---

Interesting how he picked up on only the insult, if it can be called that, it was really fairly benign, but there was more to my post than just that.

Yankeefan, I am aware that I probably wont get an answer from this, but are you serious, or are you trolling in order to make young earth creationists look well, really, just as crazy as they already are.

Believing that the earth is 6000 years old is every bit as crazy as believing that the earth is flat, or that the earth is the centre of the universe, and everything orbits it, or that there are only four elements, fire, air, earth, and water, and everything is comprised of them in some proportion.

---

If there's any doubt that you're a brainwashed idiot, there's none now.  You naturally assume that the earth is billions of years old even though the evidence says otherwise.  

-------

Proof that the Bible is the word of God.

ANSWERS IN CREATION REJECTS AND REFUTES YOUR OWN ARTICLE

Creationists rejecting even poorer Creationism.

Oh you are pegged....  

Answers in creation have links to talkorigins.org.  It is not a creationist website because all it does is debate about evolution.  

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp[/b]

Furthermore, your article has failed to address how radiometric dating is even remotely accurate.  The point of the article I cited is completely ignored by the AIC article

"It raises fundamental questions about the temporal stability of isotopic ‘clocks’. What else have we failed to consider in terms of the physics of radioactive decay? The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open."

Post edited at 2:21 pm on Dec. 2, 2006 by yankeefan

-------

Proof that the Bible is the word of God.

Does it bother you that your life is nothing more then a series of failures?

-------
Welcome to Election 2008: The End of American Solvency.

---

"It raises fundamental questions about the temporal stability of isotopic ‘clocks’. What else have we failed to consider in terms of the physics of radioactive decay? The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open."

---

You don't even understand your won article.

The claim about the dating decay issue is based upon a myriad of misintepretations, miracle based experiments and conditions that have no evidence of ever existing.

You didn't even READ the link I provided you worthless piece of shit.

-------
Welcome to Election 2008: The End of American Solvency.

---

Quote: from yankeefan at 5:47 am on Dec. 2, 2006

---

 "It raises fundamental questions about the temporal stability of isotopic ‘clocks’. What else have we failed to consider in terms of the physics of radioactive decay? The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open."

---

You don't even understand your won article.

The claim about the dating decay issue is based upon a myriad of misintepretations, miracle based experiments and conditions that have no evidence of ever existing.

You didn't even READ the link I provided you worthless piece of shit.

---

The difference is, when I argue, I base all my arguments on fact.  You base it on biased opinion.  My cartoon was based on fact, yours is based on an opinion.

-------

Proof that the Bible is the word of God.

---

The fact that science changes?

---

no, the fact that what SCIENTISTS say changes

-------

Proof that the Bible is the word of God.

---

The difference is, when I argue, I base all my arguments on fact.  You base it on biased opinion.  My cartoon was based on fact, yours is based on an opinion.

---

you haven't stated a single fact yet

Your own article is a mispresentation of the experiments on decay! Your failure to address this not only shows your lack of understanding, but your failure as a whole

You're supporting OUTRIGHT FRAUD

-------
Welcome to Election 2008: The End of American Solvency.

Again, your dependence on the Worship of Lies is evident.

Science does not disprove a metaphorical view of the Bible. Many christians have their faith strengthened through science. Your falsely as you engage in dishonest behavior and betray the word of Christ every chance you get, argue that both are exclusive. Furthermore, your little cartoon isn't even factual. The age of the Earth hasn't academically changed in decades.  

My cartoon is far more accurate as literal Creationism requires mental backflips to accept. If it was a accuarate or even plausible occurance you would have argued so instead of running like a coward from three different threads. You only show that Creationists lack the basic intellectual capacity much less the dignity or integrity to stand by their beliefs. Cut and run every chance you get.

For example, your claim about runaway subduction requires heat approaching the surface of the sun and vicosity speeds thousands of times what occur today. Instead of dealing with how the author of your article ADMITTED his model required miracles you cut and ran from that discussion.

You wouldn't last a single second at a board that is filled with people with educations

-------
Welcome to Election 2008: The End of American Solvency.

---

no, the fact that what SCIENTISTS say changes

---

What scientists say =/= science. Argumentum ad irrelevencium. (I must look up all those ghetto latin names, some time.)

-------
Routinely sucking the cosmic fugue off our fingers.

---

no, the fact that what SCIENTISTS say changes

---

What holy men and religious leaders say changes as well. Does that equate to the religion?

Besides, you're clearly ignore in your love of the Dishonest and endless praise to the Prince of Lies that the changes scientists discuss are based upon data, experiments and repeated testing, nothing what religion or creation has. Furthermore, most of the 'changes' are just increasing accuracy or validity of existing theories.

Furthermore, in your supreme ignorance, you assumed that science states things are absolute. That is simply not true. You cited in your asinine thread about religious science that you later abandoned like you always do, several of the universal laws, most of which had specific words like "appears." Science is open to change. That doesn't make it wrong just that you have the knowledge of a 5 year old.

-------
Welcome to Election 2008: The End of American Solvency.

Obviouschild, you're yet again putting words in my mouth

Science does not conflict with the Bible, that's the point of the this thread

Furthermore, most of the 'changes' are just increasing accuracy or validity of existing theories.

There are many cases where evidence has been allegedly to support the theory of evolution has turned out to be frauds, evidence that is still printed in textbooks today.  

-------

Proof that the Bible is the word of God.