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... > The Bathroom Wall

Pages: (666) < ... 107 108 109 110 111 [112] 113 114 115 116 117 ... >

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,13:14    This has got to be a one of you!   It purports to be from a "John Bustrak", loyal ID supporter linked to by DLH at UD... However, you don't even need to use the Full Awesome Power of the Nixplanatory Filter™ to see that you can easily adapt the name to read "John But-rack" or "John But-crack", thus rendering this latest "ID Supporter" fodder for only the Bathroom Wall. The link goes to the common-place argument that ID is not creationism... ho hum.   The Name's The Thing! http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....olution -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,17:01    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2007,09:13) Quote Show me a real science paper that confirms the real age of any of these items claimed to be older than Methuselah and we'll talk. I find it amusing that Dave accepts the results of science with no problem when scientists say that there's a 4,800 year old tree, but rejects the findings of scientists outright when they say that a mesquite bush is 11,700 years old or that a tree is 80,000 years old. I wonder what the difference could be? 6900 years and 75,200 years?

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,05:22    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2007,09:13)   Quote Show me a real science paper that confirms the real age of any of these items claimed to be older than Methuselah and we'll talk. I find it amusing that Dave accepts the results of science with no problem when scientists say that there's a 4,800 year old tree, but rejects the findings of scientists outright when they say that a mesquite bush is 11,700 years old or that a tree is 80,000 years old. I wonder what the difference could be? I updated my blog with an article from Science which explains this. http://afdave.wordpress.com/2007....tionism Go check it out and learn something new from this "lunatic" creationist. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,06:07    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2007,09:22) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 14 2007,09:13)   Quote Show me a real science paper that confirms the real age of any of these items claimed to be older than Methuselah and we'll talk. I find it amusing that Dave accepts the results of science with no problem when scientists say that there's a 4,800 year old tree, but rejects the findings of scientists outright when they say that a mesquite bush is 11,700 years old or that a tree is 80,000 years old. I wonder what the difference could be? I updated my blog with an article from Science which explains this. http://afdave.wordpress.com/2007....tionism Go check it out and learn something new from this "lunatic" creationist. No Dave, he's asking why you think the science for one is ok, but the exact same science for the other is not. Incidentally, wouldn't that tree have been underwater during the flood? How the hell did it survive, exactly? -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,07:39    Or this:   Quote Then in 1980, mainstream science finally woke up and published Alvarez’s paper on the K/T Impact. (K/T means Cretacious/Tertiary and refers to the boundary … Picture credit: Wiki “K/T Extinction”). Nature had this to say about it this week … "The science of the K/T impact (K is the customary abbreviation for Cretaceous) began in a more modest way, with attempts to get a sense of how quickly a thin layer of clays in the Italian Apennines had been deposited. No one foresaw that it would change how scientists and others see the world, and reintroduce catastrophism to the Earth sciences. Explanations that ignore the once-canonical principles of uniformitarianism — the gradualist paradigm in which the present is the key to the past — are now rife in studies of the history of Earth." In other words, “Dear Mr. Lyell … Thanks, but no thanks! Have a nice day.” Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell will ultimately go down in history as men whose theories were wrong. One marvels. Dave presents the discovery of K/T event at the close of the Cretaceous, and the overturning of pure gradualism that it represents, as an example of a major scientific framework being replaced, yet... He simultaneously denies that there there WAS a Cretaceous, and rejects the notion that there is evidence of historical events much beyond an interval that is 1/13,000th of the span since the K/T event. That is some flexible thinking. -------------- 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

