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
     Bombardier beetle

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

like i said before, evolutionists try to explain macro evolution with micro evolution...

and did you ever stop and think, well if creationism were true then maybe, just maybe God intended specific animals to have such features...

also, dont try to explain evolution with fossils...
everything about fossils is wrong... you cannot tell the date of somthing, carbon dating you say? - wrong again, carbon dating does not work - AT ALL...

try and give some real proof on evolution...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:06 PM on November 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

also, dont try to explain evolution with fossils...
everything about fossils is wrong... you cannot tell the date of somthing, carbon dating you say? - wrong again, carbon dating does not work - AT ALL...


These are false statements.

If you want to witness your faith, please be truthful.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:42 PM on November 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, its true carbon dating is not accurate...

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:16 PM on November 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie


Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" Is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science. Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

+-+-+

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:22 PM on November 19, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why is carbon dating wrong?  It has been tested against objects where we know the date and it's proved to be accurate.  And carbon dating is only used to date objects back to 50,000 years.  For older objects, radiometric dating is used and again it is very accurate.  The only reason you claim these methods are unreliable is because it shatters your superstitious myths about the origins of life and the Earth.  You have no evidence to support your specious claims.

"Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities."

Ha ha, the fossil record is testable, observable and measurable, your assertion is flatly wrong.
Evolution is science, and it's been science for the last 150 years.  In all that time the evidence to support the evolution has just grown stronger and stronger.  You still haven't provided any evidence to falsify evolution or support creationism!  Your whole arguement is "I don't believe it and that's that!".
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:32 AM on November 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeros following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations evolved the human race?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:51 PM on November 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

one of Jupiter's moon's -

Small bodies like Io should have lost the heat and energy that it takes to be volcanic a long time ago. How can Io still be volcanic after billions of years? (Leave it to the evolutionist to propose some source of heat and energy.)
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:54 PM on November 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

THAT is the easiest one yet.

Tidal forces heat Io.  This was predicted even before Voyager 1 got there.  Your source is over 20 years out of date.

Tidal forces heating Io

See Peale S.J., Cassen P., Reynolds R.T., Melting of Io by Tidal Dissipation, Science 203, pp 892-894 (1979)   for the prediction of volcanic activity on Io before Voyager.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:19 PM on November 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeros following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations evolved the human race?

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:28 PM on November 20, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeros following it) people right now.


Not if some of them died.  Better check your math.

Rabbits have a much higher reproduction rate. if none of THEM died imagine how many there'd be.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:33 AM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie


If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species. Where are all the bones? And finally, if the population was sufficiently small until only recently, then how could a correspondingly infinitesimally small number of mutations evolved the human race?

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:23 PM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No it isn't.

And besides, the earliest forms of Modern Humans
aren't found till about 350,000 years ago.

Early Homo Sapiens

with fully modern forms appearing only 130,000 years ago.

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/images/timeline.jpg
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:18 PM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:19 PM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie


WHAT!? what does that have to do with anything?

"And besides, the earliest forms of Modern Humans
aren't found till about 350,000 years ago.
"

what does this mean? are you implying that we "found" humans 350,000 years ago??, then you say aren't - like its going off into the future.

but ill try and clarify what youre saying, what i think youre trying to say is, evolutionist's have "discovered" the earliest humans to have been around since 350,000 years ago.

Now first off what happened in your theory just "POOF" wow look at that humans just came out of nowhere! oh wait maybe they were little tiny organisms first, then they turned into fish, then the fish decided to hop onto land for no apparent reoson the turn to this, that, whatnot, and whatelse. then humans! -

secondly how would you even begin to tell me that there is proof that the bones/fossils are that old?, you dont have any because there is none. And dont try to explain carbon dating and radioisotape dating methods - because they are not accurate - at all, whatever lies youve been told from books people or yourself are just that, LIES!.

so finally - there is no proof for evolution, besides the made up proof.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:05 PM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're the one who said:  

If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species.


Where did you come up with 1,000,000 years?

Did you just make it up?

Like all of the other things you say?

Your cause would be better served by truthfulness rather than blatant falsehood.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:36 PM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evoulution is simply a lie

If you look back about 7 posts from this one you will find your answer.

that was merely a figure.

look and you will see.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:03 PM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeros following it) people right now. If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of human history, then several trillion people must have lived and died since the emergence of our species.


OK, recalculate for 350,000 years.  How many then?  What if you add in a factor for death without reproduction?

Or did you just copy this from somewhere and have no idea what it means?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:29 PM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie

Written history and archaeological evidence of ancient civilizations dates back to several thousand years. Beyond that, all traces of civilization disappear. This is not consistent with a species which is supposed to be at least hundreds of thousands of years old.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:12 PM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

HA HA HA

Didn't think you could.

Why not just cut and run like usual?



The Balzi Rossi are situated on the Mediterranean shore, east of the French-Italian border. The information we now have indicates that these were extremely rich prehistoric deposits. Documents from the period and more recent discoveries confirm that the Balzi Rossi held traces of a long series of occupations: the caves were inhabited first by the Mousterians or Neanderthals over 35,000 years ago, during the Middle Palaeolithic period, and later by a succession of cultures - Aurignacian, Gravettian and Epigravettian, during the Upper Palaeolithic period.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:08 PM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie

And what does that have to do with anything?
that's basically saying the reoson evolution is true is because evolution is true.

what do you mean 35,000 years ago?, first - where are you getting your information from?

second - how would your source know it was 35,000 years ago, were you or that person there?, the dating methods your going to try and explain are not valid in mine and many other peoples opinions, so please dont tell me anything like that.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:44 PM on November 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And what does that have to do with anything?


That you are unable to do the smallest calculation to support your position?

Simple.  It shows that you have no understanding whatsoever of the subject and that you are simply parroting and plagarizing material from somewhere else with no thought process.

Might as well be discussing with a bot.

Care to discuss something interesting like O16/O18 isotope layering in the Greenland GISP2 ice core?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:10 AM on November 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie


first off - you didnt answer all my questions.

secondly - when i said what does that have to do with anything, i was reffering to the 35,000 years ago.

Last - the ice cores layers is not made up of different "ice ages" but seosons and/or cold/hot spells.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:18 AM on November 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first off - you didnt answer all my questions.


And you didn't re-do the calculation, just skipped on to another non-subject.

secondly - when i said what does that have to do with anything, i was reffering to the 35,000 years ago.


Which is more than the "few thousand years" you were complaining about.

Last - the ice cores layers is not made up of different "ice ages" but seosons and/or cold/hot spells.


Yes indeed, and you can count then down over 100,000 layers, what does that suggest?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:24 AM on November 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie

And what does that have to do with anything?


It has nothing to do with evolution, only paleoanthropology.  

Just what are you arguing against anyway???  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:26 AM on November 22, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"secondly how would you even begin to tell me that there is proof that the bones/fossils are that old?, you dont have any because there is none. And dont try to explain carbon dating and radioisotape dating methods - because they are not accurate - at all, whatever lies youve been told from books people or yourself are just that, LIES!."

Nah, you're WRONG.  Radiometric dating methods are very acurate, we understand radioactive decay very well.  The rates at which different materials decay are well known and do not change under any conditions naturally found on Earth.  There are about 44 different radiometric dating methods and when samples are dated,  they are dated with multiple methods.  They invariably give the same dates.  If you were correct, these different methods would all give different dates, but they don't.  These methods couldn't possibly give the same wrong dates.  Not only that, radiometric dating has been calibrated with and successfully dated known historical events, they agree with virtually every other dating method we have, ice varves, coral reef formation, tree ring counting, to name a few.  Creationists can never provide any hard, empirical evidence to show why radiometric dating is flawed.  They always trot out a few tired examples where the dates from these tests were skewed by known factors.  When a tool is used improperly, that doesn't mean the tool is flawed.  I know some creationists like to use the example of a mollusk shell that was dated with the carbon 14 method that gave a wildly wrong date, but every scientist that uses carbon 14 dating knows that you can not use it to date aquatic organisms and is therefore never used on clearly aquatic organisms.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:41 AM on November 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

why cant they use it on aquatic organisms?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:21 PM on November 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere when Nitrogen atoms are struck by cosmic ray induced neutrons.  Radiocarbon dating uses the atmospheric abundance to determine ages based on the amount of C14 present.  The level has been calibrated back to about 45,000 years BP to correct for variances due to changing levels of cosmic rays.

Items which receive some proportion of their carbon from non-atmospheric sources cannot be accurately dated using radiocarbon techniques, since there is no way to calibrate how much carbon came from atmospheric versus other sources.  Aquatic items are in contact with large sinks of ancient carbon, so they are not date using C14.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:07 PM on November 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie

"Yes indeed, and you can count then down over 100,000 layers, what does that suggest?"


what doest that suggest?, it probably suggests that there were that many seosons, cold and hot spells. -- where are you going with this?

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:32 AM on November 30, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"what doest that suggest?, it probably suggests that there were that many seosons, cold and hot spells. -- where are you going with this?"

So it suggests that the ice core goes back 50,000 years, and that suggestion is pretty conclusive!  Just like the results from  Vostok ice cores gives a minimum age of the Earth at 160,000 (plus or minus 15,000 years).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:37 AM on November 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And the two sets of cores agree very closely between Greenland and Antarctica.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:26 AM on November 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie

So it suggests that the ice core goes back 50,000 years, and that suggestion is pretty conclusive!  Just like the results from  Vostok ice cores gives a minimum age of the Earth at 160,000 (plus or minus 15,000 years).

How does it suggest that?
where do you get 50,000 years?
where are you getting your information from?

And How is it so "conclusive!"?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:44 PM on November 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mindless repetition is simply BORING

where do you get 50,000 years?
where are you getting your information from?


It's called "counting".


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:21 PM on November 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dating the Greenland ice cores



Dating the GRIP Core

It was possible to count annual layers in the GRIP core to obtain an excellent dating, particularly back to the Younger Dryas period. Parameters used to date the core included ECM, dust, nitrate and ammonium, which all give excellent annual layers, particularly in the Holocene period. Comparison with the previously dated Dye 3 core, using volcanic and other tie-points, provided a starting point. Numerous volcanic eruptions were documented, allowing the possibility to make comparisons with other cores. Deeper ice was dated using ice flow models.

Measurements Made on the GRIP Core

A huge number of analyses were made on the core in the field, while other samples were prepared in the field for shipment to laboratories around Europe. measurements in the field helped scientists to select samples for special and urgen analyses, and to exclude the contamination risk from chemicals such as organic acids.

Continuous measurements made in the field included dielectric profiling and electrical conductivity (related to the concentrations of neutral salts and acid). Thin sections were made in the field to examine crystal sizes and fabrics. Chemical measurements made continuously in the field were ammonium, nitrate, hydrogen peroxide, formaldehyde, calcium and dust, while discontinuous measurements of other anions and cations were made by ion-chromatography. Samples were cut in the field for oxygen isotope and deuterium analysis (with a resolution of about 3 cm in parts of the core), for trace gas analysis, for measurements of 10Be, and mechanical properties of the ice, among others.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:34 PM on November 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Younger Dryas

The Younger Dryas

The Younger Dryas (YD) was the most significant rapid climate change event that occurred during the last deglaciation of the North Atlantic region. Previous ice core studies have focused on the abrupt termination of this event [ Dansgaard et al., 1989] because this transition marks the end of the last major climate reorganization during the deglaciation. Most recently the YD has been redated--using precision, subannually resolved, multivariate measurements from the GISP2 core--as an event of 130070 years duration that terminated abruptly, as evidenced by an 7C rise in temperature and a twofold increase in accumulation rate, at 11.64 kyr BP [ Alley et al., 1993] (Figure 2). The transition into the Preboreal (PB), the PB/YD transition, and the YD/Holocene transition were all remarkably fast, each occurring over a period of a decade or so [ Alley et al., 1993]. Fluctuations in the electrical conductivity of GISP2 ice on the scale of <5-20 years have been used to reveal rapid changes in the dust content of the atmosphere during the same periods and throughout the last glacial [ Taylor et al., 1993b]. These rapid changes appear to reflect a type of ``flickering'' between preferred states of the atmosphere [ Taylor et al., 1993b], which provides a new view of climate change. Holocene climates are by comparison stable and warm.

High resolution (mean: 3.48 years/sample), continuous measurements of GISP2 major anions (chloride, sulfate and nitrate) and cations (sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium and ammonium) were used to reconstruct the paleoenvironment during the YD because these series record the history of the major soluble constituents transported in the atmosphere and deposited over central Greenland [ Mayewski et al., 1993c]. These multivariate glaciochemical records provide a robust indication of changes in the characteristics of the sources of these soluble components or changes in their transport paths, in response to climate change. A dramatic example is provided by the calcium series (Figure 2) covering the last 10-18 kyr BP. Prominent periods of increased dustiness have been observed in the record, peaking approximately every 500 years (see figures in Mayewski et al. [1993c]): during the early PB at 11.4 kyr BP; throughout the YD at 11.81, 12.22 and 12.64 kyr BP; during the Bolling/Allerod (B/A) at 13.18, 13.65, and 14.02 kyr BP; and during much of the Glacial. Such events have been attributed by Mayewski et al. [1993c] to changes in the size of the polar atmospheric cell and in source regions (e.g., growth and decay of continental biogenic and terrestrial source regions).

The climate change that accompanied the YD was not restricted to Greenland. The record of variations in the CH concentration of trapped gases in the GRIP ice core [ Chappellaz et al., 1993] shows that tropical and subtropical climates were colder and drier during the YD and also earlier cold events. The major natural source region of CH is low-latitude wetlands [ Chappellaz et al., 1993]; higher atmospheric concentrations are presumably due to the greater areal extent of tropical and subtropical wetlands [ Chappellaz et al., 1993].

The ammonium flux record from GISP2 provides an estimate of continental biogenic source strength [ Mayewski et al., 1993a] during the YD. Although at the onset of the Bolling/Allerod ammonium flux levels and outliers rose dramatically, during the YD ammonium flux levels dropped only minimally and the number of ammonium outliers decreased slightly. Since ammonium concentrations are highest near continents [ Logan, 1983] and decrease with transport as a consequence of deposition, it appears that continental sources close to Greenland (North America and Europe) were not as dramatically affected during the YD as were low-latitude wetland regions, as evidenced by the CH record. This may indicate the continued importance of ice sheets and permafrost in limiting the growth of vegetation at higher latitudes until the end of the YD. Both low-latitude source CH and ammonium rise at the end of the YD [ Chappellaz et al., 1993; Mayewski et al., 1993c].


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:27 AM on December 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Checking We're Right About The Icecap Dating

Scientists think that they have counted ice layers accurately. And, they think that one layer almost always means one year. The GISP2 workers believe that they were very careful, and that they are off by less than 5% at 50,000 years BP (Before Present). But are they right?

There turn out to be a bunch of ways to check. For example, the Beryllium 10 measurements can be compared against historical records about sunspots. Unfortunately, sunspot records only go back to the invention of the telescope. Still, the records from the 1600's can indeed be matched up to the Beryllium 10 record. So, the layer counting seems correct that far back.

Another interesting measure is the element iridium. Greenland ice seems to have a lot of it in the year 1908. That probably came from the asteroid which exploded over the Tunguska River in Siberia.

Carbon dating has been applied to pollen found in various layers of the GRIP (Greenland) core. Carbon dates across the last 60,000 years were obtained, and all were in essential agreement with the matching ice-layer dates.

A radioactive dating of some ocean sediment was done, using Uranium/Thorium dating, that gave an answer of 30,470 BP plus or minus 240 years. The place in the GISP2 core which is thought to correspond, was counted as being layer 31,000. If the U/Th date is as accurate as its authors think, then the true error in that ice date is less than 2%. That's nicely within the ice date's plus or minus of 5%.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:12 PM on December 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie
Mindless repetition -- or the truth?

World War II Airplanes Under the Ice -

The Greenland Society of Atlanta has excavated a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice sheet in the late 1980’s to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice core data.

If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:20 PM on December 1, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Mindless repetition -- AND plagerism{/b]

If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form.


If we would assume that Arizona gets as much rain as Florida we would be just as wrong.

Wouldn't the truth be better?  Would you expect more snow on the coast near the ocean where the planes landed? or in the much dryer interior where the ice cores were taken?

And if you're going to plagarize the ICR, at least give them credit. http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-226.htm

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:04 AM on December 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie

alright -

if evolution is true, then why are you trying so hard to prove it?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:42 PM on December 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't need to prove anything.  I'm merely supplying information.

The actions of so-called Christians who feel that they need to shore up their faith by bearing false witness disgusts me.  

If Christianity is true, it has nothing to fear from any discovery of science.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:18 PM on December 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie

Why do you take the time to share your so-called "information"/lies?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:12 PM on December 2, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 8:12 PM on December 2, 2003 :
Evolution is simply a lie

Why do you take the time to share your so-called "information"/lies?


Now are you being the hypocrit!  

Why do Christians take the time to share their information about God and the New Testament, when it's overwhelmingly obvious that it's a lie?

Unlike evolution, the Christian God has no evidence to support it!

Heck, the best we can get for Jesus is second hand reports!  :D
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:11 PM on December 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, if you think about it, there are at least half a dozen Non-jewish or Christian reports of Jesus the Nazarene. This is a man who had a public life of 3 years, who was a carpenter by trade, who never sought political office. This is of course man's standards. So using these standards, if you look in history, you will find that most people who fit this description don't appear in history at all, ever. But here this carpenter appears at least half a dozen times in Non-Jewish and Christian reports, including Roman reports. I think that's quite a lot of print considering who Jesus was by the world's measurement.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:31 PM on December 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie

First off your last post was just a way of avoiding my question...

(I asked you a question, and you didnt answer, you just asked the same question.)

Why take the time? - maybe because it saves peoples souls from hell.

