteria. They compare bacterial venom to snake venom, but nowhere does it say that snake venom comes from bacteria.Will you now finally admit you made that up?

quote:

---

Just admit that you were spouting creationist nonsense and wishful thinking about the diamonds and the general inaccuracy you claim for radiocarbon dating, and we can move on.

---

Coyote, in no way will I do this! If you can solve this problem satisfactorily, the Nobel prize awaits you and you will become a hero to all the evolutionists in the world as the man who finally shut the creationists up over the origin of life. On the other hand, if you remain a convinced evolutionist, perhaps you will follow the example of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins and his modern-day followers by avoiding the issue of how life began without a designer and maker, or saying that it isn't a problem and doesn't matter.Here again, I have given ample proof:http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...nation.pdfWhat have you done?

---

Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator
http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html

One of the rules here is not to debate by link. I shouldn't have to dig through your sources to find support for your claims.That link does not say that snake venom comes from bacteria.Quote that link, like I did for mine, on where it says snake venom comes from bacteria.

---

You should spend more time providing support for your assertions rather than just jumping from one to the other without any.You're really loosing credibility by doing that.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Nice Gish gallop! You totally avoided the subject we are discussing and went off on an unrelated tangent.You seem to be living proof of that old adage: You can always tell a creationist, but you can't tell him much. I have shown you where your comments on diamonds and radiocarbon dating are incorrect. Isn't that enough?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.