Summations Only

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.

candle2 seems to have gone quiet. He has not answered my questions nor adduced any evidence for distortion of reported evidence of age matters.
I really would like his comments or from any other YECAway from C14 dating, in recent years there are many reports of high precision dating on : - SIberian Traps to pin down relationship to the End-Permian extinction
-Central Atlantic Magmatic province for the End-Triassic extinction
- Deccan Traps for relationship to the End-Cretaceous extinction and the Chicxulub meteoriteSo again, if these reports are not genuine what is going on? What do YECs know that no one else does? Why has no researcher broken ranks to run to CMI et al to blow the whistle that it is all a sham?

Nwr, there is no way to test past conditions on earth. Period.Even if we lay assumptions aside, we cannot get past the
absence of transitional fossils. Nor, can we get around the
fact that never has life been observed coming from
non-life.If I did not want to believe in the God of creation, I would
still have no other choice.I am not a big enough fool to believe in an evolutionary
concept that is filled with more holes than Swiss cheese.

You are an ignorant religious simpleton with no conception of physics. Everything that happens leaves its mark on this world. That you're too ignorant of how science works to fathom our accurately revealing the past, even billions of years in the past, is testament to the incompetence of all your knowledge.Yes, we can see the past ... and the future ... and we can manipulate reality to our desires. We are the gods of this world. You are the comic relief.

There are lots of transitional fossils. I'll note that no actual god has ever been observed.

The earth itself is a record of its past. Dig a hole and you'll see the record of the latest local flood, the latest volcanic eruption, etc. The number of floods will even give you a pretty good idea about the weather in the past. You'll see the remains of the animals that used to live there, so you'll get a pretty good idea about what they ate, which will also give you an idea about the weather.And you can learn it by yourself in your own back yard.Avoid those lying creationist websites and learn something. Some liar has told you that. If you did find a fossil in your back yard, how would you know whether it was transitional or not? If you can't recognize a transitional fossil, how can you say there are none? Nor can we see Rome being built. Yet we're pretty sure it was built - and we can get a pretty good idea of HOW it was done. By your logic, there is no way that we could learn anything about ancient Rome. Neither abiogenesis nor evolution "disprove" God's creation. However, the evidence supports abiogenesis and evolution. There is no evidence that supports God. Swiss cheese is not defined by the holes; it's defined by the cheese. (Are you a big enough fool to not understand that?)

Ringo, you say that Swiss cheese is not defined by the
holes in it; it is defined by the cheese.Evolutionists view evolution in the same way that they
see Swiss cheese.They ignore all of the holes that exist in both.You can talk all you want, but talk doesn't produce
transitional fossils.They don't exist. And, you know they don't.If evolution were true, we would have tens, perhaps
hundreds, of millions of transitional fossils.Even Darwin who laugh at his own concept if he
knew what we know today.Even the simple single cell organisms are more
complicated and complex than the most modern
factories.Evolution is impossible.

We have them. Look at the collections. Look up the numbers.There are 40,000,000 in Smithsonian alone. Add collections around the world and you will find more than 200,000,000. And each one is a transitional fossil. No, Your god is impossible.

Hi candle2What was going on in the Earth while Satan was on the throne before Creation week? Have you a text for it?There is abundant evidence for how old Earth is and you produce no evidence contrary. Have you read RAZD's threads on age correlations?

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?

Forgive my ignorance, but I never knew that satan ever *had* a throne. In order to have even a metaphorical throne, one must have subjects. Perhaps a case could be made that Satan is the god of this world, but the subjects would acknowledge him as such. satan is at best an unemployed cherub.

Porkncheese, Hebrews 7 records the person called
Melchisedec. He was the King of righteousness. The
High Priest of Salem (Jerusalem).Abraham paid one tenth of all he owned (tithe) to
Melchisedec.Melchisedec was without father, without mother,
without descent, having neither beginning of days,
nor end of life. Verse 3.Melchisedec is the same God Being as the Word in
John 1:1-3, 10, 14.It should be perfectly clear to anyone with a decent
degree of reading comprehension that the Word in
John is not only with God, but is God.There has existed from eternity two God Beings.The Savior that we know as Jesus was, before He was
born of a virgin, known as the Word, as well as
Melchisedec.The two God Beings want a family of other God Beings.The Word lay His Devine Essence aside and allowed
Himself to be born a man.This is when the Father and Son relationship began.Jesus was aware of His past with God the Father. For
over 33 years these two God Beings, who had always
been together, were separated.John 1:3, Ephesians 3:9, and Collosians 1:16 state with
with absolute clarity that Jesus, as the Word, created all
things.And, that without Him not anything was made. The Word
was not created. He was the Creator.The God Being known as the Father is the undisputed
leader of the Two. He always has been, and always will be.Jesus, as our Creator, is worth more than all of us. And,
only His life could atone for our sins.As a man had Jesus sinned humans would remain dead
for all eternitySatan, as current ruler of this world, was well aware that
Jesus could sin. This is why he tempted Him so
vigorously.In Revelations 22:13, Jesus said "I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end, the first and the last.Jesus forgave sin. He allowed others to worship Him
(Matthew 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; & Mark 5:6.The 2nd Commandment forbade worship to anyone
other than God.Only God had authority to do such.

*shrug* You say that like it was a bad thing.Sure there are gaps in our knowledge. There are gaps in our knowledge on every subject. (Even your almighty knowledge of your god has gaps in it.)As I said, we don't ignore the cheese just because it has holes in it. The cheese itself is still good. YOU can talk all YOU want but YOUR talk won't eliminate the transitional fossils that we DO have. If you were honest (you're not), you could look up "transitional fossils" yourself and find out how many transitional fossils we DO have. But you'd rather believe the lies that creationist tell you. Liar. If you looked, you'd find them. Show us your calculations. You can't, can't you? Because those numbers are just lies made up by creationists. Darwin would certainly be impressed by how thoroughly his ideas have been confirmed. Look at DNA, for example. Darwin only knew D and N and A as letters in the alphabet. Today, DNA has confirmed evolution many, many times over.Why are your "arguments" a hundred years old? Because you don't have the first inkling of a clue about DNA? And? It seems impossible for you to learn anything.