Hmm...

[scitsofreaky]

Yeah, well I'm no friggin' genius, but this stuff just seems off: http://www.xanga.com/BlueEagle98. Any help is appreciated.

[bob]

He's 16 years old. Don't bother.

[scitsofreaky]

But he is an arrogant bastard. So yeah, 16 is about right. Anyway, it's really for my benefit, I'm just wondering what in the hell is going on here.

[Caretaker]

"evolutionists have dated rocks from Hawaiian lava flows (known to be only 200 years old)"

 

Ugh...... Sure.... Maybe it has only existed in solid form for 200 years, but I don't think that was what the dating is measuring.

[Caretaker]

"i like to help those who have questions about the bible"

 

Anyone thinking what I am thinking?

[Ouroboros]

First of all, what is an "athiest"? It's being referred to quite a lot in the opening statement on the site, and it sounds like those Athiests are a really foul and creepy collection...

[Skankboy]

Magnetic Field - assumes decrease is a constant instead of a flux (from weak to strong to weak, etc).

 

Uranium into oceans - ignores sublimation of the seabeds back into the mantle (wouldn't be a constant increase as the materials of the sea floor are constantly being recycled).

 

And he's a total fucktard from what I can see...

[scitsofreaky]

Magnetic Field - assumes decrease is a constant instead of a flux (from weak to strong to weak, etc).

 

Uranium into oceans - ignores sublimation of the seabeds back into the mantle (wouldn't be a constant increase as the materials of the sea floor are constantly being recycled).

 

And he's a total fucktard from what I can see...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks guys. Very interesting stuff.

And yes he is retarded, but not as retarded as his friend Shatteredcd.

[Caretaker]

Thanks guys.  Very interesting stuff.

And yes he is retarded, but not as retarded as his friend Shatteredcd.

 

I think I lost a few IQ points.

 

 

[scitsofreaky]

 

I think I lost a few IQ points.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like to think I wasn't as retarded as these guys when I was at their age (and I even was a christian, kinda). I mean c'mon

Contrast this with the Islamic Koran. It was compiled by one individual, Zaid bin Thabit, under the guidance of Mohammed's father-in-law, Abu-Bekr. Then in A.D. 650, a group of Arab scholars produced a unified version and destroyed all variant copies to preserve the unity of the Koran. The Bible was unified from the time of its writing. The Koran had to be unified through the editing of men.

[Ouroboros]

I like to think I wasn't as retarded as these guys when I was at their age (and I even was a christian, kinda).  I mean c'mon 

Interesting, the guy was correct about the Quran, but totally complete lack of knowledge about the history of the Bible!

 

Shouldn't people know the history of their own faith? That's kind of funny, becuase I surely didn't look too deep into it as Christian, so I was just as much hypocrit.

[Mr. Neil]

"evolutionists have dated rocks from Hawaiian lava flows (known to be only 200 years old)"

 

Ugh...... Sure.... Maybe it has only existed in solid form for 200 years, but I don't think that was what the dating is measuring.

Isn't that from a Chick Tract? I believe it is, which in turn means that it's a Hovind argument. Thus, it's not even worth the time to find a reference from which to rebut.

 

Just do few searches for Hawaii and rock dating over at Talk Origins. I'm sure they've got something in the Quote Mine Project that covers that.

[scitsofreaky]

Thanks Mr. Neil. This is sort of turning into a research project for me, one I may actually enjoy.

[Amanda]

Yeah, well I'm no friggin' genius, but this stuff just seems off: http://www.xanga.com/BlueEagle98.  Any help is appreciated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Scitsofreaky! I'm a Christian who happens to debate with this fine bunch here. One of the things they always tell me is to provide proof of what I am presenting. So, since no one is asking for the studies or proof of what his assertions are, I have to assume you all agree with them. Although he didn't list any.

 

I too believe in evolution, and I use a timeline that can be found here http://www.alley29.com/Timeline/timeline.html that goes back 4.5 billion years ago. He usually sites his objective resources for his reasoning in determining these dates... mostly scientific, but not all. He claims he is refining this timeline with the presentation of new credible information.

 

It looks good to me, I hope you can use it Scitsofreaky. If any of you have reason to find it unreliable, please let me know.

[Asimov]

Yeah, well I'm no friggin' genius, but this stuff just seems off: http://www.xanga.com/BlueEagle98.  Any help is appreciated.

 

I just wrote this, use it at your leisure...I got kinda lazy at the end and just posted some articles:

 

Hi BlueEagle,

 

I read through your little schpiel there and found it very interesting, I felt like I had to comment on what you said in order to set a few things straight:

 

Gravity and Theories:

 

First off, BlueEagle, there ARE theories that relate to how and why two masses attract each other. One of them is Einsteins General Theory of Relativity. What you fail to realise is that laws are general observances of how things work (drop a ball and it falls to the ground) and then Theories explain the why and the how (every object with mass creates a depression in the fabric of space time which causes other objects close to it to fall towards it). This is how Gravity is a theory and a law. Laws are observances, theories are explanations of those observances.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_theory_of_relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

 

Entropy:

 

First, the Second Law of Thermondynamics definition is:

 

"The entropy of a thermally isolated macroscopic system never decreases (see Maxwell's demon), however a microscopic system may exhibit fluctuations of entropy opposite to that dictated by the second law (see Fluctuation Theorem). In fact the mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible dynamics and the Axiom of Causality, constitutes a proof of the Second Law. In a logical sense the Second Law thus ceases to be a "Law" of Physics and instead becomes a theorem which is valid for large systems or long times."

 

What is meant here is that a thermally isolated large system must always have an increase in entropy, which means that a closed-system's usable energy always decreases.

 

First things first: The Earth is not a closed system, therefore the 2nd Law does not apply to Earth or the Evolution which is contained on it.

Second: Since the 2nd Law does not actually state that the closed-system must be homologous in it's entropy (which means that certain areas have a higher entropy than others), there is no violation of the 2nd Law.

 

http://www.wiley.com/legacy/college/boyer/...hermo_intro.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic..._thermodynamics

 

Dating Methods:

 

Duane Gish is a moron, and so is Huse....allow me to elaborate.

 

Carbon dating is not used to date the Earth, wherever you got your information is wrong. Carbon Dating is used to date objects up to 60,000 years old. Anything over that range gives anomalous readings.

 

Second, Huse needs needs to cite his statements in context, because those lava flows are KNOWN to give anomalous readings due to older rocks contained in the newer lava flows. These are called Xenoliths. Scientists are well aware of them, and this is nothing new.

The amazing thing about science is its reproducability, and something known as calibration. Using dendrochronology, ice cores and other non-isochron dating methods we can corroborate the findings. The test is obviously taken more than once, and then calibrated using those other methods.

 

Amazingly enough, they match.

 

Scott Huse' Arguments:

 

The Earth's Magnetic Field is not getting weaker, Huse has his data wrong. Tim Thompson published an article on the alleged decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field and his research has shown that Thomas Barnes (the person Scott Huse no doubt took the work from) used faulty methods of calculating this decay. The Magnetic Field of the Earth has been SHOWN to switch polarizations at different intervals, so it's not a decay but a fluctuation.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

 

Natural Gas: I'm not even sure what the problem here is....Talkorigins states:

 

# As with oil, the high pressures show that rocks trapping the gas are impermeable enough to hold the reservoirs for many millions of years. If the assumptions (young earth and leaky rocks) behind the claim were true, the pressures never would have built up in the first place.

 

It is also important to remember that pressure does not mean much to seepage rate without a pressure gradient. If the pressure around a reservoir of gas is as great as the pressure within it, the gas will not be forced out.

 

# A geological event that could cause oil and gas to migrate into a reservoir could have occurred relatively recently. Even if the gas reservoir is young, that does not mean the earth is young.

 

Moon Dust: An utter and total fallacy, I cannot even believe you are using this argument.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

 

The Earth's rotation is slowing at a rate of about 0.005 seconds per year per year. This extrapolates to the earth having a fourteen-hour day 4.6 billion years ago, which is entirely possible.

 

The rate at which the earth is slowing today is higher than average because the present rate of spin is in resonance with the back-and-forth movement of the oceans.

 

Fossil rugose corals preserve daily and yearly growth patterns and show that the day was about 22 hours long 370 million years ago, in rough agreement with the 22.7 hours predicted from a constant rate of slowing (Scrutton 1964; Wells 1963).

 

And in response to the receding moon argument: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

 

These really have nothing to do with evolution at all. I noticed that every single one of Mr. BlueEagles sources from from nothing before 1986....which happens to have been almost 20 years ago. Not only that, but MOST of these arguments were terribly outdated even BEFORE they were written by the ICR and then copied by Scott Huse. And even then his Morris reference regarding the dating methods of the Earth (which, conveniently do not cite any actual sources) is from 1977!! Where are the NEW Creationist arguments? They've been spouting this drivel for decades, and their tune hasn't changed.

 

Basically, BlueEagle uses outdated arguments by outdated people with no real knowledge of anything about the Sciences.

 

All systems do move towards decay, including the Earth...however BlueEagle neglects to mention that the Universe itself is ~13 billion years old. The Earth is not a closed system, it gets it's energy from the Sun, which is slowly decaying (approximately 5 billion years left to go before it's lights are put out). So where is the actual attack on evolution? It's not there...BlueEagle only wishes to attempt to poke holes in Geology with 20+ year old arguments that have been dealt with a multitude of times.

