666...the Devils Moving Average

Only because your so emotional attached to your theistic position.

I have theists knock on my door on the weekend and tell me im gonna burn in hell when I start debating them. I get really sick of it, frankly, but should I be horribly offended?

From YOUR point of view it may be offensive, but making remarks about things I consider a fable, could hardly qualify as offensive.

If I told a santa claus believer that santa was a fat red myth, and
he got incredibly offended, thats his problem not mine.

Maybe next time I sneeze and someone says "god bless you",
as an atheist I should get VERY OFFENDED and tell them to
shut the hell up? :D

Nah... that would make me hypersensitive :)


peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:


You knew your wording was grossly offensive to any Jew, Muslim or Christian on this board, yet you did it anyway. You don't need to discuss anything with anyone - you already have all the answers. You can just pat your friends on the back and compliment each other on how brilliant you all are. I'm outta here...
More...
 
Error #1 - we do NOT believe it because it is obvious. We believe it because we have incredibly strong evidence that these things were in fact created.

We can divide things into 2 classes here.
Things which ARE created, and things which are NOT created.

CLEARLY.... computers ARE created and belong in that CLASS BECAUSE of the mound of evidence backing this assertion, NOT because its simply "obvious".
axeman
___________________________________

OK it is obvious because of a mound of evidence, big deal. You don't seem to want to agree on anything. I was trying, though not to your perfect sensitivities, to state where we all agree but even that is not enough. Interesting.
________________________________ Error #2 - evolution does not assert that EVERYTHING else was developed in a different way.
axeman
____________________________

Oh! What is the third way? And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

With no rationale given, Wald goes on to accept the impossible odds of spontaneous generation rather than creation.

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.
________________________________________________

"In other words everything changes at the point of proof of development."

Error #3 - No one claimed this.
Axeman
______________________________________

Then what was claimed. You can't have it both ways or yet maybe YOU can.

____________________________________________

Error #4 - a VASTLY empty assertion. Evolutions certainly do NOT ask you to accept anything on faith. They ask you to accept on the MASSIVE PILES OF AVAILABLE evidence which you seem to be totally ignorant of.
Axeman
___________________________________

Where are the massive piles of evidence for macro-evolution or the reliability of decay dating over billions of years or other miriad problems we aren't supposed to point out with the current conclusions from the theories.
______________________________________
Error #7 - this is the fallacy of the excluded middle. Its absolutely possible that jews exist AND that jesus was not god. They are not mutually exclusive.
Axeman
________________________________

This is entirely off subject. There have been several claims that the bible is totaly unreliable and now you are saying "well maybe some things are not clear off the wall". The point is that if you start somewhere then you have to admit some things are accurate. Gross statements tend to get shot down. Even yours.
____________________________________________
You could go on with many more ERRORS, and thats about it
Axeman
___________________________________

See above. In other words everything I say about the bible
is in error no matter how trivial and provable. Do you really believe yourself on that one. Reality check time?
_______________________________________________

Error #8 - You cant claim that people who reject god reject everything in the bible. Even I dont reject everything in the bible, just the fairy tale parts.
Axeman
___________________________________

Square this with the errors statement you made above. Or is it just everything I say about the bible. Don't let me stand between you and the truth.
____________________________________________

Error #9 - The bible being accurate in some parts does not make it accurate in all parts.
Axeman
_____________________________________________

Won't know til time ends or another event occurs.
___________________________________________
Error #10 - Fallacy, argument from ignorance. You need to study big bang theory. This does not gell with Big Bang theory at all.
Axeman
___________________________________________

You're just nit picking because you can't answer. If you could you would explain and then prove how the big bang occurred.
_____________________________________________
Error #11 - Arguing from ignorance. Get the facts on decay dating.
Axeman
_________________________________________

Another dodge.
______________________________________________

Error #12 - Another hugely unsupported assertions. You purposefully IGNORE the massive amounts of evolutionary evidence. A dump truck full of the collected data would probably be large enough to squash you to bits if it were dumped on your physical body, and yet you have the nerve to claim its "very little proof". More ignorance of science. Evolution is the CORNER STONE of all biological sciences and our medicine.
Axeman
____________________________________________

In other word 100% of educated scientists agree with you and not one in this universe is in my corner. Really?
____________________________________________

Error #13 - This one is funny. It translates to: Since the complexities of the universe confuse me, I might as well believe in the biggest fable of all time.
Axeman
__________________________________________

It all hang on fable doesn't it. Your opinion only. My bible school prof. friends don't agree with your definition of fable.
___________________________________________
OK... im REALLY going to try and stay away because I should NOT even have to address posts like this full of so many false assumptions, errors, blatant ignorance of scientific theory. and empty assertions.

