Bill Nye slams creationism

[Brazil]

Well maybe your doing a word play on me. You want to harp on if I said that Scientist said etc that ....... the bottom line is if there were only "two" elements how did we get 105 we have today?


If you have 2 dollars in your wallet and the next time you open your wallet you have 105 dollars you have to explain how it got there.

You can try and figure out who or what put it there and you may have to realize it was a person maybe your father your creator it was his sperm.

Actually he could have digested Ecstasy the night before in your case but that is another topic.

Or you you can take the lazy low IQ Darwin way out of figuring it out and just say your 2 dollars must have evolved into 105 dollars.




What explanation sounds more likely?

:lmao

[DMC]

those who get into long ass winded debates with mouse/cosmored are worse than they are.

[mouse]

those who get into long ass winded debates with mouse/cosmored are worse than they are.

what does that say about the ones who quote them?

[Agloco]

Well maybe your doing a word play on me. You want to harp on if I said that Scientist said etc that ....... the bottom line is if there were only "two" elements how did we get 105 we have today?


If you have 2 dollars in your wallet and the next time you open your wallet you have 105 dollars you have to explain how it got there.

You can try and figure out who or what put it there and you may have to realize it was a person maybe your father your creator it was his sperm.

Actually he could have digested Ecstasy the night before in your case but that is another topic.

Or you you can take the lazy low IQ Darwin way out of figuring it out and just say your 2 dollars must have evolved into 105 dollars.




What explanation sounds more likely?


:lmao

As I stated earlier:


smh....this is going to take a while......

[mouse]

The live debate topic is open....

[RandomGuy]

As I keep saying, you are not intelligent enough to realize how badly you understand the topic.

What is the scientific explanation for elements today that are heavier than helium, mouse? In your own words.



Well maybe your doing a word play on me. You want to harp on if I said that Scientist said etc that ....... the bottom line is if there were only "two" elements how did we get 105 we have today?


If you have 2 dollars in your wallet and the next time you open your wallet you have 105 dollars you have to explain how it got there.

So, you have no idea what science has determined is the most likely explanion for heavy elements.

"Science just says they went from two elements to 105 elements".

I wasn't defending anything that is claimed.

I was simply asking you to demonstrate as clearly as possible what your understanding of the topic is.

You have done so, and the answer to "how much does mouse know about what sceintists claim heavy elements are formed?" is:

Nothing.

Unless, of course you can be more specific, again, in your own words.

Do you actually understand how these elements are formed?

[RandomGuy]

Well maybe your doing a word play on me. You want to harp on if I said that Scientist said etc that ....... the bottom line is if there were only "two" elements how did we get 105 we have today?


If you have 2 dollars in your wallet and the next time you open your wallet you have 105 dollars you have to explain how it got there.

You can try and figure out who or what put it there and you may have to realize it was a person maybe your father your creator it was his sperm.

Actually he could have digested Ecstasy the night before in your case but that is another topic.

Or you you can take the lazy low IQ Darwin way out of figuring it out and just say your 2 dollars must have evolved into 105 dollars.

What explanation sounds more likely?

:rollin

Really, "Darwin said that two elements just evolved into 105?"

That may be the single dumbest thing you have said, for oooh so many reasons.

Please elaborate. what is the "Darwin way" of getting to more than two elements?

Be specific.

[RandomGuy]

More evidence of evolution in action:

http://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html

[mouse]

As I keep saying, you are not intelligent enough to realize how badly you understand the topic.

What is the scientific explanation for elements today that are heavier than helium, mouse? In your own words.




So, you have no idea what science has determined is the most likely explanion for heavy elements.

"Science just says they went from two elements to 105 elements".

I wasn't defending anything that is claimed.

I was simply asking you to demonstrate as clearly as possible what your understanding of the topic is.

You have done so, and the answer to "how much does mouse know about what sceintists claim heavy elements are formed?" is:

Nothing.

Unless, of course you can be more specific, again, in your own words.

Do you actually understand how these elements are formed?

I don't have to know how they formed I am not a chemist. My point was if you have only "two" elements at the start of the "universe" where did the other 103 come from? This is a subject many Scientist avoid since they really have no expatiation other than "Evolution"


:rollin

Really, "Darwin said that two elements just evolved into 105?"

That may be the single dumbest thing you have said, for oooh so many reasons.

Please elaborate. what is the "Darwin way" of getting to more than two elements?

Be specific.






Let me try another scenario... I go to an isolated Island that has no fruit I give the natives one orange and one pear I come back 50 years later and they now have Apples,peaches,and plumbs.
Is it safe to ask them where did they get "5" different fruits when they only had "2" different fruits?

Are they going to say the Fruits evolved?

[redzero]

This is a subject many Scientist avoid since they really have no expatiation other than "Evolution"

How would you know? You don't even know the scientific explanation for why elements form?

neMEo8ZrwuI

Here you go, mouse. Watch this.

[mouse]

More evidence of evolution in action:

http://www.livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html

The blue eyes is considered a "mutation" don't get confused and call it evolution. Her eyes didn't change into eyes of a fish.
And even so its evolving from within the same species micro evolution that is not "macro" evolution that you need to go from ape to man.

That is a common mistake with young poorly educated students of today that think Mutations is proof of evolution.

[mouse]

How would you know? You don't even know the scientific explanation for why elements form?

I said I am not a chemist. I don't have to know. My point was Scientist avoid debating this subject. They don't explain how all the elements came about when there was only "Helium" and "Nitrogen"

The reading level in this form is decreasing by the hour.

[redzero]

There's an explanation in the video I posted, idiot.

[redzero]

:lol I like mouse's position.

"I don't know what scientists say about how elements form, but I somehow know that they don't bother explaining how they form, even though I haven't actually looked for any explanations."

:lol And why would scientists even debate the subject with you (or anybody, for that matter)? Is there element denial, too? Are scientists sinisterly lying about how elements form, and if so, why?

What exactly is your argument?

[mouse]

:lol I like mouse's position.

"I don't know what scientists say about how elements form, but I somehow know that they don't bother explaining how they form, even though I haven't actually looked for any explanations."

:lol And why would scientists even debate the subject with you (or anybody, for that matter)? Is there element denial, too? Are scientists sinisterly lying about how elements form, and if so, why?

What exactly is your argument?

I take it the Orange and the Pear scenario went over your head.

[redzero]

:lol I take it that you are still too lazy and dishonest to watch a five minute video.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't have to know how they formed I am not a chemist. My point was if you have only "two" elements at the start of the "universe" where did the other 103 come from? This is a subject many Scientist avoid since they really have no expatiation other than "Evolution"

Look up the word Fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion).

