Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Subduction Zone]

OK, let's break down a typical SZ post. (My comments in red)




Insult, strawman accusation.

Nope. It was an observation and you confirmed my claim by demonstrating that you have no clue what a Strawman fallacy is. I can help you with your inability to think logically after we go over the concepts of the scientific method and scientific evidence.

Insulting smear suggesting the empty posts were somehow misunderstood due to incompetency, followed by the usual unsupported allusion to some supposed evidence that never is posted.

Wrong again. Now you are merely repeating your errors. And you are projecting as well. You are the one with "empty posts" here. I almost always offer to help you with your obvious lacks. You are either incompetent when it comes to the sciences or a liar. Incompetence can be fixed with education. Are you ready to learn?

Calling a bible based belief an insane assumption for no apparent reason..

No, just because you do not understand your errors does not mean that there was an "insane assumption". Once again you are either lying or incompetent.

Accusing posters of sins.

No, the sins were clearly identified. Once again you have only two choices here.

Denying that a movie posted as evidence by him was not discussed or any points raised from the video to be examined and debated.

Wrong again. The post was for educational purposes. You are badly in need of some very basic education. I offered more than once to discuss the video that you did not understand once you understood the concept of evidence.

Insulting accusation to divert from his refusal to debate issues.

Wrong again. There was no insult. There was no attempt to avoid debate. The fact is that you have no clue when it comes to the topic at hand and until you learn some basics you have lost. By running away from the offer of aid you demonstrate to the lurkers that you hope that are reading that you are afraid and know that you are wrong.

Pretending he can debate issues somewhere in a closet.

Now you need to stop spreading falsehoods about me. I can debate. You are the one that constantly runs away.

When you get over your fear we can proceed.

Justifying spam video and refusal to cite relevant points in it, followed by the usual pretense of being able to teach posters something real smart.

Now you are openly lying. This error of yours was explained to you multiple times. If you did not understand the proper action to take was to ask questions politely and properly.

...


Refusing to offer any evidence, but pretending he has some monopoly on what evidence is while other posters do not.

Dad, you do not understand the concept of evidence. I have posted evidence for you countless times. You either did not understand it or lied about it. There is no point in continuing until you learn what is and what is not evidence.

Insulting pretense repeated.

Wrong again dad. There was no insult. An observation of your incompetence when it comes to the topics of evidence and science is neither insulting nor pretense. Once again you are guilty of the sins that you accuse others of committing.

False allegations with appeal to imagined popularity.
.

Wrong again dad. And you still don't know how to use logical fallacies.

Creationists should never try to use logical fallacies since they almost always get them wrong.

Further appeal to imagined popularity, followed by insulting allusion to some secret superior case that can never be posted.
.

Nope, a simple observation. You have begged lurkers to listen to your inane claims, I merely pointed out how that harms you. I am not the one that constantly addresses lurkers here. Once again you project your sins upon others.

When you get over your fear I will gladly help you. Until you do you only shoot yourself in the foot with your incredibly poor arguments.

 

[dad1]

Nope. ... you have no clue .. I can help you ... your inability to think logically ... I almost always offer to help you with your obvious lacks. You are either incompetent ...or a liar. ..Once again you are either lying or incompetent... sins were clearly identified... badly in need of some very basic education. I offered more .. to discuss the video.. once you understood the concept of evidence...you have no clue By running away from the offer of aid... When you get over your fear we can proceed...Now you are openly lying. .. you do not understand the concept of evidence...observation of your incompetence...you are guilty of the sins....

Your idea of debate seems to be one of petty name calling, rather than reasoned discussion.

Looking at some news, I see the religious basis used for science models is evident again.

""We have developed a novel method for 'weighing' solitary stars," said Stevenson Professor of Physics and Astronomy Keivan Stassun, who directed the development. "First, we use the total light from the star and its parallax to infer its diameter. Next, we analyze the way in which the light from the star flickers, which provides us with a measure of its surface gravity. Then we combine the two to get the star's total mass."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171214164030.htm

SZ, notice how I take out a specific point to examine, rather than spamming a link?

