₦airaland Forum

ilynem:
One simple question. What is this thread supposed to achieve?

It's a debate. If you have opposing views, let's hear it.

Why are all the religious people avoiding this naa?
Wilgrea7, let me hear your opinion.

Niflheim:
Did you guys notice in the debate between Ken Ham(master of oloshis) and Bill Nye, Ken Ham was wearing glasses? A man who "believes" in Intelligent Design, wearing glasses to help improve his so-called Intelligently Designed eyesight?

Imagine the bible, talking about a man who was born blind, ONLY FOR THE "EVERLASTING BIBLICAL BUFFOONS" TO TELL US ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN? HOW IS BLINDNESS INTELLIGENT?!!!

Now, that's all shades of funny

adepeter26:
It's been a while I read senseless garbage like this on this section.

E b like say ROMANCELANDERS wan carry Dem mumu-ness come Religion Section

I dey tell you. They should remain there and continue with their romance.
See the jumbled mess of an article.
SMH

felixomor:
*Facepalm*

Just say please, explain fully.
I dont mind breaking it down to AbC level.....

Okay then.
It was nice engaging you.

felixomor:
Please ask,
Ignorant fellow.
I pray u ever read these before.
Even when information was given on a platter, u still swam in murky waters looking for.....carbon dating of hammer......

Gerrarahia mahn....

So, how did you come up with the hammer being older than the rock when the hammer is obviously from the 1800s?

felixomor:
Says the person who has just been schooled on london hammer and carbon dating......
Stop insulting your intelligence....

Humble yourself and learn.
Mumu. Mscheww

Schooled me?
Let's ask people who viewed the thread what they think.
Go on with your delusions.

felixomor:
The proof u have already posted from wikipedia before by yourself.
By the scientists who analyzed the rock

So try again mahn...

The Wikipedia article says the rock is 400 million years old. It didn't quote any other figures or contradictions.
Are you usually this dense when debating or you're just showing off for me?

felixomor:
But first, u have to admit for your ignorance
That carbon dating of the rock is wrong

Agreed?

No it is not wrong.
Where is the proof of your claim?
You still haven't addressed the post.

felixomor:
Just look at who is accusing me of dishonesty.
Smh

Address what is in the post Oga.
Your lies have finally caught up with you.
I get your time today.
I'm still waiting for the snails.

felixomor:
The hammer was dated to be the type used in england around "1800"
I never said "carbon dated"
.....
Secondly, you never understood this story.
You were the one referring to carbon dating of the hammer blindly...

Lol. It's okay, You and Baugh are dubious human beings. You know that the hammer based on style is from the 1800s, you now want to base the age of the hammer on the rock it was found inside even though there's a legitimate explanation for how the hammer got into the rock?
That's intellectual dishonesty.
Youve also forgotten that you said that the hammer is older than the rock and even used your player and son analogy?
Now you're claiming that you never said the hammer was carbon dated? Continue with your lies, God is watching you.
I'm still waiting for my snails.

felixomor:
Keep quiet abeg.
A footballer tells you he is 20 years old. Yet he has a 30 year old son.
You dont need any verification to tell you the footballer is lying.

Same here,
You dont need the age of the hammer for this.
Hammers are drop forged metal tools.....
They came after human civilization.

The fact that it was in a rock that is said to be 140 million years old automatically tells u the age of the rock is wrong.

Guy move aside...

I thought you said the hammer was carbon dated, now you've switched mouth abi?
You forgot the full quote of the scientist from the Wikipedia article that you were shouting since and later became selectively blind to?
Here it is again, I'm nice like that.
It explains how the hammer got into the rock.

J.R. Cole states: "The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble."

You still haven't said anything about the snails.
I get your time today.

felixomor:
That hammer cannot be older than the age of human civilization....
You still dont get the point.
Guy just leave here...
Abeg

For the 200th time, he refused to release the hammer to scientists to verify and confirm.
How you find that difficult to grasp is beyond me.


No word on the snails yet?

felixomor:
Keep quiet please. Stop insulting your ignorance
Thats just one of the ways they thought it happened.
But its a scientific impossibility.

Because the age of the carbon dating of the rock automatically makes it impossible.

And even if it is correct, it means carbon dating is flawed because that rock is younger than the estimated age of the hammer.

You see that You have just been fooling yourself.
You thought it was the carbon dating of the hammer that was the secret.

