Anyone can troll a website, but it takes talent to troll a whole town

• LJ

  

  Herbivore*
• cruiser_96

  

  Gblock;1148600 wrote:so how did life begin on this planet then?

  This is the one that always intrigues me.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1148761 wrote:This is the one that always intrigues me.

  Nobody knows for sure except Catholics because the Bible says God did it.
• Gblock

  cruiser_96;1148761 wrote:This is the one that always intrigues me.

  thats my point i guess because if you believe in evolution you have to have about as much "FAITH" as a creationist because that theory is full of just as much fail. especially the part about life beginning. that is as farfetched as any flood story. personally i believe in a mix of evolution and creation. but i go back and forth a lot as i get older
• I Wear Pants

  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

  Dude, all of those that I read use the Bible as a source and thus are invalid. I want purely scientific evidence that the earth is 6000 years old. Which you probably won't be able to show.
  
  I can find some book that claims to be from a god and says that 9500 years ago man roamed the earth with unicorns and other outlandish claims. You would expect me to provide proof outside of my holy book and you'd be reasonable for that expectation.
  
  And you're right about Carbon 14 dating being limited to about 50,000 years but that's why it's used for younger rocks.
  
  Potassium Argon is a much better method for older rocks.
  
  Also, did you just say there are things that are 50,000 years old or older? If so I think you should probably stop defending the "earth is 6000 years old" idea.
• vball10set

  sleeper;1148720 wrote: vball is a terrible, if not the worst, troll anti-body of all time.

  sorry, fry cook, but you've sewn up this distinction long, long ago...btw, isn't there a time limit on computer usage in the public library?
• sleeper

  

  Gblock;1148769 wrote:thats my point i guess because if you believe in evolution you have to have about as much "FAITH" as a creationist because that theory is full of just as much fail. especially the part about life beginning. that is as farfetched as any flood story. personally i believe in a mix of evolution and creation. but i go back and forth a lot as i get older

  Evolution isn't a belief, its a theory. The difference between belief and theory is a belief is that something did happen according to those who believe, and a theory is a falsifiable explanation for an event for which a conclusion has yet to be drawn. Believers always try to mix the two so they can attribute the same level of proof as they require, but they are entirely different. This is a logical loophole built in for believers, don't buy it, only the delusional buy it.
• vball10set

  sleeper;1148766 wrote:Nobody knows for sure except Catholics and all non-atheists/agnostics because the Bible says God did it.

  
• Gblock

  sleeper;1148773 wrote:Evolution isn't a belief, its a theory. The difference between belief and theory is a belief is that something did happen according to those who believe, and a theory is a falsifiable explanation for an event for which a conclusion has yet to be drawn. Believers always try to mix the two so they can attribute the same level of proof as they require, but they are entirely different. This is a logical loophole built in for believers, don't buy it, only the delusional buy it.

  so how do you think/theorize/believe that life came to be on this planet?
• I Wear Pants

  Gblock;1148769 wrote:thats my point i guess because if you believe in evolution you have to have about as much "FAITH" as a creationist because that theory is full of just as much fail. especially the part about life beginning. that is as farfetched as any flood story. personally i believe in a mix of evolution and creation. but i go back and forth a lot as i get older

  No you don't have to have faith.
  
  I'm paraphrasing Dawkins here. We have an esimated 1-30 billion planets in our galaxy and there's roughly 100 billion galaxies in the universe. So a really conservative estimate of the number of planets in the universe is a billion billion. So let's accept then that the starting of life or a DNA equivalent was ridiculously improbable. A billion to one. Even if it's that improbable life would have started on a billion planets.
  
  Of course that probability was just an example. It could have been more or less an improbable event. But when you're playing with the kinds of numbers the universe provides high improbability does not mean it will not happen. And either way that kind of improbability in no means makes "god did it" any more intelligent of an answer. Because the probability of a god (in the sense of the Christian god for this example) existing would certainly be lower.
  
  And I think the current train of thought is more on the RNA level rather than DNA level as far as the starting of life.
  
  This is sort of relevant, merely posting it since it's interesting though: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120419-xna-synthetic-dna-evolution-genetics-life-science/
• sleeper

  

  Gblock;1148782 wrote:so how do you think/theorize/believe that life came to be on this planet?

  I said I don't know for sure. I think evolution is a fairly good explanation, although its an incomplete theory. There is still a lot of research to be done, but I'm confident science will prevail in the end.
  