I dont know if you could say the same for your religion/"science"/fake science - (evolution).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:05 PM on December 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry for the delay in answering, I am going on travel for a over a week.

Why do you take the time to share your so-called "information"/lies?


I do it to show that Christians are not all poorly educated.

You do no service to your faith by parroting fools.

Back in a couple weeks, God Bless.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:33 PM on December 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie


"I do it to show that Christians are not all poorly educated.

You do no service to your faith by parroting fools.

Back in a couple weeks, God Bless."

---

Well, what exactly do you believe in?

And where are you going on vacation?...
just curious    
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:48 PM on December 4, 2003 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hum... Several changes of subject since the bombardier beetle.

I want to address that issue, without referring to the theories about how could it have evolved (it has been done already, better than i could have).

I'll repeat myself from another topic. This is the topic where this belongs.

Creationists look at this creature and marvel at it's seemingly intelligent design.

But the Bible states that all animals behaved harmoniously in the beginning. So why would the bombardier beetle need such a weapon?

Did God redesign it when everything got fucked up? Why wasn't it mentioned?

Did God make it like that just in case everything got fucked up?

What would a creationist say about this?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:52 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 2:31 PM on December 4, 2003 :
Well, if you think about it, there are at least half a dozen Non-jewish or Christian reports of Jesus the Nazarene. This is a man who had a public life of 3 years, who was a carpenter by trade, who never sought political office. This is of course man's standards. So using these standards, if you look in history, you will find that most people who fit this description don't appear in history at all, ever. But here this carpenter appears at least half a dozen times in Non-Jewish and Christian reports, including Roman reports. I think that's quite a lot of print considering who Jesus was by the world's measurement.


There are no surviving documents about Jesus that were written during His alleged lifetime.  Not one.

The earliest surviving Christian document is one of Paul's epistles, dated to about 49 C.E.: 16-19 years after Jesus allegedly died.

The earliest gospel is the Gospel of "Mark", written around 68-70 C.E.: about 35 - 40 years after Jesus allegedly died.

Josephus - who wasn't even born when Jesus allegedly died - is the most prominent historical Jew to write about Jesus - if he did so at all.  We can't tell what, if anything, Josephus himself actually wrote about Jesus because the Christians - not the Jews - are the ones sho preserved - and clearly embellished - Josephus' works.  

The 2 or so non-Christian non-Jewish sources that wrote anything about Jesus within the first 100 years of His alleged death are only stating what Christians told them, long after the fact.  That's mere 2nd hand (or 20th hand!) hearsay.
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 9:35 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 2:51 PM on November 20, 2003 :
Today the population grows at 2% per year. If we set the population growth rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500 years ago. If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5% growth rate, we would have 10^2100 (ten with 2100 zeros following it) people right now.



Today E. coli double every 20 minutes.  At that growth rate, E. coli cannot have existed for more than half a week: if they had, they would have overrun not just our planet, not just our solar system, not just our galaxy, not just our galaxy cluster, but the entire observable universe!

Start with 1 E. coli.  After 0 generations (doublings) there are 2^0 = 1 bacterium.  After 1 generation there are 2^1 = 2 bacteria.  After 2 generations there are 2^2 = 4 E. coli, and so on.  The equation to calculate how many E. coli, n, there are after x generations is simply
n = 2^x

Half a week is 3.5 days, with 24 hours in each day, and 3 20-minute time periods in each hour.  That gives 3.5 * 24 * 3 = 252 generations of E. coli in half a week.  

So how many E. coli would there be after half a week?  2^252 = 7.23 x 10^75 bacteria!

There is nowhere near that many E. coli, so clearly, E. coli have existed for less than half a week!

PS:  See if you can find the flaw in this application of math to biology: if you do, keeping that flaw in mind, reconsider the Creationist BS you posted.

(Edited by ImaAtheistNow 10/20/2008 at 9:54 PM).

(Edited by ImaAtheistNow 10/20/2008 at 9:55 PM).
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 9:53 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
ImaAtheistNow

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 12:52 PM on October 20, 2008 :
[color=teal]Hum... Several changes of subject since the bombardier beetle.


Dude, I just went back to the first page to find when this thread was reborn to try to make sure I reponded only to recent posts.  Um, this thread was dead until you just posted.

You went back to a 2003 thread and resurrected it????
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 9:59 PM on October 20, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you suggesting that i should have started another thread about this very topic because you lost your focus?





Edit:
Welcome, Lester. So you want to discuss the bombardier beetle?


(Edited by wisp 4/7/2010 at 09:54 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:01 AM on October 21, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.