The Theory of Evolution

[rahvin]

Conclusive proof that he isn't interested in discussion, only trolling. :thumbsup: I suggest everyone simply ignore anything he posts in this thread as a result.

Rip, Peter Jackson called, he wants you back under a bridge where you belong.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rahvin
Conclusive proof that he isn't interested in discussion, only trolling. :thumbsup: I suggest everyone simply ignore anything he posts in this thread as a result.

Rip, Peter Jackson called, he wants you back under a bridge where you belong.

Are you waiting for me to answer the same question yet again in a fourth thread?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: rahvin
Conclusive proof that he isn't interested in discussion, only trolling. :thumbsup: I suggest everyone simply ignore anything he posts in this thread as a result.

Rip, Peter Jackson called, he wants you back under a bridge where you belong.

Are you waiting for me to answer the same question yet again in a fourth thread?

If you aren't going to read what I post why should you expect that I should read yours? Now get back under that bridge.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: rahvin
Conclusive proof that he isn't interested in discussion, only trolling. :thumbsup: I suggest everyone simply ignore anything he posts in this thread as a result.

Rip, Peter Jackson called, he wants you back under a bridge where you belong.

Are you waiting for me to answer the same question yet again in a fourth thread?

If you aren't going to read what I post why should you expect that I should read yours? Now get back under that bridge.

What part of my answer didn't you get?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
What part of my answer didn't you get?

What part of my question didn't you understand?

 

[rahvin]

I already told you I'm not your personal researcher. Answer my question, right here, right now in straight forward terms. Don't go off talking about a volcano, don't go trolling about how it's not on topic. Don't post links to other threads. THAT ISN'T ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

Rip, In your opinion how old is the earth?

You answer should comprise a set of numbers, not a link, not a complaint that it's not on topic, not a discussion about an unrelated mountain. Answer the question or stop trolling.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rahvin

I already told you I'm not your personal researcher. Answer my question, right here, right now in straight forward terms. Don't go off talking about a volcano, don't go trolling about how it's not on topic. Don't post links to other threads. THAT ISN'T ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

Rip, In your opinion how old is the earth?

You answer should comprise a set of numbers, not a link, not a complaint that it's not on topic, not a discussion about an unrelated mountain. Answer the question or stop trolling.

As I've stated repeatedly, it's not possible to give a "set of numbers" since modern dating techniques are inadequate.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
As I've stated repeatedly, it's not possible to give a "set of numbers" since modern dating techniques are inadequate.

I'm asking your opinion, not conclusive proof. Considering the websites you link to, opinion should be good enough. Rather than answer the question, as it is nearly impossible that you have no opinion, you would rather lie. Your intellectual dishonesty makes baby jesus cry.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
As I've stated repeatedly, it's not possible to give a "set of numbers" since modern dating techniques are inadequate.

I'm asking your opinion, not conclusive proof. Considering the websites you link to, opinion should be good enough. Rather than answer the question, as it is nearly impossible that you have no opinion, you would rather lie. Your intellectual dishonesty makes baby jesus cry.

Thanks for showing your true colors.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Riprorin
As I've stated repeatedly, it's not possible to give a "set of numbers" since modern dating techniques are inadequate.

I'm asking your opinion, not conclusive proof. Considering the websites you link to, opinion should be good enough. Rather than answer the question, as it is nearly impossible that you have no opinion, you would rather lie. Your intellectual dishonesty makes baby jesus cry.

Thanks for showing your true colors.

Lol, you repeatedly lie that you have no opinion on the age of the earth and you say I'm showing my true colors by calling a spade a spade? :thumbsup:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin


"Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably."

I'm sure that those who shun science would make statements like this. But fortunately, REAL scientists are actually doing the research and publishing their results in peer-reviewed journals, not pushing unsupportable claims on laughable pro-Genesis websites.

For the actual truth on radiometric dating, try (for example):

Information from an actual, working vertebrate palaeontologist

Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only1% or so.

