1/15/2013 10:18 AM
You can compare what you dealt with to the original post for yourself, but it will be a pointless effort, just as all of your efforts have been.

The debate will not be reopened because I say so, and I say so because there are so many ignorant sheep who want to act like 14th century bullies here and so very few intelligent people who can respect opinions different from their own.
1/15/2013 11:13 AM
Oh, so you want me to post exactly what you wrote and my exact response. OK, here you go:

On the 24 you wrote:
Posted by bistiza on 12/24/2012 9:21:00 AM (view original):
Evidence please.

All you have to do is run a search for "young earth theory" or "young earth creationism" and read the information to find many scientists who support the hypothesis in whole or in part. I'm not going to bother listing all the names for you - you can go read them yourself if you want to take the time.

Keep in mind I truly am completely neutral on this one. I can see both sides.
Bistiza, could you give one - 1! - piece of "evidence" that the earth is NOT billions of years old?  You claimed that there is evidence on both sides.  And can you show me any evidence that any scientists believe that?
The first and second laws of thermodynamics. 

The fact that carbon-14 should break down to virtually nothing past a certain point in terms of dates and yet it is difficult to find carbon without carbon-14, which with an old earth model should be virtually non-existent much of the time.

The fossil record shows many strata of rock which are thought to be formed over "millions of years" can actually form quite quickly. Sometimes there are fossils, including petrified trees, which span straight through several layers indicating they may have formed quite suddenly.

Adding to these and other evidence, there are MANY things older universe theory fails to explain, so there is every reason for me to be neutral on the issue and not simply accept one theory over another because it is the feeling of the majority.  I make no apology for thinking for myself and making a determination that there isn't enough evidence on either side at this point in time, and both sides have many failings.
On the 27th I wrote:

Posted by bad_luck on 12/27/2012 11:40:00 AM (view original):
The first and second laws of thermodynamics. 

Not sure what that has to do with the age of the earth.
The fact that carbon-14 should break down to virtually nothing past a certain point in terms of dates and yet it is difficult to find carbon without carbon-14, which with an old earth model should be virtually non-existent much of the time.

dahs already covered this. Carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere. Not sure why you would think it would be non-existent.
The fossil record shows many strata of rock which are thought to be formed over "millions of years" can actually form quite quickly. Sometimes there are fossils, including petrified trees, which span straight through several layers indicating they may have formed quite suddenly.

Can you explain this further?


1/15/2013 11:15 AM
No, I don't want you to regurgitate the same thing over.

I want you to admit you went two weeks between 12/27 and 1/8 without responding to the real evidence despite me asking you to do so on multiple occasions.

I gave you every chance to address the real evidence and you never did it.

You gave up. You lost. Deal with it.

1/15/2013 11:16 AM
Posted by bistiza on 1/15/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):
No, I don't want you to regurgitate the same thing over.

I want you to admit you went two weeks between 12/27 and 1/8 without responding to the real evidence despite me asking you to do so on multiple occasions.

I gave you every chance to address the real evidence and you never did it.

You gave up. You lost. Deal with it.

Read the post above you smart guy. You posted your evidence on the 24th. I directly quoted you and responded on the 27th.
1/15/2013 11:17 AM
You two should get a room.
1/15/2013 11:18 AM
And again, I told you that you weren't dealing with the real evidence. You then spend two weeks refusing to go back and read the real evidence.

I'm surprised you know how the internet works if it takes you this long to grasp such a simple concept.

1/15/2013 11:20 AM
Posted by bistiza on 1/15/2013 11:18:00 AM (view original):
And again, I told you that you weren't dealing with the real evidence. You then spend two weeks refusing to go back and read the real evidence.

I'm surprised you know how the internet works if it takes you this long to grasp such a simple concept.

So, what you posted wasn't the "real evidence?" Why didn't you post the real evidence?
1/15/2013 11:22 AM
Posted by bistiza on 1/15/2013 10:18:00 AM (view original):
You can compare what you dealt with to the original post for yourself, but it will be a pointless effort, just as all of your efforts have been.

The debate will not be reopened because I say so, and I say so because there are so many ignorant sheep who want to act like 14th century bullies here and so very few intelligent people who can respect opinions different from their own.
A serious question:

You seem to be dismissing anybody who believes in the "old earth" theory as sheep who are just following mainstream beliefs "because a bunch of other people believe it".

Is there any room in your thought process that people who strongly believe in the "old earth" theory and dismiss the "young earth" theory as bullshit may have come to that conclusion because they have carefully reviewed the evidence and have come to their own decision, which coincidentally is the mainstream belief?

Or are you just going to dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with you as being "wrong"?
1/15/2013 11:22 AM
I posted the real evidence. You tried to twist it into something it wasn't, and when I told you what you were doing, you refused for two weeks to address the real evidence.
1/15/2013 11:23 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/15/2013 11:14:00 AM (view original):
Oh, so you want me to post exactly what you wrote and my exact response. OK, here you go:

On the 24 you wrote:
Posted by bistiza on 12/24/2012 9:21:00 AM (view original):
Evidence please.

All you have to do is run a search for "young earth theory" or "young earth creationism" and read the information to find many scientists who support the hypothesis in whole or in part. I'm not going to bother listing all the names for you - you can go read them yourself if you want to take the time.

Keep in mind I truly am completely neutral on this one. I can see both sides.
Bistiza, could you give one - 1! - piece of "evidence" that the earth is NOT billions of years old?  You claimed that there is evidence on both sides.  And can you show me any evidence that any scientists believe that?
The first and second laws of thermodynamics. 

The fact that carbon-14 should break down to virtually nothing past a certain point in terms of dates and yet it is difficult to find carbon without carbon-14, which with an old earth model should be virtually non-existent much of the time.

The fossil record shows many strata of rock which are thought to be formed over "millions of years" can actually form quite quickly. Sometimes there are fossils, including petrified trees, which span straight through several layers indicating they may have formed quite suddenly.

Adding to these and other evidence, there are MANY things older universe theory fails to explain, so there is every reason for me to be neutral on the issue and not simply accept one theory over another because it is the feeling of the majority.  I make no apology for thinking for myself and making a determination that there isn't enough evidence on either side at this point in time, and both sides have many failings.
On the 27th I wrote:

Posted by bad_luck on 12/27/2012 11:40:00 AM (view original):
The first and second laws of thermodynamics. 

Not sure what that has to do with the age of the earth.
The fact that carbon-14 should break down to virtually nothing past a certain point in terms of dates and yet it is difficult to find carbon without carbon-14, which with an old earth model should be virtually non-existent much of the time.

dahs already covered this. Carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere. Not sure why you would think it would be non-existent.
The fossil record shows many strata of rock which are thought to be formed over "millions of years" can actually form quite quickly. Sometimes there are fossils, including petrified trees, which span straight through several layers indicating they may have formed quite suddenly.

Can you explain this further?


I quoted you verbatim. See?
1/15/2013 11:25 AM
And I told you that you weren't looking at all of the information.

You then refused to do so for two weeks.

1/15/2013 11:28 AM
What "all the information?" I quoted you verbatim. That's the only info you gave.
1/15/2013 11:30 AM
What's funny is that even now you are denying the real information.

This is now another topic I'm not debating with you because of your ignorance.

1/15/2013 11:38 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/15/2013 11:23:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/15/2013 11:14:00 AM (view original):
Oh, so you want me to post exactly what you wrote and my exact response. OK, here you go:

On the 24 you wrote:
Posted by bistiza on 12/24/2012 9:21:00 AM (view original):
Evidence please.

All you have to do is run a search for "young earth theory" or "young earth creationism" and read the information to find many scientists who support the hypothesis in whole or in part. I'm not going to bother listing all the names for you - you can go read them yourself if you want to take the time.

Keep in mind I truly am completely neutral on this one. I can see both sides.
Bistiza, could you give one - 1! - piece of "evidence" that the earth is NOT billions of years old?  You claimed that there is evidence on both sides.  And can you show me any evidence that any scientists believe that?
The first and second laws of thermodynamics. 

The fact that carbon-14 should break down to virtually nothing past a certain point in terms of dates and yet it is difficult to find carbon without carbon-14, which with an old earth model should be virtually non-existent much of the time.

The fossil record shows many strata of rock which are thought to be formed over "millions of years" can actually form quite quickly. Sometimes there are fossils, including petrified trees, which span straight through several layers indicating they may have formed quite suddenly.

Adding to these and other evidence, there are MANY things older universe theory fails to explain, so there is every reason for me to be neutral on the issue and not simply accept one theory over another because it is the feeling of the majority.  I make no apology for thinking for myself and making a determination that there isn't enough evidence on either side at this point in time, and both sides have many failings.
On the 27th I wrote:

Posted by bad_luck on 12/27/2012 11:40:00 AM (view original):
The first and second laws of thermodynamics. 

Not sure what that has to do with the age of the earth.
The fact that carbon-14 should break down to virtually nothing past a certain point in terms of dates and yet it is difficult to find carbon without carbon-14, which with an old earth model should be virtually non-existent much of the time.

dahs already covered this. Carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere. Not sure why you would think it would be non-existent.
The fossil record shows many strata of rock which are thought to be formed over "millions of years" can actually form quite quickly. Sometimes there are fossils, including petrified trees, which span straight through several layers indicating they may have formed quite suddenly.

Can you explain this further?


I quoted you verbatim. See?
Unless you're denying that you wrote the post above, or accusing me of changing your words, you're wrong. I quoted you verbatim and left none of your "evidence" out.
1/15/2013 11:56 AM
You did change the words. That's the point.

Still, it is a moot point. You lost the debate and it won't be restarted. Deal with it.

of 37

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.