Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

I do not believe in jumping and flying to the moon without any additional equipment. Does that make me supersmart? Thats how you sound. Just because you are not believing one fairy tale, does not mean that you do not believe ALL THE REST.

No, it means you have common sense, which I just talked about.

There are lots of religions.  Each one says the others are wrong.  I believe them all.

I have to go to bed as I have a Guns & Roses concert to attend tomorrow and I don't want to be super tired.

I look forward with chatting you with again in the future.

If you would use a definition that only a religion can be fairy tale. Hey.... you would be correct sir. Im afraid you are wrong with that one.

As far as I know fairy tales could be fairy tales as well... They are not religions arent they? Fairy tales are just stories without problems, are linear, and makes you sleep. Ideal tool to make masses obedient. As far as I know Bible is not nonproblematic, is not linear and makes you awake and vigilant. At best a Bible could be a myth its definatly is not a fairy tale.

Christianity could be made a fairy tale if some evil priests are picturing it like so. But thats about the same with every other story - you can make it like a fairy tale.

If I would define that having computer would make me anything, would you believe me?

Didn't I teach you already? You keep posting shit here. Do you have anything meaningful to say about evolution? All your retarded arguments have been debunked, gtfo of here. You are the guy who thinks gay people deserve to die and that slavery was actually a good way to do things. You can't critically think.

Didnt I teach you, that you do not know how to read with understanding? None of that is true about me. To the contrary.... So learn, grow, and then talk. But first learn how to use language and definitions.

I have a very lot to say, that most of people, that are talking about evolution believe in something that is not evolution. Thats a lot...

They do not know what is a mutation, what is inheritance, what is randomness, what is natural selection, what is dna, what is specie, what is a ring specie, what was a specie before Darwin, why they changed the definition, they do not know anything about fenotypes, they do not know that many species can interbreed, that they thought is the different specie and such. You know nothing pseudoevolutionists Snow.

You know - people with phd where talking at the times of reformation that one should not wash, because a layer of dirt makes you healtier. You know...... people with phd happens to say silly thinks. Very often in fact. Actualy always every 30 years. Doctors are wondering how stupid they could be 30 years ago.

Even in recent history a malthusians - from where a darwinism had been spaw - had suggested that if there will be more population, there will be a famine and we all are going to die. Was that true? Ofcourse not. They had phd of Malthusianism. People are still learning this absurdality. People are making their phd work on this crap. As you can see phd means nothing. Even a slightly retarded dolphin can extrapolate like evolutionist do.

So lets talk about evolution not pseudoevolution.

''Thats called slaves but if you could read with understanding and read that passage of slaves as workers, you would see thats amazing social security for workers.''

''I have said homosexuality is mockery and God will not be mocked''

And you also said homosexuality is a sin, somehow is a sin, I don't understand how but it is. Those are your views.

Do you have any more retarded arguments against evolution? I will debunk them all, otherwise shut the fuck up already. Go worship your evil book.

Because thats how it was to be understood. If you would read with understanding the definition of those slaves was the same as a definition of servants or industred servants (depending on the circumstances) for period of 6 years. And those were a volountary servants aka our job contracts.

I know that definitions gives you troubles and you have hard time figuring out that the name does not define word but definition does. And definition of names changed thru the time and translations. The definition was in that passage.... its not so hard to read. You have to have bad will to not see the definition of the term "slave" there. Its clearly is used a servant of the master not like we use it reffering to negro slaves or rome slaves.

Its like cleaning service. A military service. Are those slaves today? Yeah... kind of.. They are not working for themselves, so thats a proper word for it. But you like to play word games so you probably would not see that every servant is defacto not free to work for himself. There should be used a term - wage slave.

I will not play with you in a silly word games. Give me definitions because you clearly does not know what is a definition.

Yes God is not to be mocked. But He have said that every sin other than blasphemy can be forgiven. So what is your point? Can you read or what? Where did I say they should be killed? Everybody dies why to quicken that process. Yes there are people that are saying that. I pity those and in my opinion they are worse than those gays.

