150 years of evolution mantra PART ONE

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by Coup d'état, Dec 30, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    um that was nightmare your mentors "great source" hes been getting all his info from.whi

    which backfired
    test
  2. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    no, actually it's not at all the source he got it from, where the fuck'd you get that information, and all the shit in there, if you actually watch it, is the physical, tangible evidence, not the bullshit you think that we think
    and to say nightmare is my mentor is pathetic on your part, i don't know that dude, have never had a private conversation with him, and furthermore, don't agree with him on his views of god at all
    to say that someone is my mentor because I'm citing the same facts from a different reference is terribly ignorant on your part

    here's another piece, this one readable that explains in great detail the history of it, even citing the mistakes made along the way

    The History of Animal Evolution
    test
  3. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Bro he posted a link
    test
  4. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Ya didnt mean to say your ment to say yall not u specificly. Apologies.
    test
  5. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    regardless of me or many, nightmare can no where near be considered a mentor...but seriously tho, if he did post a link to the nova video i just did, i never saw it, and i would appreciate it if you could find the thread where he did, and then i will humbly apologize, but still stress the point that everything in that video is sci-fucking-ence, fa-fucking-ct, physical, tangible, video evidence of them tangibly touching the shit with physical bodies, that kind of DATA, you can not deny
    test
  6. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    The fuck are you talking about? The only thing Breathless and I even have remotely in common (this should be apparent) is that we hate stupidity. That's pretty much it.
    test
  7. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    well i would expect of your opinion differs that u would speak up on it once in a while. All ive seen, is u guys allow him to spout off insults and comments that imply hes got it all figured out. without even the slightest reply. Point being, at least be equal in vocalizing ur differences in opinion.
    test
  8. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    honestly when nightmare insults yall its usually funny as shit. most of us here just counter yall as yall are the ones who create most of these threads. its funny that u say "allow him" because you and a few others still try to link us together. if you look in the threads its actually rare to see many of us who dont agree with the bible even interacting with each other. its not that we all agree on everything, its just that everybody is so busy disagreeing with you, and the few others
    test
  9. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Lol.ya i get that. But the boldness of some his statements alone warrant a reply do they not.
    test
  10. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Like the one i sigged
    test
  11. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Indication ≠ fact. Assumption, nevertheless it does not disprove the Creation theory. Furthermore, common features as a result of a common creator go to corroborate Creation theory.

    Evidence? Eukaryotic fossils have been discovered in the same strata as prokaryotes; contradictory to another assumption.

    Suggests ≠ fact. Assumption, nonetheless we find them using the time period based on the circuitous method of indexing strata and fossils.

    Again, we have the use of circuitous indexing of stratum and fossils to establish a period of time.

    Thanks for the brief biology lesson, which does nothing to establish the age of the earth, or to prove when or how exactly man was created. I’m sure it appeals to intellectuals who would rather hear about adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production by way of glycolosis from oxygen and carbohydrate (or lipids) which fuels life instead of Genesis 1:26-27, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

    After all, we’re much smarter than that aren’t we? To even present such a simple account of our beginning is an insult to our intelligence and we're far too learned to be taken for such fools!

    Evidence? I must admit I do enjoy mere speculation, however unconvincing it may be. Perhaps the fossils that they base their indexing of strata on which in turn indexes said fossils were indeed r.apidly immersed in water which almost as r.apidly receded leaving said fossil evidence behind.

    And, ignoring the assumption that these would be the oldest multicellular animals (based on the circuitous method of indexing fossils and strata), how does this disprove the Creation theory?

    Let us skip forward to where you had bookmarked/linked because quite frankly, I’m bored of these incredible quasi fictional stories. After years of studying, researching, and reading associate material I suppose I’ve become desensitized to their allure.

    And this is proven how again? Yes, by the same circuitous method used to index fossils and strata they assert that this instance of fossilisation dates to 530Ma. I must say this is very compelling stuff indeed, thank you for the link.

    I won’t even bother quoting and commenting on the rest, I’m sorry I even read it. I’m sure everyone is intelligent enough to read this for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Suffice to say it’s simply another link quoted absent of any evidence to either explicitly prove the Evolution hypothesis or disprove the Creation theory. Although I’m sure it appeals to the genius scientist that dwells inside each and every one of us.

