Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

dad. you keep piling myth upon myth. We knew that there was no flood over 200 years ago.

Do you have a reason for trying to make Christianity look so bad?

How did you think you knew this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did you think you knew this?

You mean "How do you know this?"

Your English needs some work too.

Before I answer your question for you I need to ask you if your version of God can lie?

 

[dad1]

A whole paragraph of capital letters accentuates your deliberate ignorance and little else. And you already admitted why you posted in caps so now you add more dishonesty to your repertoire. You are a true man of your faith.

I sometimes think some people run around looking real hard for things to get up in the air about.

Btw, do you realise why i left religion? It was because of good religious folks mocking disability, "get over it" is a typical phrase such good Christians use, you are no saying that you mock disability are you?

[The disability of so called science to prove the nature they claim exited then, and base all models of the past on demands mocking. As for people with some disability how would that be loving to in any way mock it?? That makes no sense.

 

[dad1]

You mean "How do you know this?"

Your English needs some work too.

Before I answer your question for you I need to ask you if your version of God can lie?

You claimed some unmentioned parties found out 200 years ago there was no flood. How did they do this? If you still don't get it, feel free to ask again.

 

[dad1]

What flood?
What different nature?

Please provide evidence of your claims cut the bs and be honest for once in your life and debate like an adult

The one science knows nothing about and that is in the bible. That one.

 

[dad1]

Archaeology is essentially ancient history. You would be amazed at how many civilizations ignored the flood and thrived right though it:

Maybe quote some relevant parts of your video. We can look at that. I don't think it is realistic to expect us to watch a propaganda flick hosted by a guy who looks like that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You claimed some unmentioned parties found out 200 years ago there was no flood. How did they do this? If you still don't get it, feel free to ask again.

I asked you a question. I will not answer yours until you respond to that question. We all know that you are totally ignorant about the sciences. That is a given at this point. After you answer my question I will answer yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe quote some relevant parts of your video. We can look at that. I don't think it is realistic to expect us to watch a propaganda flick hosted by a guy who looks like that.

But it is not propaganda and his looks have nothing to do with the facts that he goes over.

If you can't ask questions properly you will merely be corrected.

 

[dad1]

This post dad:

Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.


You either did not understand it or you lied. Last warning for lying about "blathering".

It doesn't matter that there are several steps in the current process of decay. There was likely several steps also in whatever process existed in the past nature! No isotope that would take more than 4300 years to produce was created by the current nature. If there are three or two or six, it doesn't matter at all. They all were here, except those that came to exist in the last 43-4500 years probably.

Try addressing the issue rather than skirting it or conflating it.

 

[dad1]

I asked you a question. I will not answer yours until you respond to that question. We all know that you are totally ignorant about the sciences. That is a given at this point. After you answer my question I will answer yours.

As usual you pretend someone found something out long ago but cannot say what, or who, or discuss it. How small.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't matter that there are several steps in the current process of decay. There was likely several steps also in whatever process existed in the past nature! No isotope that would take more than 4300 years to produce was created by the current nature. If there are three or two or six, it doesn't matter at all. They all were here, except those that came to exist in the last 43-4500 years probably.

Try addressing the issue rather than skirting it or conflating it.

Ignorant handwaving is not very convincing. You can't explain something that clearly supports only one side.

Try again.

 

[dad1]

But it is not propaganda and his looks have nothing to do with the facts that he goes over.

If you can't ask questions properly you will merely be corrected.

Well, cite the relevant point or a few points. We can use the video as a support link. You cannot spam movies in a debate in case this is news.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As usual you pretend someone found something out long ago but cannot say what, or who, or discuss it. How small.

Nope, I am not pretending. You need to commit and answer the question that I gave to you.

Why are you so afraid? You appear to know that you are wrong, again.

 

[dad1]

Ignorant handwaving is not very convincing. You can't explain something that clearly supports only one side.

Try again.

Unless you can show all or any of the isotopes in any reaction had to come about by this nature, you have no point. I can see why you are angry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, cite the relevant point or a few points. We can use the video as a support link. You cannot spam movies in a debate in case this is news.

You failed again dad. I did not spam. And that accusation is a violation of the TOS here. You don't want to lost another website.

Ask you questions properly and I will answer them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless you can show all or any of the isotopes in any reaction had to come about by this nature, you have no point. I can see why you are mad.

But we can and have. I am not the mad one.

 

[dad1]

Nope, I am not pretending. You need to commit and answer the question that I gave to you.

Why are you so afraid? You appear to know that you are wrong, again.

Yet we still see nothing of what was supposedly found out 200 years ago that you cited. As always with you.

 

[dad1]

It's not a matter of what isotopes there are, but the ratios we find them in.

Same basic thing, because if all of the isotopes with half lives beyond when this nature started were already here when it started, ratios lose significance!

ONLY if there was 100 units of daughter isotopes to begin with!

Great, so when you can tell whether there was or not, get back to us eh?

Now try the same thing, but starting with 25 units of daughter isotope at the start of this nature. See if you get the same result.

Knowing this nature existed only for several thousand years means that no unit number matters at all. What matters is what was here before the nature started...and the decay we have in this nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet we still see nothing of what was supposedly found out 200 years ago that you cited. As always with you.

dad, since you continually run away when you are shown to be wrong I am demanding an answer ahead of time. You have run away from answering that question:

Can your God lie?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same basic thing, because if all of the isotopes with half lives beyond when this nature started were already here when it started, ratios lose significance!

Wrong again dad. Not when the concentrations of isotopes are exactly what is predicted by theory. That puts the burden of proof back on you.

Great, so when you can tell whether there was or not, get back to us eh?

Yes, if you want to learn I can explain this to you.

Knowing this nature existed only for several thousand years means that no unit number matters at all. What matters is what was here before the nature started...and the decay we have in this nature.

But we know that it existed for much more than that. You fail again dad.