|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 06/11/2004 : 05:28:00 [Permalink]
|
verlch, apparently, doesn't require references.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2004 : 20:33:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well take a dead animal and start dating it with your methods! You will find it thousands of years in difference within just the bones! Anyone can make the numbers anything they want! And with all the evolving fossills you have for evidence I'm suprised your theory isn't fact!
Ugh. What a troll. Why do we get duped by this guy? I challenged this guy weeks ago to pick one small argument and defend it with evidence. He gave a half-assed attempt and then proceeded to string us along post after post making new claims but offering no proof. Here he does it again: carbon date road kill and you'll see that it says the animal died a thousand years ago. Really?
And then he add some more shit, just for fun. Like "and with all the evolving fossills you have for evidence I'm suprised your theory isn't fact!" What the fuck does that mean? And what does calling someone a "nazi" have to do with anything?
I am so through with this guy. If he wants to further the debate on how the diversity of life on this planet came to be then fine. If not, then why waste our time? |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2004 : 23:28:20 [Permalink]
|
| Ok pal I'll go to my dads lab and get some things to carbon date, then I will offer you proof to your face, you troll. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2004 : 00:19:38 [Permalink]
|
Whaa...The words "woman" and "female" derive from womens' innate subservience to men.
The bible says women be submissive to your husbands,for Adam was created first...
For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)
And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." (Genesis 2:18)
Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, than in a house shared with a contentious woman. (Proverbs 21:9; see also 21:19; 25:24)
A continual dripping on a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike; whoever restrains her restrains the wind, and grasps oil with his right hand. (Proverbs 27:15-16)
As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12)
What happens when women gain authority over man.
http://www.atruechurch.info/women.html" target="_blank"> br / http://www.atruechurch.info/women.html
Hey you guys can get ruled by women!!! Not me no thanks baby! Heck you modern men of 2004, how could something written on scrolls and not the internet be believed?!!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2004 : 01:17:59 [Permalink]
|
Yep, he's a total troll....
verlch.... how about it man? Pick one of your assertions.... any single one.... and provide evidence and defend it.
No.... instead you troll in with more retarded crap that is obviously meant to be inflamatory while you completely ignore any and all requests that you defend just one of your assertions. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2004 : 02:57:10 [Permalink]
|
# 44: quote:
Carbon dating is so error-prone that it is fair to call it fiction.
You have yet to provide any evidence in favor of this claim beyond hand-waving and blather. I suspect that you have no idea of what radometric dating methods, C-14 in particular, are or how they work. So, heigh-ho, off you go on more bibical, anti-woman gibberish that nobody much cares about. Do you really think that's going to distract anybody? C'mon verlch, show me the the flaws in C-14 dating.
Y'know, if you make claims then refuse to substantiate them, I wonder what your word is worth on other topics.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2004 : 12:09:10 [Permalink]
|
His last post is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to piss people off. I doubt that he ever intends to defend his assertions.
And I think it's a rule someplace.... gratuitous assertions can be gratuitously ignored.... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/12/2004 12:11:37 |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2004 : 13:01:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Yep, he's a total troll....
verlch.... how about it man? Pick one of your assertions.... any single one.... and provide evidence and defend it.
No.... instead you troll in with more retarded crap that is obviously meant to be inflamatory while you completely ignore any and all requests that you defend just one of your assertions.
IN THE START OF THIS THREAD IT SAYS CREATION VS EVOLUTION, FAITH VS. SCIENCE, SO JUMP OFF A CLIFF IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY POINTING OUT FAITH. HOW IS THAT BEING A TROLL, WHAT DO YOU GUYS NEED AN INTERVIEW WITH GOD? THEN YOU CAN STILL DOUBT? HOW IS THIS A DEBATE? I ASK YOU PROOF FOR YOUR MISSING LINKS AND YOU PROVIDE ME WITH THEORIES, WISHEY WASHEY AT BEST. SO UNLESS YOU ARE A TROLL SHUT YOUR MOUTH. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2004 : 19:43:29 [Permalink]
|
So you admit that you cannot provide any defense for any of your assertions? That was the point of this thread.... you made a number of assertions and have been asked to intelligently defend just one of them....
