Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 163

Thread: What do creationists say about "Old Tjikko"?

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,789
    Thanks
    2,530
    Thanked 1,526 Times in 1,176 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolidad View Post
    So have nature do it without the DNA code that lays out how that embryo will form and grow! After all it can do it all on its own. You believe it took minerals- and magically somehow turned it organic, then somehow in some mystic way, mutated that organic goo and created the massively compl;ex cell all at once (remember anything mising from a cell causes the cell to die3)
    And you seriously thought this would encourage me to take you seriously?

    How wrong you were!
    Never underestimate the power of unreason to overwhelm reason

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts.
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 151 Times in 138 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John53 View Post
    Once you're again making stuff up.
    no, just challenging Stephen T-B. He calls God a magician so I just want to see nature do it again. After all evos believe that somehow, someway inorganic material became organic, and then somehow mutated the complexity of a cell to become living in one fell swoop! And then split into the plant and animal kingdoms etc.etc.

    Cells can't evolve slowly-- it needs everything it has to survive!

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts.
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 151 Times in 138 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    And you seriously thought this would encourage me to take you seriously?

    How wrong you were!
    Well that is how it all started according to TOE so why can't it do it again????

    Well I am gone til Monday. Going to D.C. to attend my sons graduation. summa cum laude from Georgetown Law! see you all monday

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Newcastle, Australia
    Posts
    4,409
    Thanks
    902
    Thanked 1,012 Times in 771 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nolidad View Post
    no, just challenging Stephen T-B. He calls God a magician so I just want to see nature do it again.
    Great thing to want. I want to win 50 million in lotto so I can give my kids and grandkids a helping hand.

    After all evos believe that somehow, someway inorganic material became organic, and then somehow mutated the complexity of a cell to become living in one fell swoop! And then split into the plant and animal kingdoms etc.etc.
    Incorrect as I've pointed out to you on more than 1 occasion so there's only two possible explanations for you to keep saying it. This evolutionist has no idea how life 1st started.

    Cells can't evolve slowly-- it needs everything it has to survive!
    Pure speculation.
    And the officer said, "better get a lawyer son, better get a real good one".

  5. #115
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    The Great South Land
    Posts
    1,909
    Thanks
    263
    Thanked 324 Times in 267 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    No, it is the best you can do. The only place those "findings" can be published is in a sheltered workshop. You know that; I know that.
    They know that.

    You also know that you are quite safe asking someone to refute a gish.
    That is the purpose of a gish.

    But then, its all a smokescreen.

    So when are you going to admit that you were wrong on both the 99% thing, and the claim of C14 only from living organisms?

    You DID make those up.
    It seems that you were, either, disingenuous regarding your request or didn't think anyone could provide such information as you requested. Dr Russell Humphreys is a retired physicist from Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico), where he'd been working in the actual scientific fields of nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics and received the "Sandia National Laboratories Award for Excellence 1995". Far from being a 'gish', each paper linked is on a specific subject with accurate solutions and predictions, etc, drawn from his YEC stand-point. For example, in one of the papers (Link 2), Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists were not. I have link the actual papers as, no doubt, any point that I would have raised would have you asking for 'proof' or a reference link.

    Despite your demeaning attempt at ridicule by comparing such research organisations as 'sheltered workshops', these papers are published in peer-reviewed journals and also critiqued by evo physicists to whom Dr Humphreys has replied, correcting them and supporting his position. If you wish, I can link both the critiques and responses. To make such a comparison, as that to a sheltered workshop, is as childish and poor an argument as Rationalwiki's attempt to dismiss Dr Humphreys' research by claiming 'he looks like Santa Claus'. Your claim that it is a 'smokescreen' is just an excuse so you don't have to confront it. If you don't want to look at any research that disputes your belief system, then don't ask for it. Otherwise, try refuting the information for which you asked.

    Have a good day!
    Still small

    (After dealing with this lot, I will link a few other researchers' papers for your review.)

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    33,721
    Thanks
    4,390
    Thanked 5,663 Times in 4,733 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    It seems that you were, either, disingenuous regarding your request or didn't think anyone could provide such information as you requested. Dr Russell Humphreys is a retired physicist from Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico), where he'd been working in the actual scientific fields of nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics and received the "Sandia National Laboratories Award for Excellence 1995". Far from being a 'gish', each paper linked is on a specific subject with accurate solutions and predictions, etc, drawn from his YEC stand-point. For example, in one of the papers (Link 2), Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists were not. I have link the actual papers as, no doubt, any point that I would have raised would have you asking for 'proof' or a reference link.

    Despite your demeaning attempt at ridicule by comparing such research organisations as 'sheltered workshops', these papers are published in peer-reviewed journals and also critiqued by evo physicists to whom Dr Humphreys has replied, correcting them and supporting his position. If you wish, I can link both the critiques and responses. To make such a comparison, as that to a sheltered workshop, is as childish and poor an argument as Rationalwiki's attempt to dismiss Dr Humphreys' research by claiming 'he looks like Santa Claus'. Your claim that it is a 'smokescreen' is just an excuse so you don't have to confront it. If you don't want to look at any research that disputes your belief system, then don't ask for it. Otherwise, try refuting the information for which you asked.