[DMC]

Do you few who are still going back and forth with Mouse actually believe he's being sincere about anything he's saying? If he were that stupid, he couldn't turn on his computer because he wouldn't believe it exists.

[redzero]

I just had to comment on his moronic, easily disproven claim that scientists don't explain how elements form.

But like I posted before, it's a combination of stupidity and dishonesty. He is attacking science to make himself seem smarter than he is, and he is making dishonest claims because his position is inherently weak.

[Brazil]

I just had to comment on his moronic, easily disproven claim that scientists don't explain how elements form.

But like I posted before, it's a combination of stupidity and dishonesty. He is attacking science to make himself seem smarter than he is, and he is making dishonest claims because his position is inherently weak.

or he is just stupid

[RandomGuy]

My point was if you have only "two" elements at the start of the "universe" where did the other 103 come from? This is a subject many Scientist avoid since they really have no expatiation other than "Evolution"

:rollin

"chemist".... :lmao "evolution" :lmao

Seriously... that is sigworthy ignorance right there.

It proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt that you neither understand evolution, nor physics.

[RandomGuy]

That is a common mistake with young poorly educated students of today that think Mutations is proof of evolution.

If you actually understood the theory of evolution, you would know that mutations are used as part of the body of proof.

Evolutionary theory is used to explain why some mutations are far more common than others, and is very good at predicting all sorts of things about mutations.

BUT

You don't understand the theory of evolution, so you don't know why, and I'm not explaining it to you.

Waste.
of.
time.

[RandomGuy]

Obviously ..OBVIOUSLY..I'm not talking about someone knowing their feelings. I'm talking about trying to convey your emotions to someone else and proving them. How do they know you aren't lying? They don't!

There are no signs of God? Are you serious? Do you honestly believe He hasn't answered prayers? I had a prayer answered myself.

Doesn't it bug you living in a world where nobody really buys into your...bah humbugging? All those churches, all those Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Buddists etc etc. When does it hit you that just maybe people prefer a God in their life? What you play totally sucks.

If God answers prayers and heals people, why doe he hate amputees so much?

[mouse]

If you actually understood the theory of evolution, you would know that mutations are used as part of the body of proof.

Evolutionary theory is used to explain why some mutations are far more common than others, and is very good at predicting all sorts of things about mutations.

BUT

You don't understand the theory of evolution, so you don't know why, and I'm not explaining it to you

Waste.
of.
time.



Sorry you feel that way good luck in future debates.


Actually your way off base Darwin said Evolution is a result of a speces losing it's poor qualities and evolving into something better evolution teaches us the strong survive and man didn't need a tail anymore so evolution is the byproduct of natural selection.

A "mutation" is the exact opposite it's an abomination of bad DNA

If mutation was part of evolution where are all the two headed monkey men fossils?

Scientist place fruit flies in a microwave and when the offspring are born with extra wings they say the fly is evolving using mutilation as proof when the truth is it's just a deformed fly.


But I wouldn't expect the little brains in here to understand that.

[redzero]

Mouse, why did you completely ignore my posts about elements?

[mouse]

I try not to debate posters who have to insult you with outdated put downs instead of doing some research

[redzero]

I did more research than you on this subject.

Do you still contend that scientists don't provide an explanation for how elements form?

[mouse]

In fact this whole "element" talk is steering us off track I have many other examples that disprove Darwin and the misguided scientist.

But I will address all element questions by Sunday morning when I am back in San Antonio were I keep most of my data.


Something for you Darwin followers to think about....,

Evolution is not taught in every country not everyone on the planet shares your outrageous claims.

[mouse]

I did more research than you on this subject.

Do you still contend that scientists don't provide an explanation for how elements form?

Maybe I was misunderstood....science may have an eplaination it's just not 100% fact it's speculation at best.

[redzero]

Maybe I was misunderstood....

You weren't. You made a stupid claim, and now you are just backpeddling.


science may have an eplaination it's just not 100% fact it's speculation at best.

How did you come to this conclusion?

[mouse]

I just saw your made for tv YouTube video :lmao

The way they just say Millions of years ago a star exploded and produced carbon and then we had oxygen talk about speculating.


The funny part of all this it only proves my point scientist claim all elements are from helium and nitrogen that was the point I made from the start.

I can't bilieve how gullible you guys are they can say cholate was formed by a large star exploding and you never question?


How did the star get there in the first place?

How did helium and nitrogen just appear out of nowhere ?

I'm sure you have another made for tv YouTube link with relaxing music.

[redzero]

You are going all over the place right now.

Are you saying that the explanation that was given about how elements form is wrong? Yes or no?

[redzero]

And if scientists don't know how elements are formed, how were they able to discover synthetic elements?

[mouse]

You are going all over the place right now.

Are you saying that the explanation that was given about how elements form is wrong? Yes or no?

What part of me talking further about elements and the fairytail scentist want to feed us on Sunday when I am back home in San Antonio did you not get?

When I produce to you the diffrent BS science has been saying and retracting over the years about this subject your going to feel very embarrassed.

[mouse]

And if scientists don't know how elements are formed, how were they able to discover synthetic elements?

That is the question I first asked.

I like how red zeros YouTube link describes oxygen all of a sudden appearing after carbon they sneak that in there so all the other elements fall into place when the truth is they are just speculating truth is scientist only know about 5% of the universe and didn't know about black matter until 30 years ago they say they have no idea how the universe works each one of them just feed off the bullshit the scientists said before.

[redzero]

You're rambling right now.

What, exactly, is your problem with the scientific explanation for how elements form? Be specific, please.

[TE]

rofl I wonder what got mouse so pissed off about science for him to ramble like this.

[RandomGuy]

I just saw your made for tv YouTube video :lmao

The way they just say Millions of years ago a star exploded and produced carbon and then we had oxygen talk about speculating.


The funny part of all this it only proves my point scientist claim all elements are from helium and nitrogen that was the point I made from the start.

I can't bilieve how gullible you guys are they can say cholate was formed by a large star exploding and you never question?


How did the star get there in the first place?

How did helium and nitrogen just appear out of nowhere ?

I'm sure you have another made for tv YouTube link with relaxing music.

The branches of physics and mathmatics that form the basis of this "speculation" take years to learn.

It ceases being "speculation when it becomes mathmatically proven, and the theories and implications are borne out in reproducible experiments, and astronomical observations.