Nigga how many times am I going to tell you that what was dated was the rock, Baugh refused to release the hammer to anybody that would verify his claims.
He stored it in his own museum where he wankssss to it 5 times daily.
Do you know that his fellow creationists like Answer in Genesis hate him because of that?
They say he has muddled the water for everybody and made creationism a joke.
Read, man

felixomor:
I guess you didnt see "the stone is real"

Or its pretence on your part as usual.

Its now even obvious that u dont even understand the story.
U dont even know why the hammer is a mystery.
Just leave here mehn.
This is a big goof

Sure, stone is real, hammer is real, did you read about how the hammer got into the rock in the same quote or you have selective blindness?

felixomor:
What is to be refuted?

That u failed to admit that a hammer was found, dated, analyzed by a scientific work, and even the scientists were even mentioned on Wikipedia...
Because the fact doesnt sit with your agenda, u started argument here and there.

At first, u said it was only on Christian website
Then you switched lanes
Now you are telling me to refute your points....

Mscheeeewwww.
The funny part is you never even knew about these things before coming to this thread.
Abeg move jor.

Which scientists I've asked you again.
This is a quote from a scientist in the article and THE ONLY scientist quote.

J.R. Cole states: "The stone is real, and it looks impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. How could a modern artifact be stuck in Ordovician rock? The answer is that the concretion itself is not Ordovician. Minerals in solution can harden around an intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the ground if the source rock (in this case, reportedly Ordovician) is chemically soluble."

Make I no add poor reading comprehension to your list of problems.



I don't have to know about them. You lied and I debunked them easily.

felixomor:
What is your problem with appealing to authority that you are always doing?

Do you know how many people who studied that Hammer before it was bought by Baugh?
Guy just leave,
You know nothing about carbon dating.
Admit.

Refute it naa, bros. That's all I ask of you.
Stop with the ad hominem and pointing out fallacies, just refute them. When did a research article become an authority?
How many people studied it? You've shifted goalposts again, you didn't name the 2 scientists from the Wikipedia article, it's now how many scientists that studied it
You still haven't said anything about the snails.

felixomor:
Firstly, many intelligent scientists are creationists.
But your brain thinks that once you are a creationist, it means you are not scientific. Wrong

You have been dragged massively to the extent that your logic is failing you.
I thought u just said the man who bought it failed to release it for verification.

You Lied Again.....
Wikipedia even has the names of at least 2 scientists who analyzed it.....

Again I pirry u.
The funniest part is after you are exposed, u start saying "doctor this, doctor that"...
Mschewww.....

You and who is dragging? I've been posting links here that you've not done anything to refute.

However, for years Baugh refused to allow the hammer to be C14 dated. In an exchange of letters between creationist Walter Brown and Jim Lippard in Creation/Evolution, Brown (1989) suggested that the hammer handle has not been dated because Baugh had three "understandable" conditions for dating it: that it be done with mass spectrometry, that Baugh be present during the dating, and that someone else pay for it. However, Lippard countered that no one has objected to the first two conditions, and that Baugh had no right to expect the third, since he's the one making the claims, and thus the one obligated to back them up. Even so, even after others offered to pay for the dating, Baugh declined to have it done. As Day (1991) wrote in a follow up letter: "Far from being 'understandable,' Baugh's stipulations seem to be little short of evasive tactics... If four years have gone by and nothing has happened, I think it is safe to conclude that Baugh has no interest whatsoever in determining the truth about his marvelous hammer."

That's from the link I posted. A research article.
What are the names of the 2 scientists on the Wikipedia article? Is it this same one?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Hammer


Oya debunk my snail story.

felixomor:
Sorry.
The London Hammer is in a Museum as we speak.
It has been analysed by many scientists.
You lied BiGLY

It's in a museum so that creationists like your self can masturbateeeee yourselves into a coma while viewing it and at the same time shielding it from the scientific community who will render his claims invalid.
As for your snails.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old
Read up bro, that's what doctors do.

felixomor:
Guy, your descent is complete.
Your argument is very dead.
I thought ur argument was on "Christian website only"

Please show some integrity for yourself.

What about the 27,000 year old snails nko?
I pirry u

Okay then, we have settled the hammer issue
I'll get back to you on the snails.

felixomor:
I pity you.
"London hammer" is even on wikipedia.
Go and learn.

Shey you see where they write for there say na Christian creationist that bought the hammer?
He has refused to release it for independent verification by different groups of scientists. The age being quoted is the age of the rock it was found in because he refused to release it for verifications.
Don't be biased bro.

felixomor:
Go and read about the snails that were found to be 27,000 years old using carbon dating.
It was a very Popular story.
Because it seems you are not aware of such.
You are just busy appealing to authority up and down.


Not only is Carbon dating flawed.
It can be nonsense.
Also read about the story of "the london hammer"
......
Educate yourself man.

Shey you see?
Stop reading your news from Christian apologist websites.
Here you go, you can thank me later
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

Junia:
Saying it is not flawed doesn't change anything too

Well, people that matter have accepted it as not flawed, that is the WHOLE of the science community and the Nobel awards, so, you can carry on with your delusion.
It's funny, the same carbon dating was used to date the dead sea scrolls, the old Bible manuscripts and some artifacts from history that Christians find appealing, they have been accepted by Christians.
But when the same carbon dating is used for earth, y'all develop selective Retrograde Amnesia.

felixomor:
Even wikipedia talks about the Errors of carbon dating

Duurrrhhhh..

Sure, it has a margin of error.
Every system based on calculation has a margin of error, that doesn't make it wrong, it gives you a range. Think range of normal in a lab investigation​ report.
That's if you're a doctor.

Junia:
It doesn"t change the fact that it is flawed.

Repeating that it is flawed to yourself won't make it true, bros.

Junia:
Is the Christian apologist website telling lies. I don't think so. They have done a good job, no doubt.
But my point is, most of their things are flawed.

Yes, it's telling lies.
Post just one scientific website/journal disputing carbon dating, not something from a Christian website that already has a biased mind.

And note, those who awarded them may have no knowledge about it but they just find it interesting or good. Thats all

That's just an ignorant thing to say. If you don't know, don't assume.
They have different panels for different disciplines that will receive awards and each panel is made up of professionals from that field.

Junia:
When i was a worldly person, i used to receive awards for gambling with video game.
Award doesn't change anything.
Alot of people are awarded for doing wrong thing.
Don't be deceived by awards

You won an award because you were good.
Saw thing​ with the folks and Carbon dating. They did something extraordinary.
Award for wrong thing? Is carbon dating wrong? Provide a science article or a protest against their Nobel prize win, not something from a Christian apologist website.

felixomor:
Fallacy of appeal to authority....

If the argument were in your favor, it wouldn't be appeal to authority.
They are an authority for a reason.
The work is thoroughly scrutinized by different judging panels, all the flaws therein would be exposed and if found wanting, won't be awarded.
The Nobel is one of the most prestigious prize in science. People live like hermits to win one.
So, yea, they are a credible authority.
Y'all are yet to provide an alternative or state how wrong carbon dating could be.

It's becoming quite apparent that when Christians get cornered in their argument for a 7 day creation story, they switch to an Intelligent Design argument (Nature is so intelligently designed and fits so seamlessly, so, it has to be God).

But the argument is flawed and largely based on 2 things,
1) Argumentum ad ignorantiam: Argument from ignorance. We don't know, so, God.
2) God of the gaps: There is a gap in the demonstrable knowledge of science, therefore, God.

Proponents of Intelligent Design present their argument for a deistic God but further probing and investigation of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement show that they are arguing for a Christian God which makes it no different from creationists.

The science community all over the world has largely debunked the idea of Intelligent Design based largely on the fact that they don't have a demonstrable hypothesis despite the fact that the leaders of Intelligent Design movement are scientists.
Infact, it has been classed as a Pseudoscience right in the group of allopathic and homeopathic medicine.

Proponents of Intelligent Design largely fail to explain obvious design flaws in their intelligent design.

So, by and large, Intelligent Design is a movement created by creationists when faced with the absurdities of a 7 day creation story.

You can read more on
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

Intelligent debates and comments are welcome

akintom:
When you can't even present the correct history of an event that's less than 10 years, how possibly can you understand, the childish fabrications in your penticoliosis?

Chai, they have finished felixomor

Ever8054:
preaching is not shoving ones beliefs down anyone's troat...

Are you fuckinggggg kidding me?

Junia, DoctorAlien and all these team "carbon dating is flawed" people, I hope you guys know that the person/people who discovered it won a Nobel prize for their work.
If it was so flawed, would they have won the prize?