So, what we have here is the assumption of time existing in unknown deep space, so that a parallax measure can be translated into distances. Since they cannot prove time does exist the same out there the distances are totally based on that belief alone. The distance to the star has to be known for any of this method to work.

They then look at how it 'flickers'! Then they combine the belief based distances to come up with a so called mass!!!!

In case anyone wants to point out this method is new, the article mentions the traditional method also.

"Traditionally, the most accurate method for determining the mass of distant stars is to measure the orbits of double star systems, called binaries. Newton's laws of motion allow astronomers to calculate the masses of both stars by measuring their orbits with considerable accuracy."


This also depends on knowing distances...otherwise the orbit distance is not known. Then we further assume gravity is the same out there, and that Newton's laws applies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your idea of debate seems to be one of petty name calling, rather than reasoned discussion.

I have never engaged in petty name calling. But you continually make false claims about others. I have merely observed your total ignorance of everything that you try to debate against and have offered to help you.

Looking at some news, I see the religious basis used for science models is evident again.

Translation: Here is another article that dad does not understand.

""We have developed a novel method for 'weighing' solitary stars," said Stevenson Professor of Physics and Astronomy Keivan Stassun, who directed the development. "First, we use the total light from the star and its parallax to infer its diameter. Next, we analyze the way in which the light from the star flickers, which provides us with a measure of its surface gravity. Then we combine the two to get the star's total mass."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171214164030.htm

SZ, notice how I take out a specific point to examine, rather than spamming a link?

Yes, you take an article that you do not understand, You helpfully underline the terms that you do not understand. But that does not help you. Since you do not understand that article if anyone is "spamming" here that would be you.

Until you get over your fears and at least learn what is and what is not evidence there is no helping you.

So, what we have here is the assumption of time existing in unknown deep space, so that a parallax measure can be translated into distances. Since they cannot prove time does exist the same out there the distances are totally based on that belief alone. The distance to the star has to be known for any of this method to work.

Wrong again, it is a conclusion based upon evidence and consistent scientific models. If you want to claim that your fishbowl world is real the burden of proof is upon you. Until you do you have nothing at all.

They then look at how it 'flickers'! Then they combine the belief based distances to come up with a so called mass!!!!

In case anyone wants to point out this method is new, the article mentions the traditional method also.

"Traditionally, the most accurate method for determining the mass of distant stars is to measure the orbits of double star systems, called binaries. Newton's laws of motion allow astronomers to calculate the masses of both stars by measuring their orbits with considerable accuracy."

That is important because it means that their concept is testable. They can test their claims and find consistent results. You once again have nothing. You are also once again your own worst enemy since you just demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method.

This also depends on knowing distances...otherwise the orbit distance is not known. Then we further assume gravity is the same out there, and that Newton's laws applies.

If you want to claim that there is a change, then the burden of proof is upon you. The consistent results of testing indicates that gravity does exist, that time is the same, that we can apply physical laws. Once again you are claiming a magical change without any evidence. That means your opinions are worthless in this matter. You appear to be "spamming" your own thread.[/quote]

 

[ChristineM]

Respect needs to be earned.

You asked a question of the Bible

I provided answers (several answers)

And you claim that one must earn what is written in the Bible

What sort of Christian are you?

 

[ChristineM]

You think you know, based on assuming time in deep space so that light takes great time to get here. Also by assuming a current nature in the past you cannot begin to evidence.

Funny that, its just what everyone else on this thread has been saying to you.

Difference is i can but you are too stubbornly ignorant to even reads the evidence, yet alone be able to understand it.

Here is the simplest i can find,

Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia

too much for you? Here is a child's version

ESA - Space for Kids - Our Universe - The Universe

 

[dad1]

Wrong again, it is a conclusion based upon evidence and consistent scientific models.

That is important because it means that their concept is testable. They can test their claims and find consistent results.

What they test is based on the belief that time exists there, and therefore the distances must be as they think. They do not test whether there is time there, so your claim is completely bogus.

Parallax measure takes a slice of time and space here...where there IS time, and then tries to draw a line to stars based on assuming the time and space is the same all the way.