You are too ignorant to even know how ignorant you are on this.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/images/i/1552/i02/incompetence.png?1330360292

"elements evolve" :lmao

[RandomGuy]

That is the question I first asked.

I like how red zeros YouTube link describes oxygen all of a sudden appearing after carbon they sneak that in there so all the other elements fall into place when the truth is they are just speculating truth is scientist only know about 5% of the universe and didn't know about black matter until 30 years ago they say they have no idea how the universe works each one of them just feed off the bullshit the scientists said before.


You start off with things you don't know, gather data, and figure it out. Not every theory is going to be right the first time, and the theories get better as time goes by, simply because we build on what went before, and use experiments to confirm or falsify hypotheses.

Simply because you can't understand the video doesn't make it wrong. The onlything you have proven, yet again, is that you are incapable of understanding it.

[TE]

"elements evolve" :lmao

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[mouse]

The branches of physics and mathmatics that form the basis of this "speculation" take years to learn.

It ceases being "speculation when it becomes mathmatically proven, and the theories and implications are borne out in reproducible experiments, and astronomical observations.

You are too ignorant to even know how ignorant you are on this.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/images/i/1552/i02/incompetence.png?1330360292



Have you ever googled your chart?

Many people disagree with the cookie cutter outcome you find in the text books.

Also I never said elements evoulve I said if the universe only had hydrogen and heilum then according to Darwin everything evoulved from the big bang so go back and read the orange and pear senario.

[redzero]

Again, mouse, what is your complaint about the scientific explanations for how elements form?

I know that you are at a loss for words right now, since you don't have a creationist website to copy and paste from, so I'll wait.

[DMC]

Again, mouse, what is your complaint about the scientific explanations for how elements form?

I know that you are at a loss for words right now, since you don't have a creationist website to copy and paste from, so I'll wait.
No but he has a pretty facebook page.

[mouse]

i won't lie the chemistry part of Evolution debating is my weakest field but I can guarantee you that wont really make a difference in the outcome when i present my findings. And many of you will run and hide.

a2RZzyFTTXo

[redzero]

i won't lie the chemistry part of Evolution debating is my weakest field

:lol thinking that copying and pasting things made by creationist makes you strong in any field.

And I'm not even talking about evolution. I am asking about elements.

Why won't you just elaborate on why you find the scientific explanation of how elements form, so ridiculous?

[mouse]

I don't normally reply to a bored TRoll who really doesn't want to debate properly or learn a thing or two but in the spirit of the silent majority
Who read these topics and choose to not reply due to the immature redicle they will surely experience by doing so.

I will say this.

It doesn't matter where the information comes from if it's information that adds to the topic at hand. If we are debating about slavery and you go to a kkk wedsite to borrow a photo of a black man hanging from a tree does that make you a racist or a supporter of the kkk?


Why do you give a rats ass where any
Photos or quotes come from just add to
The topic or do us a favor read more and post less.


Now with that said I am not done posting all my data on elements and the BS about the bigbang yet.


But even if I was to say ok you win I was wrong about the elements....
That still wouldn't count for the other 98% of the facts I posted you and your wannabe science buddies have no answer for.

So I still feel quite sastified I am winning this debate will continue to do so no matter how many immature TRolls I encounter along the way.

[Fabbs]

It doesn't matter where the information comes from if it's information that adds to the topic at hand. If we are debating about slavery and you go to a kkk wedsite to borrow a photo of a black man hanging from a tree does that make you a racist or a supporter of the kkk?
Yes.
The "Ok for Evo poster(s) to copy and paste but not for intelligent creation poster(s)" is....
Yes makes you wonder if its just MultiTroll going for more *hits*.

[mouse]

It's called double standards.
When science screws up they say "that's the beauty of science we are constanly revising constanly changing as we explore further"


Anyone else makes a mistakes they are fucking liers and need to shut the fuckup!

Someone finds out Jesus had a wife it's " I told you the bible was a bunch of bullshit"


Someone else finds out the earth is really 12 billion years old instead of 50 billion years old and it's "oh cool! Science is doing it's job finding out new things"


Science is the James Bond of bullshit they have liscence to lie.

[redzero]

So, if a scientist gets something wrong, it's because they are lying? It can't be because they made a mistake? Every single mistake is a lie, mouse?

And thank you for admitting that you don't know what you are talking about, in regards to elements. Without your creationist websites that you plagiarize, you can't actually come up with your arguments.

[Fabbs]

your creationist websites that you plagiarize, you can't actually come up with your arguments.
Do you plagiarize on any of your evo posts?

[redzero]

I cite my sources.

[CuckingFunt]

I don't normally reply to a bored TRoll who really doesn't want to debate properly or learn a thing or two

You reply to yourself all the time, though.

[RandomGuy]

Have you ever googled your chart?

Many people disagree with the cookie cutter outcome you find in the text books.

Also I never said elements evoulve I said if the universe only had hydrogen and heilum then according to Darwin everything evoulved from the big bang so go back and read the orange and pear senario.

Darwin didn't say anything evolved from the big bang. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang and origin of the universe.

"many people" disagreeing with something has jack shit to do with truth. "many people" could decide that running out into traffic is a fun sport, that doesn't make it a good idea, or "many people" could decide the sun is a giant marshmallow, and that wouldn't make for a good theory either.

Let's try a different tack, since you seem to be thinking that scientists are just making things up, let's see if you can agree to the fundamental principles underlying their positions. I will give up on trying to make you understand the science.

100% Serious:

Is Bigfoot real?

[Drachen]

"many people" disagreeing with something has jack shit to do with truth. "many people" could decide that running out into traffic is a fun sport, that doesn't make it a good idea, or "many people" could decide the sun is a giant marshmallow, and that wouldn't make for a good theory either.



Yes, but if many people decided this, it would quickly turn into "few people" thinking that running into traffic is fun.

[Agloco]

Bump, just for shits and giggles. I need some this weekend and I'm confident that mouse will deliver.

[mouse]

Darwin didn't say anything evolved from the big bang. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang and origin of the universe.

Can you hear yourself typing?

The "Origin" of the Universe was a result of the "big bang" how can you have a Universe without the Big bang, and Darwin's book talked about how life Evolved as a result from it.


Maybe you think this is a 9/11 topic or you forgot its called Bill Nye slams creationism

You can't debate creationism without mentioning the Big Bang or Evolution.


.


I will give up on trying to make you understand the science.

I wont won't give up on trying to make you understand the Lies of Science.




100% Serious:

Is Bigfoot real?

