Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > forastero's thread

Pages: (51) < ... 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 >

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,15:10    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,08:00) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:30)   Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,16:55)   Quote Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say. Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon. Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past. and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle.  Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2.  I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots. As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing. Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,15:17    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,13:10) Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,08:00) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:30)   Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,16:55)     Quote Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say. Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon. Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past. and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle.  Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2.  I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots. As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing. Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. This is why the muppet is entertaining -  he tries to paraphrase things he doesn't understand, and ends up telling us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is sequestered in fish.   Maybe they're in an aquatic refuge. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,15:30    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. "Are" sequestering? Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt). Char sequesters CO2?  Really?  Can you describe that chemical reaction please? Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2?  What happens when I pop the top?   just wow -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,15:31    perhaps that's what did in Salvelinus agassizii motherfucking atmosphere sequestration something something refuge amen -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,15:43    Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,15:17) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,13:10) Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,08:00)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:30)     Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,16:55)     Quote Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say. Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon. Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past. and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle.  Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2.  I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots. As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing. Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. This is why the muppet is entertaining -  he tries to paraphrase things he doesn't understand, and ends up telling us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is sequestered in fish.   Maybe they're in an aquatic refuge. Forastero is merely alluding to the fact that around half of the CO2 excess is absorbed by the ocean short term.  Nothing about fish, but being clear is not on its agenda. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,15:45    Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,10:33) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 12 2011,04:21) fourass just how stupid are you? Stupid enough to think Darwin wrote a paper in 1993. Stupid enough to think 1 + 0.005 ^= 1.005 Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old. Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000. Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science. Stupid enough to think he's dangerous. Stupid enough to think he's winning. p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian 1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^ All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down. Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations. Crankery from even Ivy league schools, I'll agree with that yeah I am stupid but the Holy Spirit that converted me is not

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,15:51    -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,15:52    play us out, keyboard cat -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,15:55    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:45) Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,10:33) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 12 2011,04:21) fourass just how stupid are you? Stupid enough to think Darwin wrote a paper in 1993. Stupid enough to think 1 + 0.005 ^= 1.005 Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old. Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000. Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science. Stupid enough to think he's dangerous. Stupid enough to think he's winning. p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian 1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^ All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down. Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations. Crankery from even Ivy league schools, I'll agree with that yeah I am stupid but the Holy Spirit that converted me is not You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005. You really think you can get a isochron on a fossil?  Really? Hoo boy... home skillet has well and truly lost it. You do understand how radioactive dating works right?  Nevermind, you don't.  In spite of multiple people trying to teach you, you still don't get it.  A truly stunning display of Morton's Demon... and Dunning-Kruger for that matter. You should be in a text book. BTW: Which fossil fuels are currently sequestering CO2? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,15:59    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. "Are" sequestering? Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt). Char sequesters CO2?  Really?  Can you describe that chemical reaction please? Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2?  What happens when I pop the top?   just wow The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,16:06    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. "Are" sequestering? Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt). Char sequesters CO2?  Really?  Can you describe that chemical reaction please? Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2?  What happens when I pop the top?   just wow They all do Biochar nourishes soils, protects water quality, provides market value to biomass waste, creates clean energy, reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequesters CO2 for thousands of years! http://www.biochar-us.org/....-us.org

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,16:07    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,13:59) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. "Are" sequestering? Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt). Char sequesters CO2?  Really?  Can you describe that chemical reaction please? Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2?  What happens when I pop the top?   just wow The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon. Thanks, Tracy.  I learned something.  As usual, not from the muppet. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,16:19    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,16:59) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. "Are" sequestering? Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt). Char sequesters CO2?  Really?  Can you describe that chemical reaction please? Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2?  What happens when I pop the top?   just wow The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon. i wouldn't give this shitstain that much credit -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,16:21    even a rock can occur in seconds every once in a while.  this motherfucker don't even know what he copypasta hey fourass tell us about how you met the Holy Spirit.  did you speak in a foreign tongue? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,16:22    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,13:55) You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005. It was Wesley in a TalkOrigins article. Here's the muppet's comment, in all its magnificence: Quote Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N   but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,16:50    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,16:06) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. "Are" sequestering? Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt). Char sequesters CO2?  Really?  Can you describe that chemical reaction please? Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2?  What happens when I pop the top?   just wow They all do Biochar nourishes soils, protects water quality, provides market value to biomass waste, creates clean energy, reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequesters CO2 for thousands of years! http://www.biochar-us.org/....-us....-us.org You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'.  There's a big freaking difference.   Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2? Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages? All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon?  Really?  Everything?  The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,17:03    Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,13:17)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,13:10)   Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,08:00)     Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:30)       Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,16:55)       Quote Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say. Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon. Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past. and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle.  Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2.  I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots. As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing. Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. This is why the muppet is entertaining -  he tries to paraphrase things he doesn't understand, and ends up telling us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is sequestered in fish.   Maybe they're in an aquatic refuge. What else might have survived in those "aquatic refugia"? -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,17:16    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,15:59) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. "Are" sequestering? Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt). Char sequesters CO2?  Really?  Can you describe that chemical reaction please? Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2?  What happens when I pop the top?   just wow The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon. Most coal is about 75-90 percent carbon. Biochar is 80% carbon that both act as present sinks. And as I told Ogre a while back, they are probably both mostly made by pyrolysis. The same stuff that makes bio-char is also often used to make bio-oil, which is also used to sequester carbon Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa....7n2.pdf coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009....hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....w

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,17:19    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:16) fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w They do?  I thought they were only 4000 years old. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,17:26    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,16:50) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,16:06) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30)   Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you  realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. "Are" sequestering? Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt). Char sequesters CO2?  Really?  Can you describe that chemical reaction please? Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2?  What happens when I pop the top?   just wow They all do Biochar nourishes soils, protects water quality, provides market value to biomass waste, creates clean energy, reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequesters CO2 for thousands of years! http://www.biochar-us.org/....-us....-us.org You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'.  There's a big freaking difference.   Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2? Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages? All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon?  Really?  Everything?  The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide? Not much-just more politically correct. Char is a  broad term but  char, charcoal and biochar are all carbon byproducts of pyrolysis. The only difference is that Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. A vogue agroforestry technique is called slash-n-char

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,17:29    Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,17:19) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:16) fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w They do?  I thought they were only 4000 years old. In this increasingly politically correct world, one must read between the lines

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,17:30    Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,17:41    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30) Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old I thought sedimentary rocks were all formed in Teh Flud? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,18:04    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,17:30) Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old So how old is it? You said 10000 years earlier? Stand by that? Why? How did you come to that figure. It's easy to say what's wrong. What's right? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,18:06    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:55) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:45) Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,10:33)   Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 12 2011,04:21) fourass just how stupid are you? Stupid enough to think Darwin wrote a paper in 1993. Stupid enough to think 1 + 0.005 ^= 1.005 Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old. Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000. Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science. Stupid enough to think he's dangerous. Stupid enough to think he's winning. p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian 1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^ All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down. Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations. Crankery from even Ivy league schools, I'll agree with that yeah I am stupid but the Holy Spirit that converted me is not You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005. You really think you can get a isochron on a fossil?  Really? Hoo boy... home skillet has well and truly lost it. You do understand how radioactive dating works right?  Nevermind, you don't.  In spite of multiple people trying to teach you, you still don't get it.  A truly stunning display of Morton's Demon... and Dunning-Kruger for that matter. You should be in a text book. BTW: Which fossil fuels are currently sequestering CO2? Maybe you believe all that because you are pretending to be a scientist. I have already shown that oil fields and coal sequester carbon. I meant that they dont do isochrons on bones but then come to think about it, why not ? Btw, you believe the favored isochron 238U always decay chains into lead but in fact it can directly transmutate into all kinds isotpes via al kinds of decay mechanisms. Some 238U has different barrier wall thickness and decays extremely fast.   So just imagine how variable the chain to lead must be

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,18:11    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 12 2011,18:04) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,17:30) Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old So how old is it? You said 10000 years earlier? Stand by that? Why? How did you come to that figure. It's easy to say what's wrong. What's right? I said probably less than 10,000 year because I am not a pseudoempiricists and Bible chronology was not really meant for dating the earth

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,18:28    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,16:45)   Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,10:33)     Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 12 2011,04:21) fourass just how stupid are you? Stupid enough to think Darwin wrote a paper in 1993. Stupid enough to think 1 + 0.005 ^= 1.005 Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old. Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000. Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science. Stupid enough to think he's dangerous. Stupid enough to think he's winning. p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian 1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^ All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down. Hee hee hee hee! Still no evidence!   Quote Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations. See below. Quote Crankery from even Ivy league schools, I'll agree with that yeah I am stupid but the Holy Spirit that converted me is not Well you certainly are stupid, and incapable of figuring out the simplest parts of reality, Holy Spirit or not.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,19:00    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:11) I said probably less than 10,000 year because I am not a pseudoempiricists and Bible chronology was not really meant for dating the earth Forastero, do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old (or 20,000 years, depending upon which Forastero we ask), or don't you? If not, how old is it? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,19:00    Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,16:22) Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,13:55) You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005. It was Wesley in a TalkOrigins article. Here's the muppet's comment, in all its magnificence:   Quote Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N   but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate I can't claim credit for the original, which is due to Mark Isaak. 'Forastero' incorrectly attributed it to me while taking exception to a perfectly well-formed mathematical equation. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2011,19:04    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00) Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:11) I said probably less than 10,000 year because I am not a pseudoempiricists and Bible chronology was not really meant for dating the earth Forastero, do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old (or 20,000 years, depending upon which Forastero we ask), or don't you? Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000 why do y'all keep asking that?

Pages: (51) < ... 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard