A creationist named Cyma

[Darth Wong]

Check this out; he's a board member and he just sent me this via PM:

Hello--

i am sending this to you on your forum because your mail form probably won't work for me since my e-mail account is not supported by POP3.

So anyway...I'd like to provide a counter to what your words on your Creationism vs. Science site:

Why, then, do Egyptian pyramids built 4500 years ago still stand? How did a 4800 year old California Bristlecone Pine tree (nicknamed "Methuselah") survive? Changes in physical constants such as the electric charge of electrons and protons or the strength of the nuclear binding force would have changed the fundamental behaviour of matter.

well the matter in the universe is in a state of flux, even the speed of light does not remain constant. But these ancient monuments, they do not have a constant rate of decay either….one year it could be a dry season in which the stones that form these monuments do not decay as steadily…however one year there could be fierce storms , in which the precipitation decays the stones more suddenly than the drier season….but when we measure this…how do we add in this change? Or do we? Do we just assume its rate of decay by analyzes the weathering of these stones, and even if we did that…how do we know it is accurate? You can’t just say our measurement is perfect therefore what it says is the right figure and it doesn’t matter if we happen to be off. (if you catch the relation)

Let's imagine that electromagnetism was much stronger in the past; this would help pry apart nuclei faster, thus increasing the rate of radioactive decay. However, it would also make solid objects stronger and more rigid, it would make fire burn hotter, it would change the melting points and densities of all materials, it would increase the coulomb barrier for nuclear fusion in the Sun (thus cooling and dimming it to the point that we would have frozen to death), it would drastically alter the electrochemical reactions used in living organisms, and that's just the tip of the iceberg!

your right, an increasing in electromagnetic’s will cause such changes, although your talking about great changes…but unless the atmosphere was different as well…O3 protects the current bombardment of such electromagnetic, but what if the chemistry was different back then? Such as moisture, which there is talk that even Egypt was once fertile . Water is a good barrier seeing its absorbing capabilities. It neutralizes a lot of substances.

But what abut the reverse? What if this moisture prevented a lot of the electromagnetic form reaching the serves, even more so than today. There is talk of ice ages and global warming, which global warming is caused by greenhouses and such…but how much f this is natural? Scientists still debate…so if this is natural, then atmospheric conditions and electromagentics have had changes in flux in the past.

Still think that radioactive decay rates might have been fluctuating wildly over the last 6,000 years? If so, you are obviously vulnerable to pseudoscience, and you must be a YEC.

All I am saying is how can we use a measurement (C14) that determines decay and measures this decay rate to receive a date when so many factors can contribute to the Boolean of it…we can go on and on about this…but such things can occur and it can be countered as well. as not to ..well destroy the earth so to say (form your analyses). A small change does not harm, a continues and/or large change can. But even the smallest of things are dangerous…it could be a change in the sun, it could be volcanic activity here on earth…all can be factors.. Look at what one Nuclear Blast can do…yet that does not destroy or alter the Earth. (except for that particular area)

and I am not a YEC, the creationists are like the evolutionists in that their viewpoints are both to extreme that I do not read anti evolutionary articles nor evolutionary articles. They are one sided.

What I think, is that both sides believe in adaptation, however my side believes that adaptation is just when you adapt to your environment, Such as changing colors or growing hair ect….evolutionist use adaptation because they need it more than anything. Its the one way they can justify evolution …however they expand adaptation to engulf evolutionist fact that a bird can go though adaptions upon adaptions upon adations and eventually over a few hundred-million-billion-trillion-zillion years and poof it’s a frog. Knowing deep down that your not going to live long enough to see this “””gradual””” change so how are you going to prove it? By digging up skulls

(sigh) another one ...

[Alferd Packer]

God, that was the second most retarded e-mail I've ever read. Physics should be a mandatory class in high school.

[Darth Wong]

i am sending this to you on your forum because your mail form probably won't work for me since my e-mail account is not supported by POP3.

You don't need POP3 to use a CGI mail form.

