PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Creationism embarrasment

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Georgia embarrassed over textbook label

Moreno recalled how, after graduating from Georgia public schools, he headed north to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, only to find that people were less than kind about his educational roots.

"They felt Southerners were not only less well educated, but less intelligent," Moreno said.

Doughnut shop worker Maria Jordan, 48, said her Atlanta customers were shaking their heads over the latest dispute. "Lord, don't we have more important things to worry about?" she asked. "It's just a flat-out embarrassment."

As for what they are saying elsewhere around the country, she said: "Whatever Georgia's getting up north, we're putting it on ourselves."



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:21 AM on November 13, 2004 | IP
monster618

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are many good religious Christian people living in this country who are model citizens...

...there are also plenty of them that feel a need to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats and will stop at nothing to discredit those that don't agree with their beliefs. I have personally come across so many misquotes in many Creationist sites - mainly, quotes by chemists and biologists taken out of context to support the Creationist agenda. This is inexcuable - college students get expelled for lesser things than what these Creationists do on their sites.

This tells me that this is more about Creationists validating their weakening faith to themselves than about getting to the truth. Why else would they be so unscrupulous?
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 8:26 PM on November 14, 2004 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from monster618 at 8:26 PM on November 14, 2004 :


...there are also plenty of them that feel a need to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats and will stop at nothing to discredit those that don't agree with their beliefs. I have personally come across so many misquotes in many Creationist sites - mainly, quotes by chemists and biologists taken out of context to support the Creationist agenda. This is inexcuable - college students get expelled for lesser things than what these Creationists do on their sites.

Why don't you give examples. You can say anything. I could just as easily say evolutionist eat their own children. Would that make it true?

This tells me that this is more about Creationists validating their weakening faith to themselves than about getting to the truth. Why else would they be so unscrupulous?
When personal attacks are your only agrument you lose before you start.
You just make broad statements you make up.
Be specific, give examples. Where do you get the idea that Creationist faith is weakening? The National Center for Selling Evolution? Talk/origins? Make it up yourself?






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 01:26 AM on June 8, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why don't you give examples. You can say anything.

Why you of course!  You have so many misquotes and quote mined so many real scientists, you're dishonesty is appalling!

When personal attacks are your only agrument you lose before you start.

No personal attack, just a valid observation....

Be specific, give examples. Where do you get the idea that Creationist faith is weakening?

From this article, called The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary:
NoFaith
"By the time I entered graduate school, I had discovered Christian geologist Davis Young's book, Christianity and the Age of the Earth. I had read his first book, Creation and The Flood, a few years before, and, although it sowed seeds of doubt about the young earth, I had not changed my views. But as I read this book, I saw that the scientific arguments for a young earth were completely untenable. I found that all the other Christian graduate students had problems with YECS geological arguments. And so, although it was painful, I asked myself if I wanted to continue to believe in something that is quite plainly wrong. I decided I did not, and so rejected the young earth position."

Here's a website with a number of stories of creationists losing their faith when confronted with the real validity of the evidence for an old earth and evolution:
NoFaithII

Here's a link to Glenn Mortons story:
GMORTON
"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry.  I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.  One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.  I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him."

Here's another one:
NoFaithIII
"There is a very real danger in these pronouncements. When one bases their faith upon the rise or fall of a scientific theory, they are on real "sinking sand." When I left for college, I believed these sorts of either/or statements - many people do. If I had learned the facts of geology or biology or physics or astronomy or anthropology or geochronology or ... under the teaching of someone other than a godly professor, the crisis to my faith would have been much more severe. I feel it is very unlikely that I would be a Christian today. I would probably be a bitter agnostic and not because of science but because my Christianity set me up to fail."

Enough examples for you, I could keep this up all day!




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:55 AM on June 11, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Demon38 at 04:55 AM on June
Why you of course!  You have so many misquotes and quote mined so many real scientists, you're dishonesty is appalling!

Be specific , any idiot can make broad statements.



From this article, called The Testimony of a Formerly Young Earth Missionary:
NoFaith
"By the time I entered graduate school, I had discovered Christian geologist Davis Young's book, Christianity and the Age of the Earth. I had read his first book, Creation and The Flood, a few years before, and, although it sowed seeds of doubt about the young earth, I had not changed my views. But as I read this book, I saw that the scientific arguments for a young earth were completely untenable. I found that all the other Christian graduate students had problems with YECS geological arguments. And so, although it was painful, I asked myself if I wanted to continue to believe in something that is quite plainly wrong. I decided I did not, and so rejected the young earth position."

Here's a website with a number of stories of creationists losing their faith when confronted with the real validity of the evidence for an old earth and evolution:
NoFaithII

Here's a link to Glenn Mortons story:
GMORTON
"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry.  I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question.  One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!'  A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute.  There has to be one!"  But he could not name one.  I can not name one.  No one else could either.  One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry.  I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him."

Here's another one:
NoFaithIII
"There is a very real danger in these pronouncements. When one bases their faith upon the rise or fall of a scientific theory, they are on real "sinking sand." When I left for college, I believed these sorts of either/or statements - many people do. If I had learned the facts of geology or biology or physics or astronomy or anthropology or geochronology or ... under the teaching of someone other than a godly professor, the crisis to my faith would have been much more severe. I feel it is very unlikely that I would be a Christian today. I would probably be a bitter agnostic and not because of science but because my Christianity set me up to fail."

Enough examples for you, I could keep this up all day!


I read that drivel at talk origins long ago. I could give you plenty of examples of why I have no reason to believe it.
Even if it is true I can give you many , many more examples why he is wrong.
My Father was a brilliant geologist and found gas and oil and he believed it was fromed from plant material during Noah/s Flood.
So does the world's leading expert on plate techtonics .

U.S. News and World Report called Dr. Baumgardner ‘the world’s preeminent expert in the design of computer convection.’

A little more impressive that Morton don't you think?
That was a silly question, of course you don't.








-------
peddler  


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:40 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I read that drivel at talk origins long ago. I could give you plenty of examples of why I have no reason to believe it.

you asked for examples, I gave you examples!  What's the matter can't handle the "TRUTH"?

Even if it is true I can give you many , many more examples why he is wrong.

I never asked you for examples, you're alwasy wrong!

My Father was a brilliant geologist and found gas and oil and he believed it was fromed from plant material during Noah/s Flood.

if he believed that, he was ignorant!  No modern geologist believes that!  Simply not enough plant material in any one time period to produce coal, oil or natrual gas!  It takes hundreds of millions of years for enough organic material to accumulate to account for the amounts of oil, coal and gas in the earth.  it is simply impossible for Noah's flood to account for this!  So your "brilliant" father was compoletely wrong, just like you!

So does the world's leading expert on plate techtonics .

Show your evidence and what work he did on oil formation!  All geologists agree, a world wide flood is impossible.  Your expert believed in Noah's flood dogmatically and had no evidence to back up his belief, so mentioning him, without evidence to back up his claim is worthless.


U.S. News and World Report called Dr. Baumgardner ‘the world’s preeminent expert in the design of computer convection.’


So what, Baumgardner has been refuted numerous times, and how can you explain the fact that he is a very tiny minority, the vsat majority of geologists agree, a world wide flood is impossible.  Simple math shows us there is NOT ENOUGH WATER ON THE PLANET TO COVER ALL LAND!  hey, start a thread on the feasablitiy of a world wide flood, see how fast it gets torn to pieces!

A little more impressive that Morton don't you think?
That was a silly question, of course you don't.


You're absolutely right, why wouldn't i think a respectable, intelligent geologist who backs up all his claims with solid evidence is more impressive than one who has been soundly refuted numerous times, has used bogus data to support his theories and is a religious fanatic to boot.  yeah, there's no comparison...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:56 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:56 AM on June 12, 2005 :
you asked for examples, I gave you examples!  What's the matter can't handle the "TRUTH"?

