The Evolution Fraud

[james bond]

How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?

Evolution is anti-science. This is anti-anti-science. That's real science to the laypeople.

One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen. One can do the math and see evolution does not happen. One can do the math and see magic does not happen.

So-called "creation science" is magic, dumbass.

Evolution is magic, you stupid, farking dumbass. Big bang could not happen from singularity. We can't even have singularity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your science depends on a list of begats?

Sure, it's better than evolution and becoming human from monkeys. We can observe no monkeys walk bipedal all the time..

There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old.

There is, actually.

Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..

Sure, it's better than evolution

View attachment 295203

Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years..

Prove it was contaminated in 6000 years..

I'm going to assume you lost. You said, "There is, actually," and then proceeded to not provide anything. Sorry, loser. Better luck next time when you have something .

You said, "There is, actually,"

I only said that because it's true.

Did you have proof for your claim, "There is no evidence that a rock is millions of years old"?

Or was, "Prove it wasn't contaminated in millions of years.." supposed to be your proof?

It's not true. Ho hum. You know nothing and are boring, so I won the argument and you are dismissed.

It's not true.

How Do Geologists Know How Old a Rock Is?

Geologists generally know the age of a rock by determining the age of the group of rocks, or formation, that it is found in. The age of formations is marked on a geologic calendar known as the geologic time scale. Development of the geologic time scale and dating of formations and rocks relies upon two fundamentally different ways of telling time: relative and absolute.

Relative dating places events or rocks in their chronologic sequence or order of occurrence. Absolute dating places events or rocks at a specific time. If a geologist claims to be younger than his or her co-worker, that is a relative age. If a geologist claims to be 45 years old, that is an absolute age.

Relative Dating
Superposition: The most basic concept used in relative dating is the law of superposition. Simply stated, each bed in a sequence of sedimentary rocks (or layered volcanic rocks) is younger than the bed below it and older than the bed above it. This law follows two basic assumptions: (1) the beds were originally deposited near horizontal, and (2) the beds were not overturned after their deposition.

Faunal Succession: Similar to the law of superposition is the law of faunal succession, which states that groups of fossil animals and plants occur throughout the geologic record in a distinct and identifiable order. Following this law, sedimentary rocks can be “dated” by their characteristic fossil content. Particularly useful are index fossils, geographically widespread fossils that evolved rapidly through time.

Crosscutting Relationships: Relative ages of rocks and events may also be determined using the law of crosscutting relationships, which states that geologic features such as igneous intrusions or faults are younger than the units they cut across.

Inclusions: Inclusions, which are fragments of older rock within a younger igneous rock or coarse-grained sedimentary rock, also facilitate relative dating. Inclusions are useful at contacts with igneous rock bodies where magma moving upward through the crust has dislodged and engulfed pieces of the older surrounding rock.

Gaps in the geologic record, called unconformities, are common where deposition stopped and erosion removed the previously deposited material. Fortunately, distinctive features such as index fossils can aid in matching, or correlating, rocks and formations from several incomplete areas to create a more complete geologic record for relative dating. Relative dating techniques provide geologists abundant evidence of the incredible vastness of geologic time and ancient age of many rocks and formations. However, in order to place absolute dates on the relative time scale, other dating methods must be considered.

Absolute Dating
The nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes is a process that behaves in a clock-like fashion and is thus a useful tool for determining the absolute age of rocks. Radioactive decay is the process by which a “parent” isotope changes into a “daughter” isotope. Rates of radioactive decay are constant and measured in terms of half-life, the time it takes half of a parent isotope to decay into a stable daughter isotope.

so I won the argument

Which one? LOL!

 

[bripat9643]

How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?

Evolution is anti-science. This is anti-anti-science. That's real science to the laypeople.

One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen. One can do the math and see evolution does not happen. One can do the math and see magic does not happen.

So-called "creation science" is magic, dumbass.

Evolution is magic, you stupid, farking dumbass. Big bang could not happen from singularity. We can't even have singularity.

Right, says the the expert on astrophysics, but some gaseous vertebrate in the sky who can violate the laws of physics isn't magic.

 

[james bond]

How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?

Evolution is anti-science. This is anti-anti-science. That's real science to the laypeople.

One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen. One can do the math and see evolution does not happen. One can do the math and see magic does not happen.

So-called "creation science" is magic, dumbass.

Evolution is magic, you stupid, farking dumbass. Big bang could not happen from singularity. We can't even have singularity.

Right, says the the expert on astrophysics, but some gaseous vertebrate in the sky who can violate the laws of physics isn't magic.

Here why we can't have singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density -- one cannot divide by zero. Q.E.D. Proof your big bang hypothesis is magic.

 

[bripat9643]

How is this idiotic thread still in the science section?

Evolution is anti-science. This is anti-anti-science. That's real science to the laypeople.

One can do the math and see that abiogenesis, big bang, and macroevolution did not happen. One can do the math and see evolution does not happen. One can do the math and see magic does not happen.

So-called "creation science" is magic, dumbass.