Yes I have retarded views - that many people do not understand evolution, but believe it, because evolution gives them excuses to hate God.

I just want to point it out to them - they do not get it, either what evolution is or who God is. They are confused silly people.

It seems to me you are the one who doesn't understand evolution. In fact 99.99% of people claiming evolution is not real do not understand it, they have been brainwashed by their religions into thinking that everything that goes against their views must be false no matter what. You can see how that's your case and badecker and all religious extremists like you. You think evolution is not real, dating methods are not real, the earth should be 6000 years old even though, every single piece of evidence and methods to determine that says otherwise. All methods to determine the age of the universe are also false. Basically anything that interferes with your beliefs.

[Przemax]

I do not believe in jumping and flying to the moon without any additional equipment. Does that make me supersmart? Thats how you sound. Just because you are not believing one fairy tale, does not mean that you do not believe ALL THE REST.

No, it means you have common sense, which I just talked about.

There are lots of religions.  Each one says the others are wrong.  I believe them all.

I have to go to bed as I have a Guns & Roses concert to attend tomorrow and I don't want to be super tired.

I look forward with chatting you with again in the future.

If you would use a definition that only a religion can be fairy tale. Hey.... you would be correct sir. Im afraid you are wrong with that one.

As far as I know fairy tales could be fairy tales as well... They are not religions arent they? Fairy tales are just stories without problems, are linear, and makes you sleep. Ideal tool to make masses obedient. As far as I know Bible is not nonproblematic, is not linear and makes you awake and vigilant. At best a Bible could be a myth its definatly is not a fairy tale.

Christianity could be made a fairy tale if some evil priests are picturing it like so. But thats about the same with every other story - you can make it like a fairy tale.

If I would define that having computer would make me anything, would you believe me?

Didn't I teach you already? You keep posting shit here. Do you have anything meaningful to say about evolution? All your retarded arguments have been debunked, gtfo of here. You are the guy who thinks gay people deserve to die and that slavery was actually a good way to do things. You can't critically think.

Didnt I teach you, that you do not know how to read with understanding? None of that is true about me. To the contrary.... So learn, grow, and then talk. But first learn how to use language and definitions.

I have a very lot to say, that most of people, that are talking about evolution believe in something that is not evolution. Thats a lot...

They do not know what is a mutation, what is inheritance, what is randomness, what is natural selection, what is dna, what is specie, what is a ring specie, what was a specie before Darwin, why they changed the definition, they do not know anything about fenotypes, they do not know that many species can interbreed, that they thought is the different specie and such. You know nothing pseudoevolutionists Snow.

You know - people with phd where talking at the times of reformation that one should not wash, because a layer of dirt makes you healtier. You know...... people with phd happens to say silly thinks. Very often in fact. Actualy always every 30 years. Doctors are wondering how stupid they could be 30 years ago.

Even in recent history a malthusians - from where a darwinism had been spaw - had suggested that if there will be more population, there will be a famine and we all are going to die. Was that true? Ofcourse not. They had phd of Malthusianism. People are still learning this absurdality. People are making their phd work on this crap. As you can see phd means nothing. Even a slightly retarded dolphin can extrapolate like evolutionist do.

So lets talk about evolution not pseudoevolution.

''Thats called slaves but if you could read with understanding and read that passage of slaves as workers, you would see thats amazing social security for workers.''

''I have said homosexuality is mockery and God will not be mocked''

And you also said homosexuality is a sin, somehow is a sin, I don't understand how but it is. Those are your views.

Do you have any more retarded arguments against evolution? I will debunk them all, otherwise shut the fuck up already. Go worship your evil book.

Because thats how it was to be understood. If you would read with understanding the definition of those slaves was the same as a definition of servants or industred servants (depending on the circumstances) for period of 6 years. And those were a volountary servants aka our job contracts.

I know that definitions gives you troubles and you have hard time figuring out that the name does not define word but definition does. And definition of names changed thru the time and translations. The definition was in that passage.... its not so hard to read. You have to have bad will to not see the definition of the term "slave" there. Its clearly is used a servant of the master not like we use it reffering to negro slaves or rome slaves.

Its like cleaning service. A military service. Are those slaves today? Yeah... kind of.. They are not working for themselves, so thats a proper word for it. But you like to play word games so you probably would not see that every servant is defacto not free to work for himself. There should be used a term - wage slave.

I will not play with you in a silly word games. Give me definitions because you clearly does not know what is a definition.

Yes God is not to be mocked. But He have said that every sin other than blasphemy can be forgiven. So what is your point? Can you read or what? Where did I say they should be killed? Everybody dies why to quicken that process. Yes there are people that are saying that. I pity those and in my opinion they are worse than those gays.

Yes I have retarded views - that many people do not understand evolution, but believe it, because evolution gives them excuses to hate God.

I just want to point it out to them - they do not get it, either what evolution is or who God is. They are confused silly people.

It seems to me you are the one who doesn't understand evolution. In fact 99.99% of people claiming evolution is not real do not understand it, they have been brainwashed by their religions into thinking that everything that goes against their views must be false no matter what. You can see how that's your case and badecker and all religious extremists like you. You think evolution is not real, dating methods are not real, the earth should be 6000 years old even though, every single piece of evidence and methods to determine that says otherwise. All methods to determine the age of the universe are also false. Basically anything that interferes with your beliefs.

What can I say? World is a deceitful place. Is thats my fault? Is that a fault of God?

And yes I know you like to use numbers from mars and definitions from venus. Very scientific attitude.... really....

[Guzztsar]

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

The video was removed by the user. Does anyone have another source?
I got curious 

[Astargath]

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

The video was removed by the user. Does anyone have another source?
I got curious 

Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor creating different branches.

[Przemax]

Hey astie you say:

the earth should be 6000 years old even though, every single piece of evidence and methods to determine that says otherwise.

Here is at least one evidence with your own silly c-14 method that its otherwise to what you say.

Diamonds are assumed to be many billions of years old and should contain no detectable carbon-14 as it would have all decayed to nitrogen-14 long ago. The same is true of coal which was supposedly deposited hundreds of millions of years ago, according to the evolutionary model. The presence of carbon-14 in these materials clearly supports the idea of a young earth as described by the Bible.

Evidence for the period of accelerated decay is found in zircon crystals. Zircon crystals in granite contain radioactive uranium-238, which decays into lead over time. As the uranium decays, helium is produced in the crystals. Helium escapes from the crystals at a known, measurable rate. If those rocks were over a billion years old, as evolutionists claim, the helium should have leaked out of the rock. The presence of lots of helium in the crystals is evidence in support of a young earth.

Your methods and evidences are based on constant, that are not sure if even constants. Yes they seem almost constant now. But how do you know if they were always constant, or where they so from begining and such.

The presence of fission tracks and radiohalos in crystals demonstrates that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactive decay has occurred in a very short period.

Using various radiometric dating methods to measure the ages of rock samples consistently produced ages that varied greatly.

You just assume a whole lot of stuff.

Just like another assumption of a constant, assumes that the layers of stones are everywhere the same. That is a make believe imho. Erthquakes? Disasters, winds etc at different areas makes it doubtful at best.

It could be done by living organism in earth. Sedimentation of the earth, flood sedimentation and chemical reaction. A lot of stuff could happen not just a new layers of earth from somewhere out of nowhere

No wonder it all fits into one model. If you assume it all should fits it will. Corruption makes the world go round. Or somewhat similiar saying ancient like Rome itself, maybe older. While you ignore all other option, ridicule them, cut their fundings etc etc. People are easy to be manipulated.

Truth is not democracy - It does not matter how many people believe lies. Truth is truth.

[Astargath]

Hey astie you say:

the earth should be 6000 years old even though, every single piece of evidence and methods to determine that says otherwise.

Here is at least one evidence with your own silly c-14 method that its otherwise to what you say.

