The only question that seemed even remotely serious is your fifth one.
Quote
-How did humans survive the K–Pg extinction event that killed the dinosaurs?
The great dinosaur extinction was not total. There were pairs of each kind which survived. Of course the vast majority of all animals died as well as the vast majority of people. They died during the world wide flood of Noah's day. Even biologists discovered there was a major bottleneck in present animals. They reject the obvious, but do accept it happened.
Apparently the change in climate was too severe for most of the animals to survive. I read recently that 90% of all known species are not extinct.
It just gets more bizarre.
Hunt with Class and Classics
Religion: A founder of The Church of Spray and Pray
Acquit v. t. To render a judgment in a murder case in San Francisco... EQUAL, adj. As bad as something else. Ambrose Bierce “The Devil's Dictionary”
Or it could be the result of some one actually doing scientific research and investigation.
Quote
Since you are such a great scientific researcher, what are the fist and second derivatives of the equation of a line?
Did I say I was a great scientific researcher? I, like you, parrot others who have done field and laboratory research in much of what we post. The reason there are different fields of study is because no one is smart enough or has enough time in life to learn even a extremely, infinitesimal, small percentage of all available information.
You tend to attack the messenger because you don't like the message.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Or it could be the result of some one actually doing scientific research and investigation.
Quote
Since you are such a great scientific researcher, what are the fist and second derivatives of the equation of a line?
Did I say I was a great scientific researcher? I, like you, parrot others who have done field and laboratory research in much of what we post. The reason there are different fields of study is because no one is smart enough or has enough time in life to learn even a extremely, infinitesimal, small percentage of all available information.
You tend to attack the messenger because you don't like the message.
I'm just demonstrating that you don't possess the barest minimum educational grounding in math and science to begin to assess to validity of the creationist claims you take for Gospel.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
What degree do you have in astronomy, or biology, or physics, or laws of probability, or paleontology, or hydraulics, or chemistry, or philosophy, or history, or law, or psychology, or any of the hundreds of degrees available that would qualify you to comment on the various posts here? Do you want us to think a degree is necessary to carry on a conversation here?
Once you posted I use scientific facts. It seems when they challenge your world view you have to attack the messenger.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
What degree do you have in astronomy, or biology, or physics, or laws of probability, or paleontology, or hydraulics, or chemistry, or philosophy, or history, or law, or psychology, or any of the hundreds of degrees available that would qualify you to comment on the various posts here? Do you want us to think a degree is necessary to carry on a conversation here?
Once you posted I use scientific facts. It seems when they challenge your world view you have to attack the messenger.
I never used the word degree. The equation of a line is 7th or 8th grade pre-algebra. Derivative of simple equations is High School Calculus.
A solid grounding in the basics of math and science is necessary to evaluate the validity of many of the claims we discuss here, and unfortunately, in many of these discussions you GED shows through. As an example, some fossils can develop in a short period of time. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more. In addition, we have:
Independent dating of sediments via any number of techniques. Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish. Large number of fossils, beyond what the earth could support at once, showing multiple generations were necessary. In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited. Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
It's when you look at the evidence in the full context of science that your one little talking point become irrelevant.
In order for your beliefs to be right, the vast majority of science would have to be wrong. What more likely, that a GED educated follower of a bronze age cult is right, or is that what we've learned though the modern peer review process of science more consistent with reality?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The great dinosaur extinction was not total. There were pairs of each kind which survived. Of course the vast majority of all animals died as well as the vast majority of people. They died during the world wide flood of Noah's day. Even biologists discovered there was a major bottleneck in present animals. They reject the obvious, but do accept it happened.
Apparently the change in climate was too severe for most of the animals to survive. I read recently that 90% of all known species are not extinct.
Thing is, that bottleneck was way, way, WAY older than 6,000 years, so unless they found another bottleneck within that horizon..... you are making the other side's point.
Believe what you want. Don't confuse it with science -- that's the one you have to UNDERSTAND.