    Have a good day!
    Still small

    (After dealing with this lot, I will link a few other researchers' papers for your review.)
    I admire your tenacity. Others have long given up as hopeless.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,961
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    It seems that you were, either, disingenuous regarding your request or didn't think anyone could provide such information as you requested. Dr Russell Humphreys is a retired physicist from Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico), where he'd been working in the actual scientific fields of nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics and received the "Sandia National Laboratories Award for Excellence 1995". Far from being a 'gish', each paper linked is on a specific subject with accurate solutions and predictions, etc, drawn from his YEC stand-point. For example, in one of the papers (Link 2), Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists were not. I have link the actual papers as, no doubt, any point that I would have raised would have you asking for 'proof' or a reference link.

    Despite your demeaning attempt at ridicule by comparing such research organisations as 'sheltered workshops', these papers are published in peer-reviewed journals and also critiqued by evo physicists to whom Dr Humphreys has replied, correcting them and supporting his position. If you wish, I can link both the critiques and responses. To make such a comparison, as that to a sheltered workshop, is as childish and poor an argument as Rationalwiki's attempt to dismiss Dr Humphreys' research by claiming 'he looks like Santa Claus'. Your claim that it is a 'smokescreen' is just an excuse so you don't have to confront it. If you don't want to look at any research that disputes your belief system, then don't ask for it. Otherwise, try refuting the information for which you asked.

    Have a good day!
    Still small

    (After dealing with this lot, I will link a few other researchers' papers for your review.)
    I am well aware that there are many creationists who are doctors, engineers, and researchers of various sorts.

    And of course, papers from such people are routinely published in the most respectable journals.

    This is obvious, well known, and thoroughly acknowledged by me on many occasions.


    Despite your demeaning attempt at ridicule by comparing such research organisations as 'sheltered workshops', these papers are published in peer-reviewed journals
    You are mistaking my intent.

    ICR is a sheltered workshop. A primary function is to provide a place for non-peer reviewed, agenda driven "research' to be published. Can you find fault in that statement?

    Now, it may be that within "ICR" some decent research is done. Good for them, if so.

    What you cannot show me is a paper from anyone that in any way serves to disprove ToE or deep time; not in a respected journal. Not from a creationist, not from anyone. Those claims appear only in the sheltered workshop journals. Surely you find no issue with that statement.

    THAT is what i was talking about, and your refutation is of something entirely different is pointless.

    Unless you merely wish an opportunity to offer misdirected calumny?

    I dont do "disingenuous", and certainly was not being so in that case, btw; you might make sure you use such words properly.

    The question I did ask, simple and direct, remains unanswered. Your response strikes me as more smokescreen, but as elsewhere noted, its not good to assume intent. Regardless, it was pointless, offering evidence for something well known and not disputed.

    Here is the q yet again, for what must be at least a half dozen tries now-

    So when are you going to admit that you were wrong on both the 99% thing, and the claim of C14 only from non -living organisms?

    You DID make those up.


    Regarding this:
    Voyager spacecraft. His predictions were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists
    Spacecraft etc has nothing to do with evolution, nor understanding thereof. Again, plz note, I nor anyone here suggests that a person's religious or political leanings make them stupid or incompetent.

    Under what conditions do you think an otherwise diligent and honest researcher might go off the reservation?

    ETA: Elsewhere SS has now in fact responded to my question , and conceded that I was correct. Cool! Thanks, SS.
    Last edited by Taikoo; 05-18-2017 at 06:32 AM.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Taikoo For This Useful Post:

    Stephen T-B (05-18-2017)

  9. #118
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    10,437
    Thanks
    467
    Thanked 1,148 Times in 976 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    ETA: Elsewhere SS has now in fact responded to my question , and conceded that I was correct. Cool! Thanks, SS.
    You better print that out and hang it on your wall cause that's a rare and possibly unique event!!!

    Roger
    It is not God that kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.
    It's us. Only us. - Rorschach

  10. #119
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,961
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogerh View Post
    You better print that out and hang it on your wall cause that's a rare and possibly unique event!!!

    Roger


    If certain of our other creationists were to make so bold
    as to do that, i think I would faint. Or look around for Ron Serling.

    This does spoil for all time my comment that no creationist can ever admit to being wrong. (Solver, for example will not, but blames "evos' for it!)

    SS is very stubborn-not always a bad quality-but you will notice
    by the way that he writes that he is far more capable than any of
    the other creationists here.

    And, who knows; it could be the point of the spear. Once one
    creo-belief is put down, we may at length get a zipper effect. They have none, after all, that can be supported by fact any better than the "much more than 1%' can be.

  11. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    10,437
    Thanks
    467
    Thanked 1,148 Times in 976 Posts

    Default

    One can only hope.

    Roger
    It is not God that kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.
    It's us. Only us. - Rorschach

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •