1/15/2013 1:57 PM
You guys are both fuckin retards. bistiza, you dumb ****. The world is really really really fuckin old. You should pray this fuckin thread dies and no one you know ever finds out about it. bad_luck, stop being so ******* stupid. bistiza is insane and delusional, it doesn't matter what he says.
1/15/2013 2:00 PM
Posted by bistiza on 1/15/2013 1:53:00 PM (view original):
I will keep repeating your failures until I become bored or you cease to respond.  So once again:

You gave up. You lost. Deal with it.

You made a direct accusation. Are you conceding that I didn't change your words?
1/15/2013 2:01 PM
Another post by someone who would fit much better carrying a torch and a pitchfork in the 14th century.

1/15/2013 2:02 PM
You did change my words, then you gave up on addressing the real post, and that's why you lost the debate.

I know you'll never understand that, but it's fun to keep pointing it out.

1/15/2013 2:02 PM
I'm pretty sure science is what they were torch and pitchforking in the 14th century. The opposite of your young earth belief.
1/15/2013 2:03 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/15/2013 12:06:00 PM (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?


See?

Exact quotes.

Verbatim.

Word for word.
Exact quotes.

Nothing changed.

Are you admitting that you can't read?
1/15/2013 2:03 PM
Posted by bistiza on 1/15/2013 2:02:00 PM (view original):
You did change my words, then you gave up on addressing the real post, and that's why you lost the debate.

I know you'll never understand that, but it's fun to keep pointing it out.

Where? Point out the words.
1/15/2013 2:07 PM
We've already see that you either can't read or refuse to read. Nice try to turn it around. Too bad it didn't work. Yet another failure for you.

I should probably have kept track of the number of your failures we've seen here, but now they're coming so fast there's no point. You demonstrate a new ability to fail with virtually every post.

1/15/2013 2:09 PM
Too bad it didn't work?

That only thing that didn't work was your "evidence."

You posted (and then deleted) your "evidence." I responded directly and included your words.

Now you say I changed them.

Tell me where.

ps Why did you delete your evidence post???
1/15/2013 2:10 PM
What bistiza means is that you didn't respond to what he MEANT to say, you only responded to the words he actually used.  What you didn't respond to are the realities that he's sure, within his delusional worldview, must exist.  But he'll never tell you what they are, because he can't.  Because they're delusions.  I told you this pages ago.  If he's serious he almost definitely has a clinical delusional disorder, and it's really going to be a waste of time convincing him that his now deep-set delusions are wrong.  And if you somehow ever did break through he could have a breakdown, so it's really not all that nice of you to continue trying...
1/15/2013 2:12 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/15/2013 2:10:00 PM (view original):
What bistiza means is that you didn't respond to what he MEANT to say, you only responded to the words he actually used.  What you didn't respond to are the realities that he's sure, within his delusional worldview, must exist.  But he'll never tell you what they are, because he can't.  Because they're delusions.  I told you this pages ago.  If he's serious he almost definitely has a clinical delusional disorder, and it's really going to be a waste of time convincing him that his now deep-set delusions are wrong.  And if you somehow ever did break through he could have a breakdown, so it's really not all that nice of you to continue trying...
You're right. I could be responsible for a suicide.

OK bis, don't kill yourself. It's no big deal if you think the world is young and you think that you won the debate. Just put down the scissors and we'll move on.
1/15/2013 2:13 PM
We've been through all of this before. I already showed you everything you need if you really want the information you keep asking for.

Your failure to read has led to you losing a debate and revealing several failures I keep pointing out.

dahs,

You seem to think anyone who believes anything you don't agree with and stands up for it must be delusional. Either that or you want to call me delusional in a childish attempt to bully me into giving up. Either way it's ignorant.

1/15/2013 2:16 PM
No one is asking you to give up.

Quite the opposite. I'm asking you to explain further.

Why did you delete your original evidence post?
1/15/2013 2:18 PM
 You gave up. You lost. You don't get another chance. Deal with it.
1/15/2013 2:20 PM
Why did you delete your original "evidence" post?
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.