That's NOT true. There might not be evidence that you accept, but those are two wildly different scenarios.

The video link was a perfect example. You admitted you refuse even to look at it.


Appeal to authority. Doesn't matter what the Pope thinks when it comes to science, or even Christianity for that matter. The protestant revolution in the 17th century freed us from his 'authority'. The papacy was declared to have the status of a God centuries before that. If that's not fallacious, then I declare myself a pope too.


If 'solid scientific evidence' is all you need, I think human tracks beside dinosaur tracks would be an amazing proof against evolution. That's just one example of actual science in Patton's video.

I am a very skeptical person. If science could form a solid case for evolution, I'd reconsider my position. But while evolution is founded on fallacious arguments (like circular reasoning, dating fossils from rock layers, and rock layers from fossils) I'm 100% unimpressed.

"How can you bribe a peer-reviewed paper?"
Bribe the peers. Or, at least, find and publish the responses of sympathetic peers, but not the others.

"We would need just one piece of evidence... "
You don't need me to Google "young earth." Then research the points that the young-earth people bring up.

"Bring out any of those things, and you would change me immediately."
Bill won't believe the witness record of the Bible, anyway.



EDIT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=801240.msg9466228#msg9466228 .

Most of the sciences might work like that. But political science, the one controlled by the money, works any old way it wants. And if a scientist doesn't toe the line, he doesn't get funded by big money, who just might want him/her to lie. If he doesn't get funded, his work gets lost among all the publications that GET published, because it isn't published for long if it is published at all.

Young-earth creationism has lots of evidence while old-earth has very little. It's just not evidence that is in the best interests of big money right now. So, political science makes old-earth to be published in a big way, while young-earth is downplayed... by science - political science.

We would need just one piece of evidence, we would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another; we would need evidence that the universe is not expanding, we need evidence that the stars appear to be far away, but they're not. We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just four thousand years instead of the  extraordinary number. We need evidence that somehow that you can reset the atomic clock and keep the neutrons from becoming protons. Bring out any of those things, and you would change me immediately.

Yes, but...

What dimension would it be if you didn't give me the time, and I met you at the right time, by accident?

Its science that you don't like, so you dismiss it because you can't deal with the facts. Nice try though. Problem is, I'm not interested so much in Patton's authority because I'm not appealing to authority (which is a clear fallacy). I'm interested in his SCIENCE. He might not have a PHD...fine lets pretend that's true for arguments sake. Talk about the evidence that he presents. Do you have a PHD? If not, do you believe others should just accept what you say? Isn't that a double standard and a logical fallacy?

Evolution theory's most important evidence (the geologic column) is based on circular reasoning.

They date the fossils by the rock layers, and the rock layers by the fossils in them.

The complete geologic column exists nowhere on earth, only in textbooks.

The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough.  Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:

    "The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils."

Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation).

When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data.  Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others.  There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section.  Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.

If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years.  However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong."

If it is a small but significant inconsistency, it could indicate that the geological time scale requires a small revision. This happens regularly.  The continued revision of the time scale as a result of new data demonstrates that geologists are willing to question it and change it. The geological time scale is far from dogma.

If the new data have a large inconsistency (by "large" I mean orders of magnitude), it is far more likely to be a problem with the new data, but geologists are not satisfied until a specific geological explanation is found and tested.  An inconsistency often means something geologically interesting is happening, and there is always a tiny possibility that it could be the tip of a revolution in understanding about geological history. Admittedly, this latter possibility is VERY unlikely. There is almost zero chance that the broad understanding of geological history (e.g., that the Earth is billions of years old) will change. The amount of data supporting that interpretation is immense, is derived from many fields and methods (not only radiometric dating), and a discovery would have to be found that invalidated practically all previous data in order for the interpretation to change greatly.  So far, I know of no valid theory that explains how this could occur, let alone evidence in support of such a theory, although there have been highly fallacious attempts (e.g., the classic "moon dust", "decay of the Earth's magnetic field" and "salt in the oceans" claims).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWe3cteDuBc


Scientific evidence presented by Dr. Don Patton, Ph.D., that humans walked with dinosaurs, and evidence disproving geologic column theory that evolution is based on.

Since early 1989, Don Patton, a close associate of Carl Baugh and leader of Metroplex Institute of Origins Science (MIOS) near Dallas, has claimed a Ph.D. (or "Ph.D. candidacy") in geology from Queensland Christian University in Australia.[33] However, QCU is another unaccredited school linked to Clifford Wilson. [34] When questioned about this at a recent MIOS meeting, Patton indicated that he was aware of some problems relating to QCU, and was withdrawing his Ph.D. candidacy.[35]