    Thanking you again for your well-intended attempt, albeit a complete waste of my time. It is very much appreciated. And apparently we don’t think for ourselves. Ironic.
    test
  12. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    What a pleasure it is to have eashaya around these forums. Good stuff!
    test
  13. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    to be fair, most of the things the 2 new butt buddies (who may be the same person) post deserve to be ridiculed as they do the same and it's just ridiiculous. I've got to the point of skimming most of their post as it is just paragraph after paragraph about the same bullshit
    test
  14. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    actually, a few weeks back i was trying to convince nightmare of the logical outcome i've came to that there is a god, but, you probably didn't notice because there was no bible scriptures or jesus attempting to be crammed deep into his jejunum

    if i see night, or anyone else for that matter say something that i've learned as fact, isn't, i'm gonna say something
    test
  15. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    They probably have, especially since bacteria still live today as well, fucking moron, when you build a house from trees, the forest doesn't disappear

    they actually don't do this, it is another bold faced lie on your part, it is radiocarbon dating, based on the known decay rates of certain isotopes, by knowing the dates and the general layers where the specimens are present, yes, they can deduce that the rest of them there are of similar origin without carbon dating everyone of them...this is what you refer to as circuitous dating, and what it actually is


    Ummm, yea, actually, because they are observed fucking facts, you are doing an injustice to the intelligence god allows you to have, quit selling god's plan of infinite possibilities short


    or, perhaps the carbon dated stromatolites and other things of that nature are the evidence...
    Stromatolite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    it actually talks about how the eus set up the environment for the pros


    because it's not an assumption, it's fact and proof, and anyhow, how would that back your creation view? i want links and references of where you get your science from

    understand how radiocarbon dating works
    Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    You are going by your ASSUMPTIONS that you know and understand things, but your perception of them is flawed and skewed.
    test
  16. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Hmm. Wish i had. Remember where?

    What was nightmares response 'u fucking retarded snake eating, liar..?'
    test
  17. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    There are actual cases to be made for a deity you faggot. If you read my first thread (and I know you did since you replied in it) you would know that I'm not a positive atheist anyway, it's that and I quote "God isn't worth believing in" which I don't.

    Breathless making a philosophical case isn't rage inducing because it doesn't involve deception, presupposing he's absolutely correct, or intellectual dishonesty. You are guilty of all of these at all times.
    test
  18. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    My apologies: It should have read, “Prokaryotic fossils have been discovered in the same simple indexed stratum as Eukaryotes.” READ: Both UNICELLULAR organisms lacking nuclei and MULTICELLULAR organisms complete with mitochondria and nuclei have been found in the lowest/earliest geological layers that form your geological column; the Eoarchean era. Notwithstanding this their disparate complexity does nothing to disprove the Creation theory. With basic reasoning you could have formed this conclusion. And I’m the moron? Ironic.

    Yes, sir, they do. It is widely accepted that this is the most common method of indexing both strata and fossils, in fact the only method until radiometric dating which is coincidentally biased on the already established paradigm predicated by the circuitous fossil/strata indexing. History, geology and biology books are available in abundance at any college library. Perhaps you should open one (or several) and cross reference with the videos and web pages you like to source your assumptions from.
    Are you ignorant to the fact of carbon-14 half-life which renders the method incapable of dating beyond 50,000 years? How about the fact that carbon-14 dating cannot be used with inorganic material? Or what of the fact that many variables – c12/14 uptake and synthesisation, changing atmospheric levels, cosmic influence, magnetic interference – render it beyond inaccurate? How about the favoured more accurate potassium-argon dating method? Accurate because, yes, the isotopes can indeed be measured with precision, nevertheless, isotope conversion/decay does not equate to dates. Furthermore, the method/s are based on several assumptions; discernible starting point (unknown, but a presumption of zero levels upon initial formation), consistent decay rates, no environmental influence not to mention that they’re designed to date on the order of billions. What of the inconsistencies between different methods, not to mention “younger” fossils in “older stratum” (see Ardipithecus ramidus: Stratum initially dated at 22Ma forcing 20 subsequent tests, albeit of matter further distanced from said fossil, 9 of which proved inconsistent yet again, till they produced a result of 4.4Ma – which coincidentally supports the pre-existing period of time based on the circuitous indexing of fossils and strata; Homo rudolfensis, another example initially dated at 230Ma – obviously inconsistent with the pre-existing paradigm – until further tests established it was actually only 3Ma, however this too disputed the evolution theory, so it is now agreed [based on more “confirmed” tests] that it is 1.9Ma), and the posterior excuse to explain such results? Ignorant or duplicitous? I am frankly undecided. Isotope concentrations are measured accurately; nevertheless the age is still assumed by basing calculations on the pre-existing paradigm (every observation must remain consistent with the previous model, or the theory must be completely re-evaluated); the circuitous method which forms the basis of your example which I previously addressed, albeit with much brevity here: http://board.rapmusic.com/sanctuary...e-text-battle-re-buttal-person-above-you.html
    The evidence of inconsistency, circular reasoning, and possible agenda is surprisingly available, albeit buried in a plethora of misinformation, misrepresentation and captivating publications that appeal to the superior intelligence of every one of us. I am not here to convince you of anything that benefits me in any way whatsoever. I have nothing to gain, sir.

