The Thread Where You Link To Stripe's Best Evidence-Based Posts

[Stripe]

If you don't understand English, just ask. It's called a dialogue. :thumb:

:rotfl:

:mock: Momo.

 

[Memento Mori]

:rotfl:

:mock: Momo.

Classic Stripe. Discuss anything but the evidence. :thumb:

 

[The Barbarian]

Did anyone find the post he says he made, showing how math disproves evolution?

 

[Memento Mori]

Did anyone find the post he says he made, showing how math disproves evolution?

Well seeing as how I'm still waiting for the basic math regarding special relativity, it might be a while before he can lay it out...

You might just jump straight to his copy and paste source of AiG.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Stripe talks evidence, atheists talk about poop.

Meant to post this here:

Originally Posted by Stripe
Water exists plentifully on Earth, therefore Earth offers a rational answer to the origin of asteroids and comets.

Now to the evidence:

Ice from asteroids and comets contain methane. Bacteria produces methane on Earth.

How could comets originating in space get high concentrations of these compounds?

As chemical reactions between water, carbon dioxide and minerals can also produce methane without the need for bacteria to produce it, this hypothesis fails because it ignores such an origin for cometary and asteroid methane.

Comet dust is arranged in crystalline patterns, primarily that of magnesium rich olivine. Just like the rocks on Earth. But other space dust is not olivine.

How this dust could ever form in space is a mystery.

Nice bait 'n' switch there. You switch from talking about dust within the Solar System, specifically cometary dust, which you identify as comprising, amongst other things, magnesium rich olivine, to 'space dust', which is interstellar dust, which doesn't. Why this difference exists is not a mystery, however: heat from stars causes this change, heat which interstellar dust lacks.

The Wild 2 comet contained cubanite that forms in the presence of very hot water. It is impossible to form liquid water inside a comet.

Could those minerals have come out of a very hot, high-pressure solution as the comet was forming?

Or they could have formed in situ in the comet when heat from either an impact or radioactive decay melted ice which refroze.

On Earth, about one in 6,400 hydrogen molecules is deuterium. In most comets the ratio is 1 in 3,200. Therefore, comets did not deliver most of Earth’s water

No known process will greatly increase or decrease the heavy hydrogen concentration in comets.

Woah. So Earth's water cannot have a cometary origin because of the difference in deuterium concentration, but comets can have a terrestrial origin regardless of the difference in deuterium concentration? Looks like you're trying to square a circle here.

The idea that comets and asteroids started life on Earth is far better supported by evidence than the idea that they started in undetected "clouds" in space.

That would be 'far better supported' as in 'not at all'.

To read more on these evidences, take a read through Dr. Walt Brown's book, In The Beginning.

One has and one remains of the opinion that it is mostly imaginative silliness wherein Walt simply constructs fantastical hypotheses to support a preconceived conclusion and then goes about looking for evidence that can be banged on with a hammer to support them while ignoring all that evidence that doesn't.

 

[Stripe]

As chemical reactions between water, carbon dioxide and minerals can also produce methane without the need for bacteria to produce it, this hypothesis fails because it ignores such an origin for cometary and asteroid methane.Nice bait 'n' switch there. You switch from talking about dust within the Solar System, specifically cometary dust, which you identify as comprising, amongst other things, magnesium rich olivine, to 'space dust', which is interstellar dust, which doesn't. Why this difference exists is not a mystery, however: heat from stars causes this change, heat which interstellar dust lacks.Or they could have formed in situ in the comet when heat from either an impact or radioactive decay melted ice which refroze.Woah. So Earth's water cannot have a cometary origin because of the difference in deuterium concentration, but comets can have a terrestrial origin regardless of the difference in deuterium concentration? Looks like you're trying to square a circle here.That would be 'far better supported' as in 'not at all'.One has and one remains of the opinion that it is mostly imaginative silliness wherein Walt simply constructs fantastical hypotheses to support a preconceived conclusion and then goes about looking for evidence that can be banged on with a hammer to support them while ignoring all that evidence that doesn't.

Join the discussion. :thumb:

 

[Lordkalvan]

Join the discussion. :thumb:

I just did by demonstrating a series of misunderstandings and misrepresentations underlying one of your 'evidential' posts. Didn't you notice? Surely you must have as you quoted the entirety of that commentary in your 'reply'?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe prefers science as opposed to ideas of a perpetual motion machine.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe serves as a bad example, when he makes stupid claims which are easily refuted. Any attempt at dialogue incites him to produce a torrent of abuse and unsupported assertions.

