Anyone can troll a website, but it takes talent to troll a whole town
-
Skyhook79
They could earn way more money not working with AIG and trying to dis- prove creation.sleeper;1147869 wrote:I'm not going to challenge their credentials, but I will challenge their true intentions at AiG. They are simply doing what they need to do to earn a paycheck for their family. AiG is probably a well funded group and they probably pay good money to try to use faux science to prove their unproveable theories.
Curious, is there a link to their research? I'd be interested in seeing how me, a person with a limited background in astrophysics, could absolutely shed their research with simple logic games.
Hope this helps. -
Automatik
Religion is a hilarious topic on this forum. Keep it up boys!:thumbup: -
SportsAndLady
How in the hell is this thread 500 posts deep? -
vball10set
dogging sleeper, and you?Raw Dawgin' it;1148150 wrote:What have you brought to the table in this thread? -
Terry_Tate
My only conclusion after glancing through this thread is that if it wasn't already obvious enough, sleeper has a ton of time to get in pointless arguments, haha. -
sleeper
This is an opinion not fact. Given that people tend to want more money as opposed to less, it is easy to conclude they are making a salary greater or equal to their value on the open labor market. Nice try though. They peddle shit for money and laugh at it for money. It's EZ.Skyhook79;1148205 wrote:They could earn way more money not working with AIG and trying to dis- prove creation.
Hope this helps. -
Skyhook79
What does that have to do with these particular people's motives and why they work with AIG? Keep digging your hole though.sleeper;1148303 wrote:This is an opinion not fact. Given that people tend to want more money as opposed to less, it is easy to conclude they are making a salary greater or equal to their value on the open labor market. Nice try though. They peddle shit for money and laugh at it for money. It's EZ. -
jmog
Look up any type of population growth model you like and put in the population growth rates of humans. I've put in the current growth rates into about 4 or 5 models and each one comes up with 4000-10,000 years to go from 2 people to 7 billion.sleeper;1148129 wrote:Yeah and I'd love to see how we all came from Noah's family tree as well. Are we all ancestors of Noah and is every human ****ing one of their cousins? Also, in 6,000 years, how can one family reproduce enough children to spawn 7 billion people, all with the diversity of different races and lineage?
Sorry, jmog, you may be a "scientist" in your own little world, but you have lost all credibility. You've been called out, time to man up.
You really should take a pre-calculus class and learn some population grown math before you look stupid. -
sleeper
So we all came from 1 family? LOLjmog;1148324 wrote:Look up any type of population growth model you like and put in the population growth rates of humans. I've put in the current growth rates into about 4 or 5 models and each one comes up with 4000-10,000 years to go from 2 people to 7 billion.
You really should take a pre-calculus class and learn some population grown math before you look stupid.
What does the Bible say about fucking your sister, jmog?
#ruined -
sleeper
AiG likely paid a premium for PhD's so they can have the "credibility" when their work is published. Any credible rational person can see right through the BS they peddle though.Skyhook79;1148318 wrote:What does that have to do with these particular people's motives and why they work with AIG? Keep digging your hole though. -
jmog
You can go with ad hominem attacks and generalities, or you can answer the question.I Wear Pants;1148137 wrote:Oh I see, you don't believe in radiometric dating or science at all. And since we have about 5000 years of recorded history to use that leaves 1000 years for humans to evolve from the very first life into humans and for humans to develop the ability to write and record history and such. Prove that. Or assuming you're even more retarded and don't believe in evolution give any shred of evidence at all that a magical/supernatural being intentionally created humans in the manner described in the Bible (I say that because you're surely Christian so that's the basis of your beliefs. If you were merely a theist but not any particular type you'd still have the difficult task of providing evidence that a deity created the world/man but it would be a bit easier since it wouldn't be as specific as any single religious belief).
Give me any method, at all, that validates your claim that the world is 6000 years old. And you can't use the Bible. Because there are thousands and thousands of peer reviewed articles detailing radiometric dating, fossil records, geologic records, etc, etc that support my claim that the earth is much older. I haven't seen any that support your claim that weren't published by Christians.
Give me one very specific dating method that validates your claim. I like to talk about one at a time. -
jmog
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002202480500984Xsleeper;1148129 wrote:Yeah and I'd love to see how we all came from Noah's family tree as well. Are we all ancestors of Noah and is every human ****ing one of their cousins? Also, in 6,000 years, how can one family reproduce enough children to spawn 7 billion people, all with the diversity of different races and lineage?
Sorry, jmog, you may be a "scientist" in your own little world, but you have lost all credibility. You've been called out, time to man up.
I'll let you guess which name is mine. It was published in the Journal of Crystal Growth and funded by the NSF and NASA. That is one of my 3 publications I did when I was in the academic sector.
Any other baseless claims? -
jmog
So sleeper, do the math, doesn't the whole population, even if you believe in evolution, have to come from a VERY small homo sapien population to begin with? With say 2 to 10 humans?sleeper;1148328 wrote:So we all came from 1 family? LOL
What does the Bible say about ****ing your sister, jmog?
#ruined
Use this logic you say you have.
Actually the Bible was 'ok' with marrying a sister or cousin until the population was large enough that this wasn't needed. If you were such a catholic boy growing up like you said you were, you would know this. -
jmog
Now your claim is that the scientists for AiG are only there because AiG pays better than what they could get in the public sector?sleeper;1148330 wrote:AiG likely paid a premium for PhD's so they can have the "credibility" when their work is published. Any credible rational person can see right through the BS they peddle though.
Goodness you are really ignorant of how things really work aren't you. -
sleeper
Wrong. Where have a made any claim in this entire thread?jmog;1148347 wrote:So sleeper, do the math, doesn't the whole population, even if you believe in evolution, have to come from a VERY small homo sapien population to begin with? With say 2 to 10 humans?
Use this logic you say you have.
Actually the Bible was 'ok' with marrying a sister or cousin until the population was large enough that this wasn't needed. If you were such a catholic boy growing up like you said you were, you would know this.
When you bang your wife, just remember she came from Noah. LOL How does it feel to bang your sister? -
sleeper
That's exactly what I'm saying. Why else would they volunteer to peddle shit science?jmog;1148349 wrote:Now your claim is that the scientists for AiG are only there because AiG pays better than what they could get in the public sector?
Goodness you are really ignorant of how things really work aren't you. -
sleeper
I've got a few papers too. Doesn't mean I'm a scientist. Let me guess, you blew one of the actual people who wrote it so you could claim you are a credible scientist? Where are your papers proving 100% that god exists? LOLjmog;1148338 wrote:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002202480500984X
I'll let you guess which name is mine. It was published in the Journal of Crystal Growth and funded by the NSF and NASA. That is one of my 3 publications I did when I was in the academic sector.
Any other baseless claims?
#fraud -
DeyDurkie5
fuck your claims. shit is retarded. Noah's ark didn't fucking happen and if you think it did, you are a nutjob. Maybe some other shit did happen in the bible, but get the fuck out of here with that gay story. -
I Wear Pants
First. Where was the ad hominem attack?jmog;1148334 wrote:You can go with ad hominem attacks and generalities, or you can answer the question.
Give me one very specific dating method that validates your claim. I like to talk about one at a time.
The fossil record.
You're just like every other creationist in this regard. You try to find the gaps in other theories instead of presenting any evidence at all to support yours. With the fossil record in regards to evolution for example you'd probably say something along the lines of "well we don't have fossils from in between x and y so macro evolution doesn't happen". But then we show or find a specimen between x and y and does this type of person say "you're right, that is evidence of macro evolution"? No, they see this as now two gaps we have to explain. Ad infinitum. Michael Shermer I believe explains this more eloquently in one of his books.
It's baffling that someone who claims to be a scientist doesn't respect science. (Another qualm I have, if your claim to being a scientist is "well I have been published in x journal", which I think is a notable achievement, why is it that you dismiss the likely hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles published in respected journals that support the idea that the earth is vastly older than 6000 years old?).
Also, while I still think it's silly for anyone who has seen the evidence to dispute macro evolution I can say that factually anyone who says micro evolution does not occur is a fucking moron. Like, should be removed from society stupid. -
Raw Dawgin' it
You haven't dogged anyone but yourself.vball10set;1148289 wrote:dogging sleeper, and you?
Hope this helps. -
vball10set
Oh, the irony :rolleyes:Raw Dawgin' it;1148552 wrote:You haven't dogged anyone but yourself.
Hope this helps. -
Raw Dawgin' it
"Oh, I've got nothing" :rolleyes:vball10set;1148559 wrote:Oh, the irony :rolleyes: -
jmog
The fossil record itself is not a dating technique.I Wear Pants;1148473 wrote:First. Where was the ad hominem attack?
The fossil record.
You're just like every other creationist in this regard. You try to find the gaps in other theories instead of presenting any evidence at all to support yours. With the fossil record in regards to evolution for example you'd probably say something along the lines of "well we don't have fossils from in between x and y so macro evolution doesn't happen". But then we show or find a specimen between x and y and does this type of person say "you're right, that is evidence of macro evolution"? No, they see this as now two gaps we have to explain. Ad infinitum. Michael Shermer I believe explains this more eloquently in one of his books.
It's baffling that someone who claims to be a scientist doesn't respect science. (Another qualm I have, if your claim to being a scientist is "well I have been published in x journal", which I think is a notable achievement, why is it that you dismiss the likely hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles published in respected journals that support the idea that the earth is vastly older than 6000 years old?).
Also, while I still think it's silly for anyone who has seen the evidence to dispute macro evolution I can say that factually anyone who says micro evolution does not occur is a ****ing moron. Like, should be removed from society stupid.
I absolutely DO respect science, but what I can, and DO see is that current science has evolved away from the scientific method. It used to be that a scientist started with a hypothesis/assumption and tested it to see if it was true or not and then published the results.
Far too often now scientists start with that they "know" to be true and taylor the data to "prove" their hypothesis. This happens on all sides, including the "creationist" one, so don't think I am bashing evolutionary scientists here.
If you don't believe this happens, or don't believe then I am sorry but you don't understand how scientific research funding is done in this modern era.
Now, back to the fossil record, it is not in itself a dating method, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.
However, if you are referring to where the fossils are found in the rock layers then I will talk some about that.
Once the PhD Physical Chemists got it through the other scientists thick heads that Carbon 14 dating was crap for anything over 50,000 years old due to the very short (~5000 years) half life of Carbon 14, the scientists starting coming up with other dating methods to stick to their claims.
Now, once you start using the rock layer to date the fossil it gets dicey. For the longest time they really didn't have a good dating technique for the rocks, so their only method was "well we know this type of fossil (say from a dinosaur) must be 70 million years old from evolution, so this rock must be 70 million years old" Then when they did something out of the same layer somewhere else "well, from previous results we know this rock is 70 million years old, so this new fossil must be 70 million years old".
That is the definition of circular reasoning and faults in on itself.
Since then they have come up with some pretty sophisticated rock dating techniques like Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) and Potassium Argon (K-Ar). These ones are pretty interesting discussions and one of my favorites since it is up my alley.
Please let me know if you want to go onto this next subject.
Also, while I most certainly do "poke holes" at the current dating methods, that doesn't mean there is no evidence or whatever for a young earth. I suggest reading some of the technical papers under this link. I'm not sure about all of them (some seam reaching) but others are good.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/young-age-evidence -
Skyhook79
Somewhere sleeper is mumbling to himself in a corner.jmog;1148564 wrote:The fossil record itself is not a dating technique.
I absolutely DO respect science, but what I can, and DO see is that current science has evolved away from the scientific method. It used to be that a scientist started with a hypothesis/assumption and tested it to see if it was true or not and then published the results.
Far too often now scientists start with that they "know" to be true and taylor the data to "prove" their hypothesis. This happens on all sides, including the "creationist" one, so don't think I am bashing evolutionary scientists here.
If you don't believe this happens, or don't believe then I am sorry but you don't understand how scientific research funding is done in this modern era.
Now, back to the fossil record, it is not in itself a dating method, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.
However, if you are referring to where the fossils are found in the rock layers then I will talk some about that.
Once the PhD Physical Chemists got it through the other scientists thick heads that Carbon 14 dating was crap for anything over 50,000 years old due to the very short (~5000 years) half life of Carbon 14, the scientists starting coming up with other dating methods to stick to their claims.
Now, once you start using the rock layer to date the fossil it gets dicey. For the longest time they really didn't have a good dating technique for the rocks, so their only method was "well we know this type of fossil (say from a dinosaur) must be 70 million years old from evolution, so this rock must be 70 million years old" Then when they did something out of the same layer somewhere else "well, from previous results we know this rock is 70 million years old, so this new fossil must be 70 million years old".
That is the definition of circular reasoning and faults in on itself.
Since then they have come up with some pretty sophisticated rock dating techniques like Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) and Potassium Argon (K-Ar). These ones are pretty interesting discussions and one of my favorites since it is up my alley.
Please let me know if you want to go onto this next subject.
Also, while I most certainly do "poke holes" at the current dating methods, that doesn't mean there is no evidence or whatever for a young earth. I suggest reading some of the technical papers under this link. I'm not sure about all of them (some seam reaching) but others are good.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/young-age-evidence -
vball10set
You are correct, sir :thumbup:Raw Dawgin' it;1148561 wrote:"Oh, I've got nothing" :rolleyes: