Reply With Quote
How do you explain a fossilized cowboy boot?
mouse, what is your theory on how humans came to be?
How do you explain a fossilized cowboy boot?
How would you use the theory of evolution to predict Tsunamis?
I said that theories can be used to make predictions.
The theory of evolution can be used to make predictions about facts we have not yet observed. It has done this already.
I said nothing about Tsunamis, you did.
Evolutionary theory can't be used to predict Tsunamis, to my knowledge, and I thought the subject was the theory of evolution here, with some forays into physics.
It's not fossilized.How do you explain a fossilized cowboy boot?
I cannot prove a negative.We should not have huge petrified forests in every state and county.
Do you want me to prove I am not the Easter Bunny?
... and on that note...
Your own quoted material has shown you to be factually incorrect.
Every single one of the things you have posted here, has been debunked as either factually incorrect, or based on faulty logic, long ago.
Reposting bad arguments repeatedly doens't make them any truer the Nth time than it was the first time it got proven wrong.
The universe is billions of years old.
The earth, although younger is billions of years old.
Evolution explains our existance.
For evolution to be incorrect, virtually everything we know about geology, physics, chemistry, biology, and genetics to be incorrect.
There are no alternative theories that better explain our world.
That you can't present such a theory says all anyone needs to know about how much credence to give your critiques.
Your the one saying there are all these massive trees that have died over 4 billion years I say where are they you say they are fossilized I say where are they and you say you cant prove a negative?
Dude stop while your ahead.
I want you to semi back your claims as you keep asking me to do.Do you want me to prove I am not the Easter Bunny?
here's a petrified pickle while you think of more excuses.
It's petrified
Like this tree which by the way is standing through many layers of rock that Scientist claim are millions of years apart.
That picture does not show a "petrified" or fossilized boot/foot. That bit was debunked previously quite some time back. I'm sorry you can't remember it. I will not bother re-explaining it to you. Google is your friend if you truly want an explanation for it, and precisely why it is not what you seem to think it is.It's petrified
Like this tree which by the way is standing through many layers of rock that Scientist claim are millions of years apart.
Debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html
I don't claim all dead trees are fossilized.
Not all dead trees become fossils or survive to be petrified.
Some do, most don't.
I will not prove things that I do not claim.
I have backed up my claims. You have provided me with supporting material yourself.
I have asked you to show evidence of:
The rate at which the sun shrinks has remained constant for billions of years.
The rate at which the moon is receding has remained constant for billions of years.
You have failed to show either. You have current measurements, but no evidence that either rate was the same a billion years ago, as it is today.
If you cannot do that then calculations or projections based on the current rate remaining permanently fixed are meaningless.
Can you show what the rate was a billion years ago for either?
I am shrinking at a rate of 1 inch per 20 years.
I am 40 years old.
If one assumes that my rate of shrinking is the same 40 years ago as it is today, I was two inches taller than I am now when I was born.
The sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per 30 minutes.
If one assumes this rate of shrinking is permanent and unchanging, then we can calculate how big it was 4 billion years ago, and exactly when it will dissappear.
If the underlying assumption "this rate is permenent" is wrong, then any calculations based on it, are logically wrong as well. My momma did not give birth to a 5' 9" Randomguy, so we must assume that my rate of growth in the past was different then.
I see when you want to prove the earth is Millions of years old you have no problem pulling out old fossle charts from the 1800's
You have no problem telling me the layers of the rocks show a time line but as soon as I post a photo of a Tree that is standing through many layers then all of a sudden it was earth that was the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology.
Well then why can't that logic work for me and when I say the layers of earth at the grand canyon be a result of a few months of flooding.
This is the problem with hardheaded Atheist they don't have a clue what the word "double standard " really means.
I like how you use a website to think for you since you have no real knowledge on this subject.
pssssst! any word yet on the petrified Pickle?
What have you claimed so far?
Holy , the irony! All you do is recycle old anti-evolution/pro-moon conspiracy evidence all the time. , you even copied and pasted other people's arguments without properly crediting them. You have never provided any original research. Don't even try to criticize others for using websites for info.
Yes but the earth didn't start off as a baby it was a result of a huge explosion.
key word "explosion" when objects are tossed away from the energy they exploded from.
That means all the planets and moons and stars had to be part of this big ass rock that decided to explode and formed this universe we live in.
You see how foolish Science sounds when you break it down?
Since we know objects that are a result from an explosion rotate in the same direction why does Jupiter have a moon rotating in the opposite direction?
Did it decided to stop spinning and then start rotating in the other direction, or did the Ort cloud monster do it?
Besides your growth analogy although very creative doesn't account for Billions of years. I'm sure if you was 4 Billion years old your size could fluctuate tremendously.
The problem with your cute scenario's it doesn't really explain much.
For example what caused this "big bang"?
and why would something exploded for no reason?
and also how did that huge ball of mass get there?
personally I really don't give a rats ass how it all began but your never going to convince me the earth is even "1 Billion" years old the fact that the earth erodes tremendously every 1000 years alone disputes that insane claim by Scientists.
Last edited by mouse; 04-13-2012 at 10:18 PM.
Yeah, science sounds really stupid when a high school dropout security guard tries to explain it.
1.) The Big Bang was a rapid expansion. You have already been told this.
2.) It didn't explode from some bigass rock.
RandomLie's source of bogus info.
Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.
The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist
I am not a creationist and you need a site that does not have an agenda and is run by bias Atheists.
Mark Allen, you are almost as dumb and dishonest as you are poor.
Post 290.
So, you don't have any evidence of what rate the sun was shrinking in the past, and what the starting diameter was?
Please provide evidence that the earth started from a "big explosion".
That is not what the generally held explanation regarding the earth states.
It may be run by biased atheists, but that has no bearing on what they claim is obsevervable science.RandomLie's source of bogus info.
Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.
The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist
I am not a creationist and you need a site that does not have an agenda and is run by bias Atheists.
Either the sky is blue or it is not. A biased atheist claiming the sky is blue does not imply that the sky is some other color.
This is what is known as an ad hominem logical fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html
Your attempt to dismiss it is rejected, because that attempt is based on something provably illogical.
You must show, to a reasonable degree, why any individual claim is wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
