Summations Only

Trump, obviously. Don't forget that Jared Kushner's NYC address was 666 5th Avenue.

More contrary-tp-fact nonsense (ie, false) wrong interpretation based on religious BS. We know the history of the Holy Roman Empire so we know that what you keep blather is pure nonsense even if you don't and refuse to even try to learn. Your entire fantasy has nothing to do with the Holy Roman Empire except for you to claim things about it that are clearly contrary to historical fact. At the very least admit that you are talking about something entirely different!As I've told you before and now must do so yet again, how could you ever expect us to trust what you say when you talk about things that we cannot verify when everything you say that we CAN verify all turn out to be either wrong or downright false? Based on past experience with you, we can very safely assume that you don't really know anything about those things either. Jessica H. Christ, man! Pull your head out and LEARN SOME HISTORY! And you are still avoiding your glaringly blatant falsehoods about "flaws in dating", which is not surprising since you have nothing and even you know that.If you know of any actual flaws, then present them and include the reasoning behind presenting them as flaws. IOW, you need to demonstrate enough knowledge of those "flaws" to be able to discuss them and to support your contention that they present some kind of problem. IOW, stop playing your game of the willfully ignorant (your handlers) leading the willfully stupid (you).Got nothing? Thought so!

We have HISTORY! LEARN IT!But no, you'll just keep spinning your fantasy tales which contradict HISTORY.

Uh, AZPaul3 said that, not I!

In the meantime, STUDY WHAT RADIOCARBON DATING IS AND WHAT IT'S BASED ON (ie, where the C14 comes from and where it DOESN'T)!The Wikipedia article, Radiocarbon dating, would be a good place to start. . Pay particular attention to the section, Carbon exchange reservoir, and its accompanying graphic, "Simplified version of the carbon exchange reservoir, showing proportions of carbon and relative activity of the ¹⁴C in each reservoir". In particular, note in that graphic that it does not include subterranean C14 produced continuously by radiation sources deep underground, because that subterranean C14 plays no role in radiocarbon dating and has nothing to do with the method. That is important because that false creationist "objection" (ie, that trace C14 in coal and diamonds presents problems for radiocarbon dating) is so far the only "objection" that you have presented and it has been thoroughly debunked. Learn something!CAVEAT: DO NOT RELY ON A CREATIONIST SOURCE! Creationists are lying to you. If you do use a creationist source, then verify it thoroughly!You admonish us to "Study assumptions"? We have! Why haven't you done the same? We have tried many times in vain to explain to you what the actual assumptions are, but you have steadfastly refused to explain what your creationist assumptions are! Stop your hypocrisy! Put up or shut up!  ABE:
 

Short vacation! Though I shouldn't talk since I've been incapacitated by a knee injury the past few days. Getting better. True enough about making assumptions, which is why one must examine, test, and verify one's assumptions. And when assumptions are found to be wrong, then acting on that testing by correcting and refining those assumptions that can be corrected and dropping the ones that cannot be corrected.That is what science and scientists do all the time, while it is the creationists who never test their own assumptions and will never ever act upon any of their assumptions found to be wrong.Read my draft HTML page which examines the major differences between scientists and creationists: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists. A very quick summary is that scientists are trying to discover something, so they take their research seriously. Of necessity, they base their research in part on the research of other scientists (eg, "don't reinvent the wheel", "I stand on the shoulders of giants."), which means that scientists have a strong vested interest in the veracity and validity of that other research, which means that when a scientist publishes the findings of an experiment, other scientists will repeat that experiment to see if they get the same results; IOW, they test each other's work trying to prove them wrong. Science demands it.Case in point was the bombshell news of the discovery of "cold fusion". The moment the paper was published, it was FAX'd out (remember, no Internet back then) throughout the physics community and everybody eagerly read it and repeated the experiments. They found that it wasn't true and they all dropped "cold fusion".In contrast, creationists are not trying to discover anything, but rather they just want to convince others (and more importantly themselves) of their groundless, unverified, and never-tested assumptions. If another creationist comes up with a claim or argument, they never ever even think of testing it for being true, but rather they just blindly believe it and repeat it as long as it sounds convincing (at least to them in their willful ignorance, though not convincing to anyone who knows anything about the subject). They have no need for any of it to be true, just so long as it sounds convincing. And they will only stop using those groundless arguments when they get too much bad press for that argument (eg, moon dust, protein comparisons).Case in point: leap seconds show that the earth's rotation is slowing down at a rate that would mean the mere millions of years ago it had to have been spinning impossibly fast. In reality, 4 billion years ago the earth would have been spinning only twice as fast. The originator, most likely Walter Brown in 1979, didn't understand what leap seconds are nor how they work. Even though the claim was decisively refuted in 1982, creationists keep repeating it -- a Canadian group proved that to 15 creationist sites and none of them repented of that particular lie. See my page on it, Earth's Rotation is Slowing for more information.So you have our roles reversed: scientists test their assumptions (AKA "hypotheses") rigorously in order to eliminate the wrong assumptions, while it's the creationists who make refuse to test their assumptions and instead declare them to be Gospel.What you're doing there is described as "the pot calling the silverware black." More to come.