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,10:01    Ian and Bill ... I have very good answers for your questions, but I don't think Wesley and Steve want me posting extensively here, so please post your questions to my blog or at RD.net or at IIDB where I post a lot.  Thx -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,10:16    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2007,14:01) Ian and Bill ... I have very good answers for your questions, but I don't think Wesley and Steve want me posting extensively here, so please post your questions to my blog or at RD.net or at IIDB where I post a lot.  Thx Errr....I don't think so chum. For one, Wes and Steve had a problem with you starting a new topic every 5 seconds, I don't think they will mind you answering questions somehow, particularly since this is something you didn't do a whole lot of when you weren't confined to here. Secondly, how do I know all my comments will appear? I've had enough exposure to people on your side of the "debate" to know that a great number of them are dishonest cowards who won't allow dissent in many cases. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,10:40    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2007,11:01) Ian and Bill ... I have very good answers for your questions, but I don't think Wesley and Steve want me posting extensively here, so please post your questions to my blog or at RD.net or at IIDB where I post a lot.  Thx Naw, Dave, I know better than to enter your maze of twisty little passages, all of which look alike. -------------- 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

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,12:15    No, Ian ... I started 6 threads TOTAL in about 7 months here.     Check for yourself. My blog will allow your comments.  See ya'. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2007,12:20    Awwwww...... looks like Dave got lonely again.   -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2007,08:22    what a dumbass. didn't wesley say he could post on the bathroom wall all he wanted? afdave you are an idiot.  but a highly entertaining one.  Tally Ho!!!! tell us more about young earth predictions upheld next time you get one.  or, i know, just make one up!!!  all science so far! -------------- 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: Sep. 17 2007,01:07    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2007,08:01) Ian and Bill ... I have very good answers for your questions, but I don't think Wesley and Steve want me posting extensively here, so please post your questions to my blog or at RD.net or at IIDB where I post a lot.  Thx Well, Dave,  I'm pretty confident that Wesley and Steve will allow you to respond to Ian and Bill's comments, but in case you are nervous about all that typing going to waste by getting deleted, I'll make it easy for you.  All you need to do is type two or three characters to give a straight answer to my question: Do you accept the evidence for an asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous?  Yes or no? -------------- 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

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2007,08:59    Quote (Kristine @ Sep. 14 2007,11:40)   Quote (afdave @ Sep. 14 2007,06:17) SCIENCE NEWS FLASH FROM DEEP IN THE BOWELS OF THE ATBC BATHROOM (It's really not the Gulag ... that was supposed to be a funny joke) A 4800 Year Old Living Tree: Confirmed Prediction of Creationism Probably you already know about this, but I think many non-YEC scientists don't realize how many failed predictions there are of ToE and how many confirmed predictions of Creationism there are. So I feel it is my duty to keep you informed of these sorts of things ... Stay tuned to the Bathroom Wall for more! *Sigh* Here. No response, as usual. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

k.e Posts: 1948 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,08:50    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] Quote well I don't know if I would meet your criteria or not for "educated."   I don't have a degree in science, but I do some reading on it...or at least I look at the pictures in the books I have....that's worth something, I guess. Let me guess you were the guy that sat near the back of the class who was too stupid to actually even THINK of a question, let alone catch a dodge ball. You hoped that by never opening your mouth no one would ever suspect how genuinely thick you were. The only time Super Stormin' Spurt (aka the 'Ralph Wiggum'  of his cohort) ever made a mark, was when the nerds wedged him. Now that jesus saved his sorry ass from having to actually make his way in the world by supplying electricity to his brain StormfurherStompingSpurt got an internet account .........jesus blessed be. I'm thinking of updating my sig ...can I use Schutzstaffel/SocialSecurity/SpuperSpud Quote ....we "fundies" just don't do it with animals and with members of our own gender like others in society. I need to credit a couple of live genii on this board and Haldane is dead. Thanks in advance brain drain. -------------- The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

SpaghettiSawUs Posts: 77 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,20:29    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2007,16:01) Ian and Bill ... I have very good answers for your questions, but I don't think Wesley and Steve want me posting extensively here, so please post your questions to my blog or at RD.net or at IIDB where I post a lot.  Thx Errrrr. Actually Dave, you've run from thread after thread after thread on both RD and IIDB. There's a ton of questions outstanding for you there, as well as a formal devate post outstanding at RD. Why don't you jump to it. And as for your impressive little bit of research as to ultra-conserved DNA, I would have thought that having your ass handed to you on that on just one forum would be enough. My you are a sucker when it comes to a good spanking. So Dave, since you've hidden from it everywhere else perhaps you'd like to answer it here: how does ultra-conserved DNA which apparently serves no function fit into your YEC paradigm where all DNA was created to fulfil a function, and ultra-conserved DNA has by definition not "devolved" as you would have it. See Dave, you seem so adept at citing research which contradicts yourself, I thought I'd make sure you were still consistent on that score. Perhaps your little logical gymnastics from RD net would be approriate here: Quote (afdave @ Sep 15) OK. I think I see where you are coming from. Several things here ... 1) The ToE prediction is "Ultra-conserved --> VITAL function 2) Research says "No function" --> failed prediction 3) Creationist prediction is "All DNA has some function, some more important than others" 4) Research says "No function" (probably wrong based on recent studies ... probably has some as yet undetected function) --> Creationist prediction still intact, though it could be wrong when more is known Does this clear things up? from This peach of a Hawkins Dump. There'sa bit of a logical inconsistency between 2 and 4, although you are obviously incapable of grasping it aren't you Dave?  ??? -------------- On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

slpage Posts: 349 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,20:33    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,14:27) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,14:03) I see that the category 3 shitstorm has left the building. So, sport, when you return, please don't continue to ignore this query, which seems to have disappeared under the deluge of geological claims and counterclaims.   Quote Please give me a reason why I should accept this opinion         Quote Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes. Please make this some sort of positive evidence from the scientific, peer-reviewed literature, rather than negative evidence such as a criticism of evolutionary theory. I suspect that if you can actually do this, you will quiet many of your critics here! every phenotypic modification and every piece of new morphology stems from mental processes.  For example, and I gave this earlier, a flea can create a new spine for itself in the presence of predators. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover  (pg.2) Changes in morphology, thus, must come not from changes in genes, but changes in the mind.   Since this is true, genetic change (aka materialism) does not explain how we got here morphologically......the mind/mental processes do.   But we can't make ourselves...thus, we must have been created by a mind other than our own.  I'm not going to get too much into this because I realize you don't really care to hear it. What a fucking idiot.... This is how Supersport justifies this moronic position - you see, if any structure associated with the nervous system is involved - and this includes the endocrine system vis a vis the hypothalamus and pituitary - then by his own tadry definition, "the mind" is really in control. The stupidity of his position has been explained to him probably 2 dozen times, yet here he is, posting the same old garbage.

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,20:43    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] Quote What a fucking idiot.... This is how Supersport justifies this moronic position - you see, if any structure associated with the nervous system is involved - and this includes the endocrine system vis a vis the hypothalamus and pituitary - then by his own tadry definition, "the mind" is really in control. The stupidity of his position has been explained to him probably 2 dozen times, yet here he is, posting the same old garbage. Wait, does he have a position on what controls gene expression in plants or bacteria? Do they have 'minds' too? Or has he not thought that far? -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,21:55    LOL!  Dumbass AFDave just started yet another diversionary thread on IIDB.  It was locked after 6 minutes by a Mod who told Dave in no uncertain terms to answer the pile of outstanding questions he has first. QUESTION: How long before Davie-doo starts screaming EVIL ATHEIST CENSORSHIP!!! at the top of his lungs? The over / under is 5 minutes. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

notta_skeptic Posts: 48 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,23:02    Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 17 2007,02:07) Quote (afdave @ Sep. 15 2007,08:01) Ian and Bill ... I have very good answers for your questions, but I don't think Wesley and Steve want me posting extensively here, so please post your questions to my blog or at RD.net or at IIDB where I post a lot.  Thx Dave, would this "blog" you mention be the one where comments are disabled? Why would that be? Oh, and why are you trying to engage people here when you have dozens of individuals waiting to engage you over at IIDB? Where you have threads hanging in suspended animation waiting for a response? Hmm? Remember, I'll answer your question after you've answered the ones waiting for you. Ta! -------------- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,05:03    Run from threads at other forums?  Your skewed view of reality knows no limits.  What happens is that Worldtraveller--the activist anti-creationist mod at IIDB--doesn't like ToE getting pummeled so he locks the threads and issues me bogus infractions.  He does this repeatedly while at the same time people are telling me that "evolutionists are fair minded", "there is no censorship of creationists going on", etc.   Closed comments on my blog?  I don't think so.  Maybe you are trying to comment on some really old posts or something. -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

notta_skeptic Posts: 48 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,09:39    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 19 2007,06:03) Run from threads at other forums?  Your skewed view of reality knows no limits.  What happens is that Worldtraveller--the activist anti-creationist mod at IIDB--doesn't like ToE getting pummeled so he locks the threads and issues me bogus infractions.  He does this repeatedly while at the same time people are telling me that "evolutionists are fair minded", "there is no censorship of creationists going on", etc.   Closed comments on my blog?  I don't think so.  Maybe you are trying to comment on some really old posts or something. By "activist anti-creationist mod" do you mean a mod who actually engages you (the "most engaged creationist", remember?) and refuses to let you start new threads when you abandon others? Is that your definition of "activist"? I would think he was just doing his job - moderating the site. -------------- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,10:12    AFRAID OF THE COCONINO SANDSTONE Apparently the moderators at the Evolution/Creation Forum at IIDB are afraid to allow discussion of the Coconino Sandstone.  It seems that conventional geologists--while asserting that it is of aeolian (wind) origin--have no explanation for how the sand got there to begin with.  Wind can only account for variations in previously existing sand.  Apparently they have no explanation for how the sand got there in the first place. And the E/C mods don't want to allow discussion about it.  They shut down my thread AND they shut down someone else's thread ... http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=221136 http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=221168 The pretense for shutting down my thread is the old canard "Dave doesn't answer questions people ask of him" which of course a) isn't true, and b) wouldn't matter.  Where are the rules for answering questions at IIDB.  The admins themselves have acknowledged that I don't have to answer ANY if I don't want to.  But of course I do answer many. So here we go again (where have I seen this behavior before?) ... Mods at non-creationist forums afraid to engage creationists while at the same time bad mouthing ID forums for banning non-ID people. Interesting isn't it? -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,11:22    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 19 2007,08:12) [The pretense for shutting down my thread is the old canard "Dave doesn't answer questions people ask of him" which of course a) isn't true, and b) wouldn't matter. I'm glad it's not true, Dave.  So: Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 16 2007,23:07) Do you accept the evidence for an asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous?  Yes or no? -------------- 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

afdave Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,11:53    I accept the evidence for an asteroid impact.  But there was never any such period in real history known as "The Cretaceous."  This is an artificial time demarcation created by those who believe the earth is very old.  And most evidence indicates that it is not very old.  So I guess that makes the answer 'yes' and 'no.' -------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED. A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED. http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,12:11    Quote I accept the evidence for an asteroid impact.  But there was never any such period in real history known as "The Cretaceous."  This is an artificial time demarcation created by those who believe the earth is very old.  And most evidence indicates that it is not very old.  So I guess that makes the answer 'yes' and 'no.' OK, so do you chalk up what geologists call the Cretaceous as a brief time period in a young earth timescale, or do you think of it as an artifact of deposition during the Noachian Flood? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,12:16    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 19 2007,09:53) I accept the evidence for an asteroid impact.  But there was never any such period in real history known as "The Cretaceous."  This is an artificial time demarcation created by those who believe the earth is very old.  And most evidence indicates that it is not very old.  So I guess that makes the answer 'yes' and 'no.' I see.  So when you cite the K/T impact as evidence for creationism: Quote Then in 1980, mainstream science finally woke up and published Alvarez’s paper on the K/T Impact. (K/T means Cretacious/Tertiary and refers to the boundary … Picture credit: Wiki “K/T Extinction”). Nature had this to say about it this week … "The science of the K/T impact (K is the customary abbreviation for Cretaceous) began in a more modest way, with attempts to get a sense of how quickly a thin layer of clays in the Italian Apennines had been deposited. No one foresaw that it would change how scientists and others see the world, and reintroduce catastrophism to the Earth sciences. Explanations that ignore the once-canonical principles of uniformitarianism — the gradualist paradigm in which the present is the key to the past — are now rife in studies of the history of Earth." In other words, “Dear Mr. Lyell … Thanks, but no thanks! Have a nice day.” Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell will ultimately go down in history as men whose theories were wrong. you're citing evidence you don't really accept? -------------- 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

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,12:17    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 19 2007,10:11) OK, so do you chalk up what geologists call the Cretaceous... Nice, Wesley. -------------- 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

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,12:24    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 19 2007,10:12) AFRAID OF THE COCONINO SANDSTONE Apparently the moderators at the Evolution/Creation Forum at IIDB are afraid to allow discussion of the Coconino Sandstone.  It seems that conventional geologists--while asserting that it is of aeolian (wind) origin--have no explanation for how the sand got there to begin with.  Wind can only account for variations in previously existing sand.  Apparently they have no explanation for how the sand got there in the first place. And the E/C mods don't want to allow discussion about it.  They shut down my thread AND they shut down someone else's thread ... http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=221136 http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=221168 The pretense for shutting down my thread is the old canard "Dave doesn't answer questions people ask of him" which of course a) isn't true, and b) wouldn't matter.  Where are the rules for answering questions at IIDB.  The admins themselves have acknowledged that I don't have to answer ANY if I don't want to.  But of course I do answer many. So here we go again (where have I seen this behavior before?) ... Mods at non-creationist forums afraid to engage creationists while at the same time bad mouthing ID forums for banning non-ID people. Interesting isn't it? afdave you are a true turdidiot.  I viewed the thread you referenced and they shut it down because you don't know what the hell you are talking about, you never answer questions, and when people ask you questions you can't answer, you run away and start another thread... like you are trying to do here.   Why don't you stick to what you and your Christian friends do best - stealing from the old people of your congregation. -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

notta_skeptic Posts: 48 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,16:06    Quote (afdave @ Sep. 19 2007,11:12) AFRAID OF THE COCONINO SANDSTONE Apparently the moderators at the Evolution/Creation Forum at IIDB are afraid to allow discussion of the Coconino Sandstone.  It seems that conventional geologists--while asserting that it is of aeolian (wind) origin--have no explanation for how the sand got there to begin with.  Wind can only account for variations in previously existing sand.  Apparently they have no explanation for how the sand got there in the first place. And the E/C mods don't want to allow discussion about it.  They shut down my thread AND they shut down someone else's thread ... Is this guy prescient or what? (See below)   Quote Unacceptable, dave. You didn't even look at the link I provided to a single question I asked that you never answered. I am putting the onus on you. Your evasion and lack of integrity displayed here, along with your putting words into other's posts, and apparently now, putting thoughts into other's heads, indicates that you are unfit to partake in an honest debate. KWSN, you can lock this. I refuse to give dave the time it would take to research this. And debating dave, formally or otherwise, lends the illusion that he has something meaningful to say. Debating dave on this would be like arguing with a 5 year old about whether the number 5 can really be divided by two. dave, you can now go claim I was 'afraid' to debate you, it would be on the same level of honesty as all the other scat you spread. Cheers, Lane From here Posted at 12:14 PM EST today. The second thread about the sandstone deposit was locked when Dave's initial question was satisfactorily answered with alacrity. There was no further need for discussion. IIDB does not encourage aimless, wandering threads. BTW, Dave is still allowed to post, create threads, and even post to the debate challenge thread about the Coconino sandstone. "Banned?" Only if by "banned" he means he can't randomly start new threads while others are still waiting for him. -------------- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,17:56    [Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. -Admin] that genes are more complex than simple bean bags has been known for 50 years.  it also doesn't support your idiotic assertion about the mind.  but no surprise there, dumbass. if even skeptic thinks your dualism ideas are stupid, you might as well accept that they are.  hey whats next nucleotides don't exist, they are just ideas in the mind of god?   ps saw your pics.  you might be gay and not know it.  sure those are your kids? -------------- 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

Pages: (666) < ... 107 108 109 110 111 [112] 113 114 115 116 117 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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