Replies

Look guy, I have fairly answered your questions, and can continue to do so. But the insults show me that you are just being desperate to hold on to your faith. I have no need to save your arse from hell, if there is a hell, and you want to go there that is fine with me. I may pity you, but that is as far as it gets.

There is no way to "convert" you with stupid arguments over trees and beetles. Do you think that perhaps there were more than a couple of trees in the whole world at the time just like there were a couple of different beetles? I do not recall arguing evolution over adaption yet, that is a whole nother ball game that reduces your beetles to family's, which strangely enough is what your whole evolutionary tree is based on.

First you have to realize that you have not got it all figured out, then we might have a discussion. Till then, it is just you clinging to your faith and being caustic about it. You are a bible thumper, A Darwinistic one. I don't really like Bible thumpers. Face it, this is your religion, you are a priest of the religion and have spent years of your life teaching your acolytes. Fine, enjoy your religion. I don't have a problem with that.

But don't hide behind stupid arguments and insults with me. I don't owe you the sweat off of my back, and I am not your slave to whip. You are an idiot to not see that the first article showed that the accuracy curve is based on the same time line as creationists, as it has to be calibrated by known good specimens, and is wildly inaccurate without such specimens. Specimens that do not occur before the Biblical time line of Creation. You have no calibration points as they simply do not exist. The bristle cone pine does not die of old age. No specimen has been observed dying of old age yet. To assume it only lives from x years old because that is how old it is, is to assume it must die of old age, something never observed, just assumed.
(Whap, the sound of the obvious hitting a thick skull).

The second article brought up the very good point that radiometric dating is based on the assumption that radiation levels are constant. As we are seeing our suns radiation output change in the last five years, this makes radiometric dating based on constant radiation levels down right silly, and not observed science, but FAITH. Yet you cling to your faith to ignore what is observable.

Now is it sheer Co-Inky-Dink that the only span we can calibrate span is the very same span as the Biblical account of the lifespan of the Earth by plus or minus a few thousand years, vs the Billions or Millions of years span of radiometric dating depending on which branch of evolutionist you come from?

10% divergence of a span is logical from observation, but a span that varies by a couple hundred thousand percent is a RAW Guess, not science.

So give me a break. If you want to be arguing from a scientific viewpoint, use science, not your biting sarcasm. While sarcasm has flavor, it usually is bitter and does not hold water well.

"But the insults show me that you are just being desperate to hold on to your faith. I have no need to save your arse from hell, if there is a hell, and you want to go there that is fine with me. I may pity you, but that is as far as it gets."

Another old creationist fall back play, "You're going to Hell!".

"There is no way to "convert" you with stupid arguments over trees and beetles. Do you think that perhaps there were more than a couple of trees in the whole world at the time just like there were a couple of different beetles?"

350,000 species of extant beetles.

"First you have to realize that you have not got it all figured out, then we might have a discussion. Till then, it is just you clinging to your faith and being caustic about it."

More projection on your part. Creationist psychology is fascinating if predictable.

"Face it, this is your religion, you are a priest of the religion and have spent years of your life teaching your acolytes."

If so I am still waiting my checks from Darwin Central.

"But don't hide behind stupid arguments and insults with me. I don't owe you the sweat off of my back, and I am not your slave to whip."

Stand back from the keyboard, take a deep breath. Count to 10. Up the meds, whatever it takes to return to reality.

" The second article brought up the very good point that radiometric dating is based on the assumption that radiation levels are constant."

It also undercut your whole point.

"If you want to be arguing from a scientific viewpoint, use science, not your biting sarcasm. While sarcasm has flavor, it usually is bitter and does not hold water well."

Ok, now that were have done with your ranting, please provide a citation for your ludicrous claim modern elephants and egg shells have been dated to 100,000 years old. We are really beginning to think you just made it up.

And please explain how humans can descend from just 8 people (mostly nuclear family to boot) and not face a huge genetic bottleneck. And how did the Koala get to Australia?

And what happened to the salt water fish and the fresh water fish that had their water's PH and salinity rapidly change?