Creation vs. Evolution

[Rosenritter]

And how is the whatever all around us not proof of Zeus, a non-christian god?

Stuart

1. The proponents of Zeus do not proclaim him to be an "only God."
2. Zeus exists within the Greek mythology, which proclaims Erebus, Gaea, etc to have created our world.

Therefore, by definition, Zeus is not the One God that created all things. If there is a One God that created all things, it cannot be Zeus. So unless you were simply trolling, you might want to change your question slightly or find a more suitable applicant. Perhaps, "Why would Erebus not be the God that created all things" or "Why is Allah not the one God?"

Less trolling and more focused questions would go a long ways on this forum.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Atheists take a smug approach to debating believers because they know there is no tangible proof of God, or so they think. I say the proof of God is all around us !

Dear patrick,

Yes, that is exactly what they do. Good to see you here and you're learning. I can tell!!

Much Love, Through Christ

Michael

 

[Rosenritter]

Specifically what about Saturn’s rings shows they were recently formed?

Take the old-universe estimate of Saturn, then acknowledge figures from old-universe astronomers that say that the rings should have decayed in a much shorter time than that, and thus your rings must be "recently formed" (or at least "recent" in the time scale that I think you are thinking of.) For example, if you start with the assumed date of "250 million years" for Saturn, even NASA is saying that the rings should not last longer than "100 million."

http://www.space.com/32378-saturn-rings-and-moons-younger-than-dinosaurs.html

"Some of Saturn's icy moons may have been formed after many dinosaurs roamed the Earth. New computer modeling of the Saturnian system suggests the rings and moons may be no more than 100 million years old."

Now those are figures generated by people with a vested interest in putting forth (what I call) "very old" figures for the things in our solar system. It's a recent theory / publication from 2016. But prior to Voyager 1 the rings were assumed to be orderly to prevent collisions, thus explaining an equilibrium that would have survived for millions of years. The actual observations from the probe showed it to be much less orderly, still in flux. Given millions of years you would think that it would be more orderly.

Given evidence of the changing state can be seen with telescopes since the 1800's. One of those rings has only been visible recently, the "C" ring.

Saturn’s most prominent rings are the A, B, and C rings.^37,38 However, the C ring was not visible until the 1800s:

‘William Herschel, the foremost astronomical observer of his time (1738–1822), makes no mention of the [C ring] in any of his writings, and it is inferred that it was not then a conspicuous object. If this inference be correct, we must conclude that this ring is rapidly growing, and that the rings of Saturn are probably comparatively recent introductions to the solar system.’³⁹
​

Today the C ring can be seen ‘with telescopes of moderate size’.⁴⁰

http://creation.com/the-age-and-fate-of-saturns-rings

The Voyager missions demolished the belief that planetary rings must be old. The Cassini probe began orbiting Saturn in 2004. Preliminary Cassini data confirm that at least some of the ring structure is the ‘crumbled remains of an ancient Saturnian moon’ destroyed possibly by meteorite impact.⁷⁷

During the ring-plane crossings of 1995 and 1996, Earth-based fluorescence measurements indicated that ‘the Saturnian ring system must be losing about 3 tons of water per second. That’s too much to be explained by the impact of interplanetary dust alone.’⁷⁸ Despite this evidence of ring dissipation, total replenishment of the ring system by meteoritic impact was modeled as a way of preserving the rings.⁷⁹However, preliminary Cassini data indicate that oxygen is given off by the rings at about 4 times the expected rate, again confirming high collision rates and dissipation of material from the rings.⁸⁰

Longevity estimates for Saturn’s rings have undergone steady downward revision since the 1970s. The resonance theory was invoked to prevent such downward revision, but failed to counter indications that planetary rings are much younger than the conventional age of the solar system. The shepherd moon theory continues to be employed to minimize the downward revision. Despite widespread belief that shepherd moons such as Prometheus and Pandora have preserved Saturn’s rings for possibly hundreds of millions of years, the putative shepherd moons appear to be pulverized and dissipating along with the ring structure.