  What would you rather bet on? A book written by man 3,000 years ago(or whatever) or cutting edge science constantly researching, testing, re-testing, building on itself, testing, more testing, etc?
• I Wear Pants

  What's great about science is that when they find a new or better explanation for something they look at the old one and say "oh, this is no good". When theists find a new explanation for something they don't look at their old idea and say "this is no good" they look at it and try to figure out how to fit it into their existing idea.
• sleeper

  

  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.

  No one else caught the massive hypocrisy in this statement? This is essentially what AiG is doing. They "know" the Bible is true and they are using their data to form that hypothesis. I don't see how that happens in an unbiased world looking for the "truth".
  
  I'm glad people are calling jmog out on this.
• jmog

  Raw Dawgin' it;1148602 wrote:This is out of the FIRST article
  
  
  
  How many articles do we have to scan through to find ones that back up your argument?

  Way to cherry pick ones that are completely written for Christians only and are based on theological reasons only. The site makes it really easy and actually tells you which articles are technical based.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1148835 wrote:Way to cherry pick ones that are completely written for Christians only and are based on theological reasons only. The site makes it really easy and actually tells you which articles are technical based.

  But even the technical ones are based upon the idea that the Bible is correct which is a massive assumption and something you claimed to have disdain for in your post.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1148835 wrote:Way to cherry pick ones that are completely written for Christians only and are based on theological reasons only. The site makes it really easy and actually tells you which articles are technical based.

  Have you actually ever read any of their "technical based" research? It's pure garbage.
• jmog

  sleeper;1148805 wrote:No one else caught the massive hypocrisy in this statement? This is essentially what AiG is doing. They "know" the Bible is true and they are using their data to form that hypothesis. I don't see how that happens in an unbiased world looking for the "truth".
  
  I'm glad people are calling jmog out on this.

  You have reading comprehension problems. I stated exactly that in the post you quoted!
  
  I said that both sides of the debate do this.
  
  Learn to read for crying out loud.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1148840 wrote:But even the technical ones are based upon the idea that the Bible is correct which is a massive assumption and something you claimed to have disdain for in your post.

  Read my earlier post. Both sides of the aisle do this. I did say I do not like that type of science. I also never said that link was scientific proof. I was asked for some EVIDENCE which that link most definitely provides some scientific evidence of a young earth.
• Raw Dawgin' it

  

  jmog;1148835 wrote:Way to cherry pick ones that are completely written for Christians only and are based on theological reasons only. The site makes it really easy and actually tells you which articles are technical based.

  lol cherry pick? IT WAS THE VERY FIRST ARTICLE!
• jmog

  sleeper;1148841 wrote:Have you actually ever read any of their "technical based" research? It's pure garbage.

  So papers written by people much smarter than me and definitely you in science wrote them and in your vast wisdom you declare them to be garbage? To each their own I guess.
• jmog

  Raw Dawgin' it;1148846 wrote:lol cherry pick? IT WAS THE VERY FIRST ARTICLE!

  Look again. It wasn't hard to see which articles were technical in nature and which ones are not. They spell it out for you.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1148842 wrote:You have reading comprehension problems. I stated exactly that in the post you quoted!
  
  I said that both sides of the debate do this.
  
  Learn to read for crying out loud.

  Saying both sides do this is dishonest. AiG does this 100% of the time with 100% of their research. The "other side" might do this 1% of time with .1% of their research. Saying they both do it is true, but completely misleading. Nice try though, you've been exposed.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1148847 wrote:So papers written by people much smarter than me and definitely you in science wrote them and in your vast wisdom you declare them to be garbage? To each their own I guess.

  They don't believe the shit they are peddling, they are doing it for a paycheck. AiG is paying them more money because they have a PhD next to their name, in return the "scientists" peddle their bullshit and lose all credibility in their work.
  
  This is not a difficult concept to understand unless you are a delusional evangelical with your head in the sand.
• jmog

  sleeper;1148850 wrote:Saying both sides do this is dishonest. AiG does this 100% of the time with 100% of their research. The "other side" might do this 1% of time with .1% of their research. Saying they both do it is true, but completely misleading. Nice try though, you've been exposed.

  I would love to see a link for your statistics. My guess is you have none and it is more crap from sleeper.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1148853 wrote:I would love to see a link for your statistics. My guess is you have none and it is more crap from sleeper.

  I don't have any. Do you?