Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not only Intelligent Design - but DIVINE DESIGN!
Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 77 of 139 (561068)
05-18-2010 5:57 PM


Nonsense. You just don't like the results! And you know next to nothing about the dating methods themselves, beyond what the creationist websites tell you -- and they lie. They have to lie -- they don't have any real data to use against these dating methods, so the make things up to mislead the unwary and shore up their beliefs.
Check out RAZD's correlation threads and learn something beyond your creationist fantasies. Then try to explain why multiple dating methods, relying on many different lines of evidence, all produce the same results?
If any one of these test was imperfect that test would produce results which differed from the rest. If all were imperfect they would produce random results.
Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. The different dating methods correlate with one another quite well. This shows that they are accurate and creationists who deny them because they don't like the results are wrong.
Your whole post is spoken like a true evolutionists.
Firstly Coyote I could say the same thing about you not liking the dating results for a young earth. Secondly, its not that I don’t like the results. I don’t rely to heavily on any dating methods. If you read what I originally said, I said: As far as all processes for dating are concerned, I will repeat myself again. ALL PROCESSES ARE UNRELIABLE! It is an imperfect and unperfected science that continually has anomalous results especially when it comes to long ages.
What I do know is this It seems that evolutionists always fall back on what’s called abiogenesis which means life coming from non life. They don’t focus on the origin of life, only the diversity of it. However abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis which means life originating from life - BTW biogenesis is a not a theory but a law of nature - IT IS A GIVEN FACT OF LIFE! Secondly abiogenesis is only a speculative hypothesis that has no evidence to back it up, and thirdly like I said, there is no credible mechanism for it like biogenesis.
Now when we can understand biogenesis as opposed to abiogenesis one can clearly see that abiogenesis gives us no answers, while biogenesis clearly does. The Bible also clues us into the undeniable fact of biogenesis. Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and G-d saw that it was good.
Here is also something else to think about pertaining to the age of the Earth - a lot of people never consider a particular factor The Bible tells us that G-d created Adam the first man and describes for us that he was already completely grown, he was a man perhaps around the ages of 16-30. We cant say for sure exactly how old Adam was, but from the description given in the Bible he was aged like a man and likewise so was Eve created in the same respect. We can conclude that this was a miracle.
Now if this is the case that Adam and eve showed age, well then how about the age of the stars and the universe since G-d created these too around the same timeline as Adam and Eve came into existence given a few days in-between (according to the Bible) and as we know from science today (which much hot debate) about its actual age, the stars and the Universe also appear to show age. This would also apply to the idea of the process of evolution since we didn't see it happening either.
One must consider the applicable factor of age being already present.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by bluescat48, posted 05-18-2010 6:28 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2010 6:38 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 80 by lyx2no, posted 05-18-2010 7:12 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 81 of 139 (561108)
05-18-2010 9:58 PM


I am an evolutionist; that was one of my studies for my Ph.D. (The other being archaeology.)
I once was too! How about biblical archeology, have you been privileged in any way?
Scientific dating methods do not show a young earth.
Correction, yes they do!
There have been dating methods that have yielded a young earth. One of them has to do with helium being found in granite rock and another polonium. There are others as well such as carbon being found in diamonds. How about Mount Saint Helens, which proves that large canyons can form in a single day. And there are numerous other things as well evidence suggest that there is not enough dirt and sediment on the sea floor at the rate of the earths erosion. If the earths oceans are indeed millions of years old then the oceans would be massively saturated and stifled with sediment dozens of meters deep.
Would you like me to go on?
The conclusion here is, we simply cannot say with any sure confidence that the Earth is billions of years old since obviously we did not see this occurring. However, what we do have is a historically documented/recorded piece of evidence - a genuine eye-witness to this - the Bible! The Bible gives us a human lineage from Adam to Jesus which is just under 6,000 years. I can list this for you if you'd like?
Even though this may seem ridiculous to you because it doesn’t fit into your evolutionary view, please keep in mind that the Bible has never been falsified - EVER! Even archeological evidence is recently surfacing to authenticate what the Bible says.
All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more the Truths contained in the Sacred Scriptures - Sir William Herschel (1738-1822).

