Creation vs evolution total [relism] vs [Ferrets54] Commentary thread

[Nyxos]

For those of you that want to congratulate Ferrets for his courage. I know I do.

and also comment, but suit yourself

[MathiasOfAthens]

wow...

lets remember that this is creationism vs evolution and not creationism vs the Big Bang Theory or the birth of the Universe.

But its a bit weird because Creationism says God created the Universe and every living thing. While Evolution is only about the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. Its like comparing apples and oranges.

Dont remember if its Papay or TR that keeps saying traits but better word is inherited traits which are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics, that are passed on from one generation to the next.

[Gordon Freynman]

I sense epic lolz in this debate's future.

[Adar]

For those of you that want to congratulate Ferrets for his courage. I know I do.

and also comment, but suit yourself

I tend to enjoy any of his posts that are longer than four sentences so I look forward to this.

[Nyxos]

I tend to enjoy any of his posts that are longer than four sentences so I look forward to this.

whose ? I can't read past four sentences of TR due to lack on general meaning and grammar. Mostly grammar since that leads to the lack of meaning, or at least comprehension on my part. I'm not a grammar nazi, far from it, but unless english isn't TRs native language, in which case I highly recommend the use of the Google Chrome inbuilt corrector, TR should be using the Google Chrome inbuilt corrector to increase readability.

And to prove my point, I just used the corrector 3 times in the above paragraph.

[Adar]

whose ? I can't read past four sentences of TR due to lack on general meaning and grammar. Mostly grammar since that leads to the lack of meaning, or at least comprehension on my part. I'm not a grammar nazi, far from it, but unless english isn't TRs native language, in which case I highly recommend the use of the Google Chrome inbuilt corrector, TR should be using the Google Chrome inbuilt corrector to increase readability.

And to prove my point, I just used the corrector 3 times in the above paragraph.

Ferrets obviously...

He make far too many short and obnoxious posts for my taste but the longer ones are usually very good.

[XIII]

Well, this should be fun...

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Good luck. Duck for cover when the quote spam starts to drop from the sky.

[MathiasOfAthens]

lol no rules too. I enjoy Ferrets post though so this will be fun.

[Okmin]

Watching this.

[Makrell]

lol
tr you shouldnt have done it

[Nyxos]

let the show begin !

This might actually be interesting if you keep to reading Ferrets's posts and ignore TR's

I'm being mean for no reason, TR has not yet posted for real and I can not be 100% sure that he will post as he has posted up to this date.

[Admiral Piett]

Another debate rooted in an unending desire for self-importance.

[XIII]

How so?

[Nyxos]

So I just read the on topic part of TR's post who still hasn't understood that evolution is not about about the big bang, or apparition of life, of fossils or any of that kind of BS, but then TR doesn't understand a lot of things.

For example TR has not (or so it seems) understood a single word of Ferrets quite excellent post (well I think its excellent) thus talking about things that make no sense whatsoever.

All and all I'm pretty impatient to see Ferrets reaction to wall of off topic/nonsense TR just sent him.

[MathiasOfAthens]

And thats the reason why I rejected every single one of TRs requests to "debate."

TR provided his own opening statement thats longer than his reply to Ferrets posts... what is Ferrets suppose to reply to? The replies or TRs opening statement? There are so many points to address it just wouldnt be worth it... posts will be a page long.

[Nyxos]

Well Ferrets answered nicely to TRs wall of crap, but it seems TR still doesn't know what he's talking about, what a shame.

[MathiasOfAthens]

TR posted these claims which have been disproven already, not only by us but by the scientific community.

Freshly-killed sealshave been dated at 1,300 years. This means they are supposed to have died over a millennium ago. Other seals which have been dead no longer than 30 years were dated at 4,600 years. (* W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)

"Old" carbon is introduced into the water. The seals feed off of animals that live in a nutrient-rich upwelling zone. The water that is upwelling has been traveling along the bottom for a few thousand years before surfacing. The carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sank. Thus, the carbon in the sea water is a couple of thousand years "old" from when it was in the atmosphere, and its radiocarbon content reflects this time. Plants incorporate this "old" carbon in them as they grow. Animals eat the plants; seals eat the animals, and the "old" carbon from the bottom waters is passed through the food chain.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, Antarctica sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years.

arious living mollusks (such as snails) had their shells dated, and were found to have "died" as much as 2,300 years ago. (*M. Keith and *G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634.)

Samples of rock from lava erupted just in the last 50 years from Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, gave potassium-argon ages up to 3.5 million years. (See Dating failure.)

mt saint helans 10 years after eruption

Once again using the wrong technique to date an object. They should have known the object was too young to date with potassium argon in the first place.

The bolded technique above cannot be used for objects known to be less than 6000 years old. Most labs wont test objects know to be less than 2 million years old.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It was not the lava that was dated, but inclusions of olivine, called "xenoliths", present within the lava. These gave anomalously old age because they contained excess argon that the enclosing lava did not.

dated patasuim argon 350,000 years old. Different samples average age off 2.8 million years.
mt ngaruuhoe from 1954
patasium argon of 3.5 million years another part dated .8 million years

Not much of a surprise here... the wrong technique was used to date an object and it failed. Its like trying to use a wrench to screw in a bulb. Just because you used the wrong tool doesnt mean the science is wrong. And these are all old claims... they have been disproved long ago.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old

another recent basalt 110 million years
p803
1800-1801 hualili flow Hawaii
2.6 million to 2.960 million
all evolution recherche journals for sources

Once again the wrong technique or tool was used... so its not a surprise they failed.

You mean Research? They not evolution research journals, they science journals. Evolution is a well accepted theory. And secondly what does Evolution have to do with the age of the earth or dating objects... you bouncing across too many subjects.

Volcanic rocks produced by lava flows which occurred in Hawaii in the years 1800-1801 were dated by the potassium-argon method. Excess argon produced apparent ages ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years. (77, p. 200)

Similar modern rocks formed in 1801 near Hualalai, Hawaii, were found to give potassium-argon ages ranging from 160 million years to 3 billion years. (92, p. 147)

[Manco]

SO, TR is just rehashing the same arguments that have been destroyed time and time again, I see.

Seriously, he's still talking about the Big Bang in a discussion about the theory of evolution.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Anyone else get the feeling that TR blindly grabs quotes without any understanding of them?