Whereas all creationists rely on from other creationists' "work" is that it is sensationalist and sounds convincing. Cheating and fraud will never endanger any creationist's career, mainly because sensationalist claims are created through cheating and fraud.I already pointed him to my draft web page which examines the major differences between scientists and creationists: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists. There I break down step-by-step the differences between how scientists do things in contrast to how creationists do things.Since it presents that information in a two-column table, translating it to would be bothersome.

And yet you remain so profoundly ignorant? That tells us clearly that you do no such thing. Claiming to do something that you do not is an example of what's called lying. Like in Message 482 when you falsely claimed "I know how carbon dating works."If I had a nickel for every time a creationist made that claim, I could go to Vegas and play Video Poker all weekend (not that I would want to do either). Why do creationists insist on making such statements when they are so glaringly false? True enough, but what is that supposed to have to do with you?OTOH, I have read from both sides. I have even sat through several Kent Hovind "seminar" videos, which is how I learned about his utterly bogus solar-mass-loss claim (which is completely refuted just by doing the math, so now he forbids his audience to ever do the math or to listen to anyone who has done the math).As General Sun-Tzu instructs us, we must know both the enemy and ourselves in order to be victorious in battle. That requires learning the enemy's side, but you do not allow yourself to do that. Furthermore, the need to know yourself requires you to know what your side is based on, but you do not allow yourself to do that either. That becomes so glaringly obvious when the most terrifying question you can ever ask a creationist is, "What are you saying?
Please explain your claim." I've even seen creationists cancel their email accounts in order to avoid that question. A question that any normal will freely answer, which we have done ... repeatedly, but not you.In public education, the goal of education is that the student understand the subject matter, not that they be required to believe in it. An example was the Air Force Communications Command Leadership School (1982) where we learned what Marxism and Communism is; not to turn us all into Commies, but rather to help us know the enemy (remember, that was during the Cold War). Beneficiaries of public/secular education are able to investigate, research, and learn any subject that might catch their interest or that they might be required to learn about and to do so without any qualms. Such people are truly able to read and learn from both sides of any issue.In sharp contrast, religious education is for the purpose of indoctrination, the purpose of which is to require the students to believe and believe in what is being taught. This perversion of education makes its victims incapable of learning anything else, since they have been made to think that learning something also requires that they believe in it. Quite literally, when I have urged a creationist to study and learn evolution so that he can discover its actual problems instead of the many creationist lies they have been indoctrinated in (and hence develop actual effective arguments instead of repeating stupid ineffective lies), he emphatically refused to do so because "that would require me to believe in evolution!" What the hell are you talking about?And it has already been explained to you some many times that the next step in starting with an assumption is to test it! Science always tests its assumptions (usually AKA "hypotheses" -- but there are also axioms, mostly in mathematics (so go tell Kleinman that mathematics is bogus because it makes assumptions)). In sharp contrast, creationists never ever test their assumptions!So just what the f**k are you talking about? Bullshit! But then that's your profound ignorance speaking.Gas bubbles trapped in glacial ice contain samples of the atmosphere from when they were trapped in the ice. Those have been studied extensively to analyze what the atmosphere was like so many thousands of years ago. Well, you do have me on that one. Because your "Global Floodye" never happened!For that matter, the closest thing to a "global flood" started 11,000 years ago when the ice cap from the last ice age started to melt resulting in sea level rising about 200 feet -- and it is still on-going and even picking up steam. Many land bridges disappeared beneath the waves; eg, the Bering Strait, Indonesia (as evidenced by Wallace's Line which explains the biodistribution in those islands), Doggerland which formerly connected England to the Continent. There's also the Persian Gulf which used to be dry land (all depths in the Persian Gulf are less than 200 feet).This next needs to be verified. A YouTube video of Easter eggs to be found in Star Trek episodes points to a graphic of the earth in DS9 in which we can see North America without Florida.[voice=NY_NJ_stereotype_tough_guy]Yo! We got your global flood right here![/voice]Same answer: Your silly global flood never existed, so your question is absolutely meaningless.But just for fun, how do you propose that your imaginary floodye would have removed carbon from the atmosphere? Magick?In the meantime, we do know that the amounts of CO₂ and C₁₄ have not been constant. We know that from several different lines of evidence, including the gas bubbles trapped in glacial ice. We understand a lot about that, whereas you are forever clueless. Hmm! Classic clueless projection.It is your own choice to use willful stupidity to maintain your willful ignorance.And it will have to be your choice to finally pull your head out and start to learn something. Too bad your sphincter is so tight that it's cutting off the blood supply to your brain.