Diamonds are assumed to be many billions of years old and should contain no detectable carbon-14 as it would have all decayed to nitrogen-14 long ago. The same is true of coal which was supposedly deposited hundreds of millions of years ago, according to the evolutionary model. The presence of carbon-14 in these materials clearly supports the idea of a young earth as described by the Bible.

Evidence for the period of accelerated decay is found in zircon crystals. Zircon crystals in granite contain radioactive uranium-238, which decays into lead over time. As the uranium decays, helium is produced in the crystals. Helium escapes from the crystals at a known, measurable rate. If those rocks were over a billion years old, as evolutionists claim, the helium should have leaked out of the rock. The presence of lots of helium in the crystals is evidence in support of a young earth.

Your methods and evidences are based on constant, that are not sure if even constants. Yes they seem almost constant now. But how do you know if they were always constant, or where they so from begining and such.

The presence of fission tracks and radiohalos in crystals demonstrates that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactive decay has occurred in a very short period.

Using various radiometric dating methods to measure the ages of rock samples consistently produced ages that varied greatly.

You just assume a whole lot of stuff.

Just like another assumption of a constant, assumes that the layers of stones are everywhere the same. That is a make believe imho. Erthquakes? Disasters, winds etc at different areas makes it doubtful at best.

It could be done by living organism in earth. Sedimentation of the earth, flood sedimentation and chemical reaction. A lot of stuff could happen not just a new layers of earth from somewhere out of nowhere

No wonder it all fits into one model. If you assume it all should fits it will. Corruption makes the world go round. Or somewhat similiar saying ancient like Rome itself, maybe older. While you ignore all other option, ridicule them, cut their fundings etc etc. People are easy to be manipulated.

Truth is not democracy - It does not matter how many people believe lies. Truth is truth.

C14 dating only works on once-living specimens. C14 is created from nitrogen in the atmosphere when it gets hit by cosmic rays, so there's a relatively constant amount in the air at all times. While living, a plant incorporates carbon from the atmosphere into its body, so it will have the same ratio of C14/C12 as the atmosphere. Animals get this too by eating plants. Then when they die, the C14 starts decaying and is not replenished, and that's what you measure to get the age of when they died.
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/ this article says they dated diamonds to around 55,000 years, which just happens to be about 5000 years short of the oldest date for which C14 dating can be used for living things. This is because after that many generations of decay, there's so little left it's indistinguishable from background C14 or contamination. So if people are just the slightest bit sloppy in their technique, they won't be able to accurately date anything older than 55,000 years anyway.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pbv3e/why_would_15_billion_year_old_zircon_crystals/?st=j6z5av4b&sh=9d0a1b48

But let's not get stuck in a few methods. Here you can find 33 different methods https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Of course, all of them are wrong hehe

[Guzztsar]

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

The video was removed by the user. Does anyone have another source?
I got curious  

Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor creating different branches.

It seems so, i just like to see what arguments they used in this video trying to refute the evolution theory

[Vod]

Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz0gFarCfBE

The video was removed by the user. Does anyone have another source?
I got curious  

Humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor creating different branches.

It seems so, i just like to see what arguments they used in this video trying to refute the evolution theory

There is only one argument they can use - and it exists only in their mind.  :/

[Przemax]

Hey astie you say:

the earth should be 6000 years old even though, every single piece of evidence and methods to determine that says otherwise.

Here is at least one evidence with your own silly c-14 method that its otherwise to what you say.

Diamonds are assumed to be many billions of years old and should contain no detectable carbon-14 as it would have all decayed to nitrogen-14 long ago. The same is true of coal which was supposedly deposited hundreds of millions of years ago, according to the evolutionary model. The presence of carbon-14 in these materials clearly supports the idea of a young earth as described by the Bible.

Evidence for the period of accelerated decay is found in zircon crystals. Zircon crystals in granite contain radioactive uranium-238, which decays into lead over time. As the uranium decays, helium is produced in the crystals. Helium escapes from the crystals at a known, measurable rate. If those rocks were over a billion years old, as evolutionists claim, the helium should have leaked out of the rock. The presence of lots of helium in the crystals is evidence in support of a young earth.

Your methods and evidences are based on constant, that are not sure if even constants. Yes they seem almost constant now. But how do you know if they were always constant, or where they so from begining and such.

The presence of fission tracks and radiohalos in crystals demonstrates that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactive decay has occurred in a very short period.

Using various radiometric dating methods to measure the ages of rock samples consistently produced ages that varied greatly.

You just assume a whole lot of stuff.

Just like another assumption of a constant, assumes that the layers of stones are everywhere the same. That is a make believe imho. Erthquakes? Disasters, winds etc at different areas makes it doubtful at best.

It could be done by living organism in earth. Sedimentation of the earth, flood sedimentation and chemical reaction. A lot of stuff could happen not just a new layers of earth from somewhere out of nowhere

No wonder it all fits into one model. If you assume it all should fits it will. Corruption makes the world go round. Or somewhat similiar saying ancient like Rome itself, maybe older. While you ignore all other option, ridicule them, cut their fundings etc etc. People are easy to be manipulated.

Truth is not democracy - It does not matter how many people believe lies. Truth is truth.

C14 dating only works on once-living specimens. C14 is created from nitrogen in the atmosphere when it gets hit by cosmic rays, so there's a relatively constant amount in the air at all times. While living, a plant incorporates carbon from the atmosphere into its body, so it will have the same ratio of C14/C12 as the atmosphere. Animals get this too by eating plants. Then when they die, the C14 starts decaying and is not replenished, and that's what you measure to get the age of when they died.
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/ this article says they dated diamonds to around 55,000 years, which just happens to be about 5000 years short of the oldest date for which C14 dating can be used for living things. This is because after that many generations of decay, there's so little left it's indistinguishable from background C14 or contamination. So if people are just the slightest bit sloppy in their technique, they won't be able to accurately date anything older than 55,000 years anyway.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pbv3e/why_would_15_billion_year_old_zircon_crystals/?st=j6z5av4b&sh=9d0a1b48

But let's not get stuck in a few methods. Here you can find 33 different methods https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Of course, all of them are wrong hehe

I have brought enough light for some poor soul to believe its possible that God have created the world. Thats enough for a believer to understand those scientific constant are all made believe constant for that whole model to function.

For the ones that does not want to believe in creation, he will believe in scientific constant even tho i bet none of you understand them. And science is not about believing in something you do not understand.

Those who want to believe in creation, can believe that your mathemical constants were not always constant. Someone does not have to only believe. Its proven that those constant had varied in scientific community in history (for example a speed of light),and are varied depending on conditions (for example a variable of a temperature in radiation) etc.

Everyone has its choice, I wanted to say its that the subject is far from settled. Only those who are ignorant can say that. I am not ignorant, therefore I say I believe in creation, although not blindly. Anything could be possible from logical point of view taking into account my incomplete, corruptible knowledge.

P.S you guys probably think I am a hyper dogmatic person. I am open to everything. But you on the other hand are 100% sure of scientifc dogmas about constants that are only on one place at one time, that you do not even understand. And you give your soul for ever damnation because you believe those are true.

That is what i call a hypocrisy Die Hard level.

[startselect]

Whenever I hear, "If evolution is real, how come monkeys aren't having any human babies. Or something to that effect, especially by someone who is passionately against evolution, it just comes across as extremely ignorant of a subject that you're so passionately against.

[Vod]

I have brought enough light for some poor soul to believe its possible that God have created the world.

You have?  All I have read from you are personal beliefs.  :/

How can a fairy tale create the world?

[Astargath]

Hey astie you say:

the earth should be 6000 years old even though, every single piece of evidence and methods to determine that says otherwise.

Here is at least one evidence with your own silly c-14 method that its otherwise to what you say.

Diamonds are assumed to be many billions of years old and should contain no detectable carbon-14 as it would have all decayed to nitrogen-14 long ago. The same is true of coal which was supposedly deposited hundreds of millions of years ago, according to the evolutionary model. The presence of carbon-14 in these materials clearly supports the idea of a young earth as described by the Bible.

Evidence for the period of accelerated decay is found in zircon crystals. Zircon crystals in granite contain radioactive uranium-238, which decays into lead over time. As the uranium decays, helium is produced in the crystals. Helium escapes from the crystals at a known, measurable rate. If those rocks were over a billion years old, as evolutionists claim, the helium should have leaked out of the rock. The presence of lots of helium in the crystals is evidence in support of a young earth.

Your methods and evidences are based on constant, that are not sure if even constants. Yes they seem almost constant now. But how do you know if they were always constant, or where they so from begining and such.

The presence of fission tracks and radiohalos in crystals demonstrates that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactive decay has occurred in a very short period.

Using various radiometric dating methods to measure the ages of rock samples consistently produced ages that varied greatly.

You just assume a whole lot of stuff.

Just like another assumption of a constant, assumes that the layers of stones are everywhere the same. That is a make believe imho. Erthquakes? Disasters, winds etc at different areas makes it doubtful at best.

It could be done by living organism in earth. Sedimentation of the earth, flood sedimentation and chemical reaction. A lot of stuff could happen not just a new layers of earth from somewhere out of nowhere

No wonder it all fits into one model. If you assume it all should fits it will. Corruption makes the world go round. Or somewhat similiar saying ancient like Rome itself, maybe older. While you ignore all other option, ridicule them, cut their fundings etc etc. People are easy to be manipulated.

Truth is not democracy - It does not matter how many people believe lies. Truth is truth.

C14 dating only works on once-living specimens. C14 is created from nitrogen in the atmosphere when it gets hit by cosmic rays, so there's a relatively constant amount in the air at all times. While living, a plant incorporates carbon from the atmosphere into its body, so it will have the same ratio of C14/C12 as the atmosphere. Animals get this too by eating plants. Then when they die, the C14 starts decaying and is not replenished, and that's what you measure to get the age of when they died.
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/ this article says they dated diamonds to around 55,000 years, which just happens to be about 5000 years short of the oldest date for which C14 dating can be used for living things. This is because after that many generations of decay, there's so little left it's indistinguishable from background C14 or contamination. So if people are just the slightest bit sloppy in their technique, they won't be able to accurately date anything older than 55,000 years anyway.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pbv3e/why_would_15_billion_year_old_zircon_crystals/?st=j6z5av4b&sh=9d0a1b48

But let's not get stuck in a few methods. Here you can find 33 different methods https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Of course, all of them are wrong hehe

I have brought enough light for some poor soul to believe its possible that God have created the world. Thats enough for a believer to understand those scientific constant are all made believe constant for that whole model to function.

For the ones that does not want to believe in creation, he will believe in scientific constant even tho i bet none of you understand them. And science is not about believing in something you do not understand.

Those who want to believe in creation, can believe that your mathemical constants were not always constant. Someone does not have to only believe. Its proven that those constant had varied in scientific community in history (for example a speed of light),and are varied depending on conditions (for example a variable of a temperature in radiation) etc.

Everyone has its choice, I wanted to say its that the subject is far from settled. Only those who are ignorant can say that. I am not ignorant, therefore I say I believe in creation, although not blindly. Anything could be possible from logical point of view taking into account my incomplete, corruptible knowledge.

P.S you guys probably think I am a hyper dogmatic person. I am open to everything. But you on the other hand are 100% sure of scientifc dogmas about constants that are only on one place at one time, that you do not even understand. And you give your soul for ever damnation because you believe those are true.

That is what i call a hypocrisy Die Hard level.

It's true that some of them may not be constant after all, however some of the dating methods there are not always about a particle decaying or a constant and yet all of the dating methods show the same thing. You can even prove earth is older than what the bible suggest with goddamn tree rings, give me a break.

[Przemax]

It's true that some of them may not be constant after all, however some of the dating methods there are not always about a particle decaying or a constant and yet all of the dating methods show the same thing. You can even prove earth is older than what the bible suggest with goddamn tree rings, give me a break.

