Conquer Club

metsfan, you missed that crispy wrote erroneously three statements and has brought no evidence just called believers in God BS, and you applaud him and promote him to teach science to children?
This reminds me of fulfilled prophecy of Romans 1:18-32 after man rejects God and doesn't honor Him as creator, ...became futile in their speculations, & their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools ...(2 Timothy 4:3-4) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, & will turn their ears from the truth & will turn aside to myths.

universalchiro wrote:metsfan, you missed that crispy wrote erroneously three statements and has brought no evidence just called believers in God BS, and you applaud him and promote him to teach science to children?
This reminds me of fulfilled prophecy of Romans 1:18-32 after man rejects God and doesn't honor Him as creator, ...became futile in their speculations, & their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools ...(2 Timothy 4:3-4) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, & will turn their ears from the truth & will turn aside to myths.

What do you believe evolution says about abiogenesis?

universalchiro wrote:metsfan, you missed that crispy wrote erroneously three statements and has brought no evidence just called believers in God BS, and you applaud him and promote him to teach science to children?

I'm not sure what the erroneous statements are, but having read what both of you have to say, I trust him a lot more in a science classroom than I would trust you Your answer to literally every scientific question of any import seems to be "God did it." How is that supposed to inculcate scientific thinking and analysis skills into children?

This reminds me of fulfilled prophecy of Romans 1:18-32 after man rejects God and doesn't honor Him as creator, ...became futile in their speculations, & their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools ...(2 Timothy 4:3-4) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, & will turn their ears from the truth & will turn aside to myths.

I find it quite amusing that this is in a book that is one gigantic myth.

Metsfanmax wrote:

universalchiro wrote:metsfan, you missed that crispy wrote erroneously three statements and has brought no evidence just called believers in God BS, and you applaud him and promote him to teach science to children?

I'm not sure what the erroneous statements are, but having read what both of you have to say, I trust him a lot more in a science classroom than I would trust you Your answer to literally every scientific question of any import seems to be "God did it." How is that supposed to inculcate scientific thinking and analysis skills into children?

This reminds me of fulfilled prophecy of Romans 1:18-32 after man rejects God and doesn't honor Him as creator, ...became futile in their speculations, & their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools ...(2 Timothy 4:3-4) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, & will turn their ears from the truth & will turn aside to myths.

I find it quite amusing that this is in a book that is one gigantic myth.

I don't find it amusing at all. It is actually proof that mankind wrote the book, not god. This is so the doubters won't question and they can be dominated and manipulated and the manipulation continues 2000 years later.

Metsfanmax wrote:

universalchiro wrote:metsfan, you missed that crispy wrote erroneously three statements and has brought no evidence just called believers in God BS, and you applaud him and promote him to teach science to children?

I'm not sure what the erroneous statements are, but having read what both of you have to say, I trust him a lot more in a science classroom than I would trust you Your answer to literally every scientific question of any import seems to be "God did it." How is that supposed to inculcate scientific thinking and analysis skills into children?

This reminds me of fulfilled prophecy of Romans 1:18-32 after man rejects God and doesn't honor Him as creator, ...became futile in their speculations, & their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools ...(2 Timothy 4:3-4) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, & will turn their ears from the truth & will turn aside to myths.

I find it quite amusing that this is in a book that is one gigantic myth.

Sure I'll say God created and I'll use the science to understand how things function that He created. For example we both can study how gravity functions, but you don't know how or when it evolved. We both can study light and learn its functions and parameters, but you don't know how or when it evolved. You only speculate, yet you take a huge leap of faith the other universes applied force to our universe to reduce Entropy. That's a belief not knowing (ie not science). Our universe is so fine tuned that to altered one Law of physics the order would collapse, well you believe that the evolution of this order came from multiverses. Yet this is a belief.

I'm fine with your belief, you just lose ground by saying its fact when even the top scientist that strongly adhere to your belief (that are honest) won't say its fact.

So let me help you. This is how you should say it, " I accept the theory of evolution because there i enough evidence to satisfy my threshold of probability."

The Bible is not for you, I'll share with others and leave you to your faith.

universalchiro wrote:yet you take a huge leap of faith the other universes applied force to our universe to reduce Entropy.

I've never said that, and I do not believe that.

Our universe is so fine tuned that to altered one Law of physics the order would collapse, well you believe that the evolution of this order came from multiverses.

I've never said that, and I do not believe that.

I'm fine with your belief, you just lose ground by saying its fact when even the top scientist that strongly adhere to your belief (that are honest) won't say its fact.

Any top biologist will tell you that evolution is a fact. It's not my fault that you do not understand what facts are.

Evolutionist believe the earth is billions of years old based on Radioactive dating. The formula for radioactive dating requires the rate of decay to be constant. Unfortunately the rate of decay is not constant. There are ample examples that the rate of decay has been and can be accelerated. This is where evolutionist put blinders on, because they won't research the evidence that the rate of decay is accelerated with trauma. And this is where evolutionist take a huge leap of faith that the rate of decay has always been constant through millennia though they weren't there to observe and test.

Its typical to hear evolutionist say their belief is fact, yet they take huge leaps of faith and won't bother doing research to verify wild claims by other humans making assumptions about rates of decay before they were born.

So what's it like to be in such denial that you'll change the rules of the universe to fit your untenable beliefs?