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Coyote, posted 05-18-2010 10:41 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 83 by Theodoric, posted 05-18-2010 10:41 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2010 11:15 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2010 11:30 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 87 of 139 (561285)
05-19-2010 7:03 PM


I'll let someone else deal with most of these, but I'll deal with the diamonds issue. The Taylor & Southon study that incorporated diamonds was designed to detect the residual C14 in the AMS instruments, and that's just what it did. Diamonds were used because there is no C14 in them (unless exposed to radiation). They revealed how much contamination was building up in the AMS instruments. This has been misconstrued by creationists looking for something -- anything -- to bolster their belief in a young earth. See the thread I referenced in my last post, as it deals with this and a lot of other creationist fantasies.
Coyote, Evolutionists are notorious for finding excuses to fit their fancy perspective. I suppose you could say the same for Creationists. For example on the diamonds issue, the evolutionist cry contamination. They claim the same thing from asteroids to, but did you ever notice that not one thing that is found in asteroids is off worldly. In other words everything that asteroids consists of is commonly known to be found on the Earth. I’ll save the reason for that in a future post.
I have been through the whole rigmarole with both sides and what I have found is that evolution is still at a loss for explaining things (abiogenesis wise). No the science does not add up and quite frankly I’m sick of the excuses. I don’t care if you tell me something is millions of years old - what I do know, and I will say this again and again is that the science of dating is imprecise.
You on the other hand have adhered primarily to the evolutionary perspective - and of course spoken like a true evolutionists. I have noticed that you only stick to your realm of knowledge and have not refuted other things that I mention, such as biblical perspectives.
Nonsense. The bible has been falsified in a number of instances, and this is just another of those.
Please cite for me where it is falsified? You are an archeologist you should know that there have been some past and recent finds that clearly match with biblical doctrine.
You are lying to yourself, and that's the worst kind of lie I can imagine.
The worst kind of lie to imagine is denying that biogenesis is the law. Your evolutionary beliefs resemble the wings of an Ostrich.
This website that you provided is very weak: An Index to Creationist Claims
I’ve gone through several of them, in fact I’m quite sure I can refute ALL of them. Off hand I’ll just pick a couple such as: CA005.1: Darwin's racism This one claims that Charles Darwin was himself a racist.
Charles Darwin was an agnostic. He lived his life believing in natural selection. He married his cousin and reared children with weak immunity symptoms. We can clearly see here that Darwin’s denial of G-d had exposed his children to hereditary sickness. We can also clearly see that the spirit behind Darwin leads to many sinful things racism, low tolerance towards other beliefs, customs, immorality, homosexuality, elitism. One can also say it legitimized Nazism and the Holocaust. CA001.1: Evolution and crime
Jeffrey Dahmer was a product of Darwinism! One of America’s most infamous serial killers who cannibalized more than 17 boys before being captured, gave an last interview with Dateline NBC nine months before his death, and he said the following about why he acted as he did: If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there was nothing. (Dateline NBC, The Final Interview, Nov. 29, 1994).
Edited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Coyote, posted 05-19-2010 8:08 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 89 by hotjer, posted 05-19-2010 9:10 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 90 by Coragyps, posted 05-19-2010 9:49 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 91 of 139 (561312)
05-19-2010 10:04 PM


