Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Subduction Zone]

Do you understand how Steve Austin lied? When I say that someone lied I can explain how I know that he lied. You have been slinging that term out rather indiscriminately.

 

[Neb]

So what? That is no excuse for you to make false claims about others.



You really can't be this ignorant. You are listening to liars. Lucy is clearly not a chimp and is more like you than she is like a chimp. And you need to quit making personal attacks here. Remember, you are an ape too so when you try to insult chimps you only insult yourself. The existence of a god has nothing to do with this. Most Christians accept the fact that the diversity of life is from evolution. They know that they are evolved beings. That does not stop them from being Christians.

There are no lies in evolution. You cannot find any. I did explain to you how Steve Austin lied.

You did not understand what "set to zero" means. You think you can hide your "IGNORANCE" by repeating the same "so what" argument, right?

 

[Neb]

Do you understand how Steve Austin lied? When I say that someone lied I can explain how I know that he lied. You have been slinging that term out rather indiscriminately.

You would have explained it already if you have the answer on hand. Please, we are not stupid here. If I don't know the answer, I would ask or say I don't know and NOT my hide my "IGNORANCE".

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did not understand what "set to zero" means. You think you can hide your "IGNORANCE" by repeating the same "so what" argument, right?

Wrong again, I understand it quite well.

There is no "set to zero" in this case. You are only demonstrating your ignorance of radiometric dating.

An individual crystal is "set to zero" when it forms. The problem is that he used a porphyritic rock and dated the larger older crystals. He admitted that himself. He was not honest enough to admit that the larger crystals he dated would have been older.

And even individual crystals do not have a "set to zero" date. Today the science has advanced to the point where they can take apart crystals atom by atom, something that could not be done when the Six Million Dollar Man did his "dating". Each layer has been dated in some cases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You would have explained it already if you have the answer on hand. Please, we are not stupid here. If I don't know the answer, I would ask or say I don't know and NOT my hide my "IGNORANCE".

I have explained it more than once. The last time I went into detail.

Go back, read the explanation, the one with the links. And tell me what parts you do not understand.

 

[Neb]

You made a grade school level argument. Try to step up your game.

The "so what" argument came from your level of ignorance.

You mean a 68 million year old T-rex fossil I hope. They died out 68 million years ago. I don't think that I have seen a T-Rex fossil in person, but I have held much older ones.

68 millions years old t-rex with protein still in it. Really?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The "so what" argument came from your level of ignorance.

Now, now, as a Christian you should not break the Ninth Commandment. I am trying to help you.

68 millions years old t-rek with protein still in it. Really?

Why not? That has been explained by the Christian woman that made the original discovery. Once again, you don't need to deny science to be a Christian

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neb, you still do not understand what scientific evidence is, as shown by your inability to accept Lucy. You have to rely on idiots and liars to make your case for you. Here is a clue when arguing science:

If you can't find peer reviewed science that supports your claims you are almost certainly wrong. Peer review is not always right, but those that avoid peer review are almost always laughably wrong. Science is done through the process of peer review today. One submits one's idea to a journal that is well respected in the field. Experts in the field read your article to see if it has any obvious errors in it. If there are errors the paper is sent back for revision. Once accepted the rest of the world of science tests your ideas to see if they are correct. It is a huge self correcting mechanism that works amazingly well as the computer, tablet or even phone that you are now using attests to.

Creationists avoid peer review because they know that their errors will be exposed. That is why they are the laughing stock of science today.

Do you want to take another shot at scientific evidence? It is merely evidence, generally of an empirical nature, that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. Does that seem reasonable to you?

 

[Neb]

Most Christians accept the fact that the diversity of life is from evolution. They know that they are evolved beings. That does not stop them from being Christians.

You see your errors here. Your ToE is about you and Lucy, the chimp and now you are using Christians like you used science to prove your lies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You see your errors here. Your ToE is about you and Lucy, the chimp and now you are using Christians like you used science to prove your lies.

It is about you too. You are probably a descendant of Lucy or Australopithecus too, though they may be a spur off of our line of descent. And you need to quit the 'lies' claim. That is a violation of the TOS here. I have shown how you have relied on liars and idiots. That should not make you mad. You simply were their victim. I do not think that you are trying to lie on purpose here. You merely have an irrational belief that you cannot justify.

The theory of evolution is about all life. Like it or not you are an ape, just as you are a mammal, you are a vertebrate, you are a chordate, you are a eucaryote. Strangely enough creationists will admit to all of those except for the fact that they are an ape. Weird.

 

[Neb]

Now, now, as a Christian you should not break the Ninth Commandment. I am trying to help you.

"Ninth Commandment"? Where did you get that?

Why not? That has been explained by the Christian woman that made the original discovery. Once again, you don't need to deny science to be a Christian

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

protein can be tested with C-14. IOW, that t-rex is no more than 6000-year-old dinosaur, right about the flood in Noah's time, right? Ironically, paleontologists kept on digging evidence to prove the ToE but it turns out it proves the existence of the flood in Noah's time instead, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Ninth Commandment"? Where did you get that?

So you do not understand your own Bible. If you make a claim against someone else, and it is wrong, as so many of your claims are, even if you did not intend to lie it is "false witness". The Ninth Commandment is not a ban on lying. It is a ban on making false statements about others. If one does not know for sure that what one says is correct then one is quite likely "bearing false witness". You have made claims about scientists lying and you can't support those claims. Since the findings of those scientists have been tested and found to be correct by countless other scientists they almost certainly were not lying. That makes your statement false, and as a result you bore false witness. It is a caution that goes beyond mere lying.

protein can be tested with C-14. IOW, that t-rex is no more than 6000-year-old dinosaur, right about the flood in Noah's time, right? Ironically, paleontologists kept on digging evidence to prove the ToE but it turns out it proves the existence of the flood in Noah's time instead, right?

Yes, but to do so you have to destroy the protein. We already know that it is far older than 50,000 years so why even try? You want to waste a fossil for no good reason.

And no, paleontologists do not keep digging to prove the theory of evolution. By a legal standard of "proof" the theory was "proven" over a hundred years ago. What they are doing now is trying to find out how we evolved. Do you understand the difference?

For example you may be able to prove that your friend drove across the country. That is relatively easy to prove. Finding the exact route that he took may take some more research.

At this point there is no debate regarding the theory of evolution. There is only correction of smaller and smaller errors.

 

[Neb]

It is about you too. You are probably a descendant of Lucy or Australopithecus too, though they may be a spur off of our line of descent. And you need to quit the 'lies' claim. That is a violation of the TOS here. I have shown how you have relied on liars and idiots. That should not make you mad. You simply were their victim. I do not think that you are trying to lie on purpose here. You merely have an irrational belief that you cannot justify.

The theory of evolution is about all life. Like it or not you are an ape, just as you are a mammal, you are a vertebrate, you are a chordate, you are a eucaryote. Strangely enough creationists will admit to all of those except for the fact that they are an ape. Weird.

If you can turn a prokaryotic flagella's tail to a tadpole to a frog then to your Lucy then to you then that would be the mother of all experiment. I know it will take billions of years to do.

 

[Neb]

So you do not understand your own Bible. If you make a claim against someone else, and it is wrong, as so many of your claims are, even if you did not intend to lie it is "false witness". The Ninth Commandment is not a ban on lying. It is a ban on making false statements about others. If one does not know for sure that what one says is correct then one is quite likely "bearing false witness". You have made claims about scientists lying and you can't support those claims. Since the findings of those scientists have been tested and found to be correct by countless other scientists they almost certainly were not lying. That makes your statement false, and as a result you bore false witness. It is a caution that goes beyond mere lying.

Where is this command came from?

Yes, but to do so you have to destroy the protein. We already know that it is far older than 50,000 years so why even try? You want to waste a fossil for no good reason.

Not the fossils but the protein.

And no, paleontologists do not keep digging to prove the theory of evolution. By a legal standard of "proof" the theory was "proven" over a hundred years ago. What they are doing now is trying to find out how we evolved. Do you understand the difference?

For example you may be able to prove that your friend drove across the country. That is relatively easy to prove. Finding the exact route that he took may take some more research.

At this point there is no debate regarding the theory of evolution. There is only correction of smaller and smaller errors.

By giving millions of years to fossils you could justify the millions of years of evolution, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is this command came from?

There are several versions of the Ten Commandments in the Bible. Do you have a preference?

Not the fossils but the protein.
By giving millions of years to fossils you could justify the millions of years of evolution, right?

The protein is part of the fossil. Again, why waste money on an idiotic test? I could spend thousands of dollars testing to see if a turtle can run at one hundred miles per hour. Would that be a reasonable test to make? And no, we knew that fossils were millions of years old before the theory of evolution came along. All you do is to continually confirm your ignorance of the sciences.

Geology refuted the young Earth idea before Darwin's time.

Why are you so afraid of reality? Is your faith so weak that you can't accept the fact that parts of the Bible are morality tales at best?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you still have not told me if you understand how Steve Austin lied yet.

 

[Neb]

There are several versions of the Ten Commandments in the Bible. Do you have a preference?

The 10 Commandments that God gave to Moses, right?

The protein is part of the fossil. Again, why waste money on an idiotic test? I could spend thousands of dollars testing to see if a turtle can run at one hundred miles per hour. Would that be a reasonable test to make?

Very bad analogy, the two are not analogous at all. Why would you test something, like a turtle, that is known, i.e., theoretically, that it cannot run 100 mph? You only test something that is falsifiable. If C-14 fails it will prove that it is really a 68 million-year-old t-rex and it will also at the same time disprove my claim. Testing the presence of C-14 will also test the absence of C-14.

 

[Neb]

And no, we knew that fossils were millions of years old before the theory of evolution came along. All you do is to continually confirm your ignorance of the sciences.

Geology refuted the young Earth idea before Darwin's time.

A: “How you got Lucy’s age?”

B: “Oh, based on the strata above, below, and sides”

A: “But how you got the age of the strata above, below, and sides?”

B: “Based on The Theory of Index Fossil”

A: “So, how you got The Theory of Index Fossil?”

B: “Oh, based on the strata above, below and sides”

A: “Is that how you got Lucy’s age?”

B: “SO WHAT”

Why are you so afraid of reality?

I believe in the God of the Bible and I don’t belong to any lineages of chimps, that’s my reality.

Is your faith so weak that you can't accept the fact that parts of the Bible are morality tales at best?

You mean my faith is so strong, and not “so weak”, that I can’t accept “parts of the Bible are morality tales at best”, right?

Dawkins, your god, says: “Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator.” This is a Rabbit Hole fantasy.

 

[Neb]

And you still have not told me if you understand how Steve Austin lied yet.

You didn’t know that you are being played to believe that Lucy, the 3.2 million-year-old chimp, is only a 92-year-old chimp? You are so naïve, man.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Thank you, my point exactly. You are correct, flying by the presence of two wings, or four, or none

It is the skeletal and tissue structure of the wings that matter. Those are the physical characteristics. Here is a comparison of the bird and bat wing which demonstrates how different they really are, just as we would expect from convergent evolution:

Convergent evolution produces analogies and not homologies. It is pretty easy to see that the bird and bat wing are two very different things and are not homologous.