I have ment ALL of your silly list of great 33 is made of corruptible one place, one time mathematical constants of make belief. If you want to believe in scientology number based religion - your choice.

for example tree ring folly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jzg_QwMk0E

wrong constant assumption.

[Astargath]

It's true that some of them may not be constant after all, however some of the dating methods there are not always about a particle decaying or a constant and yet all of the dating methods show the same thing. You can even prove earth is older than what the bible suggest with goddamn tree rings, give me a break.

I have ment ALL of your silly list of great 33 is made of corruptible one place, one time mathematical constants of make belief. If you want to believe in scientology number based religion - your choice.

If you are that skeptic then there is no point in believing anything. Every piece of history that is older than a few hundred years could be fake, every witness of any event could be fake, false or wrong. Literally anything can be wrong if you have that mindset yet you very easily believe what a book tells you, how is that? How is it that you are so skeptic about things that have been studied and applied scientifically and yet believe so easily what a stupid book tells you? That's what baffles me the most, religious extremists are extremely skeptic about anything related with science yet a book that has not been verified by anything or anyone with a very very silly story is something very easy for them to believe, can you explain that to me?

Even if all the science is wrong, all of it, why would you choose to believe in that book? I just don't get it.

[Przemax]

It's true that some of them may not be constant after all, however some of the dating methods there are not always about a particle decaying or a constant and yet all of the dating methods show the same thing. You can even prove earth is older than what the bible suggest with goddamn tree rings, give me a break.

I have ment ALL of your silly list of great 33 is made of corruptible one place, one time mathematical constants of make belief. If you want to believe in scientology number based religion - your choice.

If you are that skeptic then there is no point in believing anything. Every piece of history that is older than a few hundred years could be fake, every witness of any event could be fake, false or wrong. Literally anything can be wrong if you have that mindset yet you very easily believe what a book tells you, how is that? How is it that you are so skeptic about things that have been studied and applied scientifically and yet believe so easily what a stupid book tells you? That's what baffles me the most, religious extremists are extremely skeptic about anything related with science yet a book that has not been verified by anything or anyone with a very very silly story is something very easy for them to believe, can you explain that to me?

Even if all the science is wrong, all of it, why would you choose to believe in that book? I just don't get it.

sorry for late answer. Wrong constant. Tree rings = Not scientific way to count years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jzg_QwMk0E

rings signify - a lot of rain, no rain, a lot, no rain. That could be more than 3 times a year.

The same you can do with the rest of your silly 33.

If one is realy stubborn like Kent Hovind is - he probably have the answer. I was not as stubborn to watch all his videos.

Even if all the science is wrong, all of it, why would you choose to believe in that book? I just don't get it.

For me, what was written there was so smart it could not be made by stupid homo sapiens.

[Vod]

rings signify - a lot of rain, no rain, a lot, no rain. That could be more than 3 times a year.

The thickness of the ring indicates the amount of rain.  There is only one ring per year.

How does a fairy tale create a world? 

[Przemax]

rings signify - a lot of rain, no rain, a lot, no rain. That could be more than 3 times a year.

The thickness of the ring indicates the amount of rain.  There is only one ring per year.

How does a fairy tale create a world?  

No it does not. Educate yourself.

I already explained it to you what is the definition of fairy tale. You seem to live in one.

[Vod]

No it does not. Educate yourself.

I already explained it to you what is the definition of fairy tale. You seem to live in one.

Yes it does.    Educate yourself.

How does a fairy tale create a world?

[Divyam96]

Well I don't think that evolution is a hoax because according to darwin's theory of survival of the fittest the species which is most adaptive and resistant to environmental stresses will survive and the other will be extinct in  the course of time and this is relevant   There are many species which have been extinct from earth because they were not able to cope up with the environmental stresses or stresses brought by man and resulted in extinction.

[Vod]

I'm off to the Guns N Roses concert. 

I'd ask someone to explain to poor old Przemax how tree rings work, but he'll just say it's science fiction.