Paul Steinhardt was critical of gravity waves news sensationalized to justify big bang in Nature Magazine in March 2014.
Do not come back to me and ask me to explain ALL the math in this video. I can explain how they violated scientific method.
Even physicists doing string theory are afraid a Steinhardt like attack might be after them. He does not attack string theory, just big bang and multiverse stuff.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
What degree do you have in astronomy, or biology, or physics, or laws of probability, or paleontology, or hydraulics, or chemistry, or philosophy, or history, or law, or psychology, or any of the hundreds of degrees available that would qualify you to comment on the various posts here? Do you want us to think a degree is necessary to carry on a conversation here?
Once you posted I use scientific facts. It seems when they challenge your world view you have to attack the messenger.
I never used the word degree. The equation of a line is 7th or 8th grade pre-algebra. Derivative of simple equations is High School Calculus.
A solid grounding in the basics of math and science is necessary to evaluate the validity of many of the claims we discuss here, and unfortunately, in many of these discussions you GED shows through. As an example, some fossils can develop in a short period of time. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more. In addition, we have:
Independent dating of sediments via any number of techniques. Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish. Large number of fossils, beyond what the earth could support at once, showing multiple generations were necessary. In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited. Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
It's when you look at the evidence in the full context of science that your one little talking point become irrelevant.
In order for your beliefs to be right, the vast majority of science would have to be wrong. What more likely, that a GED educated follower of a bronze age cult is right, or is that what we've learned though the modern peer review process of science more consistent with reality?
He wouldn't listen to "degrees" either, though, he claims their superiority at the present moment, as it fits his agenda...
In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited. Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited. Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
Yep, I see that a lot.
You silly SOB.
Welcome...
Definitely a logical and cogent argument. Very well stated...
In fact, I'm pretty sure, if you posted your argument in various magazines, websites, and social media, people would, literally, flock to your position!!!!!
Paul Steinhardt was critical of gravity waves news sensationalized to justify big bang in Nature Magazine in March 2014.
Do not come back to me and ask me to explain ALL the math in this video. I can explain how they violated scientific method.
Even physicists doing string theory are afraid a Steinhardt like attack might be after them. He does not attack string theory, just big bang and multiverse stuff.
To put a finer edge on it, what he champions is the idea called the "Big Bounce", i.e. an infinite series of big bangs, vs. an infinite number of big bangs occurring within a multiverse. He believes in an inflationary big bang universe, he just doesn't necessarily agree about what came before. One of the reasons he's so keen about gravitational waves, is, in theory, it's possible they could be used to falsify his hypothesis about what banged, and how it banged.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Paul Steinhardt was critical of gravity waves news sensationalized to justify big bang in Nature Magazine in March 2014.
Do not come back to me and ask me to explain ALL the math in this video. I can explain how they violated scientific method.
Even physicists doing string theory are afraid a Steinhardt like attack might be after them. He does not attack string theory, just big bang and multiverse stuff.
To put a finer edge on it, what he champions is the idea called the "Big Bounce", i.e. an infinite series of big bangs, vs. an infinite number of big bangs occurring within a multiverse. He believes in an inflationary big bang universe, he just doesn't necessarily agree about what came before. One of the reasons he's so keen about gravitational waves, is, in theory, it's possible they could be used to falsify his hypothesis about what banged, and how it banged.
Interesting way of putting that.
Interesting discussion you all are having here.
Extremely interesting topic too.
Regarding the old guys coming up with this stuff long ago:
Slide Rules RULE!
screw computers, although I wonder what the old guard could have come up with given the computing power of a cell phone of today?
Geno
PS, around here, we used to know what banged, well maybe not what, but who.............
Travis banged and just about any old way he could.
PPS, I do hope the fella is doing well.
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
This gun and vehicle were designed with a slide rule. I was there. The math for the hydraulic recoil taper is really hard. The math for the barrel vertical balance and swing balance [equilibrator] is worse.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
As an example, some fossils can develop in a short period of time. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly.