Tell me, what sort of force would affect the decay rates of nuclides? At least enough to change the normal decay rate of, say, U238-Pb206 dating, with a current half-life of 4.47E9 years, to something along the lines of six orders of magnitude lower?

-TG

Tailgunner, I just gave three examples of the rate of decay being accelerated, with one jumping from allegedly taking 50million yrs for petroleum to be produced and is accelerated to 30 minutes. And you skip over and bypass? I'm not surprised to see staunch evolutionist bypass evidence to stick to their guns.

But a bigger problem is Polonium 210 is found in granite rock in a primordial state with no ancestral effervescent radioactive halos from heavier element. Meaning the natural rate of decay was bypassed and Polonium was created as is rather than descended via natural rates of decay from U238 over billions of years.

Either of the above is the death blow to the hypothesis of evolution because evolution requires billions of years. Both the above reveal an acceleration of the aging process and a creative moment. This is observable and test able evidence.

Don't just accept evolution on blind faith, go study the arguments against evolution and seek truth rather than just seeking to be viewed right in the eyes of majority. Don't post a snap response, go study in private.

So do you just smash your keyboard at random and press submit when something suitably inane comes out? Nothing you just said made any sense (not surprising, I guess).

1. You haven't provided any examples of decay rates being accelerated itt. If you're referring to the examples from your crust thread, those are poor examples that are not related to nuclides or decay chains. Plus, you didn't even source any of those.

a) Petrified wood is made by the mineralization of the wood (minerals like silicates from water replace the organic material). Nothing to do with alpha, beta, gamma, positron emission, or electron capture nuclide decay.
b) Coal is carbon and other trace elements subjected to intense pressure and heat. Again, nothing to do with nuclide decay.
c) Petroleum is likewise a product of heat and pressure of organic matter. So, not much to do with nuclide decay.

Are you really surprised that these products can be made from alternate methods? Never taken chemistry?

2. You wanna source the Polonium210 claim? Because it sounds like bunk. First of all, polonium210 has a half life of 138 days. I doubt you're going to find much of it. Second, I googled your polonium halos and found where you got your information, which you didn't even interpret correctly for your argument. According to the guy who proposed that theory, there are halos in minerals that he posits to be produced by the alpha decay of Po210. There wasn't actually any Po210 there. Secondly, with a little research into geology, the supposed Po210 halos only appear in a mineral that is not primordial.

It's funny that you charge me to pursue some research when it's clear you're simply using some copypasta from some physics hack who doesn't understand geology.

Edit: I forgot to mention that your fallacious Po210 line did not address the changing decay rates argument. Again, by what mechanism do the decay rates of several nuclides become accelerated or lengthened? The only example I could find is the complete ionization of Re187. Normal Re187 has a half-life of 42E9 years, but a sample of bare (no electrons...a feat in itself) Re187 will decay in 33 years. Can you imagine what would be required to completely ionize something like uranium?

-TG

Ha ha you are funny! You don't understand science, I already knew you didn't comprehend sound argument, but your own words convict yourself. You just stay your course of ignoring God and we'll ignore you. The precious truths in the Bible are not for you, your repeated rejection of truth has seared you beyond communication. Goodbye!

TG gets back ta scoolin an lern ye sum syince

uc wrote:

Aw, poor UC, you're not a very good sport. It's no fun when you tuck your tail between your legs.

notyou2 wrote:TG gets back ta scoolin an lern ye sum syince

Dun yu sez that, Cooter! Reddin's for fewls an' them damn monkey-luvers.

-TG

Did someone say monkey lovin'?


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Did someone say monkey lovin'?


--Andy

Geez Andy, we could not have any evolution without monkey love

Evidence: Does walking on water count?

Jesus is a penguin?

jonesthecurl wrote:Jesus is a penguin?

NO! That is: Jesus IS a penguin!

My son's ball python just laid a clutch of 6 eggs....and she's a virgin! We gots six baby jesus snakes!!!!!

I don't think they are going to hatch.

She will probably eat them and then get pregnant.

Does one really need to prove God?
does on really need to dis-prove God?

Does it affect your life span if someone believes?
do you die faster if someone does not believes?

Make up your own mind run with it!! just whatever you believe don't discriminate don't hate, don't judge some one based on there beliefs..

For non Believers and non-belviers give them the same respect that you give yourself the same kindness you wish upon yourself

Metsfanmax wrote:I find it quite amusing that this is in a book that is one gigantic myth.

I don't want to be nit picky, but the "Bible" isn't a "Book." Are yo referring to Genesis? Are you aware of the exact definition of the word myth?

If you indeed understood correctly everything in the above, then you are correct and you win a cigar.

Unfortunately, it is against the law for me to deliver said cigar to you.

tzor wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I find it quite amusing that this is in a book that is one gigantic myth.

I don't want to be nit picky, but the "Bible" isn't a "Book." Are yo referring to Genesis? Are you aware of the exact definition of the word myth?

I was referring to the entirety of the Bible (whether you want to call it a "book" is irrelevant. I understand that it's a collection of lots of random, contradictory stories and claims.). The fact that some aspects of the story may have historical accuracy does not alter the fact that the story is a myth. There may be some authenticity to the Trojan war referred to in the Iliad and the Odyssey but we could all agree that Homer was engaged in mythology.

If you indeed understood correctly everything in the above, then you are correct and you win a cigar.

Unfortunately, it is against the law for me to deliver said cigar to you.

You remember I also live on Long Island right?