 

[dad1]

You asked a question of the Bible

I provided answers (several answers)

And you claim that one must earn what is written in the Bible

What sort of Christian are you?

Your supposed answers had nothing to do with using caps. Gong!

 

[dad1]

Funny that, its just what everyone else on this thread has been saying to you.

Difference is i can but you are too stubbornly ignorant to even reads the evidence, yet alone be able to understand it.

Here is the simplest i can find,

Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia

too much for you? Here is a child's version

ESA - Space for Kids - Our Universe - The Universe

Spamming links is silly. If you do not know how they cook up the billions of years, and cannot discuss or defend it, don't waste our time spamming. OK!?

 

[ChristineM]

Your supposed answers had nothing to do with using caps. Gong!

My answers are to your question. Not my problem if you are ignorant of the Bible...

 

[ChristineM]

Spamming links is silly. If you do not know how they cook up the billions of years, and cannot discuss or defend it, don't waste our time spamming. OK!?

Bull poop, you cannot accept facts because they pop your bubble of delusion

 

[dad1]

My answers are to your question. Not my problem if you are ignorant of the Bible...

No using punctuation was mentioned. Spamming random verses ain't cool.

 

[dad1]

Bull poop, you cannot accept facts because they pop your bubble of delusion

Spamming some child's link which you have offered no discussion or any point from, to be looked at or debated pops nothing. No one even looks at them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What they test is based on the belief that time exists there, and therefore the distances must be as they think. They do not test whether there is time there, so your claim is completely bogus.

Parallax measure takes a slice of time and space here...where there IS time, and then tries to draw a line to stars based on assuming the time and space is the same all the way.

Correction dad, you have mere beliefs, they have testable and confirmable hypotheses. You are once again accusing other of your sins.

If you can learn what is and what is not evidence you will not keep making such obviously ignorant mistakes.


You have no evidence for your goldfish bowl world.. Scientists have almost endless evidence for their claims. But until you learn what is and what is not evidence there is no helping you.

I am still ready to help you to learn.

 

[dad1]

... beliefs, they have testable and confirmable hypotheses. .

Rather than deal with the issue of parallax measure depending on time you resort to the usual bluster. OK.

That was an example of science using what is under it's nose, in that case time as we know it here, and projecting that out into unknown space.

Another example is when they use radioactive decay that we see today, as the measure for how all ratios we see got here. But you ignored that already.

So here is another example where they look at one animal and make up a whole story of how many used to live and etc from the DNA of that animal!!!

"The researchers estimate that the Sumatran rhinoceros population peaked at an estimated effective population size of approximately 57,800 individuals about 950,000 years ago. (Effective population size is the size of a population consistent with the genetic diversity in that population. It gives an estimate of the number of reproducing individuals contributing to a population.) By 9,000 years ago, the genome evidence suggests, the effective population size was reduced to only about 700 Sumatran rhinos."

"....elucidate the population history of a species from the genome sequence of a single individual"


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171214140457.htm

By assuming a same nature and same genetics therefore, they pile on assumptions on assumptions, to concoct a story. They never stopped to ask if present DNA represented what was here in creatures long ago, or in what nature they lived. They sneak in imaginary years also totally based on a same state in the past also, so that the imagined changes in the genetics supposedly tell us of a time tens of thousands, or even millions of imaginary years ago. They can then flesh out the scenario by dreaming up politically correct climate change scenarios as the causes for the changes, or computer modelling based on an environment their same state past predicted!

I really don't know how anyone could take this seriously at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rather than deal with the issue of parallax measure depending on time you resort to the usual bluster. OK.

When you open your post with a lie about someone else that is not a good sign.

That was an example of science using what is under it's nose, in that case time as we know it here, and projecting that out into unknown space.

Yet no matter where we go in space "time" works. You see you are the one making a claim of a magical change. That puts the burden of proof upon you.

As for the parallax if you don't understand it contact the scientists involved. I am not going to explain anything to you until you man up and learn what is and what is not evidence

.

Another example is when they use radioactive decay that we see today, as the measure for how all ratios we see got here. But you ignored that already.

Wrong again, that has been explained to you already and you lost that argument.

