Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
thank you for proving me point, Paratrooper
PlanoMM
Member Posts: 1,267
No, they were not insane, they were making inferences using what extremely little science they had at the time, earthquakes, volcanos, floods, tidal waves, and all that they called miracles or disasters of god, and now we know that they are not, we know what causes things. They didn't know what the cause of things were, so they came up with ideas about gods, which, at the time, was the logical conclusion. They were not insane, you are.
would the sentence in red be considered insulting me? if so, why is allowed? what about this one:
yea, except america ISN"T (in fact) a xian nation. so aren't you the fucking ignorant one?
also a direct insult, its still there and active.
there are many others. but me point is obvious. they can say whatever they want, but as soon as i start acting like them, you reply with a smartass reply and then lock the thread so you have the last word. that is obvious abuse of your powers. i have reported it. total bs. theres nothing in me posts that was anymore offensive then what they wrote to us for 5 flipping pages. but, hey youre the mod, i cant win against you. so whatever. delete this thread, ban me, whatever, i dont care. it only provides more evidence of what im saying.
______________________________
Comments
Ive been keeping up with that thread but not posting in it since its not my league, but I did see your point Plano. And im going to have to agree here that it was a dirty move by the mod, the thread should have been deleted, not locked. At least with its deletion nobody else can see it.
But since its just sitting there locked, anybody can go and see the mod getting the last word and spitting in Plano's face. I dont think Paratrooper even read the thread.
"There's no star system Slave I can't reach, and there's no planet I can't find. There's nowhere in the Galaxy for you to run. Might as well give up now."
Boba Fett
EDIT: what exactly were you retaliating? the thread is still there, go look, what was the insult that deserved it?
______________________________
actually game, nothing i said was any worse than what you wrote. and thats the reason im pissed.
EDIT:
im going to work now, i fully dont expect this topic to be here when i get back, providing that im even able to login. but whatever. im seriously sick of the double standard that is blatantly apparent to me and many others. bye.
______________________________
I hate to have missed out on what seems like a fun day of anti religious posting and evolutionary psuedo science propaganda, but here is what I got out of the thread that was locked:
Gameloading wanted me to repost the articles that I have posted, when I told him that I would not cater to his laziness, he coped out by saying that he read them all, but that they had no facts. An obvious lie because they are filled with scientific information.
Plano steps in and uses the kind of language that is ruitinely used against religious people on these discussion boards, Gameloading retaliates with more of the same diatribes about why we are ignorant, with no actual substance other than blanket statements without any real rationality.
Mod locks thread because it was going nowhere, and makes a point of telling Plano that the rule is about flaming people directly, and not just their argument; by doing so he completely ignores all of the personal attacks done by Gameloading in that thread, and all of the personal attacks made by people like Xexima.
I hate double standards. I'm not one to get into the personal insult bit and telling people that their arguments are retarded and leaving it at that, because it really does nothing to prove a point. But you know what, Gameloading, your arguments had about as much substance as the rubber poop that I have sitting on my computer desk. You acted childishly and with blatant disregard for any factual information that was sitting in front of your face. Not only did you act childishly though, you also flat out lied. By saying that there is a wealth of information that proves evolution, you are doing nothing but spreading ignorance among people who don't know any better, because it simply isn't true. You said in the thread that you posted a wealth of information, wrong, you posted one single website that had an article that confused microevolution with macroevolution, something that I pointed out. In the future, I suggest that if you want to debate me that you bring more to the table than childish jabs and claims of my ignorance, because so far you have done nothing but prove that you yourself are very ignorant about the subject of evolution. I am always willing to go and find information that people request about the subject of creationism, as I pointed out multiple times in that thread. If you want to debate someone who knows their stuff, then you need to know your stuff, I know my stuff, and I even know yours, you clearly do not know either side of the issue, as you persist in using arguments that either have no substance, or are simply invalid and childish.
