Evolution vs. Creation

Thomas Robertson wrote:

We'll see who is more logical, Creationists or Evolutionists.
Wolverine and Jim H were two Creationists on a thread.
Mike F and MAAT were two Evolutionists on the same thread.
Each Creationist insulted one Evolutionist with one epithet and vice-versa.
The epithets used by the Creationists were "sinner" and "blasphemer."
The epithets used by the Evolutionists were "Bible thumper" and "Holy Roller."
Here are the clues:
1. MAAT wrote the last post, never having heard from Jim H.
2. In the earliest message, Wolverine got called a "Bible thumper."
3. Jim H sent a personal message to the author of the word "blasphemer."
4. No two participants insulted each other.
Let's see who is the first to work this puzzle, a Creationist or an Evolutionist.

If Wolverine got called a "Bible thumper", then Jim H (the other Creationist) must have been called a "Holy Roller".
Because MAAT wrote the last post, and Wolverine was insulted in the first post, then MAAT did not insult Wolverine, which means that MikeF insulted Wolverine with "Bible thumper" (meaning that MAAT insulted JimH with "Holy Roller").
If Jim H sent a personal message to the author of the word "blasphemer", then he wasn't the one to use that word, so Jim H must have used "sinner" and that means that Wolverine used "blasphemer".
If no two participants insulted each other, and we already know that MikeF insulted Wolverine and MAAT insulted Jim H, then Wolverine insulted MAAT (with "blasphemer") and Jim H insulted MikeF (with "sinner").

wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>
God Is Infinite.....No Beginning, No End.
This Is Where The Problem Is For Atheists And Scientists....They Cannot Fathom Infinite.
Humans Are Saddled With The Pre-concieved Notion That Everything Revolves Around Time....Another Stupid Mistake.
As For Sgutting Up ?......You And Ten Of Your Most Favorite Atheist Friends, Couldnt Make Me.....LOL

Apropos the link is allready refuted (how come creationist always think the got something new to offer?)
But more to the point.
For someone that confuses nothing with infinite, it must be damn hard to get your brain around something called zero.

it must be election time...this topic's been shifted to US news.
Not that evolution was an issue.
And i did not hear results from the science quizz that would be posed by national geographic to president and presidential candidate yet.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
If Wolverine got called a "Bible thumper", then Jim H (the other Creationist) must have been called a "Holy Roller".
Because MAAT wrote the last post, and Wolverine was insulted in the first post, then MAAT did not insult Wolverine, which means that MikeF insulted Wolverine with "Bible thumper" (meaning that MAAT insulted JimH with "Holy Roller").
If Jim H sent a personal message to the author of the word "blasphemer", then he wasn't the one to use that word, so Jim H must have used "sinner" and that means that Wolverine used "blasphemer".
If no two participants insulted each other, and we already know that MikeF insulted Wolverine and MAAT insulted Jim H, then Wolverine insulted MAAT (with "blasphemer") and Jim H insulted MikeF (with "sinner").

Everybody seems to be on a roll here, holy or otherwise.
But no, i was not involved so Thomas Robertson is ad libing.
But i do not hold the jesus crowd that does not want to learn in high esteem...there frankly is nothing to warmly praise!

Indeed i have no idea who Jim H is, frankly i trust blindly on the forum to park me more or less were i last left of, but when i post before reading all, i could indeed miss one Jim H making his entry.
Robertson is using the down-time to make nice summations and i freewheel.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
It appears that the Christians regard that scripture from Psalms and the other from Revelation as their god's imprimatur to make the lives of skeptics to as miserable as possible. How many times have you had it posted for you? Most of them seem to know it well.
Wolfie claims that it's hypocritical to repost Jesus' hate speech. I say that its hypocritical for the people of a religion to talk about love when that is how they are taught to do it, or to post it to spread the hate, but object to it being used back against you to expose that Great Commission.

Revelation about every other day.
I know none that show more hate and despicable behaviour than xians on fora. They by far surpass any other group.
It's as if they are compensating for the constraint the loving religion would impose on their day-by-day social group behaviour.
Well behaved xians and even learned ones are usually accused of being jehova witnesses...i noticed of late.

Thomas Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought that the Russian Communists endorsed Lysenkoism,
which, like Lamarckianism,
contends that acquired traits could be inherited.
I don't know much about Lysenko, but Lamarck used the example of the giraffe's neck.
He maintained that the harder a giraffe stretches its neck,
the longer will be the necks possessed by its offspring.
The Russians applied that principle in their own agriculture,
and the results were disastrous.

