12/31/2012 5:16 PM
I think he takes pride in his ability to doubt mountains of credible scientific evidence.

He's still not sure about gravity.
1/2/2013 10:53 AM (edited)
What evidence do you have that the earth is young?

You listed a couple things before that were easily debunked.
1/2/2013 9:54 AM
Is it at all possible that the scientific evidence is far, FAR more mountainous than you think?  I'm pretty confident that it is.
1/2/2013 11:17 AM

After reviewing all of your posts in this and other threads over the past month or two, I'm 100% confident in my stance that you're a jackass.

So unless you can provide something NEW to convince me otherwise, I shall remain convinced as that is what the evidence has suggested.

1/2/2013 11:37 AM
After reviewing all of your posts in this and other threads over the past month or two, I'm 100% confident in my stance that you're a jackass.

I'm 100 percent confident you'd feel the same way about anyone who dared to successfully defend opinions you disagree with.

Seriously, you're like a child. You can't handle it when anyone disagrees with you. You throw a temper tantrum and call them names instead of just accepting it like an adult.

Grow up and realize other people aren't wrong or stupid or whatever you want to call them just because they disagree with you. Stop trying to bully people just because you're frustrated you can't defeat them in any kind of real argument or debate.
1/2/2013 11:38 AM
Posted by bistiza on 1/2/2013 10:59:00 AM (view original):
What evidence do you have that the earth is young? You listed a couple things before that we're easily debunked.

I listed SEVERAL things.

As for "easily debunked"...

Surely some people on an internet message board dedicated to sports games can succeed in debunking scientific evidence when actual scientists have thus far failed to do so. Thank you for the most exuberant bout of laughter I've had in quite some time.
Is it at all possible that the scientific evidence is far, FAR more mountainous than you think?  I'm pretty confident that it is.

No, that is not possible. I've spent a great deal of time reviewing the evidence for the things on which I take any position at all, including a neutral one.

So if I remain neutral, it is obviously because I believe the evidence is fairly even and doesn't favor either side. That's not even a "hill" or a "bump" in one direction - that's complete "flatland" on both sides. Nothing close to "mountainous".

Your confidence notwithstanding, I'm 100 percent confident in my neutral stance based upon my own research of the information available. So unless science is able to provide something NEW to convince me one way or the other, I shall remain neutral as that is what the evidence has suggested.
Like carbon 14? Debunked.

Laws of thermodynamics? Not sure how that even applies, but I don't see a clear argument one way or another.

Petrified trees? You're going to have to explain this one further.
1/2/2013 12:16 PM
Posted by bistiza on 1/2/2013 11:37:00 AM (view original):
After reviewing all of your posts in this and other threads over the past month or two, I'm 100% confident in my stance that you're a jackass.

I'm 100 percent confident you'd feel the same way about anyone who dared to successfully defend opinions you disagree with.

Seriously, you're like a child. You can't handle it when anyone disagrees with you. You throw a temper tantrum and call them names instead of just accepting it like an adult.

Grow up and realize other people aren't wrong or stupid or whatever you want to call them just because they disagree with you. Stop trying to bully people just because you're frustrated you can't defeat them in any kind of real argument or debate.
Says the guy who refuses to acknowledge the possibility that another person's viewpoint which differs from his own could possibly be right.  In your mind, you've "won" every debate you've participated in in these forums because, in your mind, your logic is so flawless that it cannot possibly be wrong.

You're quite possibly the biggest tool on the WIS website.  Somebody should give you a sticker.
1/2/2013 1:46 PM
You said there shouldn't be any carbon 14. But there should be because carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere. Debunked.

So, you aren't going to waste time trying to make your argument? Just stating "first and second laws of thermodynamics" is not an argument for a young earth or an old one. It's just a sentence fragment.
1/2/2013 2:14 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/2/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):
You said there shouldn't be any carbon 14. But there should be because carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere. Debunked.