    Which facts? The fact that the stratum a certain fossil is discovered in is initially dated at ~200Ma, then ~100Ma, then ~4ma, now 2Ma? Sorry, you mean the fact that proves life is fuelled by carbohydrates, or lipids, and oxygen (ATP production)? Yes, it is. Something I learnt in Exercise & Sports Science nearly 10 years ago; a fact that does NOTHING to either disprove or prove the Creation and Evolution theories respectively. If you find such rudimentary (not to mention irrelevant to the debate) biology appealing go back to school. And I’m not using my intelligence? Ironic.

    The purported 3.4 billion year old microbial organisms discovered in Western Australia; claimed to be biogenetic because the laminated sediment is apparently similar to younger stromatolites. I’m very familiar with them: The same stromatolites that are being disputed as being of non-biological origin by acclaimed Professors, such as Paleontologist Martin Brasier, who possesses intelligence and acumen far superior to mine. Not to mention that besides the fact that the disputed Archean aged stromatolites cannot be accurately dated by c14 testing, it still does not disprove the Creation hypothesis. I won’t even touch on the fact that scientists cannot even be clear on what supposed role they played in morphogenesis or that they cannot explain the notion of Precambrian superficial sea colonisation because they’re abiogenic which makes such a theory even less convincing.

    The assumption is that because of the simplicity of the organism and the stratum they’re discovered in, they’re the oldest. The fact: It is simply fossil evidence. That is it. And the conclusion: It does not disprove (not “back”) the Creation hypothesis. I’m not in any thread positing any hypothesis as undisputable fact. Nor am I proselytizing as some evolution proponents appear to be doing. I am applying the scientific method, through logical inquiry, to hypotheses and evidence suggested to support said hypotheses. I suggest you do the same.
    test
  19. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    I understand quite well how radiometric dating works, perhaps more astutely than you would presume. I am discerning what is fact or theory, evidence or suggestion, logical or illogical, through formal education, thorough research of relevant science, applied methods and associated formula and terminology. I don’t just read, “Compared to prokaryotic organisms such as bacteria, plants and animals have a relatively recent evolutionary origin.” And consider it fact. Or, “DNA evidence suggests that the first eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, between 2500 and 1000 million years ago.” And ignore that the remarkable conclusion is absent of any evidence whatsoever. Or, “And that is where they remained for at least 600 million years.” And accept it without question. No, I can’t do that.

    I can see you’re staunchly infatuated with your belief. Frankly, I admire such loyalty. You, no doubt, possess superior acumen and are much cleverer than I and although I will not acquiesce to your belief, I will no longer debate this argument with you. It is somewhat fruitless. Inasmuch as I have articulated, with enough clarity, sufficient critical thought you have displayed equal inability to comprehend and discern of your own accord. I only pray individuals will read these threads and form their own conclusions using their God given gift of reason. God bless.
    test
  20. GaLaTeA

    GaLaTeA GymArt

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    31,440
    Yes, they're still atheists.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)