But we don't want to actually BELIEVE the statements of scientists who work in the field, do we, Rip? After all, they're part of this "world wide conspiracy" of scientists who are fabricating their research, letting junk science get into peer-reviewed journals, and generally seeing as their professional mission in life to foist false information on an unsuspecting public.

The fact that any scientist worth his/her credentials would just LOVE to publish a paper that turns conventional wisdom upside down doesn't cause us to question this conpiracy theory. I guess for some reason all these scientists just don't want to make a name for themselves - must be a unique ego characteristic for PhDs in the biological sciences.

This MUST be what you believe, Rip, because how else can it be possible that 99.7% of those in the bioliogical sciences strongly believe in Evolution and state that it's a GREAT theory, better supported by research data than virtually any other well-accepted theory.

This scientist, Michael Benton, is just LYING to us when he informs us that repeated testing and cross-checking of the dates of events provide incredibly consistent results, right Rip?

You'll just LOVE this site I provided the link to. Why that lying dog Benton actually calls into question the methods of religious fundamentalists:

The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:

* They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds -- have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
* Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah's flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow 'drowned' by the flood.
* The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.

And it's not just Benton. ALL those 300,000 scientists are lying. And/or they're all blind to the "truth" that your pals on creationism.org are clear-eyed enough to see.

It's great that you fundies are out there, pounding the pavement. Otherwise, we might actually believe these know-nothing PhDs.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
It goes to the state of your opinion and you have not answered the question. Why not be a man and answer it? Hmm? Afraid of exposing your faux faith?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already replied to that question.

What does it have to do with the topic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to know my answer, search this thread or this thread:

Link

This is the closest to an answer you've given:

I addressed your off-topic question in another thread.

How old is the lava dome at Mount St. Helens?

According to radioisotropic dating, the lava dome which formed from October 18, 1980 to October 26, 1986 is 0.35 to 2.8 million years old!

"Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably."

Link

That's not an answer. That's quoting some website.

What is *your* answer? Come on, Rip. Dig deep into that grey matter underneath your skull and come up with some original thought for once.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: conjur
What is *your* answer? Come on, Rip. Dig deep into that grey matter underneath your skull and come up with some original thought for once.

He will lie and insist he has no opinion. It seems he would prefer to troll and lie than enagage in honest debate.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: conjur
What is *your* answer? Come on, Rip. Dig deep into that grey matter underneath your skull and come up with some original thought for once.

He will lie and insist he has no opinion. It seems he would prefer to troll and lie than enagage in honest debate.

He's the worst troll that's ever been on these boards. Jesus is obviously very proud of him.

 

[Bitek]

How could we see this galaxy if the universe was not ancient?
This particular galaxy cluster is ~8 billion light years away. Meaning the photons of light which make up the image are 8 billion years old.


"The group of galaxies ? or "galaxy cluster" ? catalogued as MS1054-03 is 8 billion light-years away, one of the most distant known so far. ...

In the image, streams of stars can be seen being pulled out of the
galaxies, a consequence of the huge tidal forces in action. The red
color of most of the merger remnants means that the stars are old and
not much star formation has "recently" taken place."


The image is of already formed stars and galaxies, so you can easily add at least couple more billion years of time passed before this event occurred. This brings up the minimum age of the universe to many billion years. Plenty of time for our star and planet to form, and certainly enough for the claimed evolutionary events to occur. The age of the world is believed on far more than the radiological dating techniques. Astronomy is just one of them

By your reconing, what was going on for all these long, long years? If the Earth is young, (which you still refuse to opine, but could be easily assumed based on the shared belief of the creationist sites you routinely link to for your arguements and "evidence") how can we see all these stars and galaxies in the sky which are millions and billions of years old/ distant?
Why would a Creator create a young Earth and universe, but then arrange it to appear far more ancient than it really is? Why such elaborate deceptions and frauds? How can you trsut the words of such a Trickster?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Hafen
How could we see this galaxy if the universe was not ancient?
This particular galaxy cluster is ~8 billion light years away. Meaning the photons of light which make up the image are 8 billion years old.


"The group of galaxies ? or "galaxy cluster" ? catalogued as MS1054-03 is 8 billion light-years away, one of the most distant known so far. ...

In the image, streams of stars can be seen being pulled out of the
galaxies, a consequence of the huge tidal forces in action. The red
color of most of the merger remnants means that the stars are old and
not much star formation has "recently" taken place."


The image is of already formed stars and galaxies, so you can easily add at least couple more billion years of time passed before this event occurred. This brings up the minimum age of the universe to many billion years. Plenty of time for our star and planet to form, and certainly enough for the claimed evolutionary events to occur. The age of the world is believed on far more than the radiological dating techniques. Astronomy is just one of them

By your reconing, what was going on for all these long, long years? If the Earth is young, (which you still refuse to opine, but could be easily assumed based on the shared belief of the creationist sites you routinely link to for your arguements and "evidence") how can we see all these stars and galaxies in the sky which are millions and billions of years old/ distant?
Why would a Creator create a young Earth and universe, but then arrange it to appear far more ancient than it really is? Why such elaborate deceptions and frauds? How can you trsut the words of such a Trickster?

Prediction: Rip will post a link to a Genesis website that claims that calculations by astronomers of time and distance in the universe are grossly inaccurate. So he'll claim that we can't possibly know how far away these galaxies actually are.

It's kind of amazing when you think of it: science is incredibly effective in every field of endeavor EXCEPT those that challenge the biblical world view. For some inexplicable reason, in THOSE fields, scientists are just plain incompetent.

 

[dannybin1742]

again:

understanding the time periods we are looking at is key to understanding evolution, if you fail to accept or achknowledge the geologic time of the earth, you shouldn't even be posting on this thread, because you are obvioulsy a right wing nut job,

also stop posting links to creation websites, they do you no good.


again:

about how old is the earth? <-----answer this first


how long have homo sapiens been on earth? <-----answer this second

did dinosaurs exist and how long ago did they walk to earth? <---- answer this third

There is only one problem with this theory: paleoanthroplogists have discovered yhat australopithecines, Homo habilis and Homo erectus existed at the same time in different parts of the world.

and how is this a problem, ever here of migration? evolution does not say one species ends and another one starts, you would be a moron to assume this

 

[dannybin1742]

i have been fololowing the thread since hte start, he has never answered any of my questions, this guy is like scott mcClellan, keep the discussion moving, then when you are a long way into it, say you answered it.. typical



Keep hounding him with my three questions

 

[cwgannon]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
I liked the Sirens. They were hot!

I was wondering. Once my cousin asked me, "Do you believe in evolution, or do you believe in God?" Is it okay (for you) to believe in both, or does one contradict the other?

Contrary to common belief it is possible to believe in them both, in a kind of "Intelligent Design" type manner. Think of God setting in motion physics instead of magic.

Or...

We can apply Occam's Razor, which states that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"...

Well, I'll let you figure out the rest.

 

[cwgannon]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

140 years ago Darwin said: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them."

We already fvcking went over this. Darwin is not a deity, divine being, or whatever else; he is not the equivalent to your Jesus Christ or the head honcho of whatever altar you sacrifice your cattle at. He was wrong in some aspects, just as Galileo was, just as Newton was, and just as Einstein was.

Pull your head out of your ass, please.

 

[cwgannon]

Originally posted by: shira
For some inexplicable reason, in THOSE fields, scientists are just plain incompetent.

Oh yes, it's so very, very inexplicable...

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: cwgannon

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
I liked the Sirens. They were hot!

I was wondering. Once my cousin asked me, "Do you believe in evolution, or do you believe in God?" Is it okay (for you) to believe in both, or does one contradict the other?

Contrary to common belief it is possible to believe in them both, in a kind of "Intelligent Design" type manner. Think of God setting in motion physics instead of magic.

