Evolution? How?

Yes, indeed.

Present company excepted.

0 Replies

THis thread has degraded into
1Explaining to rexred where hes off the mark

2 Criticising rex for his often twisted logic

3responding to reds outrageous assertions

3listening to multiple successive rex posts of incoherent babble

In other words , its no longer about evolution, itrs about rex. I, for one will remove myself unless, of course something of interest should break out.

As timber said, a usual sign of defeat is when one goes off on others with out much substance. I love going off on folks and am often gone off on. However , in those instances we usually are , (if our minds are not like closed bear traps) willing to be corrected and we learn from the interchange. Saying that Im wrong isnt the end of the world. And incoherently adhering to nonsensical beliefs and incorrect usages of terms with out even an excuse me "Im just kidding" is somewhat scary. Thats just me.

Ill see yas all somewhere else, rex, I wish you well but I dont think I could hang out with you for more than a few moments.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rexred said
Quote:
farmerman wrote:
Crash and burn another thread . Too bad. [Sad]

Shut up if you can't say anything nice.
_________________
Quote:
FM

YOU are the one crashing this thread... by trying to stifle ideas. If this thread is burned to you, LEAVE THEN. If you want to talk about something toss it out and if no one remarks then no one wants to. But out of spite you have to make subtle attacks as if you are SUPERIOR. I will not put up with a bully. Get a better attitude or I will complain about you to the moderators. You are disturbing the free discourse of ideas with SPAM.

You certainly have that right rex.If I were you I would complain about me. Im too caught up with evidence and I have a nasty side that disapproves mightily of gobbledeegook and much of what you try to p[ass off as sense. Ive tried to be patient with you, but have failed. So whatever floats your boat.

You are being subjective and dictative (as most "scientists" have a tendency to do.) as if to imply that only what YOU like to talk about is important. Well you are not the only voice with an opinion here.

You are in a peep show complaining about people getting naked... Step out of the tent or close your eyes if you can stand the scriptures. This is not a place for virulent protest but for calm and collective exchange of "spiritual" "living" and "physical" matters of life. Ideas should not be spurned but allowed to go where they may without being squelched by people who can only reason in absolutes...

Address a specific point that I have written FM and say THIS is why this is not true.

Don't just say... gobbledeegook, or is that your answer? Is that your grand contrasting basis that you have built your own opinion upon?

Argue this with me or just talk about your own interests and make the thread more interesting that way. I don't care because I already know what I know and I also know most of what you know...

Because I don't close my eyes to learning.

If there is a great teacher alive today I will find them. I always do.

If no one can teach me then I must teach what I know.

Any vast subject becomes gobbledeegook if you close your mind to understanding it.

Energy is gobbledeegook.

If anyone knows what I know then they can say they are aware of alternative views also. No one seems to demonstrate they understand alternative views. So I will continue to get jousted or someone will suddenly have something I say click and begin to listen. Then I will not be among the few who are talking of these views.

It is like playing the piano. Some read but play poorly some play nicely but cannot read. The purpose of music is to entertain. To feel the melody and play it spontaneously without even thinking. to play naturally.

To feel spiritually without even thinking.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl asks
Quote:
Would it seem odd to you if a lab, purporting to objectively date a fossil using a scientific process, were to ask you what age you expected the fossil to be?

Would it seem odd that a hematology lab would ask what kind of blood sample you are submitting? How about a
chemistry lab , they always ask you what kind of fluid is this/

You are obviously woefully ignorant of how geochron (or lab) techniques work so you are obviously only looking for someone to admit that labs "give you the answers you wish to hear" Labs have a BLP standard to maintain and often have EPA and state standards to meet or they lose their licenses, Phoneying data is a criminal offense, and usually is found out by lab audit, and having outside data verification done . Also multiples and duplicates and method analyses are run to make sure the instruments are properly calibrated. Its not a bunch of alchemy, so sorry .

A geochron lab, in the "chain of custody' always has the assumed formation from which the sample was collected, its method of collection, any cleanups, or any circumstances that should be considered before the sample is possibly destroyed and wasted.

Maybe I'm a bit different, but yes I would expect a hematology lab to be able to tell the difference between, say, human blood and animal blood without being told.

I would expect a geochron lab to be able to date a sample without being told how old I expect it to be. If the process is an objective process, why not?

I think you were the person who told us that labs typically do not test, for instance, for C14 in samples that are expected to be too old to have any. However isn't it the case that coal often has significant quantities of C14 in it?

If coal is hundreds of millions of years old, then C14 which is supposed to be completely gone in under about 70K years shouldn't be showing up very often, if at all.

