What of the dinosaurs?

[JesusIsAll]

..... .....​

 

[dcontroversal]

Heheheh

Ph.D. University of California 1976, silly child. lol

But long after graduation I held professorships, and fellowships. I had classes with members of the National academy of Science, and lunch with a Nobel Prize winner. I got my bill, so I guess he really was smarter. I was on the Board of Directors of the Southern California Academy of Science.

But the best part is, I was judged by the content, and competence of my work and not my wealth, race, sex, religion, or political party.

That is why science wins.

Well...God has made foolish the wisdom of the world so you can show me a list of all the degrees that hang on the wall and all they will mean to me is I have extra paper when I run out in the (loo) so let us surmise for a moment oh grand guru....

Your degree came from-->this guy who got a degree from-->this guy who got a degree from-->this guy who got a degree from--> down thru time from exactly who had the first degree, and who signed his John Hancock to the first degree ever written.....means Jack crap at the end of the day, because all you do is regurgitate what some other fool taught and or believed....again...what a farce! By the way just in case you and your enlightened pal didn't get it...I did make a play on the word JACK!

 

[Brainfreeze]

Heheheh

Ph.D. University of California 1976, silly child. lol

But long after graduation I held professorships, and fellowships. I had classes with members of the National academy of Science, and lunch with a Nobel Prize winner. I got my bill, so I guess he really was smarter. I was on the Board of Directors of the Southern California Academy of Science.

But the best part is, I was judged by the content, and competence of my work and not my wealth, race, sex, religion, or political party.

That is why science wins.

You do realize obama has one of those, right? Democrats judge his doings to, and love his work...

 

[Billyd]

I don't know of one family that has lost a child that was taught the Bible.

My friend, you must live a very sheltered life. I have a son who grew up with the Bible taught every day, participated in every Bible class that was available to him, and knows the scriptures as well as any graduate of a Bible college. He was raised in a very conservative Christian home. He is forty-five years old, and still lost. Thirty years ago, those with his background and foundation in Christ were returning to the church by age forty. Today it is not happening. As I have traveled around the country, I find this to be the rule rather than the exception.

 

[JackH]

There are several problems that trash the effort to deny radioactive decay series in the ICR "reports" linked by Mr. Swords Guy.

The first obvious failure was "Unfortunately for the secularist, there are radiohalos formed from what appears to be primordial Po (polonium), rather than Po in the form of daughter isotopes from U decay." (This is the correct link to Creationist Silly Part 1, by the way).

The failure is of course that the creationists merely make the empty assertion without any evidence. This particular creationist fraud has been popular since Robert Gentry's publications in the 1970s. What he, now any later creationist was never ever able to explain was how they could tell the difference between "primordial" Polonium and the regular sort. The entire creationist fantasy is debunked by (PDF) Collins, Lorence G. "Polonium halos and myrmekite in pegmatite and granite." (1997). Then there is the basic error of the Helium content of zircons promoted by Russ Humphreys. Among the gross errors of fact are that the tested material was removed from very high pressure rock which alters Helium diffusion, and that the silly notion of "accelerated nuclear decay" would have melted the Earth, and slaughtered all life.

Then there is this little horse's gift to the pasture, "Unfortunately for the secularist, there are serious problems with the uniformitarian view as it is applied to radioactive dating. Recent experimental evidences verify that the decay rates of radioisotopes can vary significantly from the currently accepted values—by as much as 10[SUP]9[/SUP] times faster (that’s 1 billion times faster) when exposed to certain environmental factors." The "certain environmental factors" happen to be heated to a ionized plasma. That is correct, boys and girls. All we need to do to alter negative beta decay is turn the Earth into a glowing ball of electron free gas.

Sure- no problem.

That was followed by the comparatively minor lie that, "It is particularly interesting that the alpha-decay rates of [SUP]228[/SUP]Th are increased by as much as 10[SUP]4[/SUP] (10,000 times) under conditions which give rise to high pressure waves."

This cited a paper that was refuted by a half dozen later experiments. But even if it was not a failure as science, the "environmental conditions" in this case were a dissolved thorium oxide subjected to ultrasound cavitation.

Sure- no problem. Just liquefy the Earth in a giant blender in an ultrasound machine, and then there might be some effect that cannot be replicated by anyone. (2009. Piezonuclear decay of thorium. Physics Letters A. 373 (22): 1956-1958).

It has been 3 days and I am still waiting for some ICR fan to refute this post.