Or...

We can apply Occam's Razor, which states that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"...

Well, I'll let you figure out the rest.

Sounds suspiciously like, "keep it simple stupid". I wonder though, doesn't the human brain already have a problem with oversimplification (and sometimes undersimplification)? How, for instance does Occam explain our ability to stereotype? Somebody could claim to be following Occam's Razor by saying, "See. All dem peepol are like dat. And all doz people are like diz." Lemme look up the theory...stand by...

Okay, this describes it more fittingly, so now I can apply what you said to the context of the discussion...oh wonderous google.

The princible states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum necessary.

So I can make one simple assumption, my postulate which states:
There is a God and God created everything.
This is an assumption because there is no way to prove or disprove it.

Then I can go forward and try and fill in the blanks with the things that there is scientific evidence of. Big Bang, entropic universe, carbon-based molecules, gravitation and celestial bodies, solar systems, atmospheres, hot-cored planetoids, red-shift, fossils, geological stratification, the reptilian brain, photosynthesis, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: cwgannon

Originally posted by: Riprorin

140 years ago Darwin said: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them."

We already fvcking went over this. Darwin is not a deity, divine being, or whatever else; he is not the equivalent to your Jesus Christ or the head honcho of whatever altar you sacrifice your cattle at. He was wrong in some aspects, just as Galileo was, just as Newton was, and just as Einstein was.

Pull your head out of your ass, please.

140 years and millions of fossils later, we're still waiting for research to uncover transitional forms.

 

[cwgannon]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener

Originally posted by: cwgannon

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
I liked the Sirens. They were hot!

I was wondering. Once my cousin asked me, "Do you believe in evolution, or do you believe in God?" Is it okay (for you) to believe in both, or does one contradict the other?

Contrary to common belief it is possible to believe in them both, in a kind of "Intelligent Design" type manner. Think of God setting in motion physics instead of magic.

Or...

We can apply Occam's Razor, which states that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"...

Well, I'll let you figure out the rest.

Sounds suspiciously like, "keep it simple stupid". I wonder though, doesn't the human brain already have a problem with oversimplification (and sometimes undersimplification)? How, for instance does Occam explain our ability to stereotype? Somebody could claim to be following Occam's Razor by saying, "See. All dem peepol are like dat. And all doz people are like diz." Lemme look up the theory...stand by...

Okay, this describes it more fittingly, so now I can apply what you said to the context of the discussion...oh wonderous google.

The princible states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum necessary.

So I can make one simple assumption, my postulate which states:
There is a God and God created everything.
This is an assumption because there is no way to prove or disprove it.

Then I can go forward and try and fill in the blanks with the things that there is scientific evidence of. Big Bang, entropic universe, carbon-based molecules, gravitation and celestial bodies, solar systems, atmospheres, hot-cored planetoids, red-shift, fossils, geological stratification, the reptilian brain, photosynthesis, etc, etc, etc.

No, no, and, again, no.

I'm not going to debate Occam's Razor with you, first of all.

Second, I only used it here to show that there's really no need for him to just randomly, at step number 13 (or something like that), throw in a god. It works fine without a god, and therefore, said god is an unnecessary addition.

 

[cwgannon]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: cwgannon

Originally posted by: Riprorin

140 years ago Darwin said: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them."

We already fvcking went over this. Darwin is not a deity, divine being, or whatever else; he is not the equivalent to your Jesus Christ or the head honcho of whatever altar you sacrifice your cattle at. He was wrong in some aspects, just as Galileo was, just as Newton was, and just as Einstein was.

Pull your head out of your ass, please.

140 years and millions of fossils later, we're still waiting for research to uncover transitional forms.

You are neither the brightest bulb, nor the sharpest knife.

My point was that Darwin was wrong at times; meaning that, we may very well not uncover your oh-so-crucial transitional forms.

Does this throw out the entire theory of evolution? You fvcking wish.