SeppoPeen mainitsemat ketjut

Seuraa 
Viestejä45973
Liittynyt3.9.2015

Seppo Pietikäinen on väittänyt mm että mitään ketjua ei ollut, mutta kuten jo toisaalla osoitin, minä vastasin jokaiseen niistä Broccolin kolmesta kysymyksestä. Vaikka nyyssietiketin mukaan ei olisi tarvinnut, koska ketjussa oli tarkoitus keskustella ihan muusta kuin mitä hän rupesi kyselemään eli hän ja muut evolutionistit syyllistyivät itse siihen Sepon paheksumaan G galloppiin. Huomatkaa myös, että tuon kuuden sarjan ensimmäiset osat postasin a.t.creationismiin, SeppoP veti (jälleen nyyssietiketin vastaisesti) minut talk.originiin jonne minulla ei siis alunperin ollut tarkoituskaan postata. Eli jos olisinkin syyllistynyt Sepon väittämään pakoonpötkimiseen, niin sehän olisi ollut normaali reaktio, yleensä ihmiset pyrkivät pois paikasta jonne heidät on väkisin raahattu vastoin heidän tahtoaan (Broccoli muistaakseni oli nimenomaan talk.originsin seuraaja, ei a.t.c:n).

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism, talk.origins
From: "TJT2"
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:29:24 +0300
Local: Sun, Oct 2 2005 11:29 am
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 006 debates

Over decades there has been hundreds of debates between crea-scientist
and evo-scientists. Creationists have won almost every debate. Many
evolutionist have admitted that and tried to explain arguing that
creationists better speakers, have more charisma, etc. But that
explanation has two major problems

1. There is more evolutionists than creationists in the world, so it
statistically almost impossible that all creationist debaters are better
in stage that best evolutionist debater.

2. There has been written debates too. For example, few months ago in
Australian newspaper Sydney Morning Herald's blog-debate between AiG and
Skeptics of Australia. (Yes, I have read original pages. In fact I
informed readers of newsgroups sfnet.keskustelu.evoluutio and
sfnet.keskustelu.skeptismi when debate start, and after debate there
were some discussions, and a Finnish skeptic admitted that AiG won).

So if ToE is so good theory as you evolutionists have claimed, why we
creationists win almost all debates? I think that only valid explanation
is that your theory is NOT so good. In fact I think that whole
evolutionism isn't so good. I think that our victories in debates
clearly indicates that creationism is better option than evolutionism,
naturalism, materialism, atheism etc in all quostions related these
isms.

--
--TJT--
Katson kupeitani, vyö on totuuden, kädessäni saan Hengen miekkaa
puristaa.

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism
From: "TJT2"
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:49:05 +0300
Local: Tues, Sep 6 2005 7:49 am
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 001 HD

Haldane's dilemma is strong evidence against the theory of evolution.

--
--TJT--
all their anger expressed over creationism is a smokescreen to hide this
lack of evidence, which suggests that they are really defending a
religion, not science.

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism
From: "TJT2"
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:58:50 +0300
Local: Tues, Sep 6 2005 7:58 am
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 002 C14

"The existence of truly residual carbon-14 in material that has been
assigned an age greater than 300,000 years would invalidate long-age
theories."
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

"The specimens included coal, oil, natural gas, and other allegedly
ancient material."
http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/R ... ardner.pdf

"Every test that was made, trying to calibrate their equipment with zero
14C present, failed. Things like natural gas, coal, and even inorganic
items like various carbonate rocks contained enough 14C to be dated at
between 30,000 and 60,000 years of age. Even diamonds contained
measureable 14C."
http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

CARBON DATING UNDERCUTS EVOLUTION'S LONG AGES - IMPACT No. 364 October
2003 by John Baumgardner.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-364.htm

Response to
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html
is here
http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/tjt2/evc14vastvast.html
but sorry, it is in Finnish (well, there is some English quote and links
to English pages).

--
--TJT--
R. Dawkins has said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectualy
fulfilled atheist." The failure of Darwin's theory on the molecular
scale may cause him to feel less fulfilled...
- Behe: Darwin's Black Box, p. 250

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism, talk.origins
From: "TJT2"
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:11:36 +0300
Local: Thurs, Sep 8 2005 9:11 pm
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 003 magnetic

The Earth's Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... GeoMag.htm

"Abstract
This paper closes a loophole in the case for a young earth based on the
loss of energy from various parts of the earth's magnetic field. Using
ambiguous 1967 data, evolutionists had claimed that energy gains in
minor (non-dipole) parts compensate for the energy loss from the main
(dipole) part. However, nobody seems to have checked that claim with
newer, more accurate data. Using data from the International Geomagnetic
Reference Field (IGRF) I show that from 1970 to 2000, the dipole part of
the field steadily lost 235 ± 5 billion megajoules of energy, while the
non-dipole part gained only 129 ± 8 billion megajoules. Over that
30-year period, the net loss of energy from all observable parts of the
field was 1.41 ± 0.16 %. At that rate, the field would lose half its
energy every 1465 ± 166 years. Combined with my 1990 theory explaining
reversals of polarity during the Genesis Flood and intensity
fluctuations after that, these new data support the creationist model:
the field has rapidly and continuously lost energy ever since God
created it about 6,000 years ago."

--
--TJT--
These are exciting times to be a creationist.

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism, talk.origins
From: "TJT2"
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:14:33 +0300
Local: Thurs, Sep 8 2005 9:14 pm
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 004 magnetic2

The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... /21_3.html

"NOTE: In this paper, Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths
of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these
magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions
were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists were not."

and

"Evolutionists often say that creationist theories are not "real
science" because, they claim, such theories make no predictions which
can be tested. But in this theory we have a counterexample to their
claim. Here are some specific predictions of the theory which could be
tested by future data from space missions:

1. Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do.

2. Mercury's decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect
it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8
percent smaller than its 1975 value.

3. The upcoming Voyager 2 encounters with Uranus and Neptune should show planetary magnetic moments less than the k = 1.0 limit: 8.2 x 1025 J/T for Uranus and 9.7 x 1025 J/T for Neptune."

--
--TJT--
"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If
ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also" (John 15:18-20).

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism
From: "TJT2"
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:05:53 +0300
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2005 9:05 am
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 005 He

Helium Evidence for A Young World Remains Crystal-Clear
(April 27, 2005)
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

If I remember right, Henke wrote short reply promising that he will
address later... Have he?

--
--TJT--
The obvious conclusion? Man is not descended from the apes.

Kommentit (13)

Vierailija

"Over decades there has been hundreds of debates between crea-scientist
and evo-scientists. Creationists have won almost every debate. Many
evolutionist have admitted that and tried to explain arguing that
creationists better speakers, have more charisma, etc. But that
explanation has two major problems"

Tuossakin tekstinpätkässä on useita hyvin suuria virheitä:

A) kreationistit eivät ole tutkijoita, he ovat yhden kristinuskon suuntauksen papistoa

B) ainakin täällä nämä kreationistien ns. voitot ovat olleet hyvin kyseenalaisia, kuten on varmaankin ollut myös mainitsemissasi tapauksissa.

C) yksikään todellinen evolutionisti ei tunnustaisi hävinneensä kreationistille (koska kyseiset voitot ovat olleet valheellista kretsujen propagandaa)

Vierailija
TJT
....why we
creationists win almost all debates?.

WTF?
Onko joku kreationisti joskus tunnustanut hävinneensä väittelyn?
That'll be the day...[size=59:ouduwlf3]when imaginary hell freezes over[/size:ouduwlf3]

Vierailija
Par2
TJT
....why we
creationists win almost all debates?.

WTF?
Onko joku kreationisti joskus tunnustanut hävinneensä väittelyn?
That'll be the day...[size=59:320tqazu]when imaginary hell freezes over[/size:320tqazu]

Vertauksesi on epävalidi KOSKA Lordi voitti euroviisut joten helvetti on jo umpijäässä

Vierailija
TJT
Seppo Pietikäinen on väittänyt mm että mitään ketjua ei ollut, mutta kuten jo toisaalla osoitin, minä vastasin jokaiseen niistä Broccolin kolmesta kysymyksestä.

Minun esittämiini kysymyksiin et ole vastannut mitekään. Miten tämä pitäisi tulkita?

Vierailija

[size=200:1hv8cogy]TJT ei vain uskalla puhua itseään pussiin, VAAN PUOLUSTAA SITÄ RAAMATULLISTA P*****SA HEITTELEMÄLLÄ VASTAUKSEKSI LINKKEJÄ JOILLEKIN TÄYSIN SEKOPÄISTEN HIPPIEN YLLÄPITÄMILLE KIRKOLLISILLE SIVUILLE!![/size:1hv8cogy]

Vierailija
TJT
Seppo Pietikäinen on väittänyt mm että mitään ketjua ei ollut, mutta kuten jo toisaalla osoitin, minä vastasin jokaiseen niistä Broccolin kolmesta kysymyksestä. Vaikka nyyssietiketin mukaan ei olisi tarvinnut, koska ketjussa oli tarkoitus keskustella ihan muusta kuin mitä hän rupesi kyselemään eli hän ja muut evolutionistit syyllistyivät itse siihen Sepon paheksumaan G galloppiin. Huomatkaa myös, että tuon kuuden sarjan ensimmäiset osat postasin a.t.creationismiin, SeppoP veti (jälleen nyyssietiketin vastaisesti) minut talk.originiin jonne minulla ei siis alunperin ollut tarkoituskaan postata. Eli jos olisinkin syyllistynyt Sepon väittämään pakoonpötkimiseen, niin sehän olisi ollut normaali reaktio, yleensä ihmiset pyrkivät pois paikasta jonne heidät on väkisin raahattu vastoin heidän tahtoaan (Broccoli muistaakseni oli nimenomaan talk.originsin seuraaja, ei a.t.c:n).

