27 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerEvolution is science, not pseudoscience.
Yeah, yeah...
The YECs can say exactly the same thing about the crack-pot evolution pseudoscicence, which is heavily biased by a ferverent belief in crack-pot evolution, which has so many holes punched through it that it needs a lot of crack-pot bearded ape-men to defend it...
Instead of throwing around insults which make you look like a crack-pot ap ...[text shortened]... discuss the issues at hand.
So are you going to supply anything useful to this conversation?
btw, I'm STILL waiting on your critique of Prof Zhang's article on the age of the earth. Come on deej, with such a "strong" position as yours, you shouldn't be running from the science. Please, show us how 7 independant methods got the same date to within 100 million years (~2😵 of each other. How did they become biased by exactly the same amount to elevate the age of the earth from 6,000 years to 4.53 billion?
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by dj2beckeryes deej, it reset seven independant chronometers to give an age within 100 million years of each other (~2% ). Yeah, right.
[b]If we are talking radioactive decay then what sort of catastrophes might affect this?
A global flood, which resets the atomic clock.[/b]
Couldn't happen. I need a PEER REVIEWED work of SCIENCE from a REPUTABLE JOURNAL from you to back this up. I can happily provide you with details for science search engines (although Google scholar should suffice, really).
27 Mar 06
Actually, deej is annoying me so intensely with his circularity (i.e. inability to grasp the fact that once his "sources" have been discredited, you can't use them anymore in a debate) that I'm going to take a break for a while. I can no longer tolerate his incessant whinging.
See ya all in a couple of months....
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe same GOD who flooded the whole world and slaughtered all the Egyptian first-born could easily monkey with the decay rates of the parent isotopes in just such a way that they give statistically consistent measures. It's all part of GOD's great plan to punish those who think.
Evolution is science, not pseudoscience.
btw, I'm STILL waiting on your critique of Prof Zhang's article on the age of the earth. Come on deej, with such a "strong" position as yours, you shouldn't be running from the science. Please, show us how 7 independant methods got the same date to within 100 million years (~2😵 of each other. How did they ...[text shortened]... actly the same amount[/i] to elevate the age of the earth from 6,000 years to 4.53 billion?
(Yes, the brain was given to us as a test. No, we ARE NOT supposed to use it.)
27 Mar 06
5 edits
Originally posted by amannionAnticipates many URL's.
Can someone tell me where are all these freakin' holes in evolution?
I mean c'mon - stop crapping on about it and put your money where your mouth is.
. . . .
Rethinks.
Anticipates many plagerized posts.
Edit: Did you know if you put an arrow in your post, it clears all text after that?
27 Mar 06
Originally posted by telerionYeah I know, and they'll all be from some idiot creationist or other who claims to be a scientist who has been able to completely repudiate evolutionary science - we've heard it all before.
Anticipates many URLS.
. . . .
Rethinks.
Anticipates many plagerized posts.
Edit: Did you know if you put "
I want to see something serious, something well thought out, something well researched, something that would be worth looking at.
Clearly that isn't going to happen - given that such work doesn't exist.