My favorite one is this : quote:
66. Trees petrify and then they die.
Seems like you should have a fairly easy task in defending that one. I mean, if something petrifies before it dies, there should be a huge number of living petrified plants. Just point me to one. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 00:07:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
IN THE START OF THIS THREAD IT SAYS CREATION VS EVOLUTION, FAITH VS. SCIENCE, SO JUMP OFF A CLIFF IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY POINTING OUT FAITH. HOW IS THAT BEING A TROLL, WHAT DO YOU GUYS NEED AN INTERVIEW WITH GOD? THEN YOU CAN STILL DOUBT? HOW IS THIS A DEBATE? I ASK YOU PROOF FOR YOUR MISSING LINKS AND YOU PROVIDE ME WITH THEORIES, WISHEY WASHEY AT BEST. SO UNLESS YOU ARE A TROLL SHUT YOUR MOUTH.
Verlch, let me try to explain something to you. In previous threads you've made numerous assertions without backing them up. Now, this thread was especially made for you to back up the claims that you were making (see the opening post). Do you understand what we mean with that?
However, in stead of doing that, you started making more assertions or started a rant about women and their supposed position in life. You haven't answered any of the topics raised. This is why people think you are a troll, since that is what trolls do. I hope you understand that.
Now, in order to exit trolldom, you should start backing up the claims you made. The way I would do that, is by following the next few steps, so why don't you try that in your next post:
step 1: choose 1 of the assertions in the opening post which you want to defend
step 2: search on the internet for sources backing up these claims.
step 3: read the sources, summarize why they defend you position.
step 4: post this summary and give links to the sources in you post.
step 5: await the reactions of the others on the forum.
Now, I'd say that if you follow these steps you can't go wrong. Good luck, I'm looking forward to your next post where you defend one of your assertions.
edited to correct some of my spelling errors (and probably leaving some others behind |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 06/13/2004 00:09:50 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 03:12:19 [Permalink]
|
Hmph. He's starting to shout again.
Well, I don't suppose I'll get any references for #44 so I'll just go ahead and refute virlch's silly claim and have done with it.
I shall allow those more familiar with the subject than I do the talkin'.
quote:
The real heart of the age-of-the-earth debate (if "debate" is the right word) is always radiometric dating. There are lots of ways to guesstimate ages, and geologists knew the earth was old a long time ago (and I might add that they were mostly Christian creationist geologists). But they didn't know how old. Radiometric dating actually allows the measurement of absolute ages, and so it is deadly to the argument that the earth cannot be more than 10,000 years old.
Radiometric methods measure the time elapsed since the particular radiometric clock was reset. Radiocarbon dating, which is probably best known in the general public, works only on things that were once alive and are now dead. It measures the time elapsed since death, but is limited in scale to no more than about 50,000 years ago. Other methods, such as Uranium/Lead, Potassium/Argon, Argon/Argon and others, are able to measure much longer time periods, and are not restricted to things that were once alive. Generally applied to igneous rocks (those of volcanic origin), they measure the time since the molten rock solidified. If that happens to be longer than 10,000 years, then the idea of a young-Earth is called into question. If that happens to be billions of years, then the young-Earth is in big trouble.
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html#reliability
The above site will tell you all you ever wanted to know about the subject and a lot that you might not have realized you wanted to know.
As we are all aware, radiocarbon dating only works back to aprox. 50,000 years. Here's a good description.
quote:
The 14C Method
General Principle
Carbon has two stable isotopes, 12C (98.9%) and 13C (1.1%). The long-lived radioactive carbon isotope 14C, commonly called radiocarbon, has a half-life of 5730 + 40 a, and exists in minute concentration (~10-12) in natural carbon through cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere.
14C is produced in the atmosphere by nuclear reactions of neutrons with 14N:
14N + n Þ 14C + p
The neutrons themselves are secondary products of spallation reactions of primary cosmic rays (high-energy protons). In these reactions, atmospheric nuclei (mainly 14N and 16O) are shattered releasing part of their constituents (protons and neutrons). Depending on the energy of the incident primary particles, these processes may continue over several generations producing a multiple of neutrons available for the production of 14C.
http://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/NHM/Prehist/Stadler/14C_Project/
The article continues:
quote:
Ideal conditions for radiocarbon dating depend on the following simplified assumptions ("14C_Project_Literature.html" \l "Bowman, S., (1990),"):
The atmosphere has had the same 14C concentration in the past as now; this in turn assumes constant production, constant and rapid mixing, exchange and transfer rates, as well as constant size of reservoirs.