I am well aware of the several theories that are trying to explain this, but one theory that is almost NEVER put forth (except by creationists, what do they know anyway? ) is the commonsense, 'maybe this is not as old as we think it is'. Why is it that assumption rules out even entertaining the possibility that one might be wrong?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

THis thread has degraded into
1Explaining to rexred where hes off the mark

2 Criticising rex for his often twisted logic

3responding to reds outrageous assertions

3listening to multiple successive rex posts of incoherent babble

In other words , its no longer about evolution, itrs about rex. I, for one will remove myself unless, of course something of interest should break out.

As timber said, a usual sign of defeat is when one goes off on others with out much substance. I love going off on folks and am often gone off on. However , in those instances we usually are , (if our minds are not like closed bear traps) willing to be corrected and we learn from the interchange. Saying that Im wrong isnt the end of the world. And incoherently adhering to nonsensical beliefs and incorrect usages of terms with out even an excuse me "Im just kidding" is somewhat scary. Thats just me.

Ill see yas all somewhere else, rex, I wish you well but I dont think I could hang out with you for more than a few moments.

Well you can keep the thread on evolution YOURSELF but to criticize what I have to say is just plane poor sportsmanship.

Things are not good if you are not forcing your Godless evolution. What right do you have to take God out of evolution? You can take God out of your own evolution but you cannot take God out of my evolution.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

It is like playing the piano. Some read but play poorly some play nicely but cannot read. The purpose of music is to entertain. To feel the melody and play it spontaneously without even thinking. to play naturally.

To feel spiritually without even thinking.

Well, obviously you've got the spirituality without thinking thing down; it certainly seems to come naturally to you. In that respect, I'll grant you're an able entertainer.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

RexRed wrote:
It is like playing the piano. Some read but play poorly some play nicely but cannot read. The purpose of music is to entertain. To feel the melody and play it spontaneously without even thinking. to play naturally.

To feel spiritually without even thinking.

Well, obviously you've got the spirituality without thinking thing down; it certainly seems to come naturally to you. In that respect, I'll grant you're an able entertainer.

People feel what they want but they rarely look at the consequences or the cost or their beliefs. This is taking control of your evolution and not being controlled by it.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

THis thread has degraded into
1Explaining to rexred where hes off the mark

2 Criticising rex for his often twisted logic

3responding to reds outrageous assertions

3listening to multiple successive rex posts of incoherent babble

In other words , its no longer about evolution, itrs about rex. I, for one will remove myself unless, of course something of interest should break out.

As timber said, a usual sign of defeat is when one goes off on others with out much substance. I love going off on folks and am often gone off on. However , in those instances we usually are , (if our minds are not like closed bear traps) willing to be corrected and we learn from the interchange. Saying that Im wrong isnt the end of the world. And incoherently adhering to nonsensical beliefs and incorrect usages of terms with out even an excuse me "Im just kidding" is somewhat scary. Thats just me.

Ill see yas all somewhere else, rex, I wish you well but I dont think I could hang out with you for more than a few moments.

Yup.

0 Replies

Icing on the cake, "yup".

Dumb and dumber.

0 Replies

Rex, are you for some reason endeavoring to validate the criticisms aimed your way?

I ask only because you're doing a fine job of accomplishing precisely, and only, that.

0 Replies

RL 1Its a matter that a lab follows protocols. If a specific environmental sample is submitted then its always good to know the approximate contents
1safety
2waste of sample
3time in preps
Also, as I said, and timber followed up with other physical labs,protocols are established that require ceratin steps be taken. A lab is not out playing 20 questions with a finite amount o sample. If the shroud of Turin contains blood, why did they spend so much time on diffraction and edax to see first? Because theyd destroy much of the spotted material unless they didnt do some nondestructive testing first'
Our protocols for geochron samples are such that we do a thin section of the material first and then give the labs the formation names or, failing that alone, we give a petrographic analysis by polarized light microscopy. We can tell whats in the rock, so if its all zirc. ons , we wont blow out the accelerator mass spec.

As far as Carbon 14 in coal. Theres a good book called "Trace elements in Coal" It can give a reasonable picture why coal has C14 and AMS science is now catching up.

Coal is a complex "Wax" with nitrogen , sulfur and a whole bunch of trace elements including radiaoactive ones U238-Th230-Th232-Ra226. ALthough the old chestnut that coal gets contaminated by bacteria is sorta true, that argument would account mostly for C12/C13 and a teeny small amount of C14. The real news is that some coals contain LOTS of C14 and some coals contain NONE. Howcome?