The origin of Saturn’s rings seems to be the ‘destruction’ of once-existing moons ⁸¹ and appear to be a short-lived phenomenon which will have dissipated in a timeframe of the order of tens of thousands of years at most—possibly only thousands of years.

I apologize if this seems lengthy. I do have a much simpler item for astronomical discussion that doesn't require so much math.

 

[DavisBJ]

Well, under an old earth interpretation of the world, the problem is that carbon 14 is something that is (mostly) produced when the sun interacts with the earth atmosphere. If you start counting from when the planet has carbon in the air to react with the sun's radiation, carbon-14 starts to be produced, and at the same time starts to decay. The more radioactive carbon in the air, the faster it decays, until after a sufficiently long period of time the amounts entering and exiting in this fashion arrive at a balance.

Radioactive atmospheric carbon does not have to be at equilibrium according to my understanding of our world, but it is required by the old earth theory. The typical evolution theory requires an extremely old earth to allow for a near infinity of time to allow for "evolution" to happen... a process that is so slow that no one has ever observed it in action. It somehow seems more plausible if "millions of years" is prefixed to the explanations.

The entire carbon-14 dating scheme makes the assumption that radioactive carbon in the atmosphere is constant and has always been at current levels. If the earth is indeed extremely old, then this would be the expected result. But using an assumption of "old earth" (for constant C14 levels) as a way to generate numbers (from measuring C14 levels) to prove "old earth" is a classic example of circular reasoning.

On the other hand, if Carbon-14 is still increasing and has not reached equilibrium, that would be consistent with what one would expect from a young earth. I have seen evolutionists react to this before. Whereas before they insisted that C14 was constant and could always be relied on, afterwards the argument changes that now C14 must be fluxing back and forth. they figure. I suppose "unreliable" feels better than "plain wrong."

Do you remember anyone putting forth a study to make sure that Carbon-14 was both constant and at equilibrium before it was assumed to be so for the purpose of dating organic samples? Because with the wrong assumptions in place, measuring an early sample from a young earth could appear to absurdly old, simply because its world wouldn't have accumulated the present-day levels of C14.

Again, according to my theory, the pre-flood world had a different atmosphere than today's world: Genesis describes an environment with "no rain", where "mists covered the earth", and where life forms didn't age as fiercely as today. That could be consistent with a planet that was less subject (or perhaps shielded) from radiation. After the end of that flood, recorded life spans started to decrease in a nice mathematical curve, approaching today's accepted norms. (We realize today that radiation has a large effect on our aging process.)

Anyway, just recapping your question. Why does atmospheric radioactive carbon have to be at equilibrium? Because an increasing amount indicates a young earth, and a variable amount nullifies the accuracy of numbers obtained through carbon dating. The circular reasoning employed to proclaim Carbon dating reliable demonstrates the bias present within that community.

I appreciate your fairly detailed answer. I will be brief in my reply. When C14 dating was new, there was a rather naïve assumption that C14 concentrations were constant over time. A few atmospheric atomic blasts soon showed that assumption was not tenable. Using google, within 5 minutes I found several rather technical websites that discuss the factors that influence the C14 level in the atmosphere, and how those levels have to be considered in C14 dating.

For example, here are 3 relevant websites:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm​

If you have scientifically credible data that counters these, I would live to see it.

I don’t mean to be rude, but you charged into this thread like some knight on a white stallion, ready to slay the infidel hordes all by yourself. I think a bit of reality is sinking in now, and you have tempered your incendiary rhetoric a bit. But almost the entirety of what you said just above shows you are still pathetically flailing about, and you still need to realize your white stallion is just a miniature pony, and nobody fears that stick you think is a sword.

I could offer a number of direct quotes from the sites above, and others, that fly in the face of your ignorant claims that C14 has to be constant. Instead, I will see if you actually value honesty as a virtue, and read and understand before you babble, and just maybe admit you were wrong.

This is almost embarrassing to watch.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Rosen,

You're quite handy to have around. You sure can hold your own here. That is kind of rare since you are a newbie. You came quite prepared, both spiritually and wisely. I'm proud of you.

Oh well, I've got to go and make supper. Be back on in a while. I'm making baked salmon with homemade Hollandaise sauce, and garlic dill mashed potatoes, and buttered broccoli florets. Can't wait to eat it all. If I've made you hungry, go and eat something. I'm not always on-topic, as you almost all know already. Back soon.

God's Very Best To Each Of You!!

Michael

 

[Rosenritter]

I appreciate your fairly detailed answer. I will be brief in my reply. When C14 dating was new, there was a rather naïve assumption that C14 concentrations were constant over time. A few atmospheric atomic blasts soon showed that assumption was not tenable. Using google, within 5 minutes I found several rather technical websites that discuss the factors that influence the C14 level in the atmosphere, and how those levels have to be considered in C14 dating.

For example, here are 3 relevant websites:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp057/ndp057.htm​

If you have scientifically credible data that counters these, I would live to see it.

I don’t mean to be rude, but you charged into this thread like some knight on a white stallion, ready to slay the infidel hordes all by yourself. I think a bit of reality is sinking in now, and you have tempered your incendiary rhetoric a bit. But almost the entirety of what you said just above shows you are still pathetically flailing about, and you still need to realize your white stallion is just a miniature pony, and nobody fears that stick you think is a sword.

I could offer a number of direct quotes from the sites above, and others, that fly in the face of your ignorant claims that C14 has to be constant. Instead, I will see if you actually value honesty as a virtue, and read and understand before you babble, and just maybe admit you were wrong.

This is almost embarrassing to watch.

Thank you for your most scientific response regarding ponies and white stallions. Perhaps you could reapply some of those typing skills into explaining as to why assuming a relatively constant C14 level would be accurate if testing a specimen that was present when C14 had only just started being added to the environment from the sun?

... I have noticed that polite posts are usually short lived. It is as if the politeness becomes unbearable and has to be followed up by personal attacks to meet some sort of quota!

 

[Silent Hunter]

I could offer a number of direct quotes from the sites above, and others, that fly in the face of your ignorant claims that C14 has to be constant. Instead, I will see if you actually value honesty as a virtue, and read and understand before you babble, and just maybe admit you were wrong.

Thank you for your most scientific response regarding ponies and white stallions. Perhaps you could reapply some of those typing skills into explaining as to why assuming a relatively constant C14 level would be accurate if testing a specimen that was present when C14 had only just started being added to the environment from the sun?

This IS too embarrassing to watch.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Tyrathca]

Thank you for your most scientific response regarding ponies and white stallions. Perhaps you could reapply some of those typing skills into explaining as to why assuming a relatively constant C14 level would be accurate if testing a specimen that was present when C14 had only just started being added to the environment from the sun?

I think you need to reread what you were responding to....

... I have noticed that polite posts are usually short lived. It is as if the politeness becomes unbearable and has to be followed up by personal attacks to meet some sort of quota!

Given your proclivity for unwarranted condescension this complaint seems a little self serving.



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Jonahdog]

Thank you for your most scientific response regarding ponies and white stallions. Perhaps you could reapply some of those typing skills into explaining as to why assuming a relatively constant C14 level would be accurate if testing a specimen that was present when C14 had only just started being added to the environment from the sun?

... I have noticed that polite posts are usually short lived. It is as if the politeness becomes unbearable and has to be followed up by personal attacks to meet some sort of quota!

C14 comes from the sun?

 

[DavisBJ]

… explaining as to why assuming a relatively constant C14 level would be accurate if testing a specimen that was present when C14 had only just started being added to the environment from the sun?

Good question. Months before you materialized here, 6days referred me to an article authored by R.H. Brown (a creationist) that claimed C14 measurements more than a few thousand years old were fallacious. As I carefully read his article, I spotted where he implicitly assumed (and in fact depended on) what you are inferring, that C14 is a relatively recent addition to the atmosphere.

We say atmospheric C14 far predates a literal Garden of Eden, you say not. Your position is a necessary assumption to keep from admitting that biological life existed tens of thousands of years ago. Our position is partially based on what corroborating evidence shows. I gave you 3 links, with the first one coming from a scientific group funded by the US Government specifically to track current and historic CO2 levels. I would be most surprised if that group of scientists wasn’t composed of faithful Bible believers, as well as other religious persuasions. But fundamentally, they are scientists, which means they do not subjugate their data to make it conform with anyone’s religious dogma.

But unfortunately, as I feared, you have not even given a hint that you read or understood the information at that site. My hope that you would actually read and learn before babbling is now going down in flames. When you do more than toss off a knee-jerk response to what you clearly do not understand, please let me now. I detest the taste of trolls and religious bigots.

... I have noticed that polite posts are usually short lived. It is as if the politeness becomes unbearable and has to be followed up by personal attacks to meet some sort of quota!

Would it help if I soiled my hands by quoting back some of the braggadocio and put-downs that you have chosen to bestow into the thread?

 

[Rosenritter]

Good question. Months before you materialized here, 6days referred me to an article authored by R.H. Brown (a creationist) that claimed C14 measurements more than a few thousand years old were fallacious. As I carefully read his article, I spotted where he implicitly assumed (and in fact depended on) what you are inferring, that C14 is a relatively recent addition to the atmosphere.

We say atmospheric C14 far predates a literal Garden of Eden, you say not. Your position is a necessary assumption to keep from admitting that biological life existed tens of thousands of years ago. Our position is partially based on what corroborating evidence shows. I gave you 3 links, with the first one coming from a scientific group funded by the US Government specifically to track current and historic CO2 levels. I would be most surprised if that group of scientists wasn’t composed of faithful Bible believers, as well as other religious persuasions. But fundamentally, they are scientists, which means they do not subjugate their data to make it conform with anyone’s religious dogma.

But unfortunately, as I feared, you have not even given a hint that you read or understood the information at that site. My hope that you would actually read and learn before babbling is now going down in flames. When you do more than toss off a knee-jerk response to what you clearly do not understand, please let me now. I detest the taste of trolls and religious bigots.

Would it help if I soiled my hands by quoting back some of the braggadocio and put-downs that you have chosen to bestow into the thread?

I think that if you were to weary yourself by searching the threads you might find that I have used a few generalized comebacks, when it at first seemed that it was an expected atmosphere of this particular thread. For example, I lead with a statement that my wife loves bunnies, so now I know all about bunnies. The counter against me is that my wife must be insane. I reply that I consider my wife smarter than the poster. The reply comes back that his wife would be smarter than me, my wife, and all of our children. Do you see a pattern here, as to whom might be doing the escalation? I think this has become a rather stupid banter (rather than entertaining flavor) by this time, so I leave off with an "opposites must attract" for one to make with as they will. But that's the general pattern I've observed.

The insulting put-downs haven't been started from my corner, but I apologize for where I may have followed poor example. Distractions of that sort really do neither of us a service. It is a lot easier to communicate when you aren't expected to respond to insults in kind in order to be taken seriously. Let me say this more simply: I'm asking for cooperation for a more civil board environment.

If we can veer off back to the topic again, yes, if one assumes that radioactive carbon would not have begun forming until solar radiation started to strike the Garden of Eden, or in greater scale once a good portion of the atmospheric water no longer covered the earth as a mist, then an attempt to apply current Carbon-14 dating methods would produce vastly skewed results. This isn't a far stretch as details within the Genesis narrative are supportive of this conclusion.

Now, are you proposing that any of your sites properly answer this question? Simply tossing links at someone isn't a valid argument, because it is important to say what you think it means as well as the relevant portion. I'll use an analogy, it is as if someone says "The bible proves this" and then says "Read Exodus." The proper response is to insist that they quote the portion they mean and spell out why they think it says something different. In other words (if you will forgive the comparison) your reply was showing the same flaws that I've seen used in bad proofs of biblical interpretation.

Back to your sites. Please tell me which of the three contains the magic bullet answer that you seem to have implied? Because none of them seems to address the question I had for you. Besides which, the unsubstantiated assumptions required such as "The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv" is something I particularly notice. There's no such thing as 800,000 years of ice-core record.... there may be ice core, but it isn't 800,000 years old. How was that judgment made?

 

[Rosenritter]

C14 comes from the sun?

Indirectly, yes. Sort of as if I said that money comes from your job.

 

[DavisBJ]

Take the old-universe estimate of Saturn, then acknowledge figures from old-universe astronomers that say that the rings should have decayed in a much shorter time than that, and thus your rings must be "recently formed" (or at least "recent" in the time scale that I think you are thinking of.) For example, if you start with the assumed date of "250 million years" for Saturn, even NASA is saying that the rings should not last longer than "100 million."

http://www.space.com/32378-saturn-rings-and-moons-younger-than-dinosaurs.html

Now those are figures generated by people with a vested interest in putting forth (what I call) "very old" figures for the things in our solar system. It's a recent theory / publication from 2016. But prior to Voyager 1 the rings were assumed to be orderly to prevent collisions, thus explaining an equilibrium that would have survived for millions of years. The actual observations from the probe showed it to be much less orderly, still in flux. Given millions of years you would think that it would be more orderly.

Given evidence of the changing state can be seen with telescopes since the 1800's. One of those rings has only been visible recently, the "C" ring.

http://creation.com/the-age-and-fate-of-saturns-rings

This is quite interesting. But in the back of my mind lingers one unresolved question: “So what?” I presume somehow you present this as some kind of disconfirming evidence against an old solar system. If that is your goal, you have not made that clear. Is there some kind of requirement that the Saturn of today must look pretty much like the Saturn of millions of years ago?

I apologize if this seems lengthy. I do have a much simpler item for astronomical discussion that doesn't require so much math.

Oh, oh, I’m in trouble now. I thought I read your post kinda carefully, and even followed most of the links in it. Maybe I was just overwhelmed and forgot, but I don’t recall much math anywhere in it. Can you point out the math that you thought was “so much”?

As to a new, simpler item – OK – IF it isn’t just more spam.

 

[6days]

Thank you for your most scientific response regarding ponies and white stallions. Perhaps you could reapply some of those typing skills into explaining as to why assuming a relatively constant C14 level would be accurate if testing a specimen that was present when C14 had only just started being added to the environment from the sun?

... I have noticed that polite posts are usually short lived. It is as if the politeness becomes unbearable and has to be followed up by personal attacks to meet some sort of quota!

I haven't been here past two days. Interesting that evolutionists sometimes use C14 dating, yet reject results that contradict their belief system... Here is an example of what happens...

http://newgeology.us/Speakman.jpg

 

[6days]

Good question. Months before you materialized here, 6days referred me to an article authored by R.H. Brown (a creationist) that claimed C14 measurements more than a few thousand years old were fallacious......

This.....?...
Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. *Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. *After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.**Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. *When the authors inquired, they received this letter:......

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html

"Unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global fllods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

Creationist researchers figure that Preflood oganisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.*
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"

 

[DavisBJ]

If we can veer off back to the topic again, yes, if one assumes that radioactive carbon would not have begun forming until solar radiation started to strike the Garden of Eden, or in greater scale once a good portion of the atmospheric water no longer covered the earth as a mist, then an attempt to apply current Carbon-14 dating methods would produce vastly skewed results. This isn't a far stretch as details within the Genesis narrative are supportive of this conclusion.

But that assumption (as R.H. Brown showed) forces the answer to be the one that you want. It is not asking nature, it is dictating to nature. Any goofball religion on earth can win with a stacked deck.

Now, are you proposing that any of your sites properly answer this question? Simply tossing links at someone isn't a valid argument, because it is important to say what you think it means as well as the relevant portion. I'll use an analogy, it is as if someone says "The bible proves this" and then says "Read Exodus." The proper response is to insist that they quote the portion they mean and spell out why they think it says something different. In other words (if you will forgive the comparison) your reply was showing the same flaws that I've seen used in bad proofs of biblical interpretation.