And his YEC beliefs are not only also just assumptions, but they are assumptions that he stubbornly refuses to ever test.That's the difference between us that he refuses to ever notice. We start with hypotheses (AKA "assumptions") and then we test them as thoroughly as we can. He refuses to ever test his own assumptions or even examine them in any manner.Clearly a case of the pot calling the silverware black.

My new topic, Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2, has been promoted! Please move all discussion of radiocarbon dating over to that topic where it will be on-topic.I have reposted most of this traffic over there.

Completely and utterly false. Since life exists and does what life does, evolution is inevitable. That is because evolution is the net cumulative effect of life doing what life naturally does.IOW, where there's life there's evolution. The two are inseparable. 
Or are you instead talking about something entirely different than evolution which you are falsely calling "evolution"? That would explain why nothing creationists ever say about "evolution" ever makes any sense at all.So then, get a clean pair of underwear ready because I'm going to ask you yet again that simple question that all creationists find to be terrifying: Which is conclusive evidence that those organisms are the result of evolution. That is because evolutionary processes produce very complex results. And whenever are you going to go to the Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2 thread? We're still waiting for you to present any actual problems for radiocarbon dating.Or are you finally conceding that your claims are all false?

Yet again I must ask you that terrifying question that you continue to avoid: Evolution may be blind to any future goals but not to current conditions and it may not be guided by any planning for future goals, but it is still guided by natural selection in response to current conditions.You are still falling for that stupid creationist lie which misrepresents evolution as "blind chance" divorced from natural selection, or natural selection divorced from any mechanisms for increasing genetic diversity.Rather, evolution uses the synergy from increasing genetic diversity being filtered by natural selection, the products of which are the starting point of the next cycle of increasing genetic diversity being filtered by natural selection.The lie you are repeating would be like saying that automobiles are impossible because you can have a car without an engine and it doesn't go anywhere, and an engine without a car which also doesn't go anywhere. A single celled organism just suddenly poofing into existence? Or suddenly coalescing from a mixture of chemicals? That would be absolutely ridiculous!Which is why the only people who ever say that are stupid lying creationists! Nobody who has ever studied evolution or abiogenesis (they are two separate subjects) or any science related to biology would ever think that that is how it would work.Just stupid lying creationists who have no clue what they are talking about. For that matter, what you creationists are describing there is your own position: creation ex nihilo.Second, there have been many experiments using evolutionary processes to design things, like designing a differential amplifier made out of a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA). Not only was the resultant amplifier fully functional and extremely complex (it used the analog characteristics of digital circuitry, something that no human engineer could do), but it was also irreducibly complex in that any change a human engineer tried to make to the final design would break it.I am a retired intelligent designer, so I have some practical experience (about 35 years). Products of intelligent design are simple, parsimonious, modular, and tolerant of modifications. Products of evolutionary processes are complex, overly complex, intolerant of modification (you change one thing and it breaks the design in half a dozen other places).In trying to determine whether something was produced intelligently or through evolution, high levels of complexity (especially unnecessary complexity like the cranial nerve that shouldn't have to ever leave the crania but is trapped into being routed around the aorta because that is where it started out from in the first place -- one helluva unnecessary detour in the case of the giraffe) are a sure sign of evolution. So, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?More specifically, WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION AND HOW DO YOU THINK IT WORKS?That is an extremely important question for you to answer so that we can have a discussion. Because all indications are that your ideas about evolution are so bizarre and completely wrong, which is why nothing you have said about evolution makes any sense at all.We're talking about evolution. Who the hell knows what you're talking about. All we do know is that it sure as hell isn't evolution nor have anything to do with evolution or any other sciences. Also, why are you avoiding the thread for discussing radiocarbon dating? You know, the topic that I started in order to prevent such off-topic messages like this. That I had started because you yourself personally complained that discussing evolution was off-topic here.Hypocrite!

YOU FUCKING LIAR!!!!!!

​

You are attributing to ME that which AZPaul3 had written!!DAMN YOU FUCKING EVIL CREATIONIST LIAR!!You have done this before. Why is it so impossible for creationists to stop lying?Verily, you creationists are the ones serving your Satan!

The hell it did, YOU LYING PIECE OF SHIT!That requires a deliberately performed editing action!All you self-admittedly evil creationists can do is make up one lie after another after another.I'll bet your god, Satan, is very pleased with you. Fucking stupid troll!

I just heard of a new Democrat tshirt:

quote:

---

Democrat

​

We're not perfect, but they're nuts!

---