1/15/2013 12:05 PM
Posted by bistiza on 1/15/2013 11:56:00 AM (view original):
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.

What words did I change?

You wrote:
"The first and second laws of thermodynamics." 

You wrote:
"
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."

You wrote: 
"
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."

Those are exact quotes. Which words did I change?
1/15/2013 12:05 PM
I'm not going to debate the words with you. I already told you that.

You have a real problem with reading.

1/15/2013 12:06 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?


See?

Exact quotes.

Verbatim.

Word for word.
1/15/2013 12:40 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/15/2013 11:22:00 AM (view original):
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 12:52 PM
The debate isn't going to be restarted.

bad_luck gave up and lost. He needs to deal with it.

1/15/2013 12:56 PM
You're accusing me of lying and changing your words. Man up and tell me what I changed.
1/15/2013 1:02 PM
I'm not playing your games. Just as we always have, we do this my way. The debate isn't restarting. You gave up. You lost. Deal with it.
1/15/2013 1:03 PM
Why won't you answer my question?
1/15/2013 1:03 PM
Posted by bistiza on 1/15/2013 11:56:00 AM (view original):
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.

Once you accused me of lying and changing your words you restarted the debate.

Man up and tell me what I changed.
1/15/2013 1:05 PM
You're still not getting it.

The debate can only restart if I actually decide to debate you, meaning it is in my control. I won't debate you, so it won't restart. You have failed.

tecwrg, I'm not answering your question because I am not restarting the debate.

1/15/2013 1:07 PM
Posted by bistiza on 1/15/2013 1:05:00 PM (view original):
You're still not getting it.

The debate can only restart if I actually decide to debate you, meaning it is in my control. I won't debate you, so it won't restart. You have failed.

tecwrg, I'm not answering your question because I am not restarting the debate.

You did debate me. You said I changed your words. Debate started. Explain or lose.
1/15/2013 1:19 PM
I told you what happened. I did not debate you, and I won't now. That means you lose.
1/15/2013 1:21 PM
Posted by bistiza on 1/15/2013 1:05:00 PM (view original):
You're still not getting it.

The debate can only restart if I actually decide to debate you, meaning it is in my control. I won't debate you, so it won't restart. You have failed.

tecwrg, I'm not answering your question because I am not restarting the debate.

I'm not restarting the "old earth / young earth" debate.

I'm asking you if you are just automatically dismissing anybody who believes in the old earth theory as "mindless sheep", or if you are open to accepting their belief as the product of an intelligent and informed decision making process on their part?
1/15/2013 1:22 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.
No, this is what happened:

You talked out of your asshoIe. You had nothing to back it up. Your quick google search gave you some questionable "evidence." You posted it anyway. Multiple people responded directly. You were unable to back anything up. You deleted your original "evidence" post. You hid from the debate. But you keep the threads alive for whatever reason. Which is great for everyone else. 
1/15/2013 1:23 PM
So, now that the debate has restarted, what words did I change?
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.