Define big.

Igor Vovkovinskiy wore a size 37" shoe.

Human bones have been found all over the world showing men the size of 11ft tall.

But don't take my word for it ask Cosmored.

[mouse]

Bump, just for shits and giggles. I need some this weekend and I'm confident that mouse will deliver.

I wont let you down esse...



It really doesn't matter if you believe in a God or think you "Evolved" from an Ape.


The Earth is no where near "4 Billion" years old, and I have the proof.

[mouse]

The planet Saturn has rings as we all know they are a result of debris orbiting it's gravity due to the "Big Bang" Theory.
These rings visible today expand outwards away from the planet at a rate each year that even on a good day if Science was at least 2% right this time and the solar system was just 50 Million years old? the rings would have been so far apart by now it would not even be visible by Hubble telescope.


This is hard evidence Evolutionist and Wild Cobra avoid debating me live.


http://www.windows2universe.org/saturn/magnetosphere/saturn_aurora_hubble_28_jan_2004_med.jpg

[mouse]

The Sun looses 5 foot of mass every 30 minutes. (Scientist confirmed)

How big you think the Sun would be if we went back only 500 Million years?

And they really want you to think the solar system is "12 Billion" years old?

Everything in the solar system would have burned up already.


Scientist and Professors at MIT avoid debating me on this subject and many other points I bring up every year and you really think I am intimidated by someone on a Spurs site?


http://www.meh.ro/original/2009_12/meh.ro563.jpg

[redzero]

Cite your sources, please.

[mouse]

Cite your sources, please.


psssssst!

http://www.google.com/

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/WhyEvolutionisStupid-KentHovindavi_snapshot_011234_20120922_020439.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

The Sun looses 5 foot of mass every 30 minutes. (Scientist confirmed)


Cite your sources, please.
linear mass correlations of a gaseous/plasma outer body...

Yes...

Please cite your source.

And...

How many feet do you think this 5 feet would be if solid instead of gas? Inches? Maybe less...

[Agloco]

Can you hear yourself typing?

The "Origin" of the Universe was a result of the "big bang" how can you have a Universe without the Big bang, and Darwin's book talked about how life Evolved as a result from it.


Maybe you think this is a 9/11 topic or you forgot its called Bill Nye slams creationism

You can't debate creationism without mentioning the Big Bang or Evolution.


.



I wont won't give up on trying to make you understand the Lies of Science.





Define big.

Igor Vovkovinskiy wore a size 37" shoe.

Human bones have been found all over the world showing men the size of 11ft tall.

But don't take my word for it ask Cosmored.


I wont let you down esse...



It really doesn't matter if you believe in a God or think you "Evolved" from an Ape.


The Earth is no where near "4 Billion" years old, and I have the proof.


The planet Saturn has rings as we all know they are a result of debris orbiting it's gravity due to the "Big Bang" Theory.
These rings visible today expand outwards away from the planet at a rate each year that even on a good day if Science was at least 2% right this time and the solar system was just 50 Million years old? the rings would have been so far apart by now it would not even be visible by Hubble telescope.


This is hard evidence Evolutionist and Wild Cobra avoid debating me live.


http://www.windows2universe.org/saturn/magnetosphere/saturn_aurora_hubble_28_jan_2004_med.jpg


The Sun looses 5 foot of mass every 30 minutes. (Scientist confirmed)

How big you think the Sun would be if we went back only 500 Million years?

And they really want you to think the solar system is "12 Billion" years old?

Everything in the solar system would have burned up already.


Scientist and Professors at MIT avoid debating me on this subject and many other points I bring up every year and you really think I am intimidated by someone on a Spurs site?



:lmao I love you man. We gotta go have that beer one day. :toast

[redzero]

psssssst!

http://www.google.com/

You posted it, so you should cite your sources.

[mouse]

You posted it, so you should cite your sources.

So if I asked you if your gay and you say yes why would I need you to cite your sources?

You guys have www access do your own research.


the Royal Observatory in England has recorded the sun is decreasing in size by 5ft per hour for the last 300 years

[mouse]

linear mass correlations of a gaseous/plasma outer body...
How many feet do you think this 5 feet would be if solid instead of gas? Inches? Maybe less...

By pure radiant energy / mass equivalence (e=mc2) the Sun loses a mass equivalent to ~3 feet of its radius in one hour. Add to that the mass of all the ionized material that gets ejected and you could get something like a mass equivalent to 5 feet per hour. (On top of that there's also the fact that the Hydrogen to Helium fusion reaction that powers the Sun results in there being fewer atoms in the core, a 4 fold decrease per fusion.)

You must know all energy eventually runs out. Your car battery,the charcoal in your Bar BQ grill, and so on... Scientist have confirmed the sun will eventually burn out. This isn't top secret information.

[howbouthemspurs]

Im loving the conversation

[redzero]

So if I asked you if your gay and you no why would I need you to cite your sources?

No, because I wouldn't need sources to answer that question.

If you are using information from other people, you should cite your source. Kids in school have to cite their sources. Scientists have to cite their sources. What makes you so special that you don't have to cite your sources like everybody else?

[redzero]

By pure radiant energy / mass equivalence (e=mc2) the Sun loses a mass equivalent to ~3 feet of its radius in one hour. Add to that the mass of all the ionized material that gets ejected and you could get something like a mass equivalent to 5 feet per hour. (On top of that there's also the fact that the Hydrogen to Helium fusion reaction that powers the Sun results in there being fewer atoms in the core, a 4 fold decrease per fusion.) Plagiarized from http://www.forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-7745.html And here is the rest of the post, since you left it out when you were copying and pasting:
However, that doesn't mean that the Sun's radius is actually shrinking that much, just that the mass loss is equivalent to that assuming that the density in the outer layers remains completely constant. It won't. If the Sun is losing mass it's also losing Gravitational force and the two should balance out. The Sun's atmosphere just gets a bit less dense, (unlike the creationists).

[Wild Cobra]

Mouse.

Did you know the sun is expanding, not shrinking?

It may be losing mass, but at the same time it's losing gravity. Stars expand as they go through this process. Billions of years ago, it was about 60% the diameter it is now, and before that it was larger.

Do not expect expansion rates to remain steady. I think it's around 10 billiopn years, the sun is expected to become a Red Giant. Some time after that, it may shrink again to a White Dwarf.

At least that is what science predicts.