However, the printed abstracts of the 1989 Bible-Science conference in Dayton, Tennessee (where Patton gave two talks) stated that he was a Ph.D. candidacy in geology, and implied that he has at least four degrees from three separate schools.[36] When I asked Patton for clarification on this during the conference, he stated that he had no degrees, but was about to receive a Ph.D. degree in geology, pending accreditation of QCU, which he assured me was "three days away."[37] Many days have since passed, and Patton still has no valid degree in geology. Nor is the accreditation of QCU imminent. Australian researcher Ian Plimer reported, "PCI, QPU, PCT, and PCGS have no formal curriculum, no classes, no research facilities, no calendar, no campus, and no academic staff....Any Ph.D. or Ph.D. candidacy at QPU by Patton is fraudulent."[38]

With surprising boldness, Carl Baugh recently appeared on a radio talk show in Texas claiming the same degrees discussed above, plus a new "Ph.D. candidacy in paleoanthropology from Pacific College." Baugh complained that critics were now attacking his credentials and those of other fine creationists, including "Dr. Don Patton."[39]

Come on, guys. I know nobody likes to be proven wrong. But look. It's for your own good.

Consider. Even if science proved that the universe was billions of years old, and that evolution was the REAL thing, and that there was "pure random," and that all the marvels of the universe were really just happenstance, well, guess what? You'd never be able to understand it all anyway. It would take a computer the size of the earth to understand it all. You'd still be living on faith, even if you thought you knew that science had proven it all.

The point? Don't feel so bad that science is the weakest of the religions. Rather, come on over to the strongest religion - the Christian religion. After all, people simply aren't made to live without religion. Make it easy on yourselves. Convert!

what do you get out of jail breaking an ipad?

i already saw the support page but was unsure if the firmware and the OS are the same. not familiar with apple IOS i use windows and i know firmware for the parts of a computer and the OS are two completely different things. do these ipads require drivers? i'm assuming they do but i know there are alot of differences from windows so figured i would ask.

is the firmware the OS itself or are these two separate pieces of software? i don't just want to update firmware i also want to wipe the drive and have a fresh OS.

Posting my address for people to send me psychedelics to help my quest of bringing world peace.

But mostly because the forum is owned by the rockerfeller family and they don't appreciate people who actually talk about deep subjects.

Is it my imagin-a-shion or does everyone on here hate the banks? Why so much hate? If btc really took off, the banks could still exist alongside btc anyway, right?

Of course I can't force anyone to believe what they don't want to.  I totally get that. But the question seems to be more about "absolute truth" more than anything.

So you are saying that you would rather live life with a carefree attitude and if you die and realize only at that point that there is indeed a  God and that there is Heaven and Hell and that you are sent to Hell because you chose to a) ignore warnings b) didn't want to believe in God c) didn't think religious rules were cool d) didn't have time to worry about it (and so on) then you will be fine with God saying "depart from me, I never knew you" and then you will suffer for eternity?

Just trying to make sure.  Again, just because you don't believe something isn't true, doesn't make it untrue.  I can close my eyes while it is raining and say, "I don't like rain.  I don't believe in rain.  Rain doesn't exist" but I will still be pelted with raindrops.  The same thing goes for the laws God has made.  When you die and stand before God I would just be concerned that your reasoning of "I didn't believe You were real" won't be a good enough excuse to give you a free pass.

Macro and Micro evolution are very different!  We have not seen evidence of macro evolution (changes of a fish to a dog for example).  The solution that evolutionary scientists give is just to throw "millions of years" into the equation so that they can rationalize that it took that long to happen. (still not long enough)  If the changes that occur cause differences that make it so the species cannot mate isn't that an evolutionary problem in itself?  Creationists completely agree with "micro evolution" because it is simply adaptations or changing of traits within a species.  It is such a huge jump from changes within a species to changes outside of a species though, one that has no fossil record or evidence to support whatsoever.

Adaptability is a programming feature, not an evolution feature. 

I love the beauty of God's creation that I see all around me.  I love the people that I am thankful to have relationships with.  I love the people that speak with on these boards, even if they hate me and say I need a psychiatrist.

But I also see the misery of life and the hate (due to Satan's influence) that causes people to kill, steal and destroy.  There is evil all around us.  You must be marvelously blessed to have avoided the sufferings that are common to man?  Seriously.  We all deal with death, pain, sickness and so on.  This is not how God intended for us to live.  It is part of the fact we live in a fallen and not perfect world, one that eventually He will make right again.  

Dog breeding produces dogs right?  Has anyone bred a dog to become a cat?  Until I can see changes from one kind into another kind I will not believe in evolution.  There have been adaptations but these adaptations are not proof of evolution from one kind into another.  We as humans have more in common with dogs than apes so looking at the physical bodies to make comparisons is not enough.

You don't have to agree with me.   You don't have to believe in God.  That is the amazing thing about "free will."  I am just trying to encourage a few people on here to think about the risks of not believing.  If something is true then it doesn't matter if I believe it or you believe it or if any of us believes it.  If God's word is true then we will all be accountable to it.  

My point about "satanism" was just an interesting fact.  There is no other religion that has an "anti-religion" formed to fight it.  It was not proof by any means. I just figured it was an interesting thought that should at least cause us to pause and think for a minute.