MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf ^

[fishtank]

PDF file.

[Terriergal]

lol I was thinking the same thing.

For a Christian to be telling her she was at fault for clarifying that most of that post was her own text... seemed... a bit incongruous to me.

Heaven forbid I should ever make a mistake on this forum.

< g >

Oh wait there is no heaven, I forgot.

[ALS]

If evo's IQs was gasoline, they couldn't push a pissant on a pissant moped around a rancid cornut.

IMHO

[Ichneumon]

You are the posterboy for the warning below..

How exactly do you figure that? On the contrary, he's trying to seriously discuss the scientific matter at hand, while simultaneously trying to get certain people to refrain from distractive game-playing and name-calling.

He's trying to raise the level of discussion, not lower it as you incorrectly accuse. Your own contributions, on the other hand, appear to be inflammatory in intent.

[f.Christian]

precambrian fossils do actually exist

Anything of importance here other than a minor technical irrelevant fact -- spelling error ?

Mega house on one card - JOKER !

[Terriergal]

Oh I dunno. I think what you're talking about is common sense rather than IQ. Many of them do have high IQ's, but IQ's like anything else are subject to the force of one's will. If you run into a little math problem that challenges your presuppositions you just might be inclined to answer it incorrectly, because your heart hurts too badly if you do anything else. It's instinctive, denial.

IQ has little to do with common sense, just ask Cyrano. I make sure he knows that every day. < G > Us lower life forms are useful for making sure the supergeniuses don't forget to put on their pants before they go out the door. Of course, how practical are pants anyway, it's just a cultural norm.

But then again, Cyrano wouldn't be considered a genius by any one of them, since he's a creationist.

Maybe they should come up with a common sense quotient?

[Right Wing Professor]

Your own contributions, on the other hand, appear to be inflammatory in intent.

Of course they are. Don't feed the troll.

[ALS]

Pounding a dead horse is not "trying to seriously discuss the scientific matter at hand, while simultaneously trying to get certain people to refrain from distractive game-playing and name-calling."

It's engaging in it. Nay, it's inciting it. NAY!, it's "trolling".

So we see you support trolling.

[ALS]

To: js1138

If not, I'm afraid the contract is toothless.

Not only toothless. It's counterproductive. All the "evildoers" will joyfully sign on and continue their merry ways, emboldened by a document that will be used to legitimize their behavior.


1,221 posted on 07/30/2003 9:43 AM CDT by Nebullis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/952079/posts?page=1221#1221

[ALS]

"Maybe they should come up with a common sense quotient?"

How many atheist websites would they have to consult to define it though?

[Terriergal]

he's trying to seriously discuss the scientific matter at hand

Have you been here long? Have you *ever* seen an evo 'discuss' a scientific matter seriously to its logical conclusion? Hey by now we just cut to the chase. We know they always back out when it comes down to "where'd it all come from?" Because the answer to that either A. doesn't matter or B. it turns a person's whole world upside down. Quite a choice. Easier to just ignore it.

[ALS]

sorta like spiders on mickey mouse acid? :)

[Terriergal]

That's all right we'll just have fun together. We know you don't listen to reason anyway.

[Ichneumon]

Although I have met one atheist who was very nice and would be appalled at the obnoxiousness that goes on by his peers here.

Please be specific about what exactly in this thread you see as "obnoxiousness" by those you perceive to be "atheists", and explain how you can be sure that they are "atheists" in the first place.

[ALS]

GW seems to be displaying some common sense here, wouldn't you say?

Will the evos join with you in your observation I wonder..

[PatrickHenry]

Just my opinion:
With one exception, most of the insulting, disruptive, provocative, and trollish-type conduct here seems to be coming from non-complying posters. It's probably best to ignore them all. There's little if anyhing any substance being discussed by them anyway.

[Ichneumon]

OOPS the article's from a Creation science website, It *must* be ignored/considered unscientific/biased.

OOPS, you *must* be engaging in a straw man attack, because no one in this thread has dismissed the article just for coming from a creationist website. And in order to make your disingenuous screed, you've had to pretend that many people haven't addressed the actual contents of the article, when indeed they have.

Perhaps you'd care to discuss things next time instead of sling unfounded slurs.

[ALS]

To: js1138

If not, I'm afraid the contract is toothless.

Not only toothless. It's counterproductive. All the "evildoers" will joyfully sign on and continue their merry ways, emboldened by a document that will be used to legitimize their behavior.


1,221 posted on 07/30/2003 9:43 AM CDT by Nebullis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/952079/posts?page=1221#1221

[ALS]

SEE: post #235 for "unfounded slurs"

[Right Wing Professor]

With one exception, most of the insulting, disruptive, provocative, and trollish-type conduct here seems to be coming from non-complying posters. It's probably best to ignore them all. There's little if anyhing any substance being discussed by them anyway.

Hear hear. It's only to be expected that there will be a concerted attempt to attack and destroy the agreement.

[Terriergal]

no one in this thread has dismissed the article just for coming from a creationist

Oh have you researched the evolutionist movement much? It always comes down to that. Redefining scientific as meaning only those facts that support/do not undermine evolution. Like I said, we cut to the chase.

All these 'missing link' discussions are moot if you cannot explain where the stuff came from by natural means. It comes down to a choice - the stuff is preexistent and impersonal, which leaves you with the question of how life and intellect and morality arose from it (since spontaneous generation has been disproven... or are we to suggest that we need to reexamine that theory?). OR there is a transcendent power which brought it into existence. Once you have decided for one or the other, you will by faith (be you creationist or evolutionist) fit everything to support that one presupposition. The thing is, the creationist's puzzle pieces fit much better and leave less room for faith than do the evos. Yet they insist the opposite. How can there be any meeting of minds when one party insists black is white and white is black?