User Profile: frgough


Member Since: October 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [1] November 20, 2015 at 6:42am

    Not very. Carbon-14 is produced via cosmic radiation, and we now know that cosmic radiation flux is not constant over time, therefore C14 production is not constant over time, therefore, there’s no way to tell original amounts in a sample. Depending on the amount present, C14 dating may be accurate to only a few hundred years.

  • November 20, 2015 at 6:37am

    @Romsquiz: Tu Quoque fallacy. It’s the liberal’s second favorite fallacy, next to false dichotomy.

  • [54] November 19, 2015 at 4:06pm

    74% of these refugees are able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 34. They have passed through several safe countries to focus on France, Germany and Britain, and there is now a push to bring them into the U.S.

    ISIS has claimed they would flood these nations with operatives, and we’ve already caught several trying to sneak in with the refugees. (I am continually surprised how we pretend ISIS doesn’t really mean it when they tell us exactly what they are planning).

    I think, Matt, that a whole lot of these young men refugees are going to quickly form terrorist cells in the various nations they go to, or at the very least, begin colonizing by demanding the culture change to accommodate them.

    Responses (1) +
  • [10] October 15, 2015 at 6:33pm

    Two men can’t get married. One, it’s a biological absurdity. Two, it’s a biblical absurdity.

    Homosexual sex is a sin. Two men pretend marriage to give that sin moral legitimacy in society. The church seems focused on homosexual sin because homosexual activists are beating us over the head with their hate and vitriol demanding we grant their deviancy moral recognition.

    I can guarantee you if a bunch of men and women started shouting for adultery rights, you’d be hearing a lot about the evils of adultery from the Christian community.

    Responses (2) +
  • [7] October 15, 2015 at 6:29pm

    Sorry, but you are not. Scripture is quite clear that homosexual behavior is a sin. So, you need to decide which god you follow: your Father in Heaven, or your sexual appetite.

  • [21] October 15, 2015 at 3:49pm

    HarryPotter: The 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not cherry pick scripture.

  • [8] October 14, 2015 at 8:12pm

    dvlman, did you actually read the verses you quoted? Because it DOESN’T say:

    I was an hungered and you taxed your neighbor…
    I was thirsty, and you taxed the rich publican…
    I was naked and you taxed the blacksmith…

  • [12] October 14, 2015 at 2:14pm

    Sadly, conservatives also fall for this trap, thinking that if we just get the right person running things, all the problems will go away. The reality is, this needs to get fixed from the bottom up. We have to shift the culture back, and I don’t see that happening.

    Responses (2) +
  • [15] October 14, 2015 at 2:10pm

    The irony is everything you just cited has happened by direct action of Obama, yet you don’t blame him for it.

  • [19] October 14, 2015 at 2:06pm

    If you think Jesus was the original socialist, I direct you to the Parable of the Laborers (Matthew 20). Specifically verses 13-15:
    But he answered one of them, “I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. DON’T I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY OWN MONEY? Or are you envious because I am generous?”

  • [13] September 22, 2015 at 5:05pm

    Unnecessary. If I made abortion illegal, removed government interference in health care and health insurance, reduced taxation and job killing regulation and socialism, and promoted marriage and family, new mothers would have access to health care, a livable income, food, shelter, and all the other things you think are only possible with a government program.

    Responses (12) +
  • [5] July 3, 2015 at 1:30pm

    Suggest you go back and read a book on basic human biology, focusing on the chapter on sexual reproduction. Because then you won’t sound like such a fool when you go around denying basic biological science.

  • [24] July 3, 2015 at 1:29pm

    Actually, the sin you are illustrating right now is bearing false witness. Because your accusations are just that. A false witness.

    In reply to jeffg730's comment on the contribution No, America Is Not a Great Nation

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] June 9, 2015 at 10:53pm

    Archeology is most definitely a very soft science. For the simple reason it’s almost impossible to do any sort of laboratory experimentation to independently verify your claims.

    When you assemble bones and then take a vote to see if you did it right, you barely qualify as scientific.

  • [1] June 9, 2015 at 10:52pm

    Except, apparently, the lifetime of soft tissue.

  • [2] June 9, 2015 at 10:51pm

    No, the evidence suggests that our dating techniques are horribly inaccurate and the bone is not 75 million years old.

    Real scientists aren’t afraid to go where the evidence leads. If chemistry tells us soft tissue can’t survive for 75 million years, and we find soft tissue in a bone dated to 75 million years, then the only conclusion you can reach is that the bone is either contaminated or is not 75 million years old. There are no other options.

  • June 9, 2015 at 10:48pm

    Or more likely, TheMotWay, our dating techniques are horribly inaccurate and the bones are not 75 million years old, but instead a few thousand.

    But nobody wants to follow the evidence precisely because that would be the conclusion.

  • [2] June 9, 2015 at 10:46pm

    Laws of chemistry. That’s why not. If these folks were the least bit scientific, they would be jumping up and down in excitement because finding the soft tissue means their dating techniques are completely wrong and everything they thought they knew needs to be completely re-examined. True scientists would be unable to contain their excitement at the possibility of overturning and entire paradigm.

  • [7] June 9, 2015 at 10:41pm

    While you are proudly touting your moral scientific superiority, you might want to take time to consider the chemical impossibility of any sort of soft tissue surviving for 75 million years.

    Finding any type of soft tissue, in a truly scientific discipline, would be incredibly exciting, on the order of discovering red shift being caused by something other than expansion of the universe, because it would overturn an entire accepted understanding of how we thought things were.

    True scientists find that exciting.

    In simpler terms: soft tissue in dinosaur fossils is smoking gun evidence that the fossil is not 75 million years old, or even a million years old, or even 100,000 years old. In fact, it would be a stretch to consider it 10,000 years old.

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] June 9, 2015 at 10:21pm

    False Dichotomy is the mating cry of the liberal.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love