So, you aren't going to waste time trying to make your argument? Just stating "first and second laws of thermodynamics" is not an argument for a young earth or an old one. It's just a sentence fragment.
Can't you understand what he said?

He has analyzed all available evidence and is 100% convinced that either the "old earth" and "young earth" theories are equally likely.

How dare you challenge his critical thinking and conclusions with credible data and irrefutable scientific facts.
1/2/2013 3:23 PM
How dare you challenge his critical thinking and conclusions with credible data and irrefutable scientific facts.

If you actually had any of those things which meant something maybe it would make a difference. The fact is you have nothing that is "irrefutable" and there is about equal data and facts to support both sides of the argument.

This is pointless.


1/2/2013 3:32 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 1/2/2013 1:46:00 PM (view original):
You said there shouldn't be any carbon 14. But there should be because carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere. Debunked.

So, you aren't going to waste time trying to make your argument? Just stating "first and second laws of thermodynamics" is not an argument for a young earth or an old one. It's just a sentence fragment.
The only thing that is pointless is your continued claim that you have provided scientific evidence of a young earth. You haven't, so stop lying.
1/2/2013 3:49 PM

The claim that there is "about equal data and facts to support both sides of the argument" is kind of pointless, too.

1/2/2013 3:51 PM
True. But if we're going to include all "kind of pointless" claims, all of bistiza's posts would qualify, and I'd die of carpal tunnel typing all of those up.
1/3/2013 8:54 AM (edited)
The only thing that is pointless is your continued claim that you have provided scientific evidence of a young earth. You haven't, so stop lying.

No, I provided that evidence already. You can claim it didn't happen all you want, but that's just you being in denial. It doesn't change the facts.
The claim that there is "about equal data and facts to support both sides of the argument" is kind of pointless, too.

No, that's just a fact.

If you'd like to dispute that fact, then YOU would need to provide the evidence to dispute it.

Don't bother though, because I don't care. You are childish and largely not worth the time to even respond to.

If I wasn't moderately entertained by the nonsense drivel you two continue to spew, I wouldn't even respond.

Let me guess what comes next: More statements telling me I'm wrong just because I disagree with you and perhaps some childish name calling or personal attacks. You're ridiculous, but at least you make me laugh every now and then.
True. But if we're going to include all "kind of pointless" claims, all of bistiza's posts would qualify, and I'd die of carpal tunnel typing all of those up.
So any post which challenges your opinion is "kind of pointless"? I figured as much.

How dare anyone ever challenge your personal opinion on anything? They have no right to disagree. No one is ever allowed to think anything other than what you tell them to think, oh mighty dictator of our thought processes.

Let's get this straight once and for all:

You think I'm (insert some negative insult here) ONLY because I have challenged your opinion in a way that has frustrated you so deeply you can't handle it and have nothing else to do but try to insult me and what I have to say.

Never argue with a child because they will only grow angry and attack you while missing the flaws in their own argument. Never argue with a fool because they will ignore the flaws in their own argument.

And especially, never argue with a childish fool, because they will ignore the flaws in their own argument and THEN grow angry and attack you. (This last one is the two of you, tecwrg and bad luck).

Both of you need to grow up and learn other people can and will disagree with you and they aren't wrong for doing it. Until you come to that realization (if you ever do) you'll never be the intelligent well-rounded people you obviously believe you are.


1/3/2013 8:55 AM
You're not wrong because you disagree.  You're wrong because (a) a young earth theory makes little to no sense to any intelligent person with even a moderate understanding of science and the ability to think critically unless there was a preponderance of credible evidence to support it over an old earth theory, and (b) there is no preponderance of such evidence.

To insist that a young earth theory is just as likely to be correct as an old earth theory is laughable.  You portray yourself as a complete fool the more you insist that.

But hey, I guess that's your thing.  You're comfortable with it.  Good for you.  Carry on.
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.