 

[JackH]

Re: "The Iconic Isochron: Radioactive Dating, Part 2" Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D.

I nearly laughed out loud when I read, "Note: The equations may be daunting, especially to the layman, so we’ve placed them in sidebars. Hang in there—read the narrative and we’ll get to the answer we’re looking for."

That's right kids, don't sweat that hard book larnin' "we’ll get to the answer we’re looking for." It won't matter what the real answers are, creationists can always fake the "answer they’re looking for."

And sure enough, if you ignore the facts, if you cannot do simple math, Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. will give you "the answer you’re looking for." Look how well it worked on Mr. Sword. He went looking for the answer he wanted, and there was a professional creationist waiting to sell it to him. Win! Win!

Hey, reality sux. It is much better to just pretend.

And this one.

I'm glad I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Brainfreeze]

When one crosses over to reality of and in Christ, atheist will no longer respect the thought. They are now considered the enemy and you won't hear nothing they have to say. What do you guys want a atheist to tell y'all the truth of Christ and creation? It won't happen. Buy a book from them, win, win..right ? ..wrong.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

It has been 3 days and I am still waiting for some ICR fan to refute this post.

Proverbs 26:4 (KJV) [SUP]4 [/SUP] Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

 

[JackH]

When one crosses over to reality of and in Christ, atheist will no longer respect the thought. They are now considered the enemy and you won't hear nothing they have to say. What do you guys want a atheist to tell y'all the truth of Christ and creation? It won't happen. Buy a book from them, win, win..right ? ..wrong.

Personally, I could care less whether the scientists who examined the stegosaurus to go on display at the London Museum next month are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or whatever. What I care about is the fact that this dino is 150 million years old:

Rare Stegosaurus Skeleton to Debut at London Museum

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Proverbs 26:4 (KJV) [SUP]4 [/SUP] Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Well I must say that this is one of the parts of the Bible I have failed to follow exactly. I have tried not to answer the fools in the same way that they react. I do try to avoid calling them fools. I try not to use name calling insults.

I try. But sometimes I fail.

Pointing out that they are liars and frauds who bring disgrace to Christ is merely pointing out the truth.

The Apostle Paul warned against these frauds;

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Torah, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

Romans 2:
23. Thou that makest thy boast of the Torah, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24. For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written.

I am not a big fan of the Book of John, but in these discussions it is impossible to overlook 1 John 4:1. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

These creationists cannot manage even simple facts, how can they claim any spiritual discernment.

 

[Brainfreeze]

Personally, I could care less whether the scientists who examined the stegosaurus to go on display at the London Museum next month are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or whatever. What I care about is the fact that this dino is 150 million years old:

Rare Stegosaurus Skeleton to Debut at London Museum

If I trumped up some spectacular stuff, that goes beyond reason and be it in the 1400s. I tell you don't float your boat over the edge of the earth... You will fall off, .. Would you have went for this ? Plenty did for a lllllong time.

22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

[Timeline]

Re: "The Iconic Isochron: Radioactive Dating, Part 2" Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D.

I nearly laughed out loud when I read, "Note: The equations may be daunting, especially to the layman, so we’ve placed them in sidebars. Hang in there—read the narrative and we’ll get to the answer we’re looking for."

That's right kids, don't sweat that hard book larnin' "we’ll get to the answer we’re looking for." It won't matter what the real answers are, creationists can always fake the "answer they’re looking for."

And sure enough, if you ignore the facts, if you cannot do simple math, Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. will give you "the answer you’re looking for." Look how well it worked on Mr. Sword. He went looking for the answer he wanted, and there was a professional creationist waiting to sell it to him. Win! Win!

Hey, reality sux. It is much better to just pretend.

And this one.

I'm glad I'm not holding my breath.

You want a response to this? He merely manipulated the statement, "we'll get to the answer we're looking for."

Hurd simply suggests that they are not looking for the factual answer, but the one that they want. While this is a possibility for anyone making this statement, it is not implied. If you are looking for the truth, then the answer that you're looking for is the true one.

 

[Timeline]

You cannot put God on a lab table or under a microscope!!!!

By definition science cannot reach God as a conclusion. And yet, they examine His work and come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. More specifically, they examine evidence, from which they conclude that His inspired word is not accurate.

If there is something that we get from the Bible that is not accurate, then it is through poor translation or false perception of what the Bible is saying, imho. So, before I go to evolutionary scientists for "truth", I will learn how to read Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Or better yet, I will pray, asking for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

 

[posthuman]

__ __ __ __ __ __ ____ __ __ __ __ __ ____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

 

[Tintin]

Personally, I could care less whether the scientists who examined the stegosaurus to go on display at the London Museum next month are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or whatever. What I care about is the fact that this dino is 150 million years old:

Rare Stegosaurus Skeleton to Debut at London Museum

How about not just believing the bollocks that comes out of the mouths of many so-called learned evolution experts? How about some critical thinking for a change?

 

[Percepi]

How about not just believing the bollocks that comes out of the mouths of many so-called learned evolution experts? How about some critical thinking for a change?

So much irony!

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Hurd simply suggests that they are not looking for the factual answer, but the one that they want. While this is a possibility for anyone making this statement, it is not implied. If you are looking for the truth, then the answer that you're looking for is the true one.

Have you taught math? Have you had post-graduate level math? Are you published in advanced algebra? (I have) For example;
1982 "Models of Social Network Intervention," Hurd, G. S., Robert Llamas, E. M. Pattison. International Journal of Family Therapy, (renamed "Contemporary Family Therapy") Vol. 3, No. 4

1982 "Clinical Implications of Some Graph Centrality Measures," Hurd, G. S, Bonney Jennings. Sun Belt Social Network Conference, Tampa, Fl

1982 "Adjacency Matrix Density and Consensus," Hurd, G. S., Kathy Hammond. Sun Belt Social Network Conference, Tampa, Fl

1990 "The Application of Deridrich Tessellation to Social Network Analysis," G. S. Hurd, David Koisumi. Tenth Annual Sunbelt Social Network Conference, San Diego

I cannot teach you even basic algebra on this chat site. Not even if you were a promising student. You are not a promising student.

The mathagisticsts presented by "Dr" Cupps cannot fool an actual expert. But they will fool people that want to be fooled.

 

[Percepi]

..... View attachment 92314 .....​

That's not what atheism refers to at all. It should read:

Atheism

The lack of belief in one or more gods.

Atheism and evolution are entirely different. Some atheists, believe it or not, don't accept evolution. And most people who accept evolution are theists. Oh, and what you posted doesn't even refer to evolution or the Big Bang - it just shows your total lack of understanding of both topics. I'd love to go into detail, but I sincerely doubt you'd change your mind - not about whether evolution and the big bang actually happened, but what you THINK they refer to. Tell a creationist that evolution doesn't refer to people evolving from rocks or dogs, and you'll often find these same creationists making these same arguments despite being corrected.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

You cannot put God on a lab table or under a microscope!!!!

By definition science cannot reach God as a conclusion. And yet, they examine His work and come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. More specifically, they examine evidence, from which they conclude that His inspired word is not accurate.

If there is something that we get from the Bible that is not accurate, then it is through poor translation or false perception of what the Bible is saying, imho. So, before I go to evolutionary scientists for "truth", I will learn how to read Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Or better yet, I will pray, asking for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

I tried prayer, and then I studied Hebrew, and Ugaritic. You might not know Ugaritic. Here is a textbook I found useful;
Schniedewind, William M., Joel H. Hunt
2007 “A Primer on Ugaritic: Language, Culture, and Literature” Cambridge University Press

 

[Timeline]

Have you taught math? Have you had post-graduate level math? Are you published in advanced algebra? (I have) For example;
1982 "Models of Social Network Intervention," Hurd, G. S., Robert Llamas, E. M. Pattison. International Journal of Family Therapy, (renamed "Contemporary Family Therapy") Vol. 3, No. 4

1982 "Clinical Implications of Some Graph Centrality Measures," Hurd, G. S, Bonney Jennings. Sun Belt Social Network Conference, Tampa, Fl

1982 "Adjacency Matrix Density and Consensus," Hurd, G. S., Kathy Hammond. Sun Belt Social Network Conference, Tampa, Fl

1990 "The Application of Deridrich Tessellation to Social Network Analysis," G. S. Hurd, David Koisumi. Tenth Annual Sunbelt Social Network Conference, San Diego

I cannot teach you even basic algebra on this chat site. Not even if you were a promising student. You are not a promising student.

The mathagisticsts presented by "Dr" Cupps cannot fool an actual expert. But they will fool people that want to be fooled.

Well, using the abounding evidence that you have, I have been put in my place. Perhaps this is the same amount of evidence that evolutionists have to prove their theory.

Can you show me the evidence you used to assume that I am not a promising student of "basic algebra"?