[RandomGuy]

The planet Saturn has rings as we all know they are a result of debris orbiting it's gravity due to the "Big Bang" Theory.
These rings visible today expand outwards away from the planet at a rate each year that even on a good day if Science was at least 2% right this time and the solar system was just 50 Million years old? the rings would have been so far apart by now it would not even be visible by Hubble telescope.


This is hard evidence Evolutionist and Wild Cobra avoid debating me live.


http://www.windows2universe.org/saturn/magnetosphere/saturn_aurora_hubble_28_jan_2004_med.jpg

What evidence do you have that says these rings must have been in existence at the beginning of the solar system, as your logic implies?

Could they have been formed sometime after? Why or why not?

[RandomGuy]

Can you hear yourself typing?

The "Origin" of the Universe was a result of the "big bang" how can you have a Universe without the Big bang, and Darwin's book talked about how life Evolved as a result from it.



The origin of the universe is separate from the origin and evolution of life on this planet.

Darwin himself was ignorant of the Big Bang theory, as it came decades after his death.

You are talking about two entirely separate theories as if they are the same thing. They are not.

[RandomGuy]

By pure radiant energy / mass equivalence (e=mc2) the Sun loses a mass equivalent to ~3 feet of its radius in one hour. Add to that the mass of all the ionized material that gets ejected and you could get something like a mass equivalent to 5 feet per hour. (On top of that there's also the fact that the Hydrogen to Helium fusion reaction that powers the Sun results in there being fewer atoms in the core, a 4 fold decrease per fusion.)

You must know all energy eventually runs out. You car battery,the charcoal in your Bar BQ grill, and so on... Scientist have confirmed the sun will eventually burn out. This isn't top secret information.

Is the relationship between volume of a sphere and it's radius a linear one? Why or why not?

[mouse]

. Scientists have to cite their sources. What makes you so special that you don't have to cite your sources like everybody else?


It's bad enough I am kicking your ass in this debate now you want to know what size my foot is and where I got my shoes from?

Just try and debunk my findings and move on. If what I say is not true that shouldn't be so hard to do.

Another issue the Darwin lovers at MIT have they can't explain why some planets and moons rotate in the opposite direction when they were a result of a single explosion (Big Bang)

[mouse]

Mouse.

Did you know the sun is expanding, not shrinking?

It may be losing mass, but at the same time it's losing gravity. Stars expand as they go through this process. Billions of years ago, it was about 60% the diameter it is now, and before that it was larger.

Do not expect expansion rates to remain steady. I think it's around 10 billiopn years, the sun is expected to become a Red Giant. Some time after that, it may shrink again to a White Dwarf.

At least that is what science predicts.

Well since you pulled out the "Billion" card who can argue your point?

After all I can say in 11 Billion years we will have an alien from another planet as our president how can you disprove it?

The point is if you add the 5 ft of mass to the sun for "4 Billion" years its makes it to large to not burn everything in our solar system.

[mouse]

What evidence do you have that says these rings must have been in existence at the beginning of the solar system, as your logic implies?

Could they have been formed sometime after? Why or why not?

Well then if your going to question Saturn's rings and say they may have came later then that means your not sure what happened during the "big bang" you cant have it both ways by putting in the text books what took place "12 Billion" years ago and then start to say your not sure about Saturn.

Either the big band is a Theory or its a fact pick a side already.

[mouse]

The origin of the universe is separate from the origin and evolution of life on this planet.

.

So can you have Evolution without the big bang?

[redzero]

It's bad enough I am kicking your ass in this debate

No, you aren't.


Just try and debunk my findings and move on. If what I say is not true that shouldn't be so hard to do.

They aren't your findings. They are the findings of other people whom you plagiarized from.


Another issue the Darwin lovers at MIT have they can't explain why some planets and moons rotate in the opposite direction when they were a result of a single explosion (Big Bang)

The Big Bang was a rapid expansion, not just some explosion. I already destroyed you on this.

[phyzik]

First of all, the Big Bang IS just a theory.

But its backed by much more scientific data than just saying an omnipotent being snapped his fingers for a few days.

One of Mouse's big points of interest is in regards to the moon and its creation. He poses that the moon was created at the same time of the earth (which it was most likely not). That there is no way it would be the distance it is at now if the Earth was 4.5b years old based on its trajectory leaving the earth (about 3.8 centimeters per year). He uses this current scientific data (LOL, funny how he uses it when it supports him) to posit his theory that the earth is much younger.... However, he figures this as a linear mathmatical equation as if its always been this speed, and that the moon existed at the same time of Earths "creation". He doesnt account tidal drag, rotational mass, gravitational friction and attraction, Tectonic plate location, and the actual time of a huge impact that created the moon in the first place.

No one can be certain of the age of the moon, but the most accepted theory is that a mars-sized object struck the earth roughly between 30-100 million years after the creation of the earth and the resulting debris created the moon as it is today.... supported by the fact that alot of the rocks and debris brought back from the moon is similar to earth-based material and even further with the analysis of Mars material (I guess I should make this clear for idiots, Im not saying mars crashed into earth and created the moon and then went on to be Mars as we know it. I would hope people would have better deductive reasoning but this is the internet and I am addressing Mouse after all.)

(shit, I forgot to account for Mouse's conspiracy that we didnt land on the moon... oh wait, we did). Of course, if you ask Mouse how all the craters on the moon got there so quickly if its only a few thousand years old, he will probably say something like God was poking his finger at it.

As far as the rings of Saturn... Scientists think that since the rings are so bright, the rings must not be very old (relatively speaking (((JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR MOUSE, WE ARE TALKING BILLIONS OF YEARS))))). The reason for this is because the particles that make up the rings would collect space dust and would get dull just like dust on Earth dulls our furniture. Next, he will proably ask why other planets dont have rings?... He would be wrong. Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus all have rings. Jupiter's rings would be much older than Saturn's rings if the scientists are right when they say brighter rings are young because they haven't gotten dusty (and so far, in regards to the science, they have been right). Neptune and Uranus have very dark, almost black, rings. Here again, the rings would be much older than Saturn's rings because they are so dark. Scientists aren't sure how those rings were formed, either. But that doesnt mean we wont find the answer in the future.

As my final point, just because we dont know yet, doesnt mean science is wrong.... If you cling to the stuff that science hasnt figured out yet, your just holding on to a shrinking world that will hopefully be non-existant before I die or at least before my children die. Keep claiming the supernatural to stuff we cant explain just yet for as long as you can. It wont be much longer until people accept the truth.

We all live, we all die... There is nothing after. Enjoy it while you can. Me personaly? I'd be happy with keeling over right now, but I honeslty am hoping to survive to the day that humans can be made to live forever and leave this idiotic planet for better pastures (in reality, that is, not some fantasy utopia described by men ~3000 years ago.)