· As a corollary of this, the biosphere has the same overall concentration as the atmosphere and therefore it is assumed that there is rapid mixing between these two reservoirs.
· The same 14C concentration exists in all parts of the biosphere.
· The death of a plant or animal is the point at which it ceases to e |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 19:21:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
IN THE START OF THIS THREAD IT SAYS CREATION VS EVOLUTION, FAITH VS. SCIENCE, SO JUMP OFF A CLIFF IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY POINTING OUT FAITH.
Yes, you are pointing out faith, but you haven't given us any good reason to mind it.
quote:
HOW IS THAT BEING A TROLL,
It's the way you're posting. Disregarding honest questions and requests for explanation and proof we can accept.
quote:
WHAT DO YOU GUYS NEED AN INTERVIEW WITH GOD?
Yes, we do. I'd love to. Can you get me an appointment, because I don't know how to reach Him.
quote:
THEN YOU CAN STILL DOUBT?
If I meet him in person, so I can punch him in the face, then tell him why I did so, then i would not doubt. And don't worry about Him getting bruised, since He is omnipotent, He'll heal quickly.
quote:
HOW IS THIS A DEBATE? I ASK YOU PROOF FOR YOUR MISSING LINKS AND YOU PROVIDE ME WITH THEORIES, WISHEY WASHEY AT BEST.
Well, since you started with nonsenical assertions, you should be the first to provide evidence for them.
quote:
SO UNLESS YOU ARE A TROLL SHUT YOUR MOUTH.
Well, none of the other posters in this thread so far have been using that hit-and-run tactic of yours, you're quite alone in your corner. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 20:15:39 [Permalink]
|
Verlch wrote:quote:
HOW IS THIS A DEBATE?
Indeed, how is it a debate? Making assertion after assertion is not "debating," verlch.quote:
I ASK YOU PROOF FOR YOUR MISSING LINKS AND YOU PROVIDE ME WITH THEORIES, WISHEY WASHEY AT BEST.
Actually, the term "missing link" is obsolete, at best, and a complete misrepresentation of evolutionary theories at worst. I would like to see evidence from you, verlch, that any current-day evolutionary biologist uses the term "missing link." And I'd also like you to define what you mean by "missing link." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2004 : 21:53:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Verlch wrote:quote:
HOW IS THIS A DEBATE?
Indeed, how is it a debate? Making assertion after assertion is not "debating," verlch.quote:
I ASK YOU PROOF FOR YOUR MISSING LINKS AND YOU PROVIDE ME WITH THEORIES, WISHEY WASHEY AT BEST.
Actually, the term "missing link" is obsolete, at best, and a complete misrepresentation of evolutionary theories at worst. I would like to see evidence from you, verlch, that any current-day evolutionary biologist uses the term "missing link." And I'd also like you to define what you mean by "missing link."
No, not more assertions [crying smilie, disstressed smilie ] The list gets longer and longer and longer and longer........ |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2004 : 06:56:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Whaa...The words "woman" and "female" derive from womens' innate subservience to men.
The bible says women be submissive to your husbands,for Adam was created first...
For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)
And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." (Genesis 2:18)
Better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, than in a house shared with a contentious woman. (Proverbs 21:9; see also 21:19; 25:24)
A continual dripping on a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike; whoever restrains her restrains the wind, and grasps oil with his right hand. (Proverbs 27:15-16)
As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12)
What happens when women gain authority over man.
And a document which echoes the sexism of two thousand years ago is valid......how? Societies evolve over time. 2000 years ago, women were regarded as property. The Bible accurately reports this. If you haven't noticed, society has moved on.
quote:
http://www.atruechurch.info/women.html" target="_blank"> br / http://www.atruechurch.info/women.html
Hey you guys can get ruled by women!!! Not me no thanks baby! Heck you modern men of 2004, how could something written on scrolls and not the internet be believed?!!!!
You assume that if man does not rule women, then the converse must be true. In reality, men and women can exist as equals. Couples can make decisions by discussing it and coming to a concesus. One need not rule the other. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