Well lets look at the trace elements and coals overall composition.
Q:How is C14 formed? ,A: by cosmic rays zooming on Nitrogen in the atmosphere. Cosmic rays are high energy gamma and neutrons. Coal contains plenty of Nitrogen , but not all coals contain radioactive elements(some do some dont). Thestatistical comparison shows that coals with lotsa U-Th will also have C14, while coals with low or no U-Th contain small amounts or none. The results, scientists have found is that coals Nitrogen is being converted to C14 by neutron or gamma radiation from the U/Th in the coal itself. This has been accidentally discovered by application looking for elusive cosmological particles by setting scintilometeres in deep coal mines. Sometimes Too much C14 was being found and it only made sense after the U-Th was analyzed in the coal. This kind of formation of radionuclides that shouldnt be there(like C14) is called de-novo alteration

even if you were right about C14 in coal being from a young earth (which youre not) youd have to settle for an earth that was at least 40000 years or so old, if you looked at C14 balances.
Yes I am the one who told you that we dont look for C14 when weve got gazillion year old samples. Coal is something else entirely. It can contain C14, but its own chemistry answers why, nothing magic is involved. If someones tying to date a coal, theyre usually looking at the U/Th or K/Ar, not C14. C14 is an artifact that just happens, "like **** often does". I hope this helps but if you need a good resource see

TRACE ELEMENTS IN COAL by Daleay Swayne. Es a good ole Ozzian rocknockah. My copy is 1996 ed.)It musta been a page turner toprint a 2nd ed)

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Rex, are you for some reason endeavoring to validate the criticisms aimed your way?

I ask only because you're doing a fine job of accomplishing precisely, and only, that.

I am only trying to present a different view, plain and simple.

My view unites both views. When I leave you are divided and at each others throats when I return you are all at mine...

Think about it.

0 Replies

You can't forever be divided so I have to eventually win.

0 Replies

Both sides are right but they are WRONG in HOW things "connect". Both sides DO connect... That is the "truth" I speak of. You all argue over whose right rather than whose completely right. Both of you have a blind area. Blind faith or blind ignorance.

Evolution and creation not evolution or creation.

I have been saying this for years why can't ONE PERSON debate it?

BECAUSE THE WORLD IS BLIND TO IT!

The truth falls imperceptibly on deafness.

0 Replies

Evolutionists look at life from the bottom up theists look at life from the top down.

But the truth is to look at the whole person, body (formed), soul (made), spirit (created). The unification of all matter and theory both physical and spiritual; temporal and eternal.

This truth is 6000 years old... And you are all oblivious to it.

The day you learn this this thread will cease to exist. It will be replaced with a unity theory.

BODY SOUL SPIRIT
FORMED MADE CREATED

The true perspective intended for life.

Not a noisy debate over things that are (for the most part) ultimately true anyway.

This discussion should be to clarify and not diversify.

The whole philosophy of this debate needs to be reconsidered in light of what I have proposed. But you all are stunned and stupefied to not see the opportunity to reconcile years of intellectual darkness on this subject.

Evolution deals strictly with the physical. But what evolution does not consider (AT ALL) is the soul and the spirit and how they have interacted with EVOLUTION. Life (soul) is a real thing not an imagined thing. All things contain the breath of life. Even atoms breathe.

Physics will never know who created the big bang because they cannot measure life.

As evolution will never know what has carved out the human form because they cannot measure spirit.

0 Replies

You give yourself way too much credit, Rex and, in so doing, remove any doubt concerning the purpose of your participation in this discussion. Enjoy the attention, though - you work for it.

0 Replies

I for one don't see how we're at each other's throats when RexRed is away.

0 Replies

Im more interested in trying to answer real Lifes bold assertions than rex's secret musings

Quote:

But the truth is to look at the whole person, body (formed), soul (made), spirit (created). The unification of all matter and theory both physical and spiritual; temporal and eternal.

I have no iea that rex even knows what hes saying .

Quote:

This truth is 6000 years old... And you are all oblivious to it.

The day you learn this this thread will cease to exist. It will be replaced with a unity theory.

Huh? sez who? and, of course what does this mean also?

0 Replies

Quote:

Huh? sez who? and, of course what does this mean also?

It means the Jack Daniels is kicking in.

0 Replies

Wow I thought you people were joshing me. You really don't get it.

No Jack Daniels involved just as I said an alternative view that I seem to be unable to even get the view understood let alone believed.

I am not saying no one understands it but those who do (understand)have been silent.

I thought you were all being silent because you understood and did not care. Now I see this whole view has sailed right overhead.

This leaves me with the quandary as to should I push until it is clearly understood or wonder if it can be comprehended at all in light of such blinding contradiction...

Maybe some have comprehended and don't care but the message I seem to be getting is you have not for the most part even understood what I have said.

This is both wondrous but puzzling.

If someone thinks they understand what I have been saying then please explain it in your own words maybe this could help.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know