Why, then, do Egyptian pyramids built 4500 years ago still stand? How did a 4800 year old California Bristlecone Pine tree (nicknamed "Methuselah") survive? Changes in physical constants such as the electric charge of electrons and protons or the strength of the nuclear binding force would have changed the fundamental behaviour of matter.

well the matter in the universe is in a state of flux, even the speed of light does not remain constant. But these ancient monuments, they do not have a constant rate of decay either….one year it could be a dry season in which the stones that form these monuments do not decay as steadily…however one year there could be fierce storms , in which the precipitation decays the stones more suddenly than the drier season….but when we measure this…how do we add in this change? Or do we? Do we just assume its rate of decay by analyzes the weathering of these stones, and even if we did that…how do we know it is accurate?

You're missing the whole point, which is that large changes in fundamental constants would cause large changes in such things as the strength of materials, the nature of matter, etc. It's not a matter of "decay"; the pyramids would have long since crumbled into dust and the world have been destroyed if the fundamental constants of the universe were changing drastically.

You can’t just say our measurement is perfect therefore what it says is the right figure and it doesn’t matter if we happen to be off. (if you catch the relation)

Appeal to ignorance: we cannot absolutely prove that the constants of the universe are, in fact, constant, therefore it's OK to propose that they have been changing by the monstrous ratios necessary to support a young universe? Don't be ridiculous; they have been measurably constant in our observations. Given that fact, the burden of proof is on you to show that they aren't.

your right, an increasing in electromagnetic’s will cause such changes, although your talking about great changes…but unless the atmosphere was different as well…O3 protects the current bombardment of such electromagnetic, but what if the chemistry was different back then?

You're ignoring the point; if the chemistry was much different, then life wouldn't work. Life is completely reliant upon chemistry, you know. Change chemistry, and DNA doesn't work, enzymes don't work, nothing works. Creationists try to have it both ways; they scream that the delicate balance of life, in which every physical constant must be precisely so or life won't work, is proof that it was "designed" (a grotesque leap in logic), but then they make a sudden about-face and declare that it's OK to change all of the constants of the universe, and worse yet, change them during recorded history, when we should have noticed these changes.

Such as moisture, which there is talk that even Egypt was once fertile . Water is a good barrier seeing its absorbing capabilities. It neutralizes a lot of substances. But what abut the reverse? What if this moisture prevented a lot of the electromagnetic form reaching the serves, even more so than today. There is talk of ice ages and global warming, which global warming is caused by greenhouses and such…but how much f this is natural? Scientists still debate…so if this is natural, then atmospheric conditions and electromagentics have had changes in flux in the past.

No. Environmental conditions can change without fundamental constants of physics such as the gravitational constant or strength of electromagnetism changing. I strongly suggest you learn some basic science before continuing to embarrass yourself further.

All I am saying is how can we use a measurement (C14) that determines decay and measures this decay rate to receive a date when so many factors can contribute to the Boolean of it…

Appeal to ignorance; you don't personally know enough about electromagnetism and nuclear radiation to be convinced that it's constant, therefore it's unreasonable to say it is? Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you to show that this variability of yours exists, and you haven't done anything to satisfy that burden.

we can go on and on about this…but such things can occur and it can be countered as well. as not to ..well destroy the earth so to say (form your analyses). A small change does not harm, a continues and/or large change can.

Again, you miss the whole point of my essay; a large change would be devastating to life and even the operation of celestial phenomena such as stars. We can see stars billions of years ago from their distant light; they have not changed.

But even the smallest of things are dangerous…it could be a change in the sun, it could be volcanic activity here on earth…all can be factors.. Look at what one Nuclear Blast can do…yet that does not destroy or alter the Earth. (except for that particular area)

Of course not; a volcano, an Earthquake etc. does not change the fundamental behaviour of matter. A change in the fundamental behaviour of matter, on the other hand, would exterminate all life.

and I am not a YEC, the creationists are like the evolutionists in that their viewpoints are both to extreme that I do not read anti evolutionary articles nor evolutionary articles. They are one sided.

That is an example of the irrational "Golden Mean Fallacy". Look it up.

What I think, is that both sides believe in adaptation, however my side believes that adaptation is just when you adapt to your environment, Such as changing colors or growing hair ect….

And how is this different from Darwinian evolution, which is species adaptation to its environment through selection?

evolutionist use adaptation because they need it more than anything.

This is an example of the irrational "Appeal to Motive" fallacy. Look it up.

Its the one way they can justify evolution …however they expand adaptation to engulf evolutionist fact that a bird can go though adaptions upon adaptions upon adations and eventually over a few hundred-million-billion-trillion-zillion years and poof it’s a frog.

Evolution does not predict any "poof" changes, nor does it predict birds changing into frogs. Indeed, the only "poof" changes are from creationists, who describe dust being turned into man, a rib being turned into woman, etc.

Knowing deep down that your not going to live long enough to see this “””gradual””” change so how are you going to prove it? By digging up skulls

And also by noticing the patterns of biological homology in concert with geo-location and obvious migration patterns, which originally led Darwin to propose his theory. No creationist has ever proposed a satisfactory explanation for the otherwise coincidental layout of species similarities and geo-location on the living Earth that is easily explained by evolution.

As for fossils, that is evidence. If you don't like it, and try to mock it without showing what's wrong with it, then that merely reveals the intellectual failure of your argument. Not surprising, given your staggering inability to recognize the basic points I was trying to make regarding the massive alterations of universal constants necessary for a young universe theory.

[victorhadin]

God, that was the second most retarded e-mail I've ever read. Physics should be a mandatory class in high school.

Isn't it?


Having a mandatory class doesn't stop the bugger at the back from not paying attention and spending his time flicking paper at people.

And this is where he ends up, evidently.

[Colonel Olrik]

He does not understand how carbon dating works. That, for itself, demolishes all his rant.

Also, I like the pretty golden mean fallacy he tries to pull. Damn, science is one sided and extremist, just like creationism, therefore he is right.

[NecronLord]

Will they never learn?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I'll report this to the ATJ at once.

[Wicked Pilot]

and I am not a YEC, the creationists are like the evolutionists in that their viewpoints are both to extreme that I do not read anti evolutionary articles nor evolutionary articles. They are one sided.

Oh yes, it's the "I'm not a creationist even though I act like one, talk like one, and am a dumbass like one" arguement. What a pussy.

Hey Cyma, if you're reading this, you fool no one. We all see through your pathetic little "I'm a neutral" shield. Quit being a pansie ass coward and admit your a creationist. If you thought so highly of your position then you wouldn't be so quick to hide it.

REVEAL YOURSELF YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

[Stormbringer]

Will they never learn?

No, because they willfully deny the facts. You can teach but you can't make people learn. And the most dangerous thing to their little delusions is the truth.

[Andrew J.]

Has this guy posted on the board yet?

[Exonerate]

I'm just glad he didn't resort to Ad Hominem attacks...

[InnerBrat]

and I am not a YEC, the creationists are like the evolutionists in that their viewpoints are both to extreme that I do not read anti evolutionary articles nor evolutionary articles. They are one sided.

So what, exactly is he doing reading your site?

My head hurts.

[Darth Yoshi]

Has this guy posted on the board yet?

No.

[TrailerParkJawa]

You know its gonna be bad from the POP3 comment on.

[neoolong]

Notice how he claims to not read creationist nor evolutionist articles. Because of how one-sided they are. And yet he reads and responds to Mike's.

Yes, I must never do research because they are all evil and only my side is correct. Wheee.

[Master of Ossus]

Pretty good response, Mike, to an amazingly stupid message.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Another ignorant Creationst. Wait for the reply, I wonder what he'll say.

He uses many debating fallacies, and then claims he's not a YEC, while earlier in the message, was simply rehashing the typical YEC argument of variable decay rates.

[Darth Servo]

Is there a factory out there somewhere mass producing stupid people? I'm sure most of you will say, "yes, they're called 'churches.'"

[Wicked Pilot]

You can have creationist with any intelligence you'd like, as long as their stupid.

[Stormbringer]

Is there a factory out there somewhere mass producing stupid people? I'm sure most of you will say, "yes, they're called 'churches.'"

Well, idiots like this are what religious idiocy produces. Not all church create morons but people whose whole worldveiw is based on a rigid intepretation of the bible turn out like that.

