I eagerly await your sermon.
I eagerly await your sermon.
Honestly though mouse, this is a cool picture. Did you know that cesium137 emits a bluish glow?
Hey, that reminds me.........have you ever been to Brazil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
You weren't a part of that were you?A few days later one man broke open the iridium window which allowed him to see the caesium chloride emitting a deep blue light.[1]
The exact mechanism by which the light was generated was not known at the time the IAEA report was written. The light is thought to be either fluorescence or Cherenkov radiation associated with the absorption of moisture by the source; similar blue light was observed in 1988 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory during the disencapsulation of a 137Cs source. The man scooped out some of the radioactive caesium and tried to light it, thinking it was gunpowder, and eventually gave up.
...
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-03-2011 at 11:05 AM.
That was one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life.
Still can't believe how re ed that was.
BTW mouse they do know how Stone Henge was built.
Mouse reminds me of this onion article:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/som...problem,11018/
This is one of the most stupidest threads ever in this forum's history.
Theses men received the same ignorant responses I am getting before they're simpleminded non believing asses were educated to their causes.
DING DING DING...
4>0rings = Thread winner.
All you other slim shady's is just imitatin'
/thread
1) THEIR, not "they're"
2) The sentence is structured so that "simpleminded non-believing asses" refers to "Theses men", i.e. the great inventors. I assume that is not what you intended.
Uh huh.
Note:Response:
1.We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:
•a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
•anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
•coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
•streamlined relict islands.
The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.
2.The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.
3.The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.
4.Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.
5.The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.
6.Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.
7.Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.
8.The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.
9.If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?
10.There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today's basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282).
Darwin was not a geologist.
We all know Darwin wasn't worth a . Some old hash smoking drunk finds a few birds on an island that look the same with different beaks then writes a book about how we evolved from snails and you simpleminded fools cling on his words like Joe Chalupa at an Obama rally.
It pains me to even have to educate some of you people to a level where I can try to debate properly.
Scientist all over the world are admitting they was wrong about the earth being Billions of years old, to bad many of them (out of fear) won't go on the record.
I suggest you don't miss my next call it will blow the host and listeners away.
The gloves are coming off now.
Someone who doesn't even know what a theory is, trying to debunk it.
That's comedy right there.
If you can't clearly state what the theory of evolution says in your own words, you have zero credibility when it comes to criticizing it, sorry.
I knew that would go over your small brain.
allow me to educate you.....
Evolution teaches us the Earth was 4 billion years old it took two billion years for it to cool down during that time there were huge pools of liquid that life started to form and millions of years later that life slithered out from the pools and grew legs.
what part of evolving from a Snail do you not get?
Evolution is your religion why not take the time to study it?
turn on your AM radio.............
Maybe being a Darwin supporter you find a banana more appealing?
Mouse pushing radioactive foods here?
as promised....
17:22 / 42:40
http://www.wabcradio.com/FlashPlayer...817&ID=2297308
mouse,
i believe in creation. However, i do not believe each creative "day" was 6,000 years. "Day" can be a relative term. I do believe the earth could have been formed billions of years ago and God put life on it in a relatively shorter recent time as laid out in Genesis, which as you know is supported by science.
Can you agree with that?
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Where did you get snail from? So from that I'm guessing that all life evolved from a snail, then (somehow going back to being aquatic), then a fog, then regressing again to an alligator, then a platypus?, then regressing again to a bird, then monkey, finally a human?
Jesus Christ you didn't go to school very long did you?
Science text books
So from that I'm guessing that all life evolved from a snail,
Read any 7th grade science book.
I knew you would get it!then (somehow going back to being aquatic), then a fog, then regressing again to an alligator, then a platypus?, then regressing again to a bird, then monkey, finally a human?
What school would you recommend?Jesus Christ you didn't go to school very long did you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)