Evolution

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 06:12:06 AM

That is pure speculation to excuse the fact that their theory is wrong.

Also almost a half a century has passed and we have not added a second.

Below is the data that I have until 2007

Year   30-Jun   31-Dec
1972   +1 second   +1 second
1973   none   +1 second
1974   none   +1 second
1975   none   +1 second
1976   none   +1 second
1977   none   +1 second
1979   none   +1 second
1980   none   none
1981   +1 second   none
1982   +1 second   none
1983   +1 second   none
1984   none   none
1985   +1 second   none
1986   none   none
1987   none   +1 second
1988   none   none
1989   none   +1 second
1990   none   +1 second
1991   none   none
1992   +1 second   none
1993   +1 second   none
1994   +1 second   none
1995   none   +1 second
1996   none   none
1997   +1 second   none
1998   none   +1 second
1999   none   none
2000      
2001      
2002      
2003      
2004      
2005   none   +1 second
2006   none   none
2007   none   none

Are we going to add seconds in the second half of the century. The 44 year trend says NO

I'm pretty sure we added a second either this year or 2016. Also your own chart says we added one in 2005 so you are lying when you said it's been 44 years, at least according to you.

Below is the data that I have until 2007

Quote from: Badxtoss on July 25, 2017, 08:35:28 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 25, 2017, 06:12:06 AM

That is pure speculation to excuse the fact that their theory is wrong.

Also almost a half a century has passed and we have not added a second.

Below is the data that I have until 2007

Year   30-Jun   31-Dec
1972   +1 second   +1 second
1973   none   +1 second
1974   none   +1 second
1975   none   +1 second
1976   none   +1 second
1977   none   +1 second
1979   none   +1 second
1980   none   none
1981   +1 second   none
1982   +1 second   none
1983   +1 second   none
1984   none   none
1985   +1 second   none
1986   none   none
1987   none   +1 second
1988   none   none
1989   none   +1 second
1990   none   +1 second
1991   none   none
1992   +1 second   none
1993   +1 second   none
1994   +1 second   none
1995   none   +1 second
1996   none   none
1997   +1 second   none
1998   none   +1 second
1999   none   none
2000      
2001      
2002      
2003      
2004      
2005   none   +1 second
2006   none   none
2007   none   none

Are we going to add seconds in the second half of the century. The 44 year trend says NO

I'm pretty sure we added a second either this year or 2016. Also your own chart says we added one in 2005 so you are lying when you said it's been 44 years, at least according to you.

Please read before you write!

i said

Quote

Below is the data that I have until 2007

Yes and in 2006 and 2007 they did not add any seconds.

And from 1972 till 2016, since 2017 is not over, is how many years?

If you can't do basic arithmetic, go back to school.

In December 31 2016 they added a leap second

citation - http://earthsky.org/human-world/leap-second-june-30-december-31-why-need-controversy

They add leap year on June 30 and December 31 of each year.

If they subtracted a leap second in June 30, 2017, please post the link!

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2017, 06:55:22 PM

Quote from: Physical Experimenter on May 02, 2017, 12:51:52 AM

Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.

Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.

Are you trolling or just dumb?


Well, gun as profile pic; so you're most likely 'murican and thus the second assumption is probably correct.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2017, 06:55:22 PM

Quote from: Physical Experimenter on May 02, 2017, 12:51:52 AM

Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.

Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.

An example would be nice.

Quote from: User324 on July 09, 2017, 02:23:59 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2017, 06:55:22 PM

Quote from: Physical Experimenter on May 02, 2017, 12:51:52 AM

Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.

Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.

Are you trolling or just dumb?


Well, gun as profile pic; so you're most likely 'murican and thus the second assumption is probably correct.

So rather than debate you lower yourself to insults. Nice.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on July 09, 2017, 10:01:20 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2017, 06:55:22 PM

Quote from: Physical Experimenter on May 02, 2017, 12:51:52 AM

Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.

Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.

An example would be nice.

They found a human fossil in the KBS tuff which was originally dated far older than what the theory stated humans came into being.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/the-pigs-took-it-all/

https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/cavemen/stone-axes-push-anthropological-view-humans-back-time/

Your trolling is once again getting too obvious, inflatearth.

Quote from: User324 on August 02, 2017, 08:59:12 AM

Your trolling is once again getting too obvious, inflatearth.

Your Religion just got busted, again and all you have to say is that I'm a troll?

Why don't you comment on the fact that Dinosaur tissue has been found and you can see it in the video?

Go to your high priest and ask them, what should I say to overcome this? Maybe they can give you some advice on the matter.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 02, 2017, 10:01:26 AM

Quote from: User324 on August 02, 2017, 08:59:12 AM

Your trolling is once again getting too obvious, inflatearth.

Your Religion just got busted, again and all you have to say is that I'm a troll?

Why don't you comment on the fact that Dinosaur tissue has been found and you can see it in the video?

Go to your high priest and ask them, what should I say to overcome this? Maybe they can give you some advice on the matter.

Still too obvious.

Try to answer this, you evolutionary High Priest.

How could dinosaur tissue survive 70 millions years?

All the fossil were created by Noah's flood as it is written in Genesis.

Time 2:53

I believe they are talking about a few cells.  Where is the evidence of this world wide flood?

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 02, 2017, 08:38:47 AM

Try to answer this, you evolutionary High Priest.