[Cyma]

You're missing the whole point, which is that large changes in fundamental constants would cause large changes in such things as the strength of materials, the nature of matter, etc. It's not a matter of "decay"; the pyramids would have long since crumbled into dust and the world have been destroyed if the fundamental constants of the universe were changing drastically.

it doesn’t take a drastic change. (see next paragraph)

Appeal to ignorance: we cannot absolutely prove that the constants of the universe are, in fact, constant, therefore it's OK to propose that they have been changing by the monstrous ratios necessary to support a young universe? Don't be ridiculous; they have been measurably constant in our observations. Given that fact, the burden of proof is on you to show that they aren't.

they have been constant with our view, but how long have we been viewing the universe? 100-400 years? Yet little is known about the universe, the speed of light has changed over the past 500 years. That has not drastically effected the Earth, but it has changed the spectrum a little, thus has changed the electromagnetic of things.

You're ignoring the point; if the chemistry was much different, then life wouldn't work. Life is completely reliant upon chemistry, you know. Change chemistry, and DNA doesn't work, enzymes don't work, nothing works. ...

that is why I do not believe in evolution Mr. Wong. So if you change a monkeys chemistry…then how will its DNA make a human? It can’t

For all the rest…how exactly are you using drastic changes to state that C14 is constant? Or……? In other words, can we just get to the point

That is an example of the irrational "Golden Mean Fallacy". Look it up.

Golden Mean Fallacy…well I do not exactly do that no, I am more of: if people assume A is true therefore B must be true…well what if A was mislead, then what would B become? As in if A was adaptation and B was evolution, well then adaptation must be evolution, unless Adaptation was not related to evolution…then what would evolution become. but what are you a philosopher?

Evolution does not predict any "poof" changes, nor does it predict birds changing into frogs. Indeed, the only "poof" changes are from creationists, who describe dust being turned into man, a rib being turned into woman, etc.

well then how did a monkey go “poof” and now it’s a human?

And also by noticing the patterns of biological homology in concert with geo-location and obvious migration patterns, which originally led Darwin to propose his theory. No creationist has ever proposed a satisfactory explanation for the otherwise coincidental layout of species similarities and geo-location on the living Earth that is easily explained by evolution.

Darwin studied Coral…just because one day he saw finches, doesn’t mean what he said is right either. How do you know Evolution is true? Because you watch character traits within creatures and assume they evolved? I can watch birds fly by migrating any day…but how does that show me evolution?

As for fossils, that is evidence.

no its not, its assumptions. You find a skull…you measure it, you find all of its dimensions, you find out where the muscles plugged into it at, you find out how it walked, you conclude it looks like an ape, yet it is also similar to a human skull in dimensions…there for you assume it’s a missing link, and don’t say that is not what they do because I took biology in college, I worked in a lab, I learned evolution and I measured skulls, and I compared it to other skulls…and that is exactly what we did, may have been 5 years ago but I still remember it….so just because they look similar, then they must be ancestors? And don’t tell me that is not what you guys do…look at Lucy, you found a monkey which did not look like any known species of monkeys that existed, so right there those evolutionist thought hmmm we found our new missing link, so they did all of these measurements and now it’s a missing link?

Just because you find fossils does not mean anything. Look at Dinosaur fossils, they are still debating on dinosaurs eating patterns, whether they were cold or warm blooded, and how fast they moved…you cannot tell anything from fossils except for the proof that such a creature existed once, and how they moved about.

[Darth Wong]

it doesn’t take a drastic change. (see next paragraph)

Yes, it does. To change the age of the universe by more than an order of magnitude would require an incredibly drastic change.

they have been constant with our view, but how long have we been viewing the universe? 100-400 years? Yet little is known about the universe, the speed of light has changed over the past 500 years. That has not drastically effected the Earth, but it has changed the spectrum a little, thus has changed the electromagnetic of things.

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. We have been viewing the universe for thousands of years, hence ancient star-charts. And by viewing distant stars, we can actually look back through time for billions of years. The speed of light has not changed over the last 500 years; you are confusing increasingly accurate measurements with actual changes in the value which is being measured. And the behaviour of electromagnetism has not changed since it was first theorized.