At least I recognize it when i see it. Talk origins is a joke.


My Father was a brilliant geologist and found gas and oil and he believed it was fromed from plant material during Noah/s Flood.

if he believed that, he was ignorant!  No modern geologist believes that!  Simply not enough plant material in any one time period to produce coal, oil or natrual gas!  It takes hundreds of millions of years for enough organic material to accumulate to account for the amounts of oil, coal and gas in the earth.  it is simply impossible for Noah's flood to account for this!  So your "brilliant" father was compoletely wrong, just like you!

If you  are going to insult my dead Father at least have the courtesy to spell "completely" correctly.
For an idiot he found a lot of oil and gas and got paid a hell of a lot of money for doing so.
It does show what a low life you are to talk about somebodys parents when there is nothing they can do about. If anybody defends you for that they are lowlives as well.
BTW only an imbecile would make the remark that it takes millions of years to produce oil and gas since it has been done in the lab in 6 weeks at 150 degrees.
Not to mention if it was that old you could not "date" it with the radiocarbon method.
Quick Coals
That coal could form in periods ranging from two weeks up to one year has been shown by Randall Winans of the Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois. In work to be described at the International Organic Geochemistry Conference in the Netherlands (September), Winans and his colleagues have made simple coals by heating lignin—a sort of glue for the cellulose fibres in woody plants—to about 300 degrees Fahrenheit in the presence of clays. Winans has claimed that the clays appear to serve as catalysts to enable a far more rapid production of coal than many scientists have been prepared to accept.

Science News, Vol. 124, August 6, 1983.

This has beeen known since 1983 and ye you are unaware of it. Of course edit -find on this page confuses you as well.
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10


Show your evidence and what work he did on oil formation!  All geologists agree, a world wide flood is impossible.  Your expert believed in Noah's flood dogmatically and had no evidence to back up his belief, so mentioning him, without evidence to back up his claim is worthless.

If he is a geologist, which he is , then all geologist do not agree. Are you really as stupid as you seem?
He has lots of evidence, just because it does not agree with your religious beliefs does not change that.


U.S. News and World Report called Dr. Baumgardner ‘the world’s preeminent expert in the design of computer convection.’


So what, Baumgardner has been refuted numerous times, and how can you explain the fact that he is a very tiny minority, the vsat majority of geologists agree, a world wide flood is impossible.  Simple math shows us there is NOT ENOUGH WATER ON THE PLANET TO COVER ALL LAND!  hey, start a thread on the feasablitiy of a world wide flood, see how fast it gets torn to pieces!
There is nothing simple about the math and there is enough water . The world was very different then as all scientist agree.
They don't all agree how it was arrainged but no one was there and no one knows for sure. All the models for plate tectonics are hypothetical.
Dr. Baumgardners model is the only one that explains how why they started moving.
He has never been refuted. You are not intellectually capable of understanding what that means.
To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

You can't prove anyone is wrong about this. You can only agree or disagree with the theories.
"
A little more impressive that Morton don't you think?
That was a silly question, of course you don't.
"

You're absolutely right, why wouldn't i think a respectable, intelligent geologist who backs up all his claims with solid evidence is more impressive than one who has been soundly refuted numerous times, has used bogus data to support his theories and is a religious fanatic to boot.  yeah, there's no comparison...

Bogus data? What is that? You are not even bright enough to recognize the insult.
I said:
A little more impressive that Morton don't you think?
That was a silly question, of course you don't.
"
I doubt you got it that time either.
Glenn Morton is a Moron.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp

BTW -If you hit edit-find on this page you can find stuff , on that page.
Most people find that a self evident truth, you sem to find it impossible to grasp.
Why is that?