[Amethyst]

If an author doesn't know the difference between new and knew, than it's probably not worth reading.

[scitsofreaky]

Asimov- holy shit, that is great, thanks! I think I'll put that up.

[Amanda]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Asimov, WOW! That was incredible research and attention to details! I am going to put that in my personal documents for future reference! I hope you don't mind. Thank you for such an informative post!

[Asimov]

Hey scitso, here's the refutation of his hoaxes list:

 

Hi BlueEagle, despite your claim that you post only facts, you seem to be pretty small on referencing your information.

 

Java Man:

 

I have no idea how or where you got that information, the Java Man is a skullcap of a primitive human (more human than ape) and there has been a nearly complete skull found in the same area that looks the same as the Java man skullcap.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/speci...html#sangiran17

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html

 

Nebraska Man:

 

Another lie. Harold Cook, who found the tooth sent it to a paleontologist named Henry Osborn. He identified the tooth as from an ape and a new species named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii. The claim that scientists reconstructed an entire race of men from the tooth is outright lie, as the drawing made after the discovery was for the Ilustrated London News, and was not intended to be scientific or accurate. Osborn himself never identified it as an ancestor of humans.

 

"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."

 

"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)

 

The tooth was not, as claimed by BlueEagle, accepted by the scientific community, George MacCurdy states:

 

" "In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted.""

 

The tooth, upon further evaluation was noted as belonging to a peccary, which is related to but is not a pig. The tooth itself was worn, making it hard to identify, not only that but the teeth ARE similar to human teeth. Not a hoax, but a misapplication of a finding.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

 

Piltdown Man:

 

This story is longer than even Nebraska man, and not only that, contains a little more history than Mr. BlueEagle is willing to put down into writing. Of course, that is his intention, which is just to attack people rather than any actual arguments.

 

The actual story is that Piltdown Man was discovered at a time where not a lot of hominid fossils were around, and it was more readily accepted because there was nothing to contradict the discovery. As later years and more discoveries arrived, Piltdown became more and more of an anomaly amongst the scientific community, as it didn't fit with anything else. Guess who found it as a hoax? Scientists. Guess who didn't? Creationists.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

 

Zinzanthropus:

 

While I can't find much on that, I don't see how it is a hoax when Leakey himself said that the find was false, and that he admitted his mistake. There is no mention that it was deliberate.

 

The definition of a hoax is an act intended to deceive or trick. So far, there was only one in your entire list of hoaxes that was actually intended to deceive or trick and that one was found by other scientists.

 

Charles Darwin wrote his book in 1859, that was almost 150 years ago. There have been more things found now. Once again, BlueEagle deals with outdated arguments and does not deal with NEW information, nor does he address the OTHER list of transitional fossils that HAVE been found and have NOT been found to be hoaxes, or mistakes.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/speci...html#sangiran17

 

Pasteur's results falsified spontaneous generation, NOT abiogenesis, don't confuse the two. Evolution deals with living populations of organisms, which is biology. Biochemistry and Biophysics deal with abiogenesis.

[spamandham]

I think I'm stupider for having read the links.

 

What blueeagle and shatteredcd wrote....is some of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in their rambling, incoherent responses was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award them no points, and may God have mercy on their souls.

[Amethyst]

Asimov, have you ever thought of becoming a science teacher? Seriously.

 

[scitsofreaky]

I think I'm stupider for having read the links.

 

What blueeagle and shatteredcd wrote....is some of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in their rambling, incoherent responses was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award them no points, and may God have mercy on their souls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Luckily because of the responses here, I actually came out smarter.

[Mike D]

Hi BlueEagle

"Hi BlueEagle"?

 

You didn't call him a retard even once, nor did you tell him to go fuck himself. You could have at least told him to go Dirty Sanchez his mother, couldn't you?

 

Anyway, as long as your not going to be nice all the time now, I should be able to let this one slide.

 

Oh and by the way, other than that complaint, very good post.

[Asimov]

Asimov, have you ever thought of becoming a science teacher?  Seriously. 

 

 

.....

 

uuummmmm....nope. But I appreciate the compliment!

 

 

hahahaha, sorry Mike, no expletives on first contact.

[Ouroboros]

"Hi BlueEagle"?

 

You didn't call him a retard even once, nor did you tell him to go fuck himself.  You could have at least told him to go Dirty Sanchez his mother, couldn't you? 

 

Anyway, as long as your not going to be nice all the time now, I should be able to let this one slide. 

 

Oh and by the way, other than that complaint, very good post.

Is Asimov going softy on us?