I could (and actually have) referred those same sites to active scientists. Never once have I had any of them ask me what I think the sites were saying. Real scientists are expected to know how science works, and to read scientific information without handholding. If those sites are as devoid of clearly expressed relevant information as you feel they are, then please quit pretending you actually know science.

Back to your sites. Please tell me which of the three contains the magic bullet answer that you seem to have implied? Because none of them seems to address the question I had for you.

Your question was relative to atmospheric C14 concentrations based on no atmospheric C14 before Adam. Of course none of the sites directly address that, because they are scientific sites, not promoters of a minor branch of one of the world’s religions. Zulu warrior Kunte Kinte thinks those sites should address the question of the source of the carbon in the diamond eye of the African God Mugumbo. You are just so silly.

Besides which, the unsubstantiated assumptions required such as "The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv" is something I particularly notice. There's no such thing as 800,000 years of ice-core record.... there may be ice core, but it isn't 800,000 years old. How was that judgment made?

I have a much better suggestion. In your eyes, I am a hostile witness, and likely to put my spin on any explanation I might give. So instead, bypass me and go to the sources themselves. Do a bit of research, find out what factors limit how far back ice-core dating is reliable. It will take some time and effort, but that is a price you have to pay for any scientific subject you really want to understand. After a few days, a week, a month, whenever, comeback here and you tell us specifically why you agree/disagree with proposed ice-core dates.

 

[6days]

Nope.

Stuart

yesss... You fabricated what Dawkins said.

 

[6days]

But that assumption (as R.H. Brown showed) forces the answer to be the one that you want. It is not asking nature, it is dictating to nature. Any goofball religion on earth can win with a stacked deck.

The problem for you Davis is that rely on scientists who start with the conclusion then look for an explanation to fit that...no matter how counter intuitive...no matter how unscientific. There are much better explanations for C14 dates, ice core samples etc that align with the absolute truth... God's Word.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I think that if you were to weary yourself by searching the threads you might find that I have used a few generalized comebacks, when it at first seemed that it was an expected atmosphere of this particular thread. For example, I lead with a statement that my wife loves bunnies, so now I know all about bunnies.

No, you still know nothing about rabbits.

The counter against me is that my wife must be insane.

No, I think I said, "She must be as crazy as you are", or words to that effect. It was more a reference to believing weird things than actual cognitive disassociation.

I reply that I consider my wife smarter than the poster. The reply comes back that his wife would be smarter than me, my wife, and all of our children.

No, just your wife and her children. I recall giving you her qualifications as well. That your wife married you leads one to question her ability to make informed choices.

Do you see a pattern here, as to whom might be doing the escalation? I think this has become a rather stupid banter (rather than entertaining flavor) by this time, so I leave off with an "opposites must attract" for one to make with as they will. But that's the general pattern I've observed.

The pattern seems to be that you enjoy complaining over rational discourse. I notice you abandoned your defense of godidit as being scientifically plausible.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose, I have a question for you. Does your understanding of the workings of our world around us (aka "science") allow for the earth to be older than the surrounding solar system?

If yes, then I understand your objection, and this is indeed a red herring.
If no, then the question is entirely relevant, and I appreciate a change of pace from the poop-slinging that sometimes abounds in these forums.

If you click the links to the posts I mentioned, you'll see that we were trying to discuss your allegations of frauds and hoaxes in evolutionary biology. I responded to your first copy and paste from a creationist webpage, you ignored just about all of that response, and just copy and pasted from another creationist page. After I responded to that, I noted what you were doing and said I wasn't interested in playing that game. That's when you responded by throwing out a bunch of aged, silly young-earth creationist red herrings. Completely off-topic and non-responsive to the post you were supposed to be replying to.

That's a terrible pattern of behavior from you and a very good indication that it's a waste of time to respond to your posts (what's the point if you're just going to ignore it all).