I'm done now, I forsee a thread locking in the future, since it will be claimed that this thread provides nothing more than grounds for flaming. Gameloading: I hope that you eventually decide to learn a thing or two about the things that you claim to beleive, until then, don't try to debate me, because I will make you look like a fool.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
*Notice: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author... got sick of holding backspace.
-----------------------------------------
ParaTrooper, That guy that used to mod the MMORPG.com forums.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Hey, look, the flawed, biased mod system is being brought to light once again. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.
Oh, and I find it funny that Plano bitches about the last word then makes a topic when his thread gets locked.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
You guys kept going around and around. The religious people in their religious thinking have proof god exists. From a science perspective they have absolutly 0. Science is completely backed by facts in scientific thinking. In religious thinking science has 0. Hence why it doesn't go anywhere when no one is going to budge from their beliefs and as I said I'd be very surprised if that happened from a discussion on a internet gaming forum.
Funnily enough Modjoe in that thread you made a while back due to your ban I was kind of agreeing with you lol.
*Notice: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author... got sick of holding backspace.
-----------------------------------------
ParaTrooper, That guy that used to mod the MMORPG.com forums.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You guys kept going around and around. The religious people in their religious thinking have proof god exists. From a science perspective they have absolutly 0. Science is completely backed by facts in scientific thinking. In religious thinking science has 0. Hence why it doesn't go anywhere when no one is going to budge from their beliefs and as I said I'd be very surprised if that happened from a discussion on a internet gaming forum.
A little underhanded jab at theists, eh Paratrooper? Well played!
I really think I should be a mod.
Oh, and I don't see anything wrong with you locking that thread. The treatment here is notoriously inconsistent, and he did break the rules.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
You guys kept going around and around. The religious people in their religious thinking have proof god exists. From a science perspective they have absolutly 0. Science is completely backed by facts in scientific thinking. In religious thinking science has 0. Hence why it doesn't go anywhere when no one is going to budge from their beliefs and as I said I'd be very surprised if that happened from a discussion on a internet gaming forum.
Funnily enough Modjoe in that thread you made a while back due to your ban I was kind of agreeing with you lol.
Now youre just laughing along and ignoring the main point. You locked the thread because of said reason, but you are still just blatently ignoring all the attacks. Dont punish the thread, punish the posters.
And Gameloading, stop desperately grabbing for respect, and go back to bashing everybody who dosent play Korean MMO's.
"There's no star system Slave I can't reach, and there's no planet I can't find. There's nowhere in the Galaxy for you to run. Might as well give up now."
Boba Fett
Lol yes because thats 100% exactly why the thread was locked
I clearly pointed out why you locked the thread in my post, don't take what I have said out of context in order to prove a point.
You guys kept going around and around. The religious people in their religious thinking have proof god exists. From a science perspective they have absolutly 0. Science is completely backed by facts in scientific thinking.
Find me the thousands transitional fossils and a case of information being added to DNA and we'll talk about your science being completely backed up by facts, until then, stop spreading this lie.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I can go into debate with you on and on till we have every fact on the table.
Instead, I think you might be intrested in this.
29+evidence of evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I think it might intrest you.
This is for you gameloading and paratrooper, here's a lilttle bit of evidence for creationism, and a big problem for evolution and an old earth model, since you seem intent on saying that there is 0 evidence for my belief.
Mercuryof the nine known planets of our solar system, it is the closest to the sun. It is also one of the smallest, only Pluto (the furthermost) being smaller. Even Ganymede (a moon of Jupiter) and Titan (a moon of Saturn) are bigger. Yet, tiny Mercury has much to say about the origins of our solar system.
Mercury is a planet of extremes. The side of the planet that faces the sun reaches a temperature of about 430°C (more than enough to melt lead), while the dark side is a frigid 170°. Mercury revolves around the sun every 88 days, and has the unusual characteristic of rotating on its axis exactly three times for every two complete orbits.
