ecco
Veteran Member
OhMyGoshAndGolly! Dragons and dinosaurs are the same things. Who woulda thunk it?
I am becoming more and more convinced we are being hoodwinked. Seriously! The alternative is almost too unthinkable.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based
- Thread starter Patriottechsan
- Start date
I am becoming more and more convinced we are being hoodwinked. Seriously! The alternative is almost too unthinkable.
Patriottechsan
Member
As I predicted. You've done just like I said you would. You don't want info that will mess up your bias & any excuse will do.
I've seen that so many times over the yrs.
I actually feel sorry for you. It's funny really. The only way you'd ever do true real in depth research into age science etc is to have happen to you what happened to me.
I told the story in short. I was in a class & we were two teams & each team assigned a side to debate for. She told us to really get to know & understand the other side so well to become the best prepared team. We should have taken that as a clue. Yet it was great advice period.
Well the day came for our debate. She then had us switch sides & debate for the other side. So we sure had better learned their side well because now we were debating for that side.
I have never forgotten that lesson. The problem here is you'd never do that unless forced to because your bias won't let you. Heck it won't let you deal with just the few things I brought up. You just make fun & go on despite how real problems they are for long ages. You certainly won't go to the effort to find the article & if I linked it you'd ignore it. You say you know our side. Ok.
Prove it. Using those 3 things I brought up. You use them to debate for young earth. Because if you've really studied & done as you say. This should be real easy.
Use those 3 points to argue for young age. Otherwise you've exposed yourselves.
They are. Mt St Helens & showing validity of Noahs Flood.
Dinosaurs tissue & blood being found despite supposed being extinct 65 million yrs ago & there are so many paintings etc of dragons that are exact replicas of what mankind should have no idea of what they looked like if extinct 65 million yrs ago. Yet they had to have seen them to have these perfect replicas.
Diamonds & carbon dating.
Go ahead. Show me how well you know these points.
I've seen that so many times over the yrs.
I actually feel sorry for you. It's funny really. The only way you'd ever do true real in depth research into age science etc is to have happen to you what happened to me.
I told the story in short. I was in a class & we were two teams & each team assigned a side to debate for. She told us to really get to know & understand the other side so well to become the best prepared team. We should have taken that as a clue. Yet it was great advice period.
Well the day came for our debate. She then had us switch sides & debate for the other side. So we sure had better learned their side well because now we were debating for that side.
I have never forgotten that lesson. The problem here is you'd never do that unless forced to because your bias won't let you. Heck it won't let you deal with just the few things I brought up. You just make fun & go on despite how real problems they are for long ages. You certainly won't go to the effort to find the article & if I linked it you'd ignore it. You say you know our side. Ok.
Prove it. Using those 3 things I brought up. You use them to debate for young earth. Because if you've really studied & done as you say. This should be real easy.
Use those 3 points to argue for young age. Otherwise you've exposed yourselves.
They are. Mt St Helens & showing validity of Noahs Flood.
Dinosaurs tissue & blood being found despite supposed being extinct 65 million yrs ago & there are so many paintings etc of dragons that are exact replicas of what mankind should have no idea of what they looked like if extinct 65 million yrs ago. Yet they had to have seen them to have these perfect replicas.
Diamonds & carbon dating.
Go ahead. Show me how well you know these points.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Guess what? We need a spherical Earth too. Just like we knew that the Earth was spherical long before the theory of evolution came along, we knew that the Earth was old. There is no cherry picking. This is only another false claims of yours that you are unable to support.
Not at all. In fact the Christian scientist that discovered sort tissues has also explained their preservation. You are at least ten years behind the times. And no, dinosaurs were never called dragons. That is a lie that you picked up from creationist sites. There is no problem with deep time. The only problem is creationist denial.
There is none. Seriously, anyone that understands the scientific method and the concept of evidence knows this. And please, you do not understand even the basics of science. Don't pretend to have knowledge that all of us can see is lacking in you.
LOL, creation.com requires anyone that works for them to promise not to use the scientific method. Seriously, this is why you need to learn the basics of science. By definition a site that rejects the scientific method cannot make scientific arguments or articles.
Yes, because they are all idiotic claims that were refuted years ago. You really should learn some science.
No, just so stories are your sin. Once again you can't switch since you have not even a middle school level of scientific literacy. Too bad that you never learned your teacher's lesson.
All of us have refuted the PRATT's that you supply countless times. Not doing so again is not a lack of interest beyond: Been there. Done that. Bought the tee-shirt.
ecco
Veteran Member
Patriottechsan
Member
You out & out lied. It was evolutionist scientist that discovered the dinosaur tissue, with blood. At least get your facts straight straight. She was as shocked as anyone. They did a 60 mins program on it. If I remember correct, her name was Mary Schwitzer or something like that. After that happened as always the evolution science establishment put so much pressure on her to recant her honest findings & threatened her career & future funding.. Yea evolution really that stalwart honest science w/o bias that always goes to where science leads. BIG FAT NOT!
You don't care about that. Heck you again about truth of how name dinosaur came about after use of dragons for all that time before. You don't care to research it. Just let your bias speak as if truth when it's not.
Diamonds matter too & Mt St Helens has revealed so much but you refuse to learn.
You've proven exactly as I predicted & worse but as usual you blame me & then have audacity to claim a academic superiority that's only in your brain because you have one side totally void of info due to being closed to bias.
That's your issue not mine.. You've been exposed but someday you'll actually meet the creator Himself & won't have any excuse. You've been given the chance to. find it for yourself. It's made plainly clearly but you intentionally choose to ignore it sadly. Fortunately there are many & esp former evolutionist scientist that due to honest academics were awaken to the truth. Ironically your knowledge wouldn't hold a candle to theirs despite your claims.
You don't care about that. Heck you again about truth of how name dinosaur came about after use of dragons for all that time before. You don't care to research it. Just let your bias speak as if truth when it's not.
Diamonds matter too & Mt St Helens has revealed so much but you refuse to learn.
You've proven exactly as I predicted & worse but as usual you blame me & then have audacity to claim a academic superiority that's only in your brain because you have one side totally void of info due to being closed to bias.
That's your issue not mine.. You've been exposed but someday you'll actually meet the creator Himself & won't have any excuse. You've been given the chance to. find it for yourself. It's made plainly clearly but you intentionally choose to ignore it sadly. Fortunately there are many & esp former evolutionist scientist that due to honest academics were awaken to the truth. Ironically your knowledge wouldn't hold a candle to theirs despite your claims.
ecco
Veteran Member
Actually, how about you "Show me how well you know these points." I read the article on Mt St Helens. It does nothing to support it's own and your argument that it shows validity for Noah's Flood. Post those parts of the article that you feel best support Noah's Flood.
ecco
Veteran Member
Yeah. Let's talk about lies and liars. I'm sure you are referring to Mary Schweitzer.
In the following the emphases are mine...
The Creationist Lies
The Paleontologist's rebuttal
Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Mary Schweitzer:
Mary Higby Schweitzer - Wikipedia
And no, she really detests the dishonest creationists that you refer to . There was no pressure. That is what your people do. But then you do not even know what she found.
Projection.
More projection. The Mt St Helens dacite was dated by a lying, not a dishonest, but an openly lying creationist. I can explain to you what he did wrong and why we know that he is a liar.
More projection. I have offered to go over the basics of science with you so that you could at least stop the most ridiculous of your errors. You ran away from that offer.
Now you are telling lies about me. You have only "exposed" your own lack of education in these topics. We know why your beliefs are wrong. Why are you afraid to learn? You did not learn the lesson from your debate teacher.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
@Patriottechsan , would you like to learn the scientific method? That is a rather simple thing to do. Let's start there. Once you understand that concept you will see why creation.com is not a valid site. They require anyone that works for them to swear not to use the scientific method.
Patriottechsan
Member
What you did is prove what I said about what happened to her after the find & pressure she had. If you didn't see the episode you should on 60 mins.
Take it as it is. Dino blood cells were found that were elastic with blood cells. Matter of fact it's been happening more & more. How do you explain those existing after 65 motion yrs. Many of the evolutionist responses are debunked scientifically but to do a thorough research that you've shown you won't do. You'd actually have to read further.