[RandomGuy]

What evidence do you have that says these rings must have been in existence at the beginning of the solar system, as your logic implies?

Could they have been formed sometime after? Why or why not?



Well then if your going to question Saturn's rings and say they may have came later then that means your not sure what happened during the "big bang" you cant have it both ways by putting in the text books what took place "12 Billion" years ago and then start to say your not sure about Saturn.

Either the big band is a Theory or its a fact pick a side already.

I am not questioning the observable fact that Saturn has rings.

You presented a calculation that implied that those rings have been in existence since the origin of our solar system. I was merely asking questions to determine how you knew that the rings of Saturn were of the same age of the solar system.

Are they? What is your evidence of their age? How would you go about determining the age of those rings?

[RandomGuy]

By pure radiant energy / mass equivalence (e=mc2) the Sun loses a mass equivalent to ~3 feet of its radius in one hour. Add to that the mass of all the ionized material that gets ejected and you could get something like a mass equivalent to 5 feet per hour. (On top of that there's also the fact that the Hydrogen to Helium fusion reaction that powers the Sun results in there being fewer atoms in the core, a 4 fold decrease per fusion.)

You must know all energy eventually runs out. You car battery,the charcoal in your Bar BQ grill, and so on... Scientist have confirmed the sun will eventually burn out. This isn't top secret information.

Is the relationship between volume of a sphere and it's radius a linear one? Why or why not?

(i.e. if you make the radius larger by one unit of distance, does this mean you add one unit of volume?)

[Agloco]

rofl I wonder what got mouse so pissed off about science for him to ramble like this.

I'll take credit for that. :lol

[Agloco]

Is the relationship between volume of a sphere and it's radius a linear one? Why or why not?

(i.e. if you make the radius larger by one unit of distance, does this mean you add one unit of volume?)

Oh here we go with those troubling non-linear relationships......

Another familiar face is having a bit of trouble with them in the political forum as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Is the relationship between volume of a sphere and it's radius a linear one? Why or why not?

(i.e. if you make the radius larger by one unit of distance, does this mean you add one unit of volume?)
More importantly, how does the mass change? Considering the composition of the sun, that is what gets complicated.

[RandomGuy]

More importantly, how does the mass change? Considering the composition of the sun, that is what gets complicated.

Indeed.

First things first. Kind of hard to have a meaningful discussion of the sun, if one does not understand the implications of volume and mass on such things.

[mouse]

What evidence do you have that says these rings must have been in existence at the beginning of the solar system, as your logic implies?

Could they have been formed sometime after? Why or why not?




I am not questioning the observable fact that Saturn has rings.

You presented a calculation that implied that those rings have been in existence since the origin of our solar system. I was merely asking questions to determine how you knew that the rings of Saturn were of the same age of the solar system.

Are they? What is your evidence of their age? How would you go about determining the age of those rings?


In a way your making my point. no one knows for sure when the rings around Saturn formed as well as when Saturn first appeared.

You cant have it both ways use Science to tell me how old the Universe is and how it got here and then at the same time not know about Saturn's rings.

I do know they are expanding outwards and you and I and Science agree on that point.

So lets call the Saturn topic a draw. You admit your not sure when the rings came about and I will do also.

I am not as stubborn as you think. My whole rant is Science won't say in the text books we are not sure when the universe formed and how Saturn got its rings, No they put in print the Earth is "4 Billion" years old and how life formed like they are experts and happened to be there when it all took place. It's all speculation.

Science won't say they are not sure when the Universe formed that would leave the door open for the bibles interpretation and that is a major no no in the Science community.


So lets move on to the other reasons the Earth is not "4 billion" years old and how Science lies in the text books.

[redzero]

How come you won't cite your sources? What are you afraid of? My request isn't unreasonable.

[mouse]

First of all, the Big Bang IS just a theory.

Then say that in the text books. When a "school" text book starts off with "12" Billion years ago a huge explosion took place...that is not theory your printing facts. The Books don't start off saying 1000s of years ago Scientists believe there was a huge explosion, it's just a theory but one many Scientist agree on.
Is that so hard to print?



But its backed by much more scientific data than just saying an omnipotent being snapped his fingers for a few days.

First off its not "data" its speculation you can't tell me something what took place "12 Billion" years ago by what others said.

That is what Science books do they go by what a scientist claims he discovered years before. Why are Darwin's evolution drawings still in the text books?

Science can't come up with their own theory they need his?

Remember at one time Scientist claimed Asbestos was good for you so save me all your "Scientists agree" on something propaganda.


One of Mouse's big points of interest is in regards to the moon and its creation. He poses that the moon was created at the same time of the earth (which it was most likely not). That there is no way it would be the distance it is at now if the Earth was 4.5b years old based on its trajectory leaving the earth (about 3.8 centimeters per year). He uses this current scientific data (LOL, funny how he uses it when it supports him) to posit his theory that the earth is much younger.... However, he figures this as a linear mathmatical equation as if its always been this speed, and that the moon existed at the same time of Earths "creation". He doesnt account tidal drag, rotational mass, gravitational friction and attraction, Tectonic plate location, and the actual time of a huge impact that created the moon in the first place.


So you feel the Big bang a son Little bang? Are you saying after the big bang took place "12 Billion" years ago and caused all matter spin in an outward motion that some of that matter somehow bounced off some imaginary wall deep in the galaxy and came back to collide with the earth and somehow formed a perfect sphere and now gently rotates around our planet?

Sounds like we just solved Saturn's rings thank you!




No one can be certain of the age of the moon,

My exact point about the solar system..... we just don't know everything about space and our planets and yet why not say so in the school books?

Because just like Darwin Science has an agenda.



but the most accepted theory is



Accepted by who? You mean by the Schools. If the schools had a backbone and said get that shit out of our science books there would be less people to agree with science. That is why many agree with science they had to take science in school!

Is any of this hard to understand? I am not against Science , keep mixing vinegar with baking soda find a cure for Autism just stop with the bullshit and lies and teachers should not use my tax dollars to teach those lies and promoting Darwin's fantasy Evolution religion.



that a mars-sized object struck the earth roughly between 30-100 million years after the creation of the earth


Dude I need to drink what you are drinking. Can you hear yourself post?

Have you seen an explosion in slow motion? Objects don't hit each other like a pinball game each particle has a space and trajectory path it must follow unless it makes contact with a solid object. Are you saying Mr. Big bang had a cousin?