How could dinosaur tissue survive 70 millions years?

All the fossil were created by Noah's flood as it is written in Genesis.

Time 2:53

I believe they are talking about a few cells.  Where is the evidence of this world wide flood?

Quote from: Badxtoss on August 02, 2017, 12:20:18 PM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 02, 2017, 08:38:47 AM

Try to answer this, you evolutionary High Priest.

How could dinosaur tissue survive 70 millions years?

All the fossil were created by Noah's flood as it is written in Genesis.

Time 2:53

I believe they are talking about a few cells.  Where is the evidence of this world wide flood?

Not just a few cells, but a substantial amount of tissue. Look at time 2:59 and see the size of the instruments that stretch the tissue.

This tissue did not survive 70 million years. This sample came from the flood about 5000 years ago.

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.”

-Malcolm Muggeridge

Every aspect of the Evolution fairy tale is based on assumptions and circular reasoning. It's not science and no believer in the religion of evolution will ever accept that. I wouldn't bother with them. I've seen professors go red and then spout anger when anything of their evolution religion is brought into question with actual science. Let the public tax dollars continue to fund this religion coz until then, it's not going away.

Quote

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.”

-Malcolm Muggeridge

Quote from: observer on August 04, 2017, 11:30:33 AM

Every aspect of the Evolution fairy tale is based on assumptions and circular reasoning. It's not science and no believer in the religion of evolution will ever accept that. I wouldn't bother with them. I've seen professors go red and then spout anger when anything of their evolution religion is brought into question with actual science. Let the public tax dollars continue to fund this religion coz until then, it's not going away.

Quote

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has.”

-Malcolm Muggeridge

Example for actual science "bringing the theory of evolution in to question"  is required.

Actual science and common sense debunks the dating system used to justify evolution. You can't have 68 million year old tissue in an environment that is cold -hot -cold - hot - cold - hot. The bonds break with temperature change

She found amino acids in the tissue.

68 Millions years old or the dating system is wrong?

Which sounds more reasonable?

But, if the dating system is found to be wrong, then their goes Evolution, so that can't be it, and if it is, then we will through stupid explanations in order to keep our religion.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 04, 2017, 12:03:47 PM

Actual science and common sense debunks the dating system used to justify evolution. You can't have 68 million year old tissue in an environment that is cold -hot -cold - hot - cold - hot. The bonds break with temperature change

That's a wrong assumption which makes your whole point invalid.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 04, 2017, 02:17:14 AM

She found amino acids in the tissue.

68 Millions years old or the dating system is wrong?

Which sounds more reasonable?

But, if the dating system is found to be wrong, then their goes Evolution, so that can't be it, and if it is, then we will through stupid explanations in order to keep our religion.

Ok, I think you missed something:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+is+dinosaur+soft+tissue+preserved%3F

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 04, 2017, 11:48:52 PM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 04, 2017, 02:17:14 AM

She found amino acids in the tissue.

68 Millions years old or the dating system is wrong?

Which sounds more reasonable?

But, if the dating system is found to be wrong, then their goes Evolution, so that can't be it, and if it is, then we will through stupid explanations in order to keep our religion.

Ok, I think you missed something:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+is+dinosaur+soft+tissue+preserved%3F

What is more logical, that the tissue was preserved for 68,000,000 years or that the tissue was preserved for 5,000 years?

<gibberish snipped>

Quote from: User324 on August 04, 2017, 12:10:06 PM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 04, 2017, 12:03:47 PM

Actual science and common sense debunks the dating system used to justify evolution. You can't have 68 million year old tissue in an environment that is cold -hot -cold - hot - cold - hot. The bonds break with temperature change

That's a wrong assumption which makes your whole point invalid.

You refuse to see the light and that is why you will be in eternal darkness...

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 04, 2017, 11:48:52 PM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on August 04, 2017, 02:17:14 AM

She found amino acids in the tissue.

68 Millions years old or the dating system is wrong?

Which sounds more reasonable?

But, if the dating system is found to be wrong, then their goes Evolution, so that can't be it, and if it is, then we will through stupid explanations in order to keep our religion.

Ok, I think you missed something:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+is+dinosaur+soft+tissue+preserved%3F

What is more logical, that the tissue was preserved for 68,000,000 years or that the tissue was preserved for 5,000 years?

With math you can get wild thing, like creating an hand cream at 10,000 Kelvin. Actual problem in Batch Reactor Design exam, where the formal had trigonometry in it and you got two values at 0 Degrees = 10,000 Kelvin and at 180 Degrees = 320 Kelvin.

The most logical answer is that it was preserved for 68 million years because of all the evidence that points to it.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 05, 2017, 10:38:44 AM

The most logical answer is that it was preserved for 68 million years because of all the evidence that points to it.

What "evidence"? You mean the evidence based on assumptions like carbon dating? The one categorically proven to be inaccurate and would never hold up in an actual court case if used as evidence for a crime?

In school, college and uni, ALL I remember being repeated was "the overwhelming evidence" "evidence" "evidence" "evidence" but then when you dig deep into the "evidence" all hell breaks loose. But it looks like it clearly worked on you so those tax dollars did not go to waste. The evolution religion, based on pure beliefs is rampant and ANYONE trying to get a message through to these hardcore Darwinian evolutionists might as well have evolved from monkeys.