Dr Adequate,
There have been dating methods that have yielded a young earth. One of them has to do with helium being found in granite rock and another polonium.
Oh yes, Gentry's mistake, a blunder so awful that even creationist websites like AnswersInGenesis disown it.
You say there is a blunder, well, what is it?
There are others as well such as carbon being found in diamonds.
What, carbon has been found in something which is by definition made out of carbon?
Well, that proves that the Earth is young ... er ... how?
One of the most telling glitches is through radiocarbon dating of a variety of diamonds using highly sensitive C14 (Carbon 14) detectors in which it was discovered that there is ten times the detection limit of C14 in diamonds. Now, diamonds which are said to be billions of years old SHOULD NOT have any C14 in them do to the short half life of C14 (a half life is equal to roughly 5,700 years). Logically this tells us that the C14 found in the diamonds should have been all decayed by now. Furthermore, carbon 14 has also been found in coal that is also said to be billions of years old.
How about Mount Saint Helens, which proves that large canyons can form in a single day.
How about it? Yes, water can rapidly cut a channel (not, of course, a canyon) through unconsolidated volcanic ash. You do not explain how this is meant to prove that the Earth is young. And of course it doesn't --- the fact that water can wash away ash would be true no matter how old the Earth was, as you'd know if you'd spent five seconds thinking about the subject.
The erosion features at Mount St. Helens are not unique, but are similar to those observed elsewhere. Other examples of rapid erosion are: Lituya Bay, Alaska created in 1958... The volcanic island Surtsey south of Iceland created in 1964... Lake Peigneur, Louisiana 1980... A rain storm in southern Brazil 1974... The Waiho River of New Zealand 1965... Providence Canyon State Park near Lumpkin, Georgia 1820... The Imperial Valley of California by the Colorado River from 1905 to 1907 (the Salton Sea).
Don’t go giving me this bull that there is different geologic processes at work here between a canyon being produced by subsidence (the sinking down of land level) and its different properties from a canyon produced by water erosion over level ground.
We do not even know today how the Grand Canyon was formed - all postulations remains only in theory.
Additionally, they have taken samples of many of these NEWLY FORMED rocks from Mount St. Helens and radioisotope them, and they estimate in the millions of years. So we know this cannot be so since these rocks were recently formed during the eruption in 1980! Its not just the rocks from the Mount St. Helens eruption, there are also numerous false readings from other known newly formed rocks such as from Mount Ngauruhoe (an active volcano) located in New Zealand. These rocks are known to have been newly formed from the eruptions starting in 1949 and they have been dated to be millions of years old. So it’s clear to see that something is evidently wrong with our starting assumptions.
Are you going to come back crying - contamination again!
And there are numerous other things as well evidence suggest that there is not enough dirt and sediment on the sea floor at the rate of the earths erosion. If the earths oceans are indeed millions of years old then the oceans would be massively saturated and stifled with sediment dozens of meters deep.
As you would know if you'd ever taken the slightest interest in the subject you're talking about, the sediment on the ocean floor is hundreds of meters deep.
But of course you're not interested in geology, you're just interested in being wrong.
Well, let me congratulate you on your multiple errors of fact and reasoning. Your pastor must be very proud of you.
There is not enough mud on the sea flood!
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would have massive amounts of sediment dozens of kilometers deep.
Additionally there is not even enough sodium in the sea for an earth that is allegedly 3 billions years old.
What’s more recorded history is too short! If primitive man built megalithic monuments and elaborate cave drawings, and kept records of lunar cycles and phases, why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Coragyps, posted 05-19-2010 10:10 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 93 by Coyote, posted 05-19-2010 10:17 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 94 by hooah212002, posted 05-19-2010 10:24 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2010 11:18 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 98 by bluescat48, posted 05-19-2010 11:26 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 99 by Theodoric, posted 05-19-2010 11:47 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 100 by lyx2no, posted 05-19-2010 11:49 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 128 by dokukaeru, posted 05-20-2010 4:09 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 95 of 139 (561319)
05-19-2010 11:02 PM


In other words everything that asteroids consists of is commonly known to be found on the Earth. I’ll save the reason for that in a future post.
Untrue. There are amino acids in meteorites of asteroidal origin that aren't found on earth, except perhaps at chemical supply houses like Sigma-Aldrich. Go read about the Murchison or Tagish Lake meteorites before you write that future post.
Coragyps,
Everything that is in this asteroid is already known organic matter that exists right here on the Earth.
This meteorite was a carbonaceous chondrites. That is similar to the description for kerogen. A kerogen-like material is also in the ALH84001 which is considered a martian meteorite (an achondrite). In the ALH84001 they found under the electron microscope chain structures that looked to them like alien worm bacteria. What a laugh! This could be any fossilized microscopic worm even parasite that existed/exists on the earth.
Now the CM meteorite from Murchison, Victoria has over 70 amino acids and other compounds including carboxylic acids, hydroxy carboxylic acids, sulphonic and phosphonic acids, aliphatic, aromatic and polar hydrocarbons, fullerenes, heterocycles, carbonyl compounds, alcohols, amines and amides, which are all common on the Earth.
Kerogen is a mixture of organic chemical compounds that make up a portion of the organic matter in sedimentary rocks found on Earth. The soluble portion is known as bitumen when heated to the right temperatures in the Earth's crust. Bitumen is like petroleum.
What is so spectacular about this?