So here is another example where they look at one animal and make up a whole story of how many used to live and etc from the DNA of that animal!!!

"The researchers estimate that the Sumatran rhinoceros population peaked at an estimated effective population size of approximately 57,800 individuals about 950,000 years ago. (Effective population size is the size of a population consistent with the genetic diversity in that population. It gives an estimate of the number of reproducing individuals contributing to a population.) By 9,000 years ago, the genome evidence suggests, the effective population size was reduced to only about 700 Sumatran rhinos."

"....elucidate the population history of a species from the genome sequence of a single individual"


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171214140457.htm

dad, all you can do is to constantly bear false witness against your neighbor. I am simply pointing out how you lose every time you break the Ninth Commandment.\\

Try again.

By assuming a same nature and same genetics therefore, they pile on assumptions on assumptions, to concoct a story. They never stopped to ask if present DNA represented what was here in creatures long ago, or in what nature they lived. They sneak in imaginary years also totally based on a same state in the past also, so that the imagined changes in the genetics supposedly tell us of a time tens of thousands, or even millions of imaginary years ago. They can then flesh out the scenario by dreaming up politically correct climate change scenarios as the causes for the changes, or computer modelling based on an environment their same state past predicted!

I really don't know how anyone could take this seriously at all.

There is no "assumption". Once again you break the Ninth Commandment.

When you can be honest we can discuss these issues. Are you ready to be honest? Can you make a post without breaking the Ninth?

 

[dad1]

Yet no matter where we go in space "time" works.

You always see light from stars or anything else HERE. Here we do have time. Just seeing something move here whose light comes from the far universe does not mean time exists the same there.

As for the parallax if you don't understand it contact the scientists involved.

I already explained it. If you understood you could discuss and explain and defend it if you believe it. You do not.

There is no "assumption".

If genetics are not assumed, nor the same laws, then explain what IS used? Ha. Your outright denial of the obvious and fundamental basics betrays you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You always see light from stars or anything else HERE. Here we do have time. Just seeing something move here whose light comes from the far universe does not mean time exists the same there.
I already explained it. If you understood you could discuss and explain and defend it if you believe it. You do not.

If genetics are not assumed, nor the same laws, then explain what IS used? Ha. Your outright denial of the obvious and fundamental basics betrays you.

dad you don't even understand the terms that you try to use. That is why I asked if English is your second language because your skills are clearly lacking.

And just because you can't think logically you should not assume that others cannot do so.

Your first step is to learn what is and what is not evidence. I am still willing to help you.

 

[dad1]

dad you don't even understand the terms that you try to use. That is why I asked if English is your second language because your skills are clearly lacking.

And just because you can't think logically you should not assume that others cannot do so.

Your first step is to learn what is and what is not evidence. I am still willing to help you.

Science does not even know what time is, let alone understand it. As for you, I doubt you even understand what science thinks time is, or could explain it! Yet you do not hesitate to pretend science does know, and that you do.

Your ongoing fail to support your own claims, such as that the flood was disproved long ago, have been hung out to dry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science does not even know what time is, let alone understand it. As for you, I doubt you even understand what science thinks time is, or could explain it! Yet you do not hesitate to pretend science does know, and that you do.

Your ongoing fail to support your own claims, such as that the flood was disproved long ago, have been hung out to dry.

dad, since all of the sciences are beyond your comprehension currently you can't honestly make that claim.


And once again you are projecting your sins upon others. You are the one with insane ideas that need to be supported by evidence. But since you have no clue as to what is or what is not evidence you can only shoot yourself in the foot.

dad, you are rather boring lately. If you learn what is and what is not evidence you will become a better debater. You actually might not lose every time that you enter a post here.

 

[ChristineM]

No using punctuation was mentioned. Spamming random verses ain't cool.

Nothing about punctuation was mentioned by me or in the post i replied to. You are simply hiding behind lies again.

As for spamming, in case you are unaware every single verse related directly to your demand thus proving how biblically illiterate you are yet you claim to be christian.

It is my belief given your ignorance of the bible and the nonesence you spout in the name of the bible, history, archaeology and paleontology that you are more than a troll trying to promote anger.