Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Substance eh?

Four links to denials of reality, and this Walter Veith guy who is just a douche, are substantial enough to require a substantial reply?

Come on, don't pretend you were being serious.

Of course i was being serious. I have many years in science not just schooling actually working in the fields.

Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.

Yes, definitely you have show me all the evidence I need and hopefully everyone else too.

Well the bible i have no reason to doubt. There is evidence to support a much younger earth then some scientist believe.

There is plenty of evidence for dinosaurs existing for a while alongside man.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Substance eh?

Four links to denials of reality, and this Walter Veith guy who is just a douche, are substantial enough to require a substantial reply?

Come on, don't pretend you were being serious.

Of course i was being serious. I have many years in science not just schooling actually working in the fields.

Meaningless.

Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.

I agree, but what you provided argues "believing is seeing." Science is believing what you see, these creationists and Walter Veith, see what they believe.

Same could be said for both sides.

Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You yourself on another thread said there was a 9,000+ year old tree, now you're on here defending those who say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

At least pick one psychotic idea and stick to it.

Or did God create that tree, use it as a toothpick, then later create the Earth and he planted it?

Look i'm not sure you're being disengenuous or you forgot. But i used that as a reference that your side couldn't find any tree older then that knowing trees can live a very long time. No i don't believe that tree is that old and i have made myself clear that i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.

You were saying since there's no trees older than 9,000 years old that's proof of a worldwide flood. Now you're changing your argument by saying it could be 12,000 years old even though the biblical timeline doesn't say that.

Again, pick one crazy thought, and stick to it for consistiencies sake.

My first choice is you take science and math seriously, but i've given up on that.

The lack of evidence for old earth gets refuted by such evidence. It is evidence that the flood did exactly as the bible stated.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You yourself on another thread said there was a 9,000+ year old tree, now you're on here defending those who say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

At least pick one psychotic idea and stick to it.

Or did God create that tree, use it as a toothpick, then later create the Earth and he planted it?

Look i'm not sure you're being disengenuous or you forgot. But i used that as a reference that your side couldn't find any tree older then that knowing trees can live a very long time. No i don't believe that tree is that old and i have made myself clear that i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.

You were saying since there's no trees older than 9,000 years old that's proof of a worldwide flood. Now you're changing your argument by saying it could be 12,000 years old even though the biblical timeline doesn't say that.

Again, pick one crazy thought, and stick to it for consistiencies sake.

My first choice is you take science and math seriously, but i've given up on that.

You deny math and science that don't fall on your side of the theory.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Look i'm not sure you're being disengenuous or you forgot. But i used that as a reference that your side couldn't find any tree older then that knowing trees can live a very long time. No i don't believe that tree is that old and i have made myself clear that i do not trust dating methods and i gave many reasons why i don't trust them.

You were saying since there's no trees older than 9,000 years old that's proof of a worldwide flood. Now you're changing your argument by saying it could be 12,000 years old even though the biblical timeline doesn't say that.

Again, pick one crazy thought, and stick to it for consistiencies sake.

My first choice is you take science and math seriously, but i've given up on that.

You deny math and science that don't fall on your side of the theory.

Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.

You don't, you have dogma that's it.

I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You were saying since there's no trees older than 9,000 years old that's proof of a worldwide flood. Now you're changing your argument by saying it could be 12,000 years old even though the biblical timeline doesn't say that.

Again, pick one crazy thought, and stick to it for consistiencies sake.

My first choice is you take science and math seriously, but i've given up on that.

You deny math and science that don't fall on your side of the theory.

Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.

You don't, you have dogma that's it.

I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.

What math and science is on your side be specific ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

You deny math and science that don't fall on your side of the theory.

Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.

You don't, you have dogma that's it.

I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.

What math and science is on your side be specific ?

Evolution, math and engineering that says the Ark story is impossible, plate tectonics, age of the Earth, I can't keep up with all the math and science you deny. I've heard you deny far more scientitic and mathematical facts than accept.

But I'm not going to get into this debate, I'm sure you'll provide religious blogs to "prove" all those things wrong and this time I'm just going to ignore them. It's no longer entertaining watching you spit on facts like it was when we first had convos on here.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.