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism, talk.origins
From: "TJT2"
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:29:24 +0300
Local: Sun, Oct 2 2005 11:29 am
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 006 debates

Over decades there has been hundreds of debates between crea-scientist
and evo-scientists. Creationists have won almost every debate. Many
evolutionist have admitted that and tried to explain arguing that
creationists better speakers, have more charisma, etc. But that
explanation has two major problems

1. There is more evolutionists than creationists in the world, so it
statistically almost impossible that all creationist debaters are better
in stage that best evolutionist debater.

2. There has been written debates too. For example, few months ago in
Australian newspaper Sydney Morning Herald's blog-debate between AiG and
Skeptics of Australia. (Yes, I have read original pages. In fact I
informed readers of newsgroups sfnet.keskustelu.evoluutio and
sfnet.keskustelu.skeptismi when debate start, and after debate there
were some discussions, and a Finnish skeptic admitted that AiG won).

So if ToE is so good theory as you evolutionists have claimed, why we
creationists win almost all debates? I think that only valid explanation
is that your theory is NOT so good. In fact I think that whole
evolutionism isn't so good. I think that our victories in debates
clearly indicates that creationism is better option than evolutionism,
naturalism, materialism, atheism etc in all quostions related these
isms.

--
--TJT--
Katson kupeitani, vyö on totuuden, kädessäni saan Hengen miekkaa
puristaa.

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism
From: "TJT2"
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:49:05 +0300
Local: Tues, Sep 6 2005 7:49 am
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 001 HD

Haldane's dilemma is strong evidence against the theory of evolution.

--
--TJT--
all their anger expressed over creationism is a smokescreen to hide this
lack of evidence, which suggests that they are really defending a
religion, not science.

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism
From: "TJT2"
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:58:50 +0300
Local: Tues, Sep 6 2005 7:58 am
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 002 C14

"The existence of truly residual carbon-14 in material that has been
assigned an age greater than 300,000 years would invalidate long-age
theories."
http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

"The specimens included coal, oil, natural gas, and other allegedly
ancient material."
http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/R ... ardner.pdf

"Every test that was made, trying to calibrate their equipment with zero
14C present, failed. Things like natural gas, coal, and even inorganic
items like various carbonate rocks contained enough 14C to be dated at
between 30,000 and 60,000 years of age. Even diamonds contained
measureable 14C."
http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

CARBON DATING UNDERCUTS EVOLUTION'S LONG AGES - IMPACT No. 364 October
2003 by John Baumgardner.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-364.htm

Response to
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_6.html
is here
http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/tjt2/evc14vastvast.html
but sorry, it is in Finnish (well, there is some English quote and links
to English pages).

--
--TJT--
R. Dawkins has said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectualy
fulfilled atheist." The failure of Darwin's theory on the molecular
scale may cause him to feel less fulfilled...
- Behe: Darwin's Black Box, p. 250

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism, talk.origins
From: "TJT2"
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:11:36 +0300
Local: Thurs, Sep 8 2005 9:11 pm
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 003 magnetic

The Earth's Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... GeoMag.htm

"Abstract
This paper closes a loophole in the case for a young earth based on the
loss of energy from various parts of the earth's magnetic field. Using
ambiguous 1967 data, evolutionists had claimed that energy gains in
minor (non-dipole) parts compensate for the energy loss from the main
(dipole) part. However, nobody seems to have checked that claim with
newer, more accurate data. Using data from the International Geomagnetic
Reference Field (IGRF) I show that from 1970 to 2000, the dipole part of
the field steadily lost 235 ± 5 billion megajoules of energy, while the
non-dipole part gained only 129 ± 8 billion megajoules. Over that
30-year period, the net loss of energy from all observable parts of the
field was 1.41 ± 0.16 %. At that rate, the field would lose half its
energy every 1465 ± 166 years. Combined with my 1990 theory explaining
reversals of polarity during the Genesis Flood and intensity
fluctuations after that, these new data support the creationist model:
the field has rapidly and continuously lost energy ever since God
created it about 6,000 years ago."

--
--TJT--
These are exciting times to be a creationist.