-------
peddler  


Posts: 242 | Posted: 6:46 PM on June 13, 2005 |
IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

At least I recognize it when i see it. Talk origins is a joke

Hahaha, all you can do is rant ineffectively since you can't back up anything you say...Why is TalkOrigins a joke?  Because an ignorant boob like you doesn't understand it?  
I haven't seen you refute ANYTHING from Talkorigins yet!  And as to your statement, all my examples weren't from Talkorigins,
NoFaith:
http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/zorn.html

NoFaithII: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm

GMORTON:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

NoFaithIII:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ssmith.htm

Now that's funny, none of those examples came from TalkOrigins...what the hell are you talking about now?

If you  are going to insult my dead Father at least have the courtesy to spell "completely" correctly.

Hey your the one making unfounded claims!
I only call them like I see them!  And if you want to play the spelling game, I'll be happy to join in, up til now I've been ignoring your atrocious spelling, but since you're getting so mad that you have to resort to that, I will too!

For an idiot he found a lot of oil and gas and got paid a hell of a lot of money for doing so.

So you claim, why should I believe you?  And is this the father who was a geologist or the father who was a biologist?  No oil company in existance prospects for oil using a young earth model, none.  

It does show what a low life you are to talk about somebodys parents when there is nothing they can do about. If anybody defends you for that they are lowlives as well.


Yeah and it does show what a moron you are, no one uses an unverifiable source in a debate.
you opened the door by claiming your father was some kind of an expert and then not being able to back that up.  All we have is YOUR word on what he believed or what he found, once again nothing to back it up.  If you don't like how your sources were treated, don't use them anymore!

BTW only an imbecile would make the remark that it takes millions of years to produce oil and gas since it has been done in the lab in 6 weeks at 150 degrees.


In the lab and in nature are 2 different things,
here's what real geologists have to say about oil formation:
OilFormation
"Geologists believe that the oil was formed when those aquatic organisms (plants and animals) died, they sank down to the bottom of the ocean and mixed with the sand and mud on the sea floor. Over and over again they died and covered the sea floor. Layer upon layer formed year after year and then eventually turned into sedimentary rocks, called deposits or formations.
Sometimes the deposits did not contain enough oxygen to completely decompose (rot) the dead plants and animals. The weight of tons of layers of rocks above the animals caused them to change into a thick organic substance we call oil."

You see, first it takes millions of years for layers of dead oranisms to pile up, then it takes millions of years for sedimentry rock to form on top of this.  And please not many oil deposits are under limestone formations, formations that are made up of trillions of dead sea creatures and takes millions of years to form itself!   Then the organic matter must be put under pressure and heated for milliions of years.  You totally ignore all the evidence, you just can't account for it!  And you ignore what every petrogeologist says about the formation of oil!
From here:
Petro
"Oil and gas form over millions of years as the result of the decay of marine organisms. These organisms die and collect on the ocean floor. Sediments such as clay and mud are deposited above these organisms. During burial and compaction, the organic matter becomes heated. Hydrocarbons are formed and are forced out of the source rock into permeable beds such as sandstone."
From here:
PetroII
" Liquid fossil fuels, like petroleum, is formed in areas that geologists believe were once covered by oceans or seas. These fuels were formed when dead plants and animals sank to the bottom of the ocean and were covered by sediments. Over long periods of time (millions of years), pressure, bacterial processes, and heat changed the sediments into sedimentary rocks and the plant and animal remains into oil."
Over long periods of time (millions of years)...
You have shown us NO geologist that has said oil can naturally form in short peroids of time!
You have not backed up your claim!  Oil takes millions of years to form, all the worlds geologists agree!   YOU ARE THE IMBECILE!  

Not to mention if it was that old you could not "date" it with the radiocarbon method.
Quick Coals
That coal could form in periods ranging from two weeks up to one year has been shown by Randall Winans of the Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois. In work to be described at the International Organic Geochemistry Conference in the Netherlands (September), Winans and his colleagues have made simple coals by heating lignin—a sort of glue for the cellulose fibres in woody plants—to about 300 degrees Fahrenheit in the presence of clays. Winans has claimed that the clays appear to serve as catalysts to enable a far more rapid production of coal than many scientists have been prepared to accept.


Once again you attempt to deceive us!  In the lab and in nature are 2 different things!  It takes multiple forests to provide enough organic material to produce coal...How long do you think it would take for 5 or 6 forests to grow and die?  2 weeks?  a year?  A million years? Show me where your source says natural coal is formed in short peroids of time....  Looking at YOUR own source,Argonne
National Laboratory, it says:
Argonne
"As the peat is buried deeper and deeper, the temperature gradually
rises. There is no oxygen input now and all biological activity has
stopped. Oxygen continues to be lost and aromatic carbon increases
even more. There are all sorts of other reactions that the organic
material is undergoing. The details are still not clear. Condensation
reactions, as well as depolymerizations, are occurring. By the way,
the temperature is not very hot. It probably doesn't get any higher
than 150 C. But it cooks for millions of years."

It cooks for millions of years...Your own source refutes your claim conclusively!  Winans
says nothing about the natural formation of coal, he doesn't talk about how long takes for enough organic material to accumulate, so he does nothing to support your claim!  Oil and Coal, according to ALL the experts, takes millions of years to form naturally!  You STILL haven't backed up your claims!

If he is a geologist, which he is , then all geologist do not agree. Are you really as stupid as you seem?

Let me modify that for the religiously impaired,
all geologists who don't believe in silly, unsupported ancient myths...  Once again the overwhelming majority of geologists reject a world wide flood as impossible!  What research did your father do to disprove them..

There is nothing simple about the math and there is enough water .

Nope, impossible, not enough water on the earth.  Start a new thread on Noah's flood  and I'll show you the error of your ways...

Bogus data? What is that

Data that is false, like Baumgardner uses...

You are not even bright enough to recognize the insult.
I said:
A little more impressive that Morton don't you think?
That was a silly question, of course you don't.


And I disagree, Morton is typical geologist, uses  real data, real research, Baumgadner fakes data to support his conclusions, so of course I respect Morton more...

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp


True origin?!?!??!!!  One of the absolutely worse sites on the entire web!  Totally unreliable, totally biased, worthless stuff!!!
And you actaully use them to support your idiotic myths?!?!?!  You're even more stupid than I thought!!!!  

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:20 PM on June 13, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:20 PM on June 13, 2005 :


So you claim, why should I believe you?  And is this the father who was a geologist or the father who was a biologist?  No oil company in existance prospects for oil using a young earth model, none.  

I am calling your bluff.
What does the theory of evolution have to do with where you find oil and gas?


Yeah and it does show what a moron you are, no one uses an unverifiable source in a debate.
You get to override Websters and the Gallop Poll . You gotta throw some kinda bone. :}

you opened the door by claiming your father was some kind of an expert and then not being able to back that up.  All we have is YOUR word on what he believed or what he found, once again nothing to back it up.  If you don't like how your sources were treated, don't use them anymore!
If you choose to disregard that because I won't , not can't , document it that is fine. To speak that way about someones parent's identifies you as a true lowlife.

In the lab and in nature are 2 different things,
here's what real geologists have to say about oil formation:
So Argonne National Labratories , a world renown lab hires fake geologist? You are wigged out

You see, first it takes millions of years for layers of dead oranisms to pile up, then it takes millions of years for sedimentry rock to form on
Over long periods of time (millions of years)...
[/b] Again it was done in the lab. At the higher pressures and temperatures possible in nature it could have happened in days! [/b]

You have shown us NO geologist that has said oil can naturally form in short peroids of time!
You have not backed up your claim!  Oil takes millions of years to form, all the worlds geologists agree!   YOU ARE THE IMBECILE!  
No, they do not all agree. Millions of years is not observable! 6 weeks is. Is that difficult for you to grasp?
It was done in weeks. That is science. Millions of years is imagination. [/b]

Not to mention if it was that old you could not "date" it with the radiocarbon method.
Quick Coals
That coal could form in periods ranging from two weeks up to one year has been shown by Randall Winans of the Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois. In work to be described at the International Organic Geochemistry Conference in the Netherlands (September), Winans and his colleagues have made simple coals by heating lignin—a sort of glue for the cellulose fibres in woody plants—to about 300 degrees Fahrenheit in the presence of clays. Winans has claimed that the clays appear to serve as catalysts to enable a far more rapid production of coal than many scientists have been prepared to accept.


Once again you attempt to deceive us!  In the lab and in nature are 2 different things!
 ]
Listen to yourself . You are saying that experiments and observation is deceitful and imagination is true. You are trying to prove a theory with a  theory and ignoring the known facts. The conditions in nature are often more favorable than in the lab in this case.

It takes multiple forests to provide enough organic material to produce coal...How long do you think it would take for 5 or 6 forests to grow and die?  2 weeks?  a year?  A million years? Show me where your source says natural coal is formed in short peroids of time....  Looking at YOUR own source,Argonne
National Laboratory, it says:
Argonne
"As the peat is buried deeper and deeper, the temperature gradually
rises. There is no oxygen input now and all biological activity has
stopped. Oxygen continues to be lost and aromatic carbon increases
even more. There are all sorts of other reactions that the organic
material is undergoing. The details are still not clear. Condensation
reactions, as well as depolymerizations, are occurring. By the way,
the temperature is not very hot. It probably doesn't get any higher
than 150 C. But it cooks for millions of years."
[/b] I am growing weary of talking to you. It forms in weeks at 150 why does adding millions of years make sense? It is very possible to get much higher temperature in nature but so what? 6 weeks is all it takes. This disproves the theory it take millions of years to produce oil and gas and coal. 6 weeks max. That is a true fact. Millions of years is a story.[/b]

It cooks for millions of years...Your own source refutes your claim conclusively!
They are evolutionist so they will keep saying that no matter what. Heres a news flash. Millions of years is somewhat more than 6 weeks.  

Winans
says nothing about the natural formation of coal, he doesn't talk about how long takes for enough organic material to accumulate, so he does nothing to support your claim!  Oil and Coal, according to ALL the experts, takes millions of years to form naturally!  
No ALL the experts do not agree. There are many creationist geologist and they do not agree. There are many evolutionist who have there doubts. All of your arguments are the same and they are all fallacious.
Creationist are stupid . You say this desoite the fact that most of modern science was started by creationist.
All scientist agree. Which they don't . If they did why would they need more than a few? There would be nothing to discover because you might rock the boat. What if someone disagreed with your discovery? Science would be utterly destroyed because then all scientist would not agree! Pity!
If all scientist agreed the CREATIONIST Galileo would not have been able to refute the sun going around the earth. Most of them agreed so they put him in prison for a while. Same thing with Halton Arp today except he is not a creationist and they exiled him instead of imprisoning him.
And my favorite-ALL evidence is explained by evolution theory. In fact evolution theory is explained by evolution theory.
Please come up with a new argument. [/b]


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:32 PM on June 17, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am calling your bluff.
What does the theory of evolution have to do with where you find oil and gas?


Where did I say evolution determined where we would find oil and gas?  No, it's an old earth model that is successfully used to find oil and gas.  Name one successful oil company that uses a young earth plan for finding oil....

You get to override Websters and the Gallop Poll . You gotta throw some kinda bone. :}

I never have overridden any one, that's you doing that.  But answer the point, why should we believe anything you post about your father?  Why should we even believe he was a doctor?  No, it the best you can do is unverifiable sources, you've got nothing...

If you choose to disregard that because I won't , not can't , document it that is fine. To speak that way about someones parent's identifies you as a true lowlife.

Fine, I disregard it, it is completely false.  Once again, if you don't want me to refute your sources, use better sources!  And an abject liar such as yourself, has no conception of what a lowlife really is...

So Argonne National Labratories , a world renown lab hires fake geologist? You are wigged out

Answer the question, where does it say that this kind of oil production is done in nature?  You avoid the point very nicely, scared to answer it?  

Again it was done in the lab. At the higher pressures and temperatures possible in nature it could have happened in days!

yes, except those conditions aren't found in nature, so your whole point is refuted.

No, they do not all agree. Millions of years is not observable! 6 weeks is. Is that difficult for you to grasp?

hahahaaa!!!!  You are a moron!  Show me anywhere in nature where we observe oil or coal forming in 6 weeks!  Don't be ridiculous!  All the experts agree, in nature, it takes millions of years for coal and oil to form!  You STILL haven't shown us any experts who disagree, or any evidence to the contrary!

That coal could form in periods ranging from two weeks up to one year has been shown by Randall Winans of the Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois. In work to be described at the International Organic Geochemistry Conference in the Netherlands (September), Winans and his colleagues have made simple coals by heating lignin—a sort of glue for the cellulose fibres in woody plants—to about 300 degrees Fahrenheit in the presence of clays. Winans has claimed that the clays appear to serve as catalysts to enable a far more rapid production of coal than many scientists have been prepared to accept.

Nope, you still haven't taken into account the amounts of time needed for organic matter to accumulate and then for the rock formations to form over top of this material.  No, once again you ignore everything to force your point.  Coal and oil take millions of years to form naturally, all the experts agree.

I am growing weary of talking to you.

I know the problem, you're either the stupidest person to walk the earth of the most dishonest.

It forms in weeks at 150 why does adding millions of years make sense?

Because you need millions of years for enough organic material to accumulate and for rock to form over it.  Some coal deposits have the remenants of many forrests, all grown on top of each other, for multiple forrests to grow, die and then a new forrest to grow on top of that takes millions of years.

They are evolutionist so they will keep saying that no matter what. Heres a news flash. Millions of years is somewhat more than 6 weeks.

yeah but Randall Winans is an evolutionist also...so he must be part of the athiest conspiracy too.

No ALL the experts do not agree. There are many creationist geologist and they do not agree.

But they have no evidence to back up their claims, they disagree only because of their dogmatic acceptence of the bible, not because of any scientific evidence.

There are many evolutionist who have there doubts.

Name one evolutionist who doubts an old earth!

All of your arguments are the same and they are all fallacious.
Creationist are stupid . You say this desoite the fact that most of modern science was started by creationist.


Creationism is stupid, it has been completely disproven!  What does modern science being started by creationists have to do with anything?  The theory of evolution wasn't even proposed when most of these creationists were alive.  None of the eidence we have today was available for them.  It is a non point mentioning these creationists from the past and has no bearing on modern evolutionary theory.

What if someone disagreed with your discovery?

If I was a real scientist, my data, my experiments, my observations would be readily available to them, they could confirm or disprove my discovery themselves.  That's how science works.  Something you don't understand.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:45 PM on June 17, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How long do you believe wood takes to petrify?


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 12:02 AM on June 18, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How long do you believe wood takes to petrify?

What does that have to do with anything?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:18 AM on June 18, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Im just not sure what evolisionist believe about it.  

Am i correct in thinking that it forms in the same manner as fossils do and also kinda like oil over millions of years?


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 12:20 PM on June 18, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Im just not sure what evolisionist believe about it.

"Evolutionists" don't study petrified wood, geologists do, so your questin is irrelevant.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:17 AM on June 20, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from skins38 at 12:20 PM on June 18, 2005 :
Im just not sure what evolisionist believe about it.  

Am i correct in thinking that it forms in the same manner as fossils do and also kinda like oil over millions of years?



Petrified wood is a fossil.  It is studied primarily by paleobotanists.   It is formed by permineralization of wood over long periods of time.

Petrified Wood From Western Washington


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:27 PM on June 20, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.