Latest research from the prestigious Creation Science Museum

[Cypress]

Fredo is cray-cray. Not as cray-cray as Sybil, but he's working on it.

He must be dependent on disability income and social services, while in the meantime hollering to cut government services to everyone else.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

and you people being people makes "you people" appropriate.

Awesome, Fredo.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

He must be dependent on disability income and social services, while in the meantime hollering to cut government services to everyone else.

Unless he's using a community wifi, he may drop offline in another 6-12 months.

 

[Margot]

ok, melchizedek-files wingnut.

Where's your pal,Grover Dill?

 

[Scut Farkus]

Where's your pal,Grover Dill?

setting a bag of shit on fire, what's it to you?

 

[IBDaMann]

Many who are involved with uncovering these incredibly old footprints do not realize this remarkable physical evidence is a two-edged sword.

I sense a bogus Cypress false assumption brewing.

Yes, they are beautifully preserved prints of extinct animals, but they cannot be as old as evolutionary theory states due to multiple catastrophic agents of erosion.

Ergo, Evolution is erroneous? (anytime empirical observation runs counter to a theory, the theory is falsified)

Note: The theory of Evolution does not contain any age of the earth.

If the earth is 4.6 billion years old, virtually every square inch of the Earth’s surface would experience a host of erosive events.

If the earth is much younger, the tracks might very well support the theory that the earth is much younger (I made a concerted effort to make this simple and straightforward enough for you to grasp)

“... it might be that there was a storm event that came in, deposited a load of sediments on top of the footprints, and meant that they were preserved rather than just being washed away.”

If that were the case, the tracks would not have been discovered without the sediment.

The footprints are so pristine that even after the supposed 166 million years scientists were able to identify which dinosaurs the prints belonged to.

The tracks are unlikely to be 166 million years old. The age is literally a guess comprised of literal guesses of the ages of each layer, and not cross-referencing with any second form of dating. The one thing we can say with high confidence is that they are very likely not 166 million years old.

Evolutionist Emma Nicholls, a vertebrate paleontologist from Oxford University, said the three toes “are very, very clear in the print.” Perhaps it’s because they were made only 4,500 years ago.

I wouldn't buy it, but I have to accept it as a possibility.

The creatures making these fascinating tracks were 100% dinosaurs created on Day 6.

... or they were created on day 4,383,050,792. I can think of other possibilities as well.

The tracks are well-preserved like one would expect from catastrophic flood deposits.

Nobody has any expectations of catastrophic flood deposits.

And finally, their amazing preservation rather than being totally destroyed isn’t what one would expect after supposedly 166 million years of nonstop erosive forces.

So you're not buying the 166 million years either, I see.

 

[IBDaMann]

setting a bag of shit on fire, what's it to you?

It really is hot shit!

 

[Cypress]

You're here talking about it dumbass.

You have a very limited and atrophied set of interests. You are incapable of talking about sports, cars, firearms, history, science, movies, pets, jobs, careers. I don't see how you can carry on a conversation at a party.

Epistle to the Romans makes explicitly clear that God's revelation is shown to man in nature.

In Genesis, God made man the first zoologist by making him name the animals. It's not that far of a jump from that to the classical taxonomy of Carl Linneaus.

You might think nature and natural history aren't worth talking about. But the Bible and two thousand years of Christian scientists disagree with you.

 

[Scut Farkus]

You have a very limited and atrophied set of interests. You are incapable of talking about sports, cars, firearms, history, science, pets, jobs, careers.

Epistle to the Romans makes explicitly clear that God's revelation is shown to man in nature.

yes.

I ignore your distractions.

sorry dumbass.

and in nature cooperation works.

you keep trying to separate morality from nature, to keep it the sole dominion of war crazed Masonic theologians.

 

[Cypress]

yes.

I ignore your distractions.

sorry dumbass.

an in nature cooperation works.

you keep trying to separate morality from nature, to keep it the sole dominion of war crazed Masonic theologians.

So you admit you are incapable of talking about anything other than vague meanderings concerning 'morality'.

You must be the life of the party.

 

[Scut Farkus]

So you admit you are incapable of talking about anything other than vague meanderings concerning 'morality'.

You must be the life of the party.

I'm very specific.

you can never even define it, making all your rantings sophistry in steadfast avoidance of the central issue of human relations.

You're a fraud and a shitty gatekeeper.

 

[Cypress]

The tracks are unlikely to be 166 million years old. The age is literally a guess comprised of literal guesses of the ages of each layer, and not cross-referencing with any second form of dating.

Usually geologic dates in sedimentary deposits of this nature are validated or constrained by radiometric dating of closely related or stratigraphically equivalent volcanic ash deposits.

 

[IBDaMann]

Usually geologic dates in sedimentary deposits

Too funny. Cypress thinks sedimentary deposits come with "geologic dates."

of this nature are validated or constrained by radiometric dating of closely related or stratigraphically equivalent volcanic ash deposits.

If you had done your reading (beyond frantically Googling whatever you can within your 5-minute time limit) you would have discovered that there were no other tests performed. All wild guesses were based off the cumulative wild guesses of all sediment layers.

 

[Cypress]

Too funny. Cypress thinks sedimentary deposits come with "geologic dates."

If you had done your reading (beyond frantically Googling whatever you can within your 5-minute time limit) you would have discovered that there were no other tests performed. All wild guesses were based off the cumulative wild guesses of all sediment layers.

It sounds like you never took a college level science class, and are now plagiarizing my my taunts and syntax about 'frantic googling' for five minutes.

Not creative enough to think up your own taunts?

 

[IBDaMann]

It sounds like you never took a college level science class,

You wouldn't know, never having taken a college level class.

and are now plagiarizing my my taunts and syntax about 'frantic googling' for five minutes.

I authored that theme long since; you pagiarized from me.

Not creative enough to think up your own taunts?

You're not creative enough to come up with your own thoughts. Everything you post is comprised entirely of the thoughts of others.

 

[Cypress]

You wouldn't know, never having taken a college level class.

It's understandable why you would plagiarize me.

You have a grudging admiration for my posts.
You are apparently so impressed with the content and organization of my posts, you have routinely claimed they must have come from AI, online encyclopedias, or sophisticated software programs.

 

[IBDaMann]

It's understandable why you would plagiarize me.

I understand why you claim that everything you pagiarize from me was somehow plagiarized from you.

You have a grudging admiration for my posts.

I have a compelling need to point out errors that you have copy-pasted into your posts.

You are apparently so impressed with the content and organization of my posts, you have routinely claimed they must have come from AI, online encyclopedias, or sophisticated software programs.

I believe I have only once pointed out your plagiarism from ChatGPT.

 

[Cypress]

I believe I have only once pointed out your plagiarism from ChatGPT.

^^ Not to mention all your claims that my posts must come from online encyclopedias.

I accept your confession that you are so impressed with the content and organization of my posts you believe they can only come from AI, sophisticated software, and online encyclopedias.

 

[IBDaMann]

Not to mention all your claims that my posts must come from online encyclopedias.

I wish you would get the wording right. All your posts are, in fact, copy-pasted, from online websites.

 

[Cypress]

I wish you would get the wording right. All your posts are, in fact, copy-pasted, from online websites.

You wouldn't keep saying the content and organization of my posts are only possible with AI and sophisticated software, unless you were reading them with a combination of high regard and grudging admiration.