tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Well said. Good science attempts to remove human biases from the picture, but it's unavoidably a human effort just like everything else we do. So good science is hard. It's really hard to have a serious exchange of ideas with a clown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 E-rock I've seen debates on this shit over and over. Nobody wins. Nobody can prove any of it. So you choose to beleive your faith that there is no God and I'll choose to beleive what I will. Like I said before I hope your right. Best debaters in the world can't prove either side. So either side takes faith to beleive. So whether you like it or not you have to have faith in something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 did you know the bonobos initiate sex on the average of once every 1.5 hours? Prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 oh my god, i have hair growing on my penile shaft! You're attempted pickup did not go unoticed, though you already admitted previously that you don't have hair on the shaft, so I'm not gonna stick around to find out the hard way. why why why are you so averse to hair transplants? it looks natural! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Seagawk flopping like a halibut on deck. Somebody please, with a baseball bat. Oh, we've tried. Seagal! Steven does not seem to be around these day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 E-rock I've seen debates on this shit over and over. Nobody wins. Nobody can prove any of it. So you choose to beleive your faith that there is no God and I'll choose to beleive what I will. Like I said before I hope your right. Best debaters in the world can't prove either side. So either side takes faith to beleive. So whether you like it or not you have to have faith in something. have to have faith in something? haha. you still haven't responded to olyclimber back on page 3 or something. i'm out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Best debaters in the world can't prove either side. The best debaters on the 'other' side don't bother wasting their time arguing against sound science. The rest are fucking morons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 E-rock I've seen debates on this shit over and over. Nobody wins. Nobody can prove any of it. So you choose to beleive your faith that there is no God and I'll choose to beleive what I will. Like I said before I hope your right. Best debaters in the world can't prove either side. So either side takes faith to beleive. So whether you like it or not you have to have faith in something. Seahawks I guejss you re right. Best debaters awlays decidel and they can't so who kjows right? I eman I'm just gonna got bakc to reading Harry potter and masterbating to Friends reruns rather than try to actually rap my ehad around something that challenges me. You think I could come over you your house and jiz on your Mom's pillow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 You think I could come over you your house and jiz on your Mom's pillow? I think the act of just reading challenges Seahawk. Don't do the pillow thing. Last time somebody did that it mixed with a skid mark and grew up to be Seahawk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Grand Canyon? duno....I got married on the rim 3 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Best debaters in the world can't prove either side. The best debaters on the 'other' side don't bother wasting their time arguing against sound science. The rest are fucking morons. Like I said any theory is possible. But hey this all came from nothing. LOL scientific law makes that impossible. Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic mechanism, they appeal to the "fact of evolution," by which they mean an interpretation of earth history with a succession of different types of plants and animals in a drama spanning hundreds of millions of years. Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts. With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century. However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays. The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.1 The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!2 Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of 14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.2 Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint. The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 220, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 21500000/5730, or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework. This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin. The reality of significant levels of 14C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result! In view of the profound significance of these AMS 14C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS 14C analyses of such fossil material.2 The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses. These values fall squarely within the range already established in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian. Although the number of samples is small, we observe little difference in 14C level as a function of position in the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cenozoic is the product of the Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common 14C age. Percent Modern Carbon Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years (2-50000/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today. If one takes as a rough estimate for the total 14C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a 14C/12C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). Even though these estimates are rough, they illustrate the crucial importance of accounting for effects of the Flood cataclysm when translating a 14C/12C ratio into an actual age. Percent Modern Carbon Some readers at this point may be asking, how does one then account for the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years that other radioisotope methods yield for the fossil record? Most of the other RATE projects address this important issue. Equally as persuasive as the 14C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.3 Another RATE project documents the existence of abundant Polonium radiohalos in granitic rocks that crystallized during the Flood and further demonstrates that the uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rates is incorrect.4 Another RATE project provides clues for why the 14C decay rate apparently was minimally affected during episodes of rapid decay of isotopes with long half-lives.5 The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. Acknowledgement: The RATE team would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to the many generous donors who have made the high precision analyses at some of the best laboratories in the world possible. The credibility of our work in creation science research depends on these costly but crucial laboratory procedures. Dr. Baumgardner is Adjunct Associate Professor of Geophysics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 (edited) Seahawks, why don't you suck a fuck? Exactly how does one suck a fuck? I don't know, best debators (like the valedictorian who was on my high school debate team) can't decide. YOu are the most retarded fuck this website has ever seen. And I'm not saying this to WIN an argument, I'm just saying it to hurt your feelings. Edited January 12, 2007 by E-rock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 E rock you like that article huh??? That guy is alot smarter that you fuck head. Did you read it??? I bet not becuase you like your head in your ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 is this in spray? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 is this in spray? Yes, retard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 BTW Crux, if you really believe science as produced comparable levels of proof for gravity and evolution, you're a perfect example of what I am talking about. Just keep on uncritically believing whatever the High Priests of the scientific establishment tell you. Today's lesson: Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Class dismissed. (Oh, and Cretin, please cut loose from the big wad of drivel -- you know the one, it's hanging from your mouth and mixed with words like "science" and "religion" as though they were concepts you just couldn't keep down.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 is this in spray? Yes, retard LOL now that is funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rooster Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Go back to the docks, Seahawk scavenger, or I'll peck your eyes out. COCK A DOODLE DOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Well said. Good science attempts to remove human biases from the picture, but it's unavoidably a human effort just like everything else we do. So good science is hard. It's really hard to have a serious exchange of ideas with a clown. No doubt. I think that pretty much sums up this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 is this in spray? Yes, retard LOL now that is funny dont you mean your funny looking? ass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 A: Murder is immoral. B: Immorality is subjective. A: Yes, but subjectivity is objective. B: Not in a rational scheme of perception. A: Perception is irrational. It implies imminence. B: But judgment of any system of phenomena exists in any rational, metaphysical or epistemological contradiction to an abstracted empirical concept such as being, or to be, or to occur in the thing itself, or of the thing itself. A: Yeah, I've said that many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 It's really hard to have a serious exchange of ideas with a clown. No doubt. I think that pretty much sums up this thread. Kevbone and Seahawk have found each other once again, like two sticky turns in an outhouse barrel. I used to believe there was no such thing as perpetual motion. Later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 f... of tvashtarkatena. and i thought we were friends Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra_Commander Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 E rock you like that article huh??? That guy is alot smarter that you fuck head. Did you read it??? I bet not becuase you like your head in your ass. Internet fight!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Debate Club tryouts are over. Don't call us, we'll call you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.