Evolution is magic, you stupid, farking dumbass. Big bang could not happen from singularity. We can't even have singularity.

Right, says the the expert on astrophysics, but some gaseous vertebrate in the sky who can violate the laws of physics isn't magic.

Here why we can't have singularity of infinite temperature and infinite density -- one cannot divide by zero. Q.E.D. Proof your big bang hypothesis is magic.

But we can have a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics and even of logic?

BTW, many astrophysicists have a problem with the singularity. They are working on a number of theories to resolve this issue.

It's not my big bang hypothesis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Except for MAC who knows the truth

Actually, it seems to only be the religious nutballs who claim to know.

So you don't know?

Exactly how life came to be? No. Do you?

Then why do you keep claiming you do know?

I haven't.

 

[james bond]

But we can have a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics and even of logic?

Not really because it's in the Bible. Why are you such as loser?

BTW, many astrophysicists have a problem with the singularity. They are working on a number of theories to resolve this issue.

Sure, singularity violates the laws of physics. One has to have a creator to divide by zero.

Wrong. You can't just start with a theory. One starts with a hypothesis and it may or may not start to get accepted by the majority of your peers. With evolution, there is no scientific hypothesis and thus it's magic.

It's not my big bang hypothesis.

Then you're back to the infinite universe which was shown to be pseudoscience. Creation and creation science explains it best.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then you're back to the infinite universe which was shown to be pseudoscience.

You are confusing yourself again. An infinite universe remains entirely possible, in the sense that time is boundless. You use a lot of words that you don't really understand.

 

[james bond]

Then you're back to the infinite universe which was shown to be pseudoscience.

You are confusing yourself again. An infinite universe remains entirely possible, in the sense that time is boundless. You use a lot of words that you don't really understand.

No, the universe has an edge and boundaries. That is what stated. Human belief of boundless and not having a center could be wrong and it is.

 

[bripat9643]

But we can have a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics and even of logic?

Not really because it's in the Bible. Why are you such as loser?

How does being in the Bible make your belief in a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics rational?

BTW, many astrophysicists have a problem with the singularity. They are working on a number of theories to resolve this issue.

Sure, singularity violates the laws of physics. One has to have a creator to divide by zero.

Do black holes violate the laws of physics? They are also considered to be singularities.

Wrong. You can't just start with a theory. One starts with a hypothesis and it may or may not start to get accepted by the majority of your peers. With evolution, there is no scientific hypothesis and thus it's magic.

"there is no scientific hypothesis?" ROFL! It's called "natural selection," moron.

It's not my big bang hypothesis.

Then you're back to the infinite universe which was shown to be pseudoscience. Creation and creation science explains it best.

Creation science isn't science. What is your justification for claiming it explains it best? Critics have pointed out thousands of contradictions in Genesis.

 

[Questioner]

Given that law theory, such as Common Law theory is more relevant to people's everyday lives, than an theory or abstraction like "evolution is", something which can't be seen with the naked eye, existing only in the confines of the mathematical approximations or abstractions which it was invented from, it seems that many people have disproportionate, emotional reason or investment in the theory, generally for some silly political or pop cultural reason or noting, rather than anything inherent in the theory itself to begin with, even in comparison to other theories within the confines of Bacon's scientific methodology, such as gravity or quantum physics.

In reality, the law of one's state affects their lives directly more than abstractions or speculations about mankind's ancestral past, yet it seems most Americans are ignorant of it, such as its history, development, philosophy, and the ways in which it actually functions and sustains people's rights and freedoms to begin with, as opposed to childish or inaccurate depictions on police TV shows and dramas.

I'd argue there would be much more pragmatic sense in teaching people the their of their Common Law system, than comparatively childish whims, abstractions, and speculations like "evolution", which are generally based more on silly pop cultural, film, or television notions than anything in the real world anyway outside of one's wild little imagination and quasi-religious obsessions with it to such a disproportionate degree (even when it seems it would better favor their non-existance, than their existance, pretenses to "equality", or having anything resembling an "equal" chance of living or dying) to begin with, however ironically - much as to the average "internet atheist", science would, in practice be the better off without their anti-intellectualism, and feral sense of beliefs, which were everyone worthless and savager enough to subscribe themselves to, there would be no "science", nor any culture to begin with, it having far more reasons for their extinction than their subsistence, and "caring" not for them or their pious appeals to it, like some omnipotent being, entity, or abstraction.

 

[james bond]

How does being in the Bible make your belief in a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics rational?

Because science backs up the Bible. Laws of physics were created during creation week.

Do black holes violate the laws of physics? They are also considered to be singularities.

Instead, we see black holes grow. No one has demonstrated that there is a singularity even in a black hole. It's just a guess.

"there is no scientific hypothesis?" ROFL! It's called "natural selection," moron.

Creation science, Alfred Russel Wallace, found natural selection first. It's the only thing that is observable and Darwin was right about.

Creation science isn't science. What is your justification for claiming it explains it best? Critics have pointed out thousands of contradictions in Genesis.