The plant geneticist Nikolai Vavilov's life is a good example
http://www.answers.com/topic/nikolai-vavilov
Altai-apples is what i had in mind.
Penn-state has gone mad (how about them apples, they should nave stuck with the actual apples of the Altai.) in claiming that all native americans come from the Altai region!
Darn and blast there goes my well thought out Denizovan-sumer-south-american native link.
Well i still have to read what they think they've got.(imagine derisive tone going along with this.)
Nasty shock this early in the day.

Thomas Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
We'll see who is more logical, Creationists or Evolutionists.
Wolverine and Jim H were two Creationists on a thread.
Mike F and MAAT were two Evolutionists on the same thread.
Each Creationist insulted one Evolutionist with one epithet and vice-versa.
The epithets used by the Creationists were "sinner" and "blasphemer."
The epithets used by the Evolutionists were "Bible thumper" and "Holy Roller."
Here are the clues:
1. MAAT wrote the last post, never having heard from Jim H.
2. In the earliest message, Wolverine got called a "Bible thumper."
3. Jim H sent a personal message to the author of the word "blasphemer."
4. No two participants insulted each other.
Let's see who is the first to work this puzzle, a Creationist or an Evolutionist.

Ah i see ...you used my name in vain.
option 4 hereby revoked if i felt insulted!
feather... balancing... thoughtexperiment

wolverine wrote:

A Link For The Dipshits Who Cannot Understand Sciences Inability To Date.
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/Chapter...

That is just another lying creationist site. Did you not notice there was a total lack of references to any peer reviewed science? Bring up their claims one at a time and I will debunk each one for you. It takes a lot more work to debunk a lie than it takes to tell it. So I don't feel like writing a ten page paper on all of the lies in your link.

I am not very familiar with the study of fossils, but I know that bodies of rock have relationship with each other, and organisms are found, and they are seen to be changed from ancient remains. Modern methods of dating rocks by radiometric means are said to give their absolute dates rather than their order in the column, and some of this comes out to be estimated. Does anyone here have any information as to what kind of ancient organisms existed before the continents broke apart, and what ERA that was in an estimated timescle?

Wolfy, about your article. Here is a free one for you:

Radiometric dating is generally done on bones or tissue which has not fossilized, and is supposedly the most scientific and most accurate dating technique.

The answer for this claim is Not Really. They are talking about C14 dating that only applies to very recent finds, those of a date younger than 50,000 years old. Radiometric dating is usually done on igneous rock, at least for ages that show how old the Earth is.

Now for their complaints about Kennewick man and the radioactive material being "leached out". The radioactive material they were using was C14. They did not show that C14 was any more soluble in water than regular carbon is. To claim that leaching occurred they would have to show that C14 is significantly more water soluble than C12 and C13. Without that sort of evidence their claim is a WAG at best.

Oops, that was two for free.

Why don't you pick out what you think is the best argument they have in that farce that you linked. That was written at a high school level at best, and since it totally missed out on checking its facts it would have gotten a C at best. If it was turned over to a teacher where fact checking was a must it would have earned an F.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Which English language?
Modern English?
Middle English?
Anglo-Saxon (also known as "Old English")?

And Germans speaks??

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Which English language?
Modern English?
Middle English?
Anglo-Saxon (also known as "Old English")?

All belongs to England.

Which English language?
Modern English?
Middle English?
Anglo-Saxon (also known as "Old English")?

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>And Germans speaks??

I'll answer that as soon as you answer my question.

Which English language?

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Not really, since it evolved from existing languages. Besides, we covered this already. We bought the rights to it along with London Bridge.

Liar!!! English belongs to England.

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> No actually the people who occupied south eastern Europe did.

Liar!

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text>Liar!!! English belongs to England.

When you learn how to speak it then perhaps people will listen to you.

Which English language?
Modern English?
Middle English?
Anglo-Saxon (also known as "Old English")?

Charles Idemi wrote:

All belongs to England.

You still didn't answer my question. I asked you to identify *which* English language. You failed to do so.

And what language was spoken by the Angles and Saxons before they came to England? Were they mute?

Thomas Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
I sure did.
You asked me where a crocoduck was, and I told you that it was in the imagination of Creationists, because Evolutionary theory never predicted a crocoduck in the first place.
It was Creationists who dreamed up the silly idea.
So Evolutionists are under no responsibility to find a crocoduck in the real world.
Now do you understand?
Or do I need to explain it a third time?

Still dreaming!!!

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> No actually the people who occupied south eastern Europe did.

Slavic, Russians, etc are never English.

Charles Idemi wrote:

Slavic, Russians, etc are never English.

Where did the English-speaking people come from?