No way you've read the whole sides on MT St Helens because in 30 yrs since & actually soon thereafter it has formed like a ninny Grand Canyon. It shows how castrophe not one long time can do that. Plus now actually knowing the ages of the formations forming after the explosions. Evolutionist due to how they preprogram results get contradictory results & results not possible since we actually saw it happen & know the true ages.
.
Noahs Flood talks about bottom blowing up from the deep. Ie like volcanoes & skies & land volcanoes exploding from above also. It all leaves the features we see in Mt St Helens.
Diamonds proves young age but evolution always has to come up with something & be careful to observe how they word things.
There are so many more. Again you won't even research even one in depth much less the 3. I mean to the point you understood it so well you could debate for it.
That's ok it's free world.
Take it as it is. Dino blood cells were found that were elastic with blood cells. Matter of fact it's been happening more & more. How do you explain those existing after 65 motion yrs. Many of the evolutionist responses are debunked scientifically but to do a thorough research that you've shown you won't do. You'd actually have to read further.
No way you've read the whole sides on MT St Helens because in 30 yrs since & actually soon thereafter it has formed like a ninny Grand Canyon. It shows how castrophe not one long time can do that. Plus now actually knowing the ages of the formations forming after the explosions. Evolutionist due to how they preprogram results get contradictory results & results not possible since we actually saw it happen & know the true ages.
.
Noahs Flood talks about bottom blowing up from the deep. Ie like volcanoes & skies & land volcanoes exploding from above also. It all leaves the features we see in Mt St Helens.
Diamonds proves young age but evolution always has to come up with something & be careful to observe how they word things.
There are so many more. Again you won't even research even one in depth much less the 3. I mean to the point you understood it so well you could debate for it.
That's ok it's free world.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I have no idea what video you are talking about. I was merely correcting you. If you want sources you should ask for them. If your video is from a lying source, any of the creationists would source would qualify as that, it would be self refuting.
And yes, I have read the creationist idiocy on the Mt. St. Helens dacite, that is why I know what sort of rock was dated and you did not.
If you want to debate properly I will put more effort into refuting your posts, but as you present your claims a simple "Nope" is more than refutation enough. And no your inability to understand science does not give your diamond claim any credibility.
Once again, learn how to use the reply button. See if you can find any valid sources that support your claims, Link them. Quote from them. But remember, most creationist sites fail as valid sources since they require their workers not to use the scientific method.
This should be easy for someone as thoroughly researched as you claim to be. Present some evidence that anyone supporting evolution has ever used the term "million and billions of years".
Are you referring Gen 7:11? If so that's a very creative interpretation... although I have no idea what you mean by "like volcanoes & skies & land volcanoes exploding from above also".
Here come the threats... believe what I believe or be tortured for eternity.
I see he is back using the good science, bad science argument. Anything in science that disagrees with his belief, like dating of strata, fossils, etc., is cherry picking and bad science. While any made up, misleading or poorly reasoned claim by creationists is good science, even if it makes no sense or tells us nothing.
We played a lot of dodge ball in PE. Even to the point that the coach started making us play other sports, because he thought it was too much and wasn't something that would be of much use to us later in life. I was the school champion my freshman year. Man I wish I could still move like that.
I think that creationists must believe that Mary Schweitzer opened up dinosaur fossils and found fresh meat in there. I have not seen anything from any creationist that indicates they understand what soft tissue in dinosaur fossils actually means. It is amusing to read the claims of people that have obviously never looked at what science actually says. They can say it. Maybe continually repeating that they have read science actually makes them believe they have, but when they discuss the subject, it is clear they have never read the science.
I would not worry too much about anything he posts and questioning it. He is just the next creationist rehashing ancient claims, yet again. And widely refuted claims at that.
His rule #4 must be, do not directly engage anyone. Just ramble on like I am talking to myself.
Always a credible tactic.
You are much better at interpreting that gibberish than I am.
Creationist claims and threats are like hit videos used to be on MTV. Always on heavy rotation.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Weak arguments followed by empty threats. What else is new?
It has been something I have considered from the start of this thread. A troll that is just jerking everyone around for laughs. The refusal to address people, threats, wild claims, ignoring what others post. Posting like he is in the bag.
He has totally lied about and mischaracterized Mary Schweitzer and her work.