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by hooah212002, posted 05-19-2010 11:15 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 101 by lyx2no, posted 05-20-2010 12:00 AM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 102 by Coragyps, posted 05-20-2010 7:31 AM Anita Meyer has replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 103 of 139 (561397)
05-20-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Coragyps
05-20-2010 7:31 AM


All very good rebuttals, but you know what, they are all typical of one sided evolutionists thinking of always finding lame excuses and never truly coming head on with subjective data! All your data does is serve you from the painful job of thinking rationally. I refuse to go spiraling down that path. Again, nothing anything that any of you have said here has disclaimed anything that I have said.
There is not one thing that any of you guys here said, that I didn’t already hear many times before. You claim that I get my info from creationists websites (which is not the case), but you guys are guilty of not thinking outside the box. You remain trapped in professor evil-lutionist class 101!
Now we can keep going around and around with this argument on both Creationists verses Evolutionists scientific data, but it remains a vicious circle both ways that only serves to meaningless ends.
I’ve decided to take a different route with dealing with you people here. I am going to post things that have no other logical explanation but to suggesting that all your postulations that you have learned in science need serious questioning.
Question 1, can anyone here tell me why it is that when a poisonous snake is placed in a hyperbaric chamber that its venom becomes nontoxic?
I will give you the answer What you guys need to do is start examining the Bible for answers. What is so spectacular about the Bible is that literally every answer one is looking for can be found in the Bible and backed-up by both history, archeology and all the sciences.
For example people think that the curse caused by Adam and Eve disobeying was just a mythical story. People cant seem to phantom how two people can live so long or subsequently many of the ancient patriarchs mentioned in the Bible.
Science does not realize that there are numerous telltale signs that the earth readily supplies. We find these little secrets trapped inside the fossil record. For instance (as I was saying in a previous posting in this thread) we know that living things (ones that still exists today) grew much bigger because we find giant specimens in the fossil record. The obvious reason for this is because there was more oxygen in the earlier atmosphere than there is today. In Genesis it tells us that the earth had a different atmosphere during the time of Adam and Eve and before Noah’s Great Flood.
Genesis 1:6-8 - And G-d said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And G-d made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And G-d called the firmament Heaven.
Genesis 2:5-6 - And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord G-d had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
This mist that came up from the face of the ground is the exact effect expected if the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy.
This atmosphere was likened unto a hyperbaric chamber. Hospitals today use hyperbaric chamber to treat certain medical ailments. Basically what a hyperbaric chamber is, is pressurized oxygen twice the normal amount. These chambers have been proven to heal open wounds and bone breakages in half the time it normally takes to heal.
So this would mean that the high oxygen content of the early Earth would have played an enormous factor pertaining to LONG LIFE!
Did you also know that BACTERIA and CANCER CELLS cannot grow in an oxygenated rich environment. 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!
http://www.textbookofbacteriology.ne...eintoxins.html
Now with this aspect in mind it can then lend credence to understanding how things in the environment might have changed after Adam and Eve sinned, and subsequently after Noah’s Great Flood.
I can think of several environmental factors that changed off hand, such as thorns and thistles. Genesis 3:18 - It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
What I am getting at here is that these things all have a valid scientific explanation. The word "curse" should not be looked at as being all mythical.
I await the trolls and the deniably ignorant to respond

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Coragyps, posted 05-20-2010 7:31 AM Coragyps has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 104 of 139 (561398)
05-20-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Coragyps
05-20-2010 7:31 AM


All very good rebuttals, but you know what, they are all typical of one sided evolutionists thinking of always finding lame excuses and never truly coming head on with subjective data! All your data does is serve you from the painful job of thinking rationally. I refuse to go spiraling down that path. Again, nothing anything that any of you have said here has disclaimed anything that I have said.
There is not one thing that any of you guys here said, that I didn’t already hear many times before. You claim that I get my info from creationists websites (which is not the case), but you guys are guilty of not thinking outside the box. You remain trapped in professor evil-lutionist class 101!
Now we can keep going around and around with this argument on both Creationists verses Evolutionists scientific data, but it remains a vicious circle both ways that only serves to meaningless ends.
I’ve decided to take a different route with dealing with you people here. I am going to post things that have no other logical explanation but to suggesting that all your postulations that you have learned in science need serious questioning.
Question 1, can anyone here tell me why it is that when a poisonous snake is placed in a hyperbaric chamber that its venom becomes nontoxic?
I will give you the answer What you guys need to do is start examining the Bible for answers. What is so spectacular about the Bible is that literally every answer one is looking for can be found in the Bible and backed-up by both history, archeology and all the sciences.
For example people think that the curse caused by Adam and Eve disobeying was just a mythical story. People cant seem to phantom how two people can live so long or subsequently many of the ancient patriarchs mentioned in the Bible.
Science does not realize that there are numerous telltale signs that the earth readily supplies. We find these little secrets trapped inside the fossil record. For instance (as I was saying in a previous posting in this thread) we know that living things (ones that still exists today) grew much bigger because we find giant specimens in the fossil record. The obvious reason for this is because there was more oxygen in the earlier atmosphere than there is today. In Genesis it tells us that the earth had a different atmosphere during the time of Adam and Eve and before Noah’s Great Flood.
Genesis 1:6-8 - And G-d said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And G-d made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And G-d called the firmament Heaven.
Genesis 2:5-6 - And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord G-d had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
This mist that came up from the face of the ground is the exact effect expected if the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy.
This atmosphere was likened unto a hyperbaric chamber. Hospitals today use hyperbaric chamber to treat certain medical ailments. Basically what a hyperbaric chamber is, is pressurized oxygen twice the normal amount. These chambers have been proven to heal open wounds and bone breakages in half the time it normally takes to heal.
So this would mean that the high oxygen content of the early Earth would have played an enormous factor pertaining to LONG LIFE!
Did you also know that BACTERIA and CANCER CELLS cannot grow in an oxygenated rich environment. 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
Now with this aspect in mind it can then lend credence to understanding how things in the environment might have changed after Adam and Eve sinned, and subsequently after Noah’s Great Flood.
I can think of several environmental factors that changed off hand, such as thorns and thistles. Genesis 3:18 - It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
What I am getting at here is that these things all have a valid scientific explanation. The word "curse" should not be looked at as being all mythical.
I await the trolls and the deniably ignorant to respond

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Coragyps, posted 05-20-2010 7:31 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2010 10:42 AM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 05-20-2010 10:53 AM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 107 by hotjer, posted 05-20-2010 11:00 AM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2010 11:23 AM Anita Meyer has replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 109 of 139 (561415)
05-20-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dr Adequate
05-20-2010 11:23 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2010 11:23 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2010 1:24 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 111 of 139 (561417)
05-20-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dr Adequate
05-20-2010 11:23 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-20-2010 11:23 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2010 1:36 PM Anita Meyer has replied
 Message 113 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:45 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2010 2:26 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 113 of 139 (561421)
05-20-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Anita Meyer
05-20-2010 1:25 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:25 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Huntard, posted 05-20-2010 1:55 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2010 1:56 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 114 of 139 (561422)
05-20-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by New Cat's Eye
05-20-2010 1:36 PM


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 Toxins
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2010 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 05-20-2010 1:58 PM Anita Meyer has replied
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2010 2:14 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 118 of 139 (561428)
05-20-2010 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Huntard
05-20-2010 1:58 PM


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.pdf
What have you done?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 05-20-2010 1:58 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2010 2:20 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 122 of 139 (561434)
05-20-2010 2:30 PM


quote:
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?
Huntard, bacteria produces selective enzymes, and it is these enzymes that are tied in with snake venom.
Just look up enzymes and snake venom.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2010 2:33 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 125 by Huntard, posted 05-20-2010 2:45 PM Anita Meyer has not replied
 Message 126 by Son, posted 05-20-2010 2:53 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 124 of 139 (561437)
05-20-2010 2:39 PM


quote:
I have shown you where your comments on diamonds and radiocarbon dating are incorrect. Isn't that enough?
Oh, how so? What contamination? You have proven nothing!
Haven’t you heard Coyote, nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion. - Democritus

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Straggler, posted 05-20-2010 5:00 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 5057 days)
Posts: 33
From: Kenosha, WI.
Joined: 05-13-2010


Message 131 of 139 (561460)
05-20-2010 5:01 PM


quote:
A quick GOOGLE SEARCH of that paragraph brings up 1400 results that include that paragraph almost in its entirety or with very little changed. Are you claiming you wrote it, or do you concede that it is plagiarized?
Duckier,
Why don’t you stop trying to discredit me and contribute. So far you have done nil.

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2010 5:11 PM Anita Meyer has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024