13 errors in a single post, and I could probably find more If I took my time.

Why do I bother? I really shouldn't. Going to get some work done instead.
Axeman
________________________________________

Well we finally agree. Why do you?
Maybe its just a philanthropic need to help me out.
I really appreciate your pointing me in the right direction.
 
Amazing... I don't think I have ever seen anyone
stuff this many words into my mouth in a single post.

I hope it's obvious enough that it doesn't merit a reply.

Don't worry Doubter, I will leave you alone now.
You seem perfectly capable of arguing with a ton
of things I never said all own your own :D

You win the Strawman fallacy of the year award.


peace

axeman



Quote from Doubter:

Error #1 - we do NOT believe it because it is obvious. We believe it because we have incredibly strong evidence that these things were in fact created.

We can divide things into 2 classes here.
Things which ARE created, and things which are NOT created.

CLEARLY.... computers ARE created and belong in that CLASS BECAUSE of the mound of evidence backing this assertion, NOT because its simply "obvious".
axeman
___________________________________

OK it is obvious because of a mound of evidence, big deal. You don't seem to want to agree on anything. I was trying, though not to your perfect sensitivities, to state where we all agree but even that is not enough. Interesting.
________________________________ Error #2 - evolution does not assert that EVERYTHING else was developed in a different way.
axeman
____________________________

Oh! What is the third way? And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

With no rationale given, Wald goes on to accept the impossible odds of spontaneous generation rather than creation.

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.
________________________________________________

"In other words everything changes at the point of proof of development."

Error #3 - No one claimed this.
Axeman
______________________________________

Then what was claimed. You can't have it both ways or yet maybe YOU can.

____________________________________________

Error #4 - a VASTLY empty assertion. Evolutions certainly do NOT ask you to accept anything on faith. They ask you to accept on the MASSIVE PILES OF AVAILABLE evidence which you seem to be totally ignorant of.
Axeman
___________________________________

Where are the massive piles of evidence for macro-evolution or the reliability of decay dating over billions of years or other miriad problems we aren't supposed to point out with the current conclusions from the theories.
______________________________________
Error #7 - this is the fallacy of the excluded middle. Its absolutely possible that jews exist AND that jesus was not god. They are not mutually exclusive.
Axeman
________________________________

This is entirely off subject. There have been several claims that the bible is totaly unreliable and now you are saying "well maybe some things are not clear off the wall". The point is that if you start somewhere then you have to admit some things are accurate. Gross statements tend to get shot down. Even yours.
____________________________________________
You could go on with many more ERRORS, and thats about it
Axeman
___________________________________

See above. In other words everything I say about the bible
is in error no matter how trivial and provable. Do you really believe yourself on that one. Reality check time?
_______________________________________________

Error #8 - You cant claim that people who reject god reject everything in the bible. Even I dont reject everything in the bible, just the fairy tale parts.
Axeman
___________________________________

Square this with the errors statement you made above. Or is it just everything I say about the bible. Don't let me stand between you and the truth.
____________________________________________

Error #9 - The bible being accurate in some parts does not make it accurate in all parts.
Axeman
_____________________________________________

Won't know til time ends or another event occurs.
___________________________________________
Error #10 - Fallacy, argument from ignorance. You need to study big bang theory. This does not gell with Big Bang theory at all.
Axeman
___________________________________________

You're just nit picking because you can't answer. If you could you would explain and then prove how the big bang occurred.
_____________________________________________
Error #11 - Arguing from ignorance. Get the facts on decay dating.
Axeman
_________________________________________

Another dodge.
______________________________________________

Error #12 - Another hugely unsupported assertions. You purposefully IGNORE the massive amounts of evolutionary evidence. A dump truck full of the collected data would probably be large enough to squash you to bits if it were dumped on your physical body, and yet you have the nerve to claim its "very little proof". More ignorance of science. Evolution is the CORNER STONE of all biological sciences and our medicine.
Axeman
____________________________________________

In other word 100% of educated scientists agree with you and not one in this universe is in my corner. Really?
____________________________________________

Error #13 - This one is funny. It translates to: Since the complexities of the universe confuse me, I might as well believe in the biggest fable of all time.
Axeman
__________________________________________

It all hang on fable doesn't it. Your opinion only. My bible school prof. friends don't agree with your definition of fable.
___________________________________________
OK... im REALLY going to try and stay away because I should NOT even have to address posts like this full of so many false assumptions, errors, blatant ignorance of scientific theory. and empty assertions.

13 errors in a single post, and I could probably find more If I took my time.

Why do I bother? I really shouldn't. Going to get some work done instead.
Axeman
________________________________________

Well we finally agree. Why do you?
Maybe its just a philanthropic need to help me out.
I really appreciate your pointing me in the right direction.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

(Notice god is a man... haha... in a female dominated world, god would have been created by woman as a woman, ya think? :D )
More...
yes, axeman! continue pointing out all the obvious crap that they can't see right in front of them!!
 
Amazing... I don't think I have ever seen anyone
stuff this many words into my mouth in a single post.

I hope it's obvious enough that it doesn't merit a reply.

Don't worry Doubter, I will leave you alone now.
You seem perfectly capable of arguing with a ton
of things I never said all own your own

You win the Strawman fallacy of the year award.


peace

axeman
______________________________________________

You are the great teacher, I learned it all from you.
When do I get my trophy? Is it a traveling one that is just now being passed from you?

I am getting excited now. Is there a ceremony or anything?
What does the trophy look like? Maybe a pile of Axeman BS, that would be nice.
 
Other radiometric dating methods
There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

Decay rates have always been constant.

Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

There are patterns in the isotope data
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older ‘ages.’ Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,8 points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.

‘Bad’ dates
When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain ‘bad’ dates.9

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’ from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the ‘age’ is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.
_______________________________________________

HMMMMMMMMMMMM.
And the list goes on and on.
I thought I was the only one in the whole world.
 
doubter,

you dont have the technical knowledge nor intellectual capacity to understand and properly evaluate the claims made in that excerpt of an article you posted,,,,

so you see that article is worthless to you and your trivial "arguments".

you cant use it because you have NO idea what it says. :-|
 
Funny how Doubter can only post drivel from well know creationists with an agenda to discredit science and evolution......and yet fail to do so.

Guess what.... the majority of scientists don't agree with this dudes conclusions.

Check this out:

I believe that it's reasonable, when evaluating what purports to be a scientific paper, to inquire as to the author's expertise to write about the subject -- especially when the relevant information given is so vague. A little research disclosed that "John Woodmorappe" is a nom de plume and a bit more research disclosed his true identity (confirmed by two separate sources). He evidently does have a legitimate M.S. degree in geology from a secular university with which he's still affiliated and has published a couple of papers in mainstream geologic journals under his real name. In the papers he's published under his real name, he affiliates himself with the geology department at that university, yet the 1996 American Geological Institute Directory of Geoscience Departments does not list him as a faculty member so I haven't been able to find any evidence that he currently teaches science or is a research fellow at any university.

The rest of the article handidly shreds his biased creationist drivel:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html

Neeeeeeeeeext.......


peace

axeman
 
I did re-research my take on the "big bang" theory and the massive mass I mentioned turned out to be an "egg". I couldn't find out just how big this "egg" was for sure so maybe someone can help me? Was it the size of an ostrich egg or more like a hummingbird egg? Maybe God forgot to poke a hole in it when he put it in His creationists microwave? Maybe it was a massive massive "egg" but the question is still "How did the "egg" come into being?" and what caused it to blow?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top