I really would like him to show us that "math that refutes evolution" though.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe takes Cabinetmaker back to logic 101.

 

[Stripe]

Alate admits air-breathing creatures would be disadvantaged in water.

I wonder what story the evolutionists have invented to get whales to evolve? :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Stripe explains the formation of the Grand Canyon's layers. That is, prior to the canyon being carved.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Stripe explain the formation of the Grand Canyon's layers. That is, prior to the canyon being carved.

Is this you "explaining" things or Walt Brown?

 

[Stripe]

Cabinethead tries his hand at science and falls flat on his face -- again. :chuckle:

(paraphrase) Can a fluid flow accelerate rocks to Earth escape velocity?

Allow me to paraphrase GC: A fluid flow cannot accelerate an object to escape velocity and launch it into space.

It was such a trivial question... Yes, the exhaust of a rocket motor expels fluid at supersonic velocities. Yes, rocket motors can launch objects into space.

Perhaps if the evolutionists would spend more time analyzing ideas instead of believing that everything a creationist says must be wrong, they wouldn't embarrass themselves like this. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

Dennyg1 asks for evidence, then runs for the hills (which are built of what he is looking for) when he gets it. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

Squid can re-jig their RNA, evolutionists dodge having to provide an explanation by saying that, despite the evidence, others have not changed their belief.

 

[Dennyg1]

Stripe is a big proponent of focusing on the evidence. He often accuses others of not providing evidence for their arguments, but it is becoming harder and harder to recall the last time he posted anything more substantial than questions, assertions and insults.

I know that Stripe cares about the truth and he's very adamant that large amounts of mainstream science is clearly and obviously wrong.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume he must have written many valuable posts on a range of scientific topics, so I have a created a thread where anyone can link to his most substantive and well-sourced science posts.

I think he squeezed out a couple on the subject of the mantle in the last year, but there surely must be more than that. Someone so dedicated to evidence could surely not expect everyone else to thoroughly substantiate and explain their positions while rarely doing the same himself.

Stripe is invited to post his own submission for the post of which he is proudest, although I don't think he will. Maybe he doesn't remember either?

This is the best thread I've ever seen

 

[Dennyg1]

Might already be here but if you haven't seen the Squid RNA thread that Stripe started, you want to. Here it is:

Problems for Evolution----squid recodes it's own RNA
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108259

No. I know how to approach science as a scientist rather than as a devotee to one belief or another.

Please elaborate....

Creationists have no problem with a squid being able to recode its RNA, because that is consistent with their belief that all creatures are designed.

However, evolutionists do not follow the scientific method. Instead of explaining the evidence, they simply assert the truth of their idea.

Can't argue with that logic. He's sharp this one

 

[The Barbarian]

The evidence for a global flood is everywhere: billions of dead things drowned and buried in vast layers of sediment.

Yep, all those "drowned" fish, coral, mollusks, etc. Except for the numerous fossils found in desert sands, and aeolian deposits. Speaking of which Stipe, explain why the fossils are sorted with the oldest ones first. If humans were contemporary with trilobites, wouldn't you expect at least a few mammal fossils in Cambrian deposits? How about explaining why that is never found?

To make the rock layers we see, three things are needed:
First, a vast source of sediment.

Erosion does that, yes. We see that process operating now.

Second, water everywhere.

Except for those desert sands with insect burrows and rooted plants, in the middle of your "flood sediments." Must have dried out quickly between flood surges, um?

Third, cement.

Horsefeathers. No one added "cement." This is why your claim that mud from the "flood" produced nearly kilometer-high vertical walls in the grand canyon is such a crock. As you learned, erosion at Mt. St. Helens shows that it's just your fantasy.

Three physical necessities of the evidence we dig up is that:
First, the layers had to be deposited under water.

So your argument is that water-borne sediment has to be done all at once? What about observed sedimentation today, showing that it often happens very gradually?

Second, the layers had to be deposited all at the same time.

We see the process today, and it doesn't happen all at once. So you have a new assumption you can't support with evidence.

Third, the water had to be removed quickly.

Show us your evidence for that. As you know, the processes today don't require such an assumption.

The rocks cry out declaring God's work

(Barbarian listens)

They do. And right now, they're saying "Stipe is making up fairytales, again."

and His plea that you consider where you came from and to where you will return if you do not trust in Him.

You might want to give that some serious thought, yourself, Stipe. He won't send you to hell for your new doctrine that contradicts His. But threatening damnation for people who don't buy your new story, that might be more of a problem for you.

 

[Stripe]

Creationist prediction proves successful, evolutionists run for the hills. :chuckle: