|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
 Posted - 06/23/2004 : 12:03:54 [Permalink]
|
| I was just being silly Dave... |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
 |
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 16:59:11 [Permalink]
|
All quotes originally posted by verlch
quote:
You silly Brit...
Ad hominem attack! If I reciprocate your childish little games then I could possibly argue that you are a fundy retard (only aimed at Verlch) and you smell of catnip!! Can you see how far that furthered the debate? (debate - in the loosest sense of the term!!!)
quote:
Don't you have more silly and more uptight things to complain about than my neurons [sic]...And how they are firing!!!
I was only answering a direct question from you. You brought them up, I gave an honest answer to the question posed. By the way, why is that '[sic]' after 'neurons'
quote:
Don't you have some bloking tea to bloke and football house!!!
I speak/read/write English as a first language. I assume you do too. So what the fuck does that mean. Please, I am begging here, please don't ignore this question, I REALLY want to know what you were trying to say here. Honestly, no bullshit. Please repost that statement a little more clearly. I assume there is local (USA) dialect there and I just don't understand what you were trying to say.
quote:
Well my grandfather was over there during wwII. He had many British girlfriends!!! He dated lots and lots and lots of British women!!!!
Are you trying to wind me up? You do realise that I was born almost 25yrs after WWII. My Mum was born in 1945, she was 3mths old at the end of the war. Are you implying that your dear old grand-daddy was/is a paedophile and had my dear old mum as one of his 'lots and lots of British women!!!!' ? If your not implying such, again, I don't see your point. Incidentally, while we are on this subject, I spent three weeks in the states once, and shagged 110m women, wich roughly equates to EVERY SINGLE FEMALE CHRISTIAN. Again I ask you, how far do these little snipes take the debate????
Apologies to all, I got me one o' dem new fangled IR k/board & mouse thingies and the keyboard runs away a little bit, hence my spelling and grandma might be crap!! |
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 17:57:40 [Permalink]
|
| See uptight Brit!! I like Brits though I consider it the Mother Land for America!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 18:23:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I like Brits though
For breakfast, lunch or dinner!!!
Verlch, please answer this, I honestly don't know what you meant.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you have some bloking tea to bloke and football house!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I speak/read/write English as a first language. I assume you do too. So what the fuck does that mean. Please, I am begging here, please don't ignore this question, I REALLY want to know what you were trying to say here. Honestly, no bullshit. Please repost that statement a little more clearly. I assume there is local (USA) dialect there and I just don't understand what you were trying to say.
|
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 18:36:10 [Permalink]
|
| Bloke, or how ever you spell it, drink it at the soccor stadium... |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 18:45:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Bloke, or how ever you spell it, drink it at the soccor stadium...
No, no, verlch. That still doesn't make sense. Here's what you originally said:
quote:
Don't you have some bloking tea to bloke and football house!!!
I've been working on this for awhile. So the first part looks like a question: if we get rid of the "bloke" parts, we get "don't you have some tea to...". What? You'd expect a verb here-- maybe "... some tea to drink" or some such. But if bloke is a verb, when what's it doing as a description of tea? "Don't you have some drinking tea to drink"? That doesn't make sense. Your explanation above doesn't explain this.
The second part is added on, but there's no verb or anything. Just "and football house". And football house what? Very confusing. Do please try and clear this up... |
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 18:57:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verlch:
Don't you have some bloking tea to bloke and football house!!!
Verlch, thanks for trying to explain, I really do apppreciate it. But the sentence still isn't clear to me. If I break it down, to what I can and do understand, hopefully, you woulkd fill in the blanks for me. My 'understanding' is in red.
quote:
Don't you have some...
Don't you have some
Fairly obvious, even for me!!
quote:
bloking tea to bloke
I don't get this
quote:
and football house!!!
Football stadium?
I appreciate your efforts and co-operation in trying to educate a poor Welsh boy on the ever distant, other side of the 'pond'. |
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2004 : 19:04:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There is no way I can accept the accuracy of Carbon dating based on the fact that there is no way we can know the level of C14 in the past and therefore cannot have a starting point for the radioactive decay.
Well done, friend furshur! I was afraid (hoping) that I'd get hit with Woodmorrape.
But, there's more ways than one to flay a feline  :
quote:
In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Ice cores are unique with their entrapped air inclusions enabling direct records of past changes in atmospheric trace-gas composition. Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 kyr (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Because air bubbles do not close at the surface of the ice sheet but only near the firn-ice transition (that is, at ~90 m below the surface at Vostok), the air extracted from the ice is younger than the surrounding ice (Barnola et al. 1991). Using semiempirical models of densification applied to past Vostok climate conditions, Barnola et al. (1991) reported that the age difference between air and ice may be ~6000 years during the coldest periods instead of ~4000 years, as previously assumed. Ice samples were cut with a bandsaw in a cold room (at about -15°C) as close as possible to the center of the core in order to avoid surface contamination (Barnola et al. 1983). Gas extraction and measurements were performed with the "Grenoble analytical setup," which involved crushing the ice sample (~40 g) under vacuum in a stainless steel container without melting it, expanding the gas released during the crushing in a pre-evacuated sampling loop, and analyzing the CO2 concentrations by gas chromatography (Barnola et al. 1983). The analytical system, except for the stainless steel container in which the ice was crushed, was calibrated for each ice sample measurement with a standard mixture of CO2 in nitrogen and oxygen. For further details on the experimental procedures and the dating of the successive ice layers at Vostok, see Barnola et al. (1987, 1991), Lorius et al. (1985), and Petit et al. (1999).
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
Thus, the carbon amounts in the ancient atmospheres can be very closely estimated.
Edited to remove a really stupid statement. |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 06/23/2004 19:09:14 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2004 : 14:27:40 [Permalink]
|
Filthy,
I see that the ice cores have the total carbon (I assume the stable carbon), but I do not see where they analyzed it for the C14 decay products. My original concern was that the percentage of the carbon 12 to carbon 14 changes with a change in the Cosmic radiation flux.
It seems that if scientists were to test the age of the ice by carbon 14 and correlate it to the age of the ice by the layers we would have some solid data. I didn't see that type of data in the article you referenced, and since I am lazy and do not want to hurt my position, I didn't look any farther.
If I am missing something in the article or I am not understanding it properly let me know.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