Much of our information about Mercury comes from the Mariner 10 fly-by of 197475. Lacking the variety and colour of some other planets, Mercurys rocky, cratered surface resembles the moons [see picture below]. But what is really interesting about Mercury are the things that cant be seen.
Scientists have discovered that Mercury has the highest density of all the known planets (other than Earth). Mercury is so dense that its thought to have an iron core occupying some 75% of its diameter.1 This extraordinary density has generated much turmoil and confusion in evolutionary astronomy. Evolutionists mostly agree on models of planetary formation but their models say Mercury cant be anywhere near as dense as it actually is.
Colliding with evolution
After decades of struggle, most astrophysicists today have given up and admitted that Mercurys high density cannot be accommodated within slow-and-gradual-development models.
Instead, the preferred explanation now is that billions of years ago, a large object crashed into Mercury, stripping away its lesser-density material, and leaving behind the high-density planet seen today.2
Mariner missions of the 1960s and 70s
Mariner 10 was the last of its series of spacecraft and the first mission to use the gravitational pull of one planet (Venus) to reach another (Mercury). The craft was launched in 1973 and reached Mercury on 29 March 1974. During the following year it returned 10,000 images of the planet and had mapped 57% of the surface when its power became exhausted. It is now in orbit around the sun.
Consider the implications of this. Evolutionists have admitted that the planet that we see today cannot be explained by gradual evolutionary processes! This is a stunning admission. Instead, they propose a long-ago catastrophic collision. What is the evidence for this collision? Only that Mercury would otherwise disprove evolution!
Over and over again in astronomy, cosmic collisions are invoked as a sort of magic wand to rescue evolutionary theories from the facts. The planet Uranus is tilted over, but evolution says it cant betherefore, long ago something hit it and knocked it over. Venuss rotation contradicts evolutionary predictionstherefore, long ago something hit it and spun it round the opposite way.
Mars atmosphere is too thin for evolutionist tastestherefore, it used to be thicker, but long ago something hit Mars and stripped most of it away. Mercury is too dense for evolutiontherefore, long ago something hit it and conveniently removed the lighter parts. Evolutionists wave their collision-wand at will, and yet mock as unscientific the Christian belief in a one-off catastrophic global Flood, despite the abundant physical and historical evidence for it.
Magnetic Mercury
Mercurys challenges to naturalism are not limited to its density. Evolutionists received another rude jolt when Mercurys magnetic field was discovered. To understand why this poses a problem, we must discuss evolutionary ideas of planetary magnetism.
Most solar system planets have significant magnetic fields. Where do these fields come from? Evolutionists (and long-age creationists) hold to a dynamo theory, which requires those planets with magnetic fields to also have molten metal cores.
Through a complicated series of events, fluid motions inside the core can supposedly generate a magnetic field. Evolutionists believe this idea because it is the only mechanism they have been able to propose by which planets supposedly billions of years old could still have magnetic fieldsall of the other mechanisms would require that the planets be very young.
Mercury morsels
Unfortunately for the long-agers, the more we discover about other planets, the more we find that the dynamo model cannot be true for them.3 This shouldnt really surprise us, however, since many long-agers admit that even the earth itself poses huge problems for the dynamo model, and the earth is the planet that the model was first invented to explain!4
Back to Mercury. To be billions of years old and still have a magnetic field, there must be fluid motions within a planets core. Therefore, the core itself must be molten. But as one evolutionist says, Mercury is so small that the general opinion is that the planet [i.e. its core] should have frozen solid aeons ago.5 Therefore, the core cannot be molten, and so evolutionary theories would have to conclude that Mercury cannot have a magnetic field. But it does!
Some evolutionists speculate that perhaps Mercurys core isnt iron (which would have frozen solid eons ago), but iron sulfide instead (which wouldnt necessarily have solidified over these supposed eons). But in solving the problem for Mercury, a much bigger problem is created.