That used to be the consensus for oil, all fossils and petrified wood, diamonds, opals etc. Now scientists know differently. As scientific information grows, this most likely will change also.
Quote
First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more.
Your uniformitarianism is showing. See above paragraph.
Quote
Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish.
Ever hear of the petrified forest in Yellow Stone. It was thought to be twenty-seven forest grown in place over several millions years. That is until some creationists geologists received permission from the government to prove otherwise. None of the trees had roots. They were ALL deposited in a HUGE flood just like the trees we find in Spirit Lake after Mt St Hellens eruption. One day in a geological catastrophe is like a million years of evolutionary theory.
Quote
In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited.
Exactly! Like after a world wide flood! How predictable!
Quote
Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited.
Reworked is an evolutionary theory to try to make sense of theoretical out of place fossils. They are only out of place if you ignore the lack of fault breccia.
It's when you look at the evidence in the full context of real science that your one little talking point of evolution becomes irrelevant.
In order for your beliefs to be right, the vast majority of creation science would have to be wrong. You constantly reject obvious evidences to cling to a constantly change narrative of evolution.
Quote
What more likely, that a GED educated follower of a bronze age cult is right, or is that what we've learned though the modern peer review process of science more consistent with reality?
The peer reviewed process is a joke. What happened to the guy who invented the MRI machine. Because he is a creationist he was banned. I read where a couple of evolutionist were quite upset by the action of the "peer reviewed" system. How long did it take before Dr Robert Gentry work on the polonium halos was accepted. Some still try to reject it while the majority accept his discovery.
Your position is tenuous at best and criminal at worst. Look at what has happened when kids are told they are animals. They act like animals.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Thing is, that bottleneck was way, way, WAY older than 6,000 years, so unless they found another bottleneck within that horizon..... you are making the other side's point.
Time lines are a guess by scientists who were not there to observe. By reading God's Word one can predict a bottleneck. Evolutionary theory has to invent something to account for it.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
I'm waiting for that day when we find out that our "Universe" is but one of millions just like the Spores of a Fungi propagating and dying off in a perpetual cycle. Endlessly creating new Universes as old ones eventually die away. The Repetitious patterns for this possibility are there we are just not going to believe it until we "See it".
It could be possible that we are limiting our own scope and Perspective in all this.
When I no longer have the right to protect my own person or property...my person and property have become public property in common.
Thing is, that bottleneck was way, way, WAY older than 6,000 years, so unless they found another bottleneck within that horizon..... you are making the other side's point.
Time lines are a guess by scientists who were not there to observe.
No, they are not a guess. They are a scientific estimate, arrived at through several different techniques all the while trying to disprove the theory.
Until your creationists try to disprove their own theories, they aren't "real" scientists, they are real believers.
No, they are not a guess. They are a scientific estimate, arrived at through several different techniques all the while trying to disprove the theory.
Is that why a rocks of known age are wrong EVERY time when dated? I remember reading on evolutionist saying, "It's strange that our dating works every time on rocks of unknown ages but never works on rocks of known ages." Examples flourish from Hawaii and Mt St Hellens.
Quote
Until your creationists try to disprove their own theories, they aren't "real" scientists, they are real believers.
If you read something besides the evolutionary brain washing you would know the Institute for Creation Research proved them selves wrong on one of their theories. After several years of testing and retesting their results are called "junk science" by those who didn't try the same experiments or read the results. The interesting thing is the evolutionists scientists who did try it came up with the same results. That's because real science it observable, testable, repeatable, verifiable.
Take a look at the newest research on DNA showing by both evolutionists and creationists. The research shows, based on the accumulation of mutations, they can only go back a maximum of 6,000 - 10,000 years. The creationists accept it. The evolutionists are trying to explain it.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
![[Linked Image]](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/m110_japan_so14b.jpg)