You don't, you have dogma that's it.

I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.

What math and science is on your side be specific ?

Evolution, math and engineering that says the Ark story is impossible, plate tectonics, age of the Earth, I can't keep up with all the math and science you deny. I've heard you deny far more scientitic and mathematical facts than accept.

But I'm not going to get into this debate, I'm sure you'll provide religious blogs to "prove" all those things wrong and this time I'm just going to ignore them. It's no longer entertaining watching you spit on facts like it was when we first had convos on here.

Math rebuttal.

How Big Was Noah's Ark

Who said on the creationist side plate tectonics did not occur ?

How do you prove the age of the earth again ?

 

[skipper]

You deny math and science that don't fall on your side of the theory.

Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.

You don't, you have dogma that's it.

I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.

What math and science is on your side be specific ?

How about the advent of radiometric dating of minerals within rocks using isotopic ratios.

 

[LOki]

Of course i was being serious. I have many years in science not just schooling actually working in the fields.

Meaningless.

Seeing the evidence is believing my friend.

I agree, but what you provided argues "believing is seeing." Science is believing what you see, these creationists and Walter Veith, see what they believe.

Same could be said for both sides.

Of course it could be said ... and it would be an error of fact.

Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.

Reasonably rational human beings are not so afflicted with that disability so symptomatic of faith.

More precisely, it is the nature of superstitious retards to interpret evidence to support their presuppositions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well I have scientific theories with math and science on my side.

You don't, you have dogma that's it.

I have no issue with you believing in a god(s), but when you use that as an excuse to deny math and science i'll take issue with it.

What math and science is on your side be specific ?

How about the advent of radiometric dating of minerals within rocks using isotopic ratios.

Don't trust any dating method because pressuppositions are needed ,in other words they are biased because of ones view before the process begins.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Meaningless.

I agree, but what you provided argues "believing is seeing." Science is believing what you see, these creationists and Walter Veith, see what they believe.

Same could be said for both sides.

Of course it could be said ... and it would be an error of fact.

Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.

Reasonably rational human beings are not so afflicted with that disability so symptomatic of faith.

More precisely, it is the nature of superstitious retards to interpret evidence to support their presuppositions.

Wrong, I don't care who or what you're we are affected by our nature. Horse is an animal of flight what do they do when they see an object they are not familliar with ?

You can see the same results when you support a political party you can't see the good on the other side why ?

 

[LOki]

Same could be said for both sides.

Of course it could be said ... and it would be an error of fact.

Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.

Reasonably rational human beings are not so afflicted with that disability so symptomatic of faith.

More precisely, it is the nature of superstitious retards to interpret evidence to support their presuppositions.

Wrong, ...

I'm clearly correct; just watch ...

...I don't care who or what you're we are affected by our nature.

I'm just guessing at what his mess is supposed to mean; but you're wrong to assume that just because it's in the nature of some people to be dedicated to being superstitious retards, then all people are dedicated to being superstitious retards.

Horse is an animal of flight what do they do when they see an object they are not familliar with ?

I suppose your answer is that people and horses make shit up and then pretend it's real, denying all contradictory evidence and/or valid logic.

My answer would be that why and what horses do what they do, is pretty irrelevant to why and what people do what they do.

And just because you think your Invisible Magic Stallion from Great Pasture In The Sky made you jumpy around snakes because they sell bad apples, it just does not follow that all of your fellow human beings share in your retarded superstition.

You can see the same results when you support a political party you can't see the good on the other side why ?

It's clear that the questions you direct at me are just loaded with the kind of retarded presumptions that arise from the same cognitive defect that marks the superstitious--the certainty of knowledge, without verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support that certainty: i.e. faith.

 

[pinqy]

Don't trust any dating method because pressuppositions are needed ,in other words they are biased because of ones view before the process begins.

But the different dating measures match each other (within known margins of error/discrepencies). Of course certain assumptions are made, but methods are adjusted when the assumptions prove wrong. Even the simplest of dating methods...that the digger you deep the older the layers are...show a much older earth than 6,000 years even without setting dates. And layers "out of order" are accounted for and can be detected.

The 6,000 year old earth theory was disproven well before Darwin.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it hasn't.

 

[LOki]

No, it hasn't.

Well look at you coming correct! BRAVO!

The age of the earth has certainly not been "proven" to be older than 6000 years to the degree of certainty that the creationist faithful have in the age of 'their young earth.'

The evidence of an old earth is very clear; technically though, that patently verifiable evidence doesn't disprove any assertion that the earth was created to appear older than 6000 years. So the superstitious retards still have an out--irrational as it is.

Of course these young earth beliefs lack the verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to convince anyone (except of course, those who already believe in the first place) that the earth is not older than 6000 years.

Only the faithful--the special and favored recipients of divinely bestowed (pre)knowledge--hold the standard of certainty that defines "proof" as that which agrees with their presumptions and prejudices that are unfounded in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; and are validated by their stoic denial of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Meaningless.

I agree, but what you provided argues "believing is seeing." Science is believing what you see, these creationists and Walter Veith, see what they believe.

Same could be said for both sides.

Of course it could be said ... and it would be an error of fact.

Human nature to interpret evidence to support our presuppositions.

Reasonably rational human beings are not so afflicted with that disability so symptomatic of faith.

More precisely, it is the nature of superstitious retards to interpret evidence to support their presuppositions.

It takes faith for both sides to believe as they do when you can't prove what you believe that is faith.

To use the term retards is very revealing about you.

Your side interprets evidence the same way but because they call it science you believe it.

It's not real science if faith is required to believe such silly things.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Of course it could be said ... and it would be an error of fact.

Reasonably rational human beings are not so afflicted with that disability so symptomatic of faith.

More precisely, it is the nature of superstitious retards to interpret evidence to support their presuppositions.

I'm clearly correct; just watch ...

I'm just guessing at what his mess is supposed to mean; but you're wrong to assume that just because it's in the nature of some people to be dedicated to being superstitious retards, then all people are dedicated to being superstitious retards.

I suppose your answer is that people and horses make shit up and then pretend it's real, denying all contradictory evidence and/or valid logic.

My answer would be that why and what horses do what they do, is pretty irrelevant to why and what people do what they do.

And just because you think your Invisible Magic Stallion from Great Pasture In The Sky made you jumpy around snakes because they sell bad apples, it just does not follow that all of your fellow human beings share in your retarded superstition.

You can see the same results when you support a political party you can't see the good on the other side why ?

It's clear that the questions you direct at me are just loaded with the kind of retarded presumptions that arise from the same cognitive defect that marks the superstitious--the certainty of knowledge, without verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support that certainty: i.e. faith.

Ok I no longer take you serious ,it is very revealing when you use the term retard.

I gave you the answer to the horse and you still couldn't grasp the relevance.

Why did you avoid the questions that was put to you ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Don't trust any dating method because pressuppositions are needed ,in other words they are biased because of ones view before the process begins.

But the different dating measures match each other (within known margins of error/discrepencies). Of course certain assumptions are made, but methods are adjusted when the assumptions prove wrong. Even the simplest of dating methods...that the digger you deep the older the layers are...show a much older earth than 6,000 years even without setting dates. And layers "out of order" are accounted for and can be detected.

The 6,000 year old earth theory was disproven well before Darwin.

Still not worthy to bet my life on it.

 

[LOki]

Ok I no longer take you serious ,it is very revealing when you use the term retard.

Why? Did I use the term incorrectly? If so, then correct me. If not, then I fail to see how my correct usage reveals anything about me such that I can't be taken seriously.

Unless of course, correct usage is the reason you won't take me seriously.

That would reveal a great deal about you.

I gave you the answer to the horse and you still couldn't grasp the relevance.

Just because you have no idea what you're talking about, it does not follow that I have no idea what you're talking about. I grasped the relevance of your horse analogy just fine.

Why did you avoid the questions that was put to you ?

I didn't avoid them in the least; I just refused to validate the invalid and irrelevant presumptions your questions were founded upon.