Creation science is real science. It is what is observable. Science backs up creation science. For example, we cannot create life outside the cell. Only life begats life. Thus, life had to be created first in order for it to happen. You really are a moron if you can't figure these things out through observation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does being in the Bible make your belief in a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics rational?

Because science backs up the Bible. Laws of physics were created during creation week.

Do black holes violate the laws of physics? They are also considered to be singularities.

Instead, we see black holes grow. No one has demonstrated that there is a singularity even in a black hole. It's just a guess.

"there is no scientific hypothesis?" ROFL! It's called "natural selection," moron.

Creation science, Alfred Russel Wallace, found natural selection first. It's the only thing that is observable and Darwin was right about.

Creation science isn't science. What is your justification for claiming it explains it best? Critics have pointed out thousands of contradictions in Genesis.

Creation science is real science. It is what is observable. Science backs up creation science. For example, we cannot create life outside the cell. Only life begats life. Thus, life had to be created first in order for it to happen. You really are a moron if you can't figure these things out through observation.

Because science backs up the Bible.

Science tells us some rocks are billions of years old.
What passage in the Bible is backed up by that fact?

 

[james bond]

Science tells us some rocks are billions of years old.

Radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions and bad science. You got rocks in your head.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Science tells us some rocks are billions of years old.

Radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions and bad science. You got rocks in your head.

Radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions and bad science.

Where in the Bible can we find the correct assumptions and good science to find the actual age?

 

[bripat9643]

How does being in the Bible make your belief in a gaseous vertebrate with a penis who can violate the laws of physics rational?

Because science backs up the Bible. Laws of physics were created during creation week.

Do black holes violate the laws of physics? They are also considered to be singularities.

Instead, we see black holes grow. No one has demonstrated that there is a singularity even in a black hole. It's just a guess.

"there is no scientific hypothesis?" ROFL! It's called "natural selection," moron.

Creation science, Alfred Russel Wallace, found natural selection first. It's the only thing that is observable and Darwin was right about.

Darwin published first, so he gets the credit. How does the this guy's existence prove any of your faulty theories?

Lots of theories about nature cannot be demonstrated. That's why they are called "theories." However, that doesn't give you license to give the credit to your gaseous vertebrate. You can't demonstrate that your fantasy creature had anything to do with it.

You still haven't demonstrated that the laws of physics back the Bible.

Creation science isn't science. What is your justification for claiming it explains it best? Critics have pointed out thousands of contradictions in Genesis.

Creation science is real science. It is what is observable. Science backs up creation science. For example, we cannot create life outside the cell. Only life begats life. Thus, life had to be created first in order for it to happen. You really are a moron if you can't figure these things out through observation.

What "science" backs up that ludicrous claim? The fact that we can't do it doesn't mean that it can't be done. The premise is false, therefore the conclusion isn't justified.

 

[bripat9643]

Science tells us some rocks are billions of years old.

Radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions and bad science. You got rocks in your head.

Prove it.

 

[Questioner]

The fraud is in those who naively, childishly, and uninformedly repeat it, along with childish references and reverences to "science" in general, informed more by unintellectual mass media, a paltry K-12 education or unremarkable degree or job in some field of work erroneously attributed to the subject, along with the fallacious or silly notion that all scientists or "science jobs" are equal or comparable in any way, or silly TV shows, archaic political beliefs, myths, fables, and axioms, like the silly myth of Darwin and his false credit for the theory anyway in ignorance his contemporaries or its existence as folk knowledge in multiple cultures, as far back as Greek's pre-Socratic philosophers.

I'd venture that few who unthinkingly repeat it would even be bothered to know who Francis Bacon is, as well as his method and the axioms and parameters it was constructed from, many of them ever so frequently, either through stupidity, dishonesty, or both conflating all sorts of things with science, such as silly political beliefs, philosophies, faiths, or axioms, other types of theorization, such as "conspiracy theories", and so on and so forth.

 

[james bond]

Where in the Bible can we find the correct assumptions and good science to find the actual age?

God said that he will keep some things to himself such as the age of the Earth and universe. Thus, we will not know the exact age using science. We will have to make some assumptions, too. One method assumes that the six days of creation presented in Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour periods and that there are no gaps in the chronology of Genesis. The years listed in the genealogies of Genesis are then added to get an approximate time from creation to certain Old Testament figures. This gives us around 6,000 years for the age of the Earth.

We also had radiocarbon dating of coal and diamonds by RATE since C14 still remained. That showed a young Earth around 48 to 50,000 years old.

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed

How old do you believe the Earth to be and why?

 

[james bond]

Science tells us some rocks are billions of years old.

Radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions and bad science. You got rocks in your head.

Prove it.

They used radiometric dating of a meteor to find the age of the Earth. Obviously, the meteor was not from Earth.

Lying evos would use anything to fit what Darwin needed to explain evolution of long time. Would you accept a 3 billion year old Earth that Arthur Holmes calculated using radiometric dating?