A fundamental principle of the solar nebula theory (used to explain how our solar system formed) is that there cannot be any volatile elements such as sulfur this close to the sun, and so there shouldnt be any iron sulfide in Mercury. Thus, in trying to rescue a billions-of-years age for Mercury, evolutionists are undermining the very foundations of their ideas about the formation of the entire solar system.6
Creationists have no problem explaining the magnetic field of Mercury, nor that of any other planet. There are several ways in which a young (6,000-year-old) planet could still have a magnetic field.7 But since evolutionists reject a young creation, they cannot explain planetary magnetism. As one evolutionist says, Magnetism is almost as much of a puzzle now as it was when William Gilbert (15441603) wrote his classic text Concerning Magnetism, Magnetic Bodies, and the Great Magnet, Earth in 1600!8
More on Mercury
Mean distance from sun: 57,910,000 km
Equatorial radius: 2439.7 km
Equatorial escape velocity: 4.25 km/sec
Rotational period: 58.6462 days
Orbital period: 87.969 days
Temperatures:
Mean surface 179°C
Maximum surface 427°C
Minimum surface 173°C
When a Christian examines the solar system, it is easy to wonder if the Creator designed the planets specifically to confound non-creationary explanations of them. Repeatedly, new discoveries contradict naturalistic ideas. Ironically enough, in the case of Mercury, even evolutionists admit to this, after a fashion. They admit that any attempt to include Mercury in their evolutionary models will doom the models to failurethey say that Mercury is a trap9 that has seduced9 evolutionists, and has had a fatal attraction for solar system modellers.9
So we see that this tiny, seemingly insignificant planet creates enormous stumbling blocks for those who wish to deny the Creator. Truly, God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty (1 Corinthians 1:27).
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
"This is for you gameloading and paratrooper, here's a lilttle bit of evidence for creationism"
Why are you giving me evidence? Has it not occurred to you that I dont actually care? Im not siding with religion or science here. All I said was that in both sides minds you think you can prove something the other side thinks you cant.
"I named you ignorant, which is hardly an attack."
While thats not all of what was said I agree. Calling someone ignorant (unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge) isnt a insult in a debate like this where you are trying to prove something with facts. It could in other cases indeed be a insult.
*Notice: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author... got sick of holding backspace.
-----------------------------------------
ParaTrooper, That guy that used to mod the MMORPG.com forums.
Young Earth evidence that conflicts with old Earth theories is fun stuff!!
For most people, the discovery of fossilised wood in a quarry would not be newsworthy. However, some pieces recently found embedded in limestone alongside some well-known index fossils (see aside below) for the Jurassic period (supposedly 142205.7 million years ago) have proved highly significant.
It is not generally realised that index fossils are still crucial to the millions-of-years geological dating, in spite of the advent of radioactive dating techniques. Not all locations have rocks suitable for radioactive dating, but in any case, if a radioactive date disagrees with a fossil date then it is the latter which usually has precedence.
Figure 1. Locality map showing the outcrop pattern of the Marlstone Rock Bed across southern and central England (ref. 1, main article).
The Marlstone Rock Bed
The Marlstone Rock Bed is a distinctive limestone unit that outcrops from Lyme Regis on the Dorset coast of southern England, north-eastwards to just west of Hull near the North Sea coast (Figure 1).1 In many places, the top 530 cm (212 inches) or more of this bed has been weathered and altered, the original green iron minerals2 being oxidized to limonite (hydrous iron oxides), and also in a few areas the sand content is higher. In the past, the outcrop has been quarried frequently for iron ore or building stone.