You're ignoring the point; if the chemistry was much different, then life wouldn't work. Life is completely reliant upon chemistry, you know. Change chemistry, and DNA doesn't work, enzymes don't work, nothing works. ...

that is why I do not believe in evolution Mr. Wong. So if you change a monkeys chemistry…then how will its DNA make a human? It can’t

The laws of chemistry don't change, but the chemical makeup of a DNA strand can and does change. That is why each child is not genetically identical to its parents. I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to declare that constant laws of chemistry must mean constant DNA.

For all the rest…how exactly are you using drastic changes to state that C14 is constant? Or……? In other words, can we just get to the point

The point which you're ignoring? The point about radioactive decay being a function of the nuclear binding force and the strength of electromagnetic repulsion, neither of which could change without massively changing the laws of physics and destroying all life? That point? Sorry, but you're ignoring and evading it at every turn.

Golden Mean Fallacy…well I do not exactly do that no, I am more of: if people assume A is true therefore B must be true…well what if A was mislead, then what would B become? As in if A was adaptation and B was evolution, well then adaptation must be evolution, unless Adaptation was not related to evolution…then what would evolution become. but what are you a philosopher?

I'm a person who can read, unlike you. Your use of the Golden Mean fallacy and your refusal to bother looking it up is more proof of your irrational argument's failure.

well then how did a monkey go “poof” and now it’s a human?

According to Darwinian evolution, it didn't. Evolution theory cannot be judged based on your own contemptible ignorance of its mechanism.

Darwin studied Coral…just because one day he saw finches, doesn’t mean what he said is right either. How do you know Evolution is true? Because you watch character traits within creatures and assume they evolved? I can watch birds fly by migrating any day…but how does that show me evolution?

Go back and read what I wrote; you are completely ignoring the concept of matching patterns in biological homology and species geo-location. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that you lack the mental faculties to comprehend those terms.

As for fossils, that is evidence.

no its not, its assumptions.

Incorrect. Fossils are evidence, and it is possible to generate theories to explain that evidence. You are confusing evidence and theories (not surprising; your ignorance of scientific methods and even basic terminology is profound).

You find a skull…you measure it, you find all of its dimensions, you find out where the muscles plugged into it at, you find out how it walked, you conclude it looks like an ape, yet it is also similar to a human skull in dimensions…there for you assume it’s a missing link, and don’t say that is not what they do because I took biology in college, I worked in a lab, I learned evolution and I measured skulls, and I compared it to other skulls…and that is exactly what we did, may have been 5 years ago but I still remember it….so just because they look similar, then they must be ancestors?

Have you got a better explanation for it? And you'll have to forgive me if I take your claims of expertise with a grain of salt, given your inability to distinguish between evidence and theories, ignorance of basic logic, grotesque misrepresentations of evolution theory as "poof" from monkey to man, etc.

And don’t tell me that is not what you guys do…look at Lucy, you found a monkey which did not look like any known species of monkeys that existed, so right there those evolutionist thought hmmm we found our new missing link, so they did all of these measurements and now it’s a missing link?

Lucy is a primitive monkey-like primate that walks upright. Since we don't see any of those walking around today, what do you think it was?

Just because you find fossils does not mean anything. Look at Dinosaur fossils, they are still debating on dinosaurs eating patterns, whether they were cold or warm blooded, and how fast they moved…you cannot tell anything from fossils except for the proof that such a creature existed once, and how they moved about.

Which is more than enough to support evolution theory, since the fossils are consistent with it, and totally inconsistent with the intellectual fraud known as creationism.

PS. What would you accept as evidence of evolution?

[Wicked Pilot]

Wow, this is like watching a high school student argue science with a professional engineer.








Oh wait, that is what's happening. Silly me.

[Alferd Packer]

I feel for you, Mike, I really do. On another board, I spent much of a week doing the exact same thing you are before the person stopped replying. Hopefully this one will go away quietly after just two smackdowns.

[DPDarkPrimus]

I'm suprised you haven't lost it yet, Mike. I certainly could not put up with such stupidity.