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism, talk.origins
From: "TJT2"
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:14:33 +0300
Local: Thurs, Sep 8 2005 9:14 pm
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 004 magnetic2

The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... /21_3.html

"NOTE: In this paper, Dr. Humphreys makes predictions for the strengths
of the magnetic fields for Uranus and Neptune, well before these
magnetic fields were measured by the Voyager spacecraft. His predictions
were "right on," whereas the predictions of evolutionists were not."

and

"Evolutionists often say that creationist theories are not "real
science" because, they claim, such theories make no predictions which
can be tested. But in this theory we have a counterexample to their
claim. Here are some specific predictions of the theory which could be
tested by future data from space missions:

1. Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon's rocks do.

2. Mercury's decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect
it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet's magnetic moment should be 1.8
percent smaller than its 1975 value.

3. The upcoming Voyager 2 encounters with Uranus and Neptune should show planetary magnetic moments less than the k = 1.0 limit: 8.2 x 1025 J/T for Uranus and 9.7 x 1025 J/T for Neptune."

--
--TJT--
"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If
ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also" (John 15:18-20).

Newsgroups: alt.talk.creationism
From: "TJT2"
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:05:53 +0300
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2005 9:05 am
Subject: Strong evidence against ToE part 005 He

Helium Evidence for A Young World Remains Crystal-Clear
(April 27, 2005)
http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

If I remember right, Henke wrote short reply promising that he will
address later... Have he?

--
--TJT--
The obvious conclusion? Man is not descended from the apes.

OLETKO NIIN ONNETON SEKOPÄÄ JOKA EI EDES TAJUA VOITTAVANSA VAIN KOSKA ON JUKURIPÄINEN PELLE JOKA JULISTAUTUU VOITTAJAKSI AINA KUN EI KEKSI MITÄÄN JÄRKEVÄÄ VASTAUSTA? Ja ne voiton julistuksesi perustuvat yleensä käytöstapoihin "olet tässä ketjussa voitolla mutta koska toit ulkopuolisia asioita mukaan minä voitan", onneksi teitä ei tarvitse kauan sietää, yli 95% koulustani on jumalan ja raamatun vastaista.

Vierailija
Squad
Ja vedetään rauhassa henkeä

Täytyisi olla tapaturma vakuutus hihhuleiden varalta, ne saa aivot kiehumaan raivosta niin pahasti että nyrkit ja seinä kärsii

Vierailija

voi kun tjt taas on niin saalittavan tyhma. pitaako asioista aina valehdella? ei taas tarvinnut lukea kuin muutamat ekat rivit niin heti tuli paskaa.

Vierailija
TJT
(jälleen nyyssietiketin vastaisesti)

Minkä helvetin nyyssietiketti. Jumalaut, ei sellaista olekkaan. Nyyssi ei päde täällä. Sehän on uutispuolen juttuja (news). Ihan samaa, kuin sun Nooan arkkis.

Olet todella nyrjähtänyt henkisesti. Voi, voi, mutta eihän teitä saa edes sääliä

Vierailija
Lassi
TJT
(jälleen nyyssietiketin vastaisesti)

Minkä helvetin nyyssietiketti. Jumalaut, ei sellaista olekkaan. Nyyssi ei päde täällä. Sehän on uutispuolen juttuja (news). Ihan samaa, kuin sun Nooan arkkis.

Olet todella nyrjähtänyt henkisesti. Voi, voi, mutta eihän teitä saa edes sääliä


Jos siinä piti lukea että nyssi?
Lahkonsa väännöksiä rumina pitämistään sanoista, mutta miestenvälisiin keskustelu"etiketteihinsä" olennaisina kuuluvia ?

Vierailija
Kuukkeli
Lassi
TJT
(jälleen nyyssietiketin vastaisesti)

Minkä helvetin nyyssietiketti. Jumalaut, ei sellaista olekkaan. Nyyssi ei päde täällä. Sehän on uutispuolen juttuja (news). Ihan samaa, kuin sun Nooan arkkis.
Olet todella nyrjähtänyt henkisesti. Voi, voi, mutta eihän teitä saa edes sääliä
Jos siinä piti lukea että nyssi?
Lahkonsa väännöksiä rumina pitämistään sanoista, mutta miestenvälisiin keskustelu"etiketteihinsä" olennaisina kuuluvia ?
Mielenkiintoisia asioista noita selviääkin. Liittyykö nyssi (nussi) ja etiketti siis toisiinsa?

Vierailija
Lassi
Mielenkiintoisia asioista noita selviääkin. Liittyykö nyssi (nussi) ja etiketti siis toisiinsa?

No hyi, nyt sanoit sen ääneen!
Lahkolaisten täytynee kirjoittaa tuon seurauksena kaikki väännöksensä uudelleen.
En minä etiketeistään tiedä, ajattelinpahan vain että jos heillä siinäkin joitain omia juttujaan on...

Voi tietysti olla että etiketistä puhuessaan tarkoittavat enemmin tämänkaltaista?

Etiketti mikä etiketti...

Uusimmat

Suosituimmat