.






and the resulting debris created the moon as it is today.... supported by the fact that alot of the rocks and debris brought back from the moon is similar to earth-based material and even further with the analysis of Mars material (I guess I should make this clear for idiots, Im not saying mars crashed into earth and created the moon and then went on to be Mars as we know it. I would hope people would have better deductive reasoning but this is the internet and I am addressing Mouse after all.)

Keep in mind my reply before this one was before i read the above post]




(shit, I forgot to account for Mouse's conspiracy that we didnt land on the moon

Show me a quote of me saying that. I said NASA lies to people...oh wait, are there Scientists at NASA?
never mind..... I understand the lies now. NASA has to find life on another planet to destroy religion once and for all.


.
.. oh wait, we did). Of course, if you ask Mouse how all the craters on the moon got there so quickly if its only a few thousand years old, he will probably say something like God was poking his finger at it.

ok lets try and keep this on an adult level. Show me a quote where I said there is a GOD. and second.....I'm sure there were tons of meteors and comets if a Huge big bang took place after all we still have them today. pssssst! raise the bar on your comebacks.
I am on another level of proof the Earth is not "4 Billion" years old we are past the creator theory. Lets go into the life of a comet.

The oldest comet recorded was 10-15 thousand years old "Scientists" claim comets burn out so that they can't survive any longer than that time.
. After all that is what makes the comet's long tail its debris that is burning off of the mass thus making it smaller as it burns though space.


Well if Comets are a result of the "Big bang 12 billion years" ago then why are Comets still around today if they cant burn longer than 15,000 years?

Where are the Comets coming from? (fingers crossed "please pull out the Ort Cloud fantasy")





(((JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR MOUSE, WE ARE TALKING BILLIONS OF YEARS)))))


Thanks for the heads up. I forgot my science text book.


the scientists are right

prove it.


Scientists aren't sure how those rings were formed,

Your best quote so far.


. But that doesnt mean we wont find the answer in the future.

So then you don't have the truth right now? take that crap out of the text books why confused the children? and students.


As my final point, just because we dont know yet, doesnt mean science is wrong...


Funny the Science books don't agree with you. Can you email them so they can edit the next years science books thanks.

.
If you cling to the stuff that science hasnt figured out yet, your just holding on to a shrinking world that will hopefully be non-existant before I die or at least before my children die. Keep claiming the supernatural to stuff we cant explain just yet for as long as you can. It wont be much longer until people accept the truth.

What has Science figured out? Has people not having to go to cancer treatment anymore? I missed that memo.

Hell your scientists pals can't even stop the meningitis out break we now have but they have 40 Billion dollars to tell us they found a fossil of a cockroach on mars?

Niggga please!


We all live, we all die... There is nothing after. Enjoy it while you can.

Shoulder you be standing in a bar stool at the local VFW club with your medals on your Velcro hat?

The last time I heard
We all live, we all die... There is nothing after. Enjoy it while you can. A drunk teen was about to bungee jump off an 18 ft bridge with a 19 foot bungee cord.

Do you have a "born to lose" tattoo on your arm?



Me personaly? I'd be happy with keeling over right now, but I honeslty am hoping to survive to the day that humans can be made to live forever and leave this idiotic planet for better pastures (in reality, that is, not some fantasy utopia described by men ~3000 years ago.)

Well then you'll just have to see when that day comes.

You don't have to believe in the bible to disagree with Evolution that is what the little brains think. There is Alternative design.

[Blake]

It's called the big bang ”theory” in text books.

No theory: You're a fucking idiot.

[mouse]

How come you won't cite your sources? What are you afraid of? My request isn't unreasonable.

Are you gay? How come you won't cite your sources? What are you afraid of? My request isn't unreasonable.

Your circling the drain esse you have nothing really to add to the discussion , but I do appreciate your effort in trying to participate in the debate. Who knows you may actually learn something from this and someday use my valuable information to educate others in future debates as you carry the torch of truth to the next decade.

[redzero]

I don't need to cite anybody else if I can answer a question without outside help. Your comparison is idiotic, and your fear of having to cite your sources shows your hypocrisy.

[mouse]

I don't need to cite anybody else if I can answer a question without outside help. Your comparison is idiotic, and your fear of having to cite your sources shows your hypocrisy.

This coming from someone who cant even update his signature ?

[redzero]

That comeback makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[mouse]

That comeback makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

thank you for proving my point.

[redzero]

What was your point?

[mouse's iPhone]

This coming from someone who cant even update his signature ?
Speaking of updates, when are you getting me iOS6?

[AussieFanKurt]

Who woulda thought a conversation about creationism could go for so long. I can't believe anyone in the 21st century still believes this. Even if evolution isnt proven yet, there is significantly more basis for it. Just because we haven't got the whole idea yet doesn't mean lets just believe in a fairytale with adam and eve

[mouse]

What was your point?

That swift breeze of wind that few over your head.

[mouse]

Who woulda thought a conversation about creationism could go for so long. I can't believe anyone in the 21st century still believes this. Even if evolution isnt proven yet, there is significantly more basis for it. Just because we haven't got the whole idea yet doesn't mean lets just believe in a fairytale with adam and eve

people with WWW access.

[Wild Cobra]

Indeed.

First things first. Kind of hard to have a meaningful discussion of the sun, if one does not understand the implications of volume and mass on such things.
The volume is easy to solve, though I must admit, I would have to refresh myself of the formula. It is something like 4/3πr^3, but I might be mixing some of formula the area formula with it.

Now I will look it up...

Hey... I got it right...

Area is 4πr^2

[redzero]

That swift breeze of wind that few over your head.

It's nice to see you give up again.

And all I had to ask you was to provide sources for your claims.

[RandomGuy]

The volume is easy to solve, though I must admit, I would have to refresh myself of the formula. It is something like 4/3πr^3, but I might be mixing some of formula the area formula with it.

Now I will look it up...

Hey... I got it right...

Area is 4πr^2

(facepalm)

I don't care if you can look it up, the idea is to get mouse to do so, which he won't, and neither does he understand some of the logical implications he is making, that are based on the volume of the sun.

[RandomGuy]

In a way your making my point. no one knows for sure when the rings around Saturn formed as well as when Saturn first appeared.

You cant have it both ways use Science to tell me how old the Universe is and how it got here and then at the same time not know about Saturn's rings.

I do know they are expanding outwards and you and I and Science agree on that point.

So lets call the Saturn topic a draw. You admit your not sure when the rings came about and I will do also.

I am not as stubborn as you think. My whole rant is Science won't say in the text books we are not sure when the universe formed and how Saturn got its rings, No they put in print the Earth is "4 Billion" years old and how life formed like they are experts and happened to be there when it all took place. It's all speculation.

Science won't say they are not sure when the Universe formed that would leave the door open for the bibles interpretation and that is a major no no in the Science community.

So lets move on to the other reasons the Earth is not "4 billion" years old and how Science lies in the text books.

You are attempting to debunk the scientists' claims about the age of the solar system, using calculations based on current observations of Saturns rings, and assumptions for which you just admitted you have no proof.

Your debunking then, is discarded as spurious. If the underlying assumption is wrong, then the whole thing is.

The formation of Saturn's rings has nothing to do with the age of the solar system, or the observations that have led us to solid conclusions about that age.

Let's move on to being "unsure" about something.

Let's imagine a jar, filled with jelly beans, about as big as a loaf of bread you might buy in a store.

Without taking them out and counting them, what kinds of observations could you make about how many jelly beans are in the jar, mouse?

(this question goes very directly to what you are saying about scientists being "unsure")

[Wild Cobra]

(facepalm)

I don't care if you can look it up, the idea is to get mouse to do so, which he won't, and neither does he understand some of the logical implications he is making, that are based on the volume of the sun.
I agree with you. I was simply being honest in the fact that I sometimes must look things up. Quite frankly, I surprised myself. I thought I was going to get the equation wrong. Been so long since I used that one.

[Wild Cobra]

Mouse.

What I don't get is that you try to say how inaccurate various dating methods are, and then, you use the accepted dating of objects like comets to spin another angle.

What gives? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

[mouse]

Mouse.

What I don't get is that you try to say how inaccurate various dating methods are, and then, you use the accepted dating of objects like comets to spin another angle.

What gives? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Comets are still around we can observe them. Dinosaurs are not. I am willing to toss out the Science about comets if your willing to toss out science also we can just have a debate using our personal opinions I have no problem with that. If your willing to live by the Science findings then you shall surely die by the Science findings,

My main point in showing you what science claims is to prove Science contradicts itself. I am using your Scientific findings to prove Science wrong.

Why not go after the text books publishers I didn't write this crap. And why is everyone hung up on where I get my findings from?

Just answer the questions and stop trying to derail the topic.

Another example that the earth is no where near "4Billion" years old is the salt content in the seas.
It has been calculated that about 457 million tonnes of sodium now comes into the sea every year. The minimum possible rate in the past, even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 356 million tonnes/year. How can you have seas that are not Billions of years old?



Sodium is the most common dissolved metal in the ocean. It exists in seawater as a positively charged ion. Sodium ions (Na+) form the primary salt of the sea along with negatively charged chloride ions (Cl-). The extreme solubility is caused by the cation's small size (ionic radius is 0.97 Å) and small charge (single positive charge), which allows Na+ ions to escape most geochemical processes which remove larger ions with the same or greater charge.

The worldwide delivery of Na+ to the ocean by rivers has been recognized by scientists for hundreds of years. Almost three hundred years ago Edmund Halley [1] recognized that salt cannot easily leave the ocean and suggested that the age of the ocean might be established from knowledge of how much salt enters it year by year from rivers. Nearly one hundred years ago John Joly [2] measured the amount of Na+ dissolved in river water and estimated with extraordinary accuracy the global yearly input of Na+ to the ocean. Joly said it would take 80 to 90 million years for the sea to accumulate its present amount of Na+, if it did so at a constant rate and had none in the beginning. That calculation was accepted by many scientists as giving the age of the earth.

[Blake]

lol asking for a compromise on facts

[RandomGuy]

if it did so at a constant rate and had none in the beginning

The sea salt problem has the same logical problem/fail as trying to use Saturn's rings, same problem as using current shrinking of the sun, same problem as using the recession rate of niagra falls, and the same problem as your comet/ooort cloud fail.

You keep making the same logical mistake, over and over.

My sons are growing right now at 1 inch/year. That does not tell me how much they will be growing in 20 years, or five years ago.

I will, for short hand, simply call this the "look at it now" mistake, simply to avoid having to explain every time you make the same mistake.

Now, answer my previous question.

[redzero]

mouse, how can anybody take you seriously when you refuse to do something as simple as citing your source? All you have to do is provide a link to where you get your arguments from, yet you're acting like I am making an unfair, irrelevant request.

Why are you so afraid of citing your source?

[mouse]

You are attempting to debunk the scientists' claims about the age of the solar system, using calculations based on current observations of Saturns rings, and assumptions for which you just admitted you have no proof.

Your debunking then, is discarded as spurious. If the underlying assumption is wrong, then the whole thing is.

The formation of Saturn's rings has nothing to do with the age of the solar system, or the observations that have led us to solid conclusions about that age.

Let's move on to being "unsure" about something.



When did I claim to be a Science professor? I am merely pointing out facts that you and your bow tie wearing Science pals at Myth busters have no answers for.
If I off base prove me wrong don't attack my credibility it has nothing to do with Saturn.





Let's imagine a jar, filled with jelly beans, about as big as a loaf of bread you might buy in a store.

Without taking them out and counting them, what kinds of observations could you make about how many jelly beans are in the jar, mouse?

(this question goes very directly to what you are saying about scientists being "unsure")


First off I would find out when Glass was invented. That would give me an idea how old the jar isn't. Then by finding out what the jar weighs w/o the jellybeans and then weighing the jar with the jelly beans I would just subtract the two numbers and come up with a close enough measurement,

the problem with science they want to tell you the jellybeans are "4 billion" years old and the jar is only "25 Million" years old and it makes no sense .
I try to expose their lies like I am doing daily in this topic to help further educate the misinformed.

For example Science wants you to believe a fossil is of a fish that lived millions of years ago ..
http://www.stonecompany.com/fossils/fishes/sarcopterygian/jurassic/coelacanth/images1/8z.jpg

and yet the same fish is found alive today.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hVul05-2VoU/T5DrUDKL-OI/AAAAAAAAHww/XFv6BvqhNCA/s400/fossil.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/WhyEvolutionisStupid-KentHovindavi_snapshot_012442_20120922_022628.jpg



Do they update the Science books? no since they have an agenda to push Darwin's religion and disproved theories on the students which is so obvious in here dealing with the misinformed posters as you can see in this topic..

you want to teach Evolution buy some tv time on PBS don't use my tax dollars to teach it in public schools.

[mouse]

The sