Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
65 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (5 members, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,327 Year: 4,439/6,534 Month: 653/900 Week: 177/182 Day: 10/47 Hour: 2/4

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not only Intelligent Design - but DIVINE DESIGN!
Huntard
Member (Idle past 1535 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 106 of 139 (561400)
05-20-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Anita Meyer
05-20-2010 10:35 AM


Anita Meyer writes:

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!


Why would we want to provide subjective data? Objesctive data is so much more reliable.

All your data does is serve you from the painful job of thinking rationally.

Oh please, we're not creationists, you know.

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.

You have been completely and totaly refuted.

There is not one thing that any of you guys here said, that I didn’t already hear many times before.

And you didn;t learn anyrthing from those previous experiences, it seems. A shame really.

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!

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.

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.

Creationists have no scientific data.

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.

Oh goody.

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?

Source for this claim?

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.

Then I'd like you to find the answer to the question "What is 7 times bigger than me?" in the bible.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

If the earth was surrounded by a vapour canopy everything on the earth would've been cooked.

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!


Prove that more oxygen makes things live longer.

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.

Source please?

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.

It would, if any of that actually happened, which it dind't.

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.


The trolling and the deniably ignorant one just typed a message full of nonsense that I responded to, no need to wait any longer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 10:35 AM Anita Meyer has taken no action

hotjer
Member (Idle past 3784 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 107 of 139 (561401)
05-20-2010 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Anita Meyer
05-20-2010 10:35 AM


sigh
Sources

Sources

Sources

Sources

You 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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 10:35 AM Anita Meyer has taken no action

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 108 of 139 (561405)
05-20-2010 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Anita Meyer
05-20-2010 10:35 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.

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.

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 can't even tell you if this is true, since the claim seems to stem from the notorious creationist liar Carl Baugh.

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 says no such thing.

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.

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.

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.

Show your working.

This atmosphere was likened unto a hyperbaric chamber.

And who likenethedeth it, yea verily, unto a hyperbaric chamber? Only that's not in the Bible either.

So this would mean that the high oxygen content of the early Earth would have played an enormous factor pertaining to LONG LIFE!

Oxygen toxicity

Did you also know that BACTERIA and CANCER CELLS cannot grow in an oxygenated rich environment.

So 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.

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.net/proteintoxins.html

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.

I can think of several environmental factors that changed off hand, such as thorns and thistles.

Evidence?

What I am getting at here is that these things all have a valid scientific explanation.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 10:35 AM Anita Meyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:14 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action
 Message 111 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:25 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 4296 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 taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2010 1:24 PM Anita Meyer has taken no action

Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 110 of 139 (561416)
05-20-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Anita Meyer
05-20-2010 1:14 PM


No my statements are not wrong they just don’t fit into your narrow perspective of understanding.

Nonsense. They are wrong and anyone who knows that field is aware of that.

Therefore, I’m simply riding over them to prove my point.

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.

You cant just focus on one thing and ignore the other.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:14 PM Anita Meyer has taken no action

Anita Meyer
Member (Idle past 4296 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!
http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/proteintoxins.html

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 taken no action

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 taken no action
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 05-20-2010 2:26 PM Anita Meyer has taken no action

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 139 (561419)
05-20-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Anita Meyer
05-20-2010 1:25 PM


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!
http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/proteintoxins.html

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.

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

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 111 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:25 PM Anita Meyer has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 114 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Anita Meyer
    Member (Idle past 4296 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 taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 115 by Huntard, posted 05-20-2010 1:55 PM Anita Meyer has taken no action
     Message 116 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2010 1:56 PM Anita Meyer has taken no action

    Anita Meyer
    Member (Idle past 4296 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:

    http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/proteintoxins.html

    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 taken no action

    Huntard
    Member (Idle past 1535 days)
    Posts: 2870
    From: Limburg, The Netherlands
    Joined: 09-02-2008


    Message 115 of 139 (561424)
    05-20-2010 1:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 113 by Anita Meyer
    05-20-2010 1:45 PM


    Anita Meyer writes:

    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.


    If that's what you would like to believe, then keep on deluding yourself.

    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.

    He uses those methods. Are you telling him he doesn't know what he is doing?

    Now I’d like to move beyond this hang-up.

    Of course, if you can't back it up, move away claiming victory anyway.

    Why do you think that a hyperbaric chamber has that kind of effect on a poisonous snake?

    Because you made that up. Or can you back this one up?

    Is there a science here that we are not understanding?

    No, just stuff you made up. Or other people made up and you are repeating.

    Could this have played a part in the earths history in some way?

    If it were true.

    You know exactly what I am talking about here, so don’t revert to asinine answers.

    About made up stuff. There settled it. Either back up your claims with actual evidence, or admit you made that stuff about snakes up.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 113 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:45 PM Anita Meyer has taken no action

    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 1345 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 116 of 139 (561425)
    05-20-2010 1:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 113 by Anita Meyer
    05-20-2010 1:45 PM


    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 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 merely just point out that there are differences in dating processes with harbor anomalous readings. This is what I have been saying all along.

    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.

    You on the other hand are fully fledged on believing that evolutionary scientist make no mistakes and that their dating methods are 100% accurate.

    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 113 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:45 PM Anita Meyer has taken no action

    Huntard
    Member (Idle past 1535 days)
    Posts: 2870
    From: Limburg, The Netherlands
    Joined: 09-02-2008


    Message 117 of 139 (561426)
    05-20-2010 1:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 114 by Anita Meyer
    05-20-2010 1:49 PM


    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?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 114 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:49 PM Anita Meyer has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 118 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 2:09 PM Huntard has taken no action

    Anita Meyer
    Member (Idle past 4296 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 taken no action

    Replies to this message:
     Message 120 by Coyote, posted 05-20-2010 2:20 PM Anita Meyer has taken no action

    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 119 of 139 (561429)
    05-20-2010 2:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 114 by Anita Meyer
    05-20-2010 1:49 PM


    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:

    http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/proteintoxins.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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 114 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 1:49 PM Anita Meyer has taken no action

    Coyote
    Member (Idle past 1345 days)
    Posts: 6117
    Joined: 01-12-2008


    Message 120 of 139 (561431)
    05-20-2010 2:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 118 by Anita Meyer
    05-20-2010 2:09 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

    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.

    What have you done?

    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 118 by Anita Meyer, posted 05-20-2010 2:09 PM Anita Meyer has taken no action

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.1
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022