1/16/2013 12:29 PM
So you're blocking me and not reading my posts but responding anyway? Interesting.
1/16/2013 1:54 PM
Posted by bistiza on 1/16/2013 12:21:00 PM (view original):
I can't see it because he's blocked, but I'm betting bad_luck is making all kinds of posts. What will be really funny is he'll keep responding to me but I'll never be responding to him. I guess that's part of what "attention-whoring trolls" do though.
So since you've blocked him, and no longer cares what he says or thinks, can you show me the evidence again?

Thanks.
1/16/2013 2:00 PM

Sorry burnsy.  Bis is no longer responding to 14th century Neanderthals such as yourself.

Besides, you don't need to see the evidence.  His word should be all you need.

Now, run along!  Shoo!

1/16/2013 2:08 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 1/16/2013 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 1/16/2013 12:21:00 PM (view original):
I can't see it because he's blocked, but I'm betting bad_luck is making all kinds of posts. What will be really funny is he'll keep responding to me but I'll never be responding to him. I guess that's part of what "attention-whoring trolls" do though.
So since you've blocked him, and no longer cares what he says or thinks, can you show me the evidence again?

Thanks.
This is actually evidence that he doesn't have him blocked.

When you block someone, like I did biz months ago, you know that they're posting.    You just see something to the effect of "You are blocking this dumbass, therefore, you will not be tempted to read his retardedness."
1/16/2013 2:08 PM
I'm not showing anyone the evidence again because of the way bad_luck has acted. I won't be giving him what he wants, even if the request comes from someone else.

If you have a problem or take issue with that, perhaps you should encourage bad_luck not to act ignorant and try to play games and twist people's words, because if he hadn't done that, I'd show you the evidence.

tecwrg,

Burnsy isn't in the group of ignorant people as he hasn't made ignorant remarks. Don't presume to speak for me.

Anyone want to tell me how much of a fit bad_luck is throwing right now? I can't see it but I'm guessing he's made multiple posts trying to get me to respond to him because he doesn't get that I have him blocked (just like he doesn't get so many other things).

1/16/2013 2:09 PM
Since biz was so kind to post, this is what you see:

You are blocking the author of this post, bistiza,    In all likelihood because he's a dumbass.
1/16/2013 2:10 PM
MikeT23,

I do have him blocked, but I've never blocked anyone else before, so I had assumed when it indicates he was blocked it did so only the first time he posted. Now that I look, I realize I can see that he's posted but I can't read the posts. Thanks for helping me understand how it works.
1/16/2013 2:21 PM
Posted by bistiza on 1/16/2013 2:08:00 PM (view original):
I'm not showing anyone the evidence again because of the way bad_luck has acted. I won't be giving him what he wants, even if the request comes from someone else.

If you have a problem or take issue with that, perhaps you should encourage bad_luck not to act ignorant and try to play games and twist people's words, because if he hadn't done that, I'd show you the evidence.

tecwrg,

Burnsy isn't in the group of ignorant people as he hasn't made ignorant remarks. Don't presume to speak for me.

Anyone want to tell me how much of a fit bad_luck is throwing right now? I can't see it but I'm guessing he's made multiple posts trying to get me to respond to him because he doesn't get that I have him blocked (just like he doesn't get so many other things).

Burnsy can't go back and read your evidence post because you deleted it.

I'm sure I have it quoted somewhere if you would like me to repost it so that he can see how stupid you are.

1/16/2013 2:27 PM
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?


Burnsy, here's the "evidence" bis posted. It's pretty clear he doesn't know what he's talking about. He never explained how the first and second laws of thermodynamics preclude an old earth. His C14 theory was easily debunked by dahs and the petrified tree strata argument is debunked here.
1/16/2013 3:51 PM (edited)
To summarize this thread for newcomers:

1)  Bis believes that it is just as likely that our planet is only 10,000 years old as it is likely that it may be 4.5 billion years old.  He's provided plenty of evidence to support this.  It's hidden somewhere in some thread in the forums, but he's not going to tell anybody where it is because he's mad at bad_luck because bad_luck is a poopy head.

2)  Anybody who believes that the planet could possibly be 4.5 billion years old is a mindless sheep who blindly subscribes to mainstream opinion, and is unable to form their own opinions based on critical thinking skills and analysis of credible scientific evidence.

3)  Neanderthals walked the planet only 700 years ago!

4)  Bis is a WINNER who doesn't lose debates because his arguments are flawless, complete, and beyond reproach.

5)  Bis is "done here".  Pay no attention to the fact that he keeps coming back and posting.  He really is done here.

Did I miss anything?
1/16/2013 3:04 PM

yeah

"I'm done here"

1/16/2013 3:06 PM
Posted by genghisxcon on 1/16/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):

yeah

"I'm done here"

Good catch!  Summary has been updated.
1/16/2013 3:15 PM
Also, this thread started as a poll to determine who was more out of touch with reality, bis or swamp. Based on his impressive body of work, swamp took an early lead, but like a political candidate suddenly flush with unlimited cash, bis has worked relentlessly to turn the tide.
1/16/2013 3:46 PM
1/16/2013 3:47 PM
That really was an impressive come from behind victory for bis. Maybe that's what he was talking about when he kept declaring himself the winner.
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.