Evolutionary geologists consider that the top three metres (10 feet) of the Marlstone Rock Bed represent the whole of the Tenuicostatum Zone, the basal zone of the Toarcian Stage,1 the last stage of the Early Jurassic. This dating is based on the presence of the ammonite index fossil Dactylioceras tenuicostatum.1
Thus the bed is said to be about 189 million years old according to the geological time-scale.3
Amongst the remaining quarries still working the top of the Marlstone Rock Bed are the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill near the village of Ratley, on the north-western edge of the Edge Hill plateau, some 10½ km (6½ miles) north-west of the town of Banbury (Figures 2 and 3). Building stone, known as Hornton Stone, has been quarried there since medieval times.4,5
A dating test at Hornton Quarries
During two visits to the Hornton Quarries, it was established that fossil wood occurs alongside ammonite and belemnite index fossils (see aside below) in the Hornton Stone, the oxidized silty top of the Marlstone Rock Bed. The ammonite recovered in the quarries is Dactylioceras semicelatum (Figure 4), abundant in a subzone of the Tenuicostatum Zone.1 Fossil wood was actually found sitting on top of a fossilised belemnite (Figure 5), probably belonging to the genus Acrocoelites, a Toarcian Stage index fossil in north-west Europe.6 Many such belemnite fossils had been found during quarrying operations (Figure 6). Together these index fossils have, in evolutionary reckoning, established the rock containing them as being Early Jurassic and about 189 million years old.1,3 Logically, the fossil wood must be the same age.
Figure 2. Locality map showing the distribution of the Marlstone Rock Bed west of Banbury, and the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill near the village of Ratley.
Pieces of all three samples were sent for radiocarbon (14C) analyses to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), while as a cross-check, a piece of the first sample was also sent to the Antares Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), Lucas Heights near Sydney (Australia). Both laboratories are reputable and internationally recognised, the former a commercial laboratory and the latter a major research laboratory.
The staff at these laboratories were not told exactly where the samples came from, or their supposed evolutionary age, to ensure that there would be no resultant bias.
Both laboratories used the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique for radiocarbon analyses, recognised as producing reliable results even on samples with minute quantities of carbon.
Figure 3(a) General view of the south wall of the Hornton Quarries at Edge Hill near Ratley, north-west of Banbury.
(b) Closer view of the quarry face of the south wall showing the oxidized limestone of the top of the Marlstone Rock Bed which is quarried as Hornton Brown building stone.
The results
The radiocarbon (14C) results are listed in Table 1. Obviously, there was detectable radiocarbon in all the fossil wood samples, the calculated 14C ages ranging from 20,700 ± 1,200 to 28,820 ± 350 years BP (Before Present).
For sample UK-HB-1, collected from on top of the belemnite index fossil (Figure 5), the results from the two laboratories are reasonably close to one another within the error margins, and when averaged yield a 14C age almost identical (within the error margins) to the 22,730 ± 170 years BP of sample UK-HB-2.
Alternatively, if all four results on the three samples are averaged, the 14C age is almost identical (within the error margins) to the Geochron result for UK-HB-1 of 24,005 ± 600 years BP. This suggests that a reasonable estimate for the 14C age of this fossil wood would be 23,00023,500 years BP.
Quite obviously this radiocarbon age is drastically short of the age of 189 million years for the index fossils found with the fossil wood, and thus for the host rock.
Of course, uniformitarian geologists would not even test this fossil wood for radiocarbon. They dont expect any to be in it, since they would regard it as about 189 million years old due to the age of the index fossils. No detectable 14C would remain in wood older than about 50,000 years. Undoubtedly, they would thus suggest that the radiocarbon, which has been unequivocally demonstrated to be in this fossil wood, is due somehow to contamination. Such a criticism is totally unjustified (see aside two).
Conclusions
The fossil wood in the top three metres of the Marlstone Rock Bed near Banbury, England, has been 14C dated at 23,00023,500 years BP. However, based on evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions, the ammonite and belemnite index fossils in this rock date it at about 189 million years. Obviously, both dates cant be right!
Furthermore, it is somewhat enigmatic that broken pieces of wood from land plants were buried and fossilised in a limestone alongside marine ammonite and belemnite fossils. Uniformitarians consider limestone to have been slowly deposited over countless thousands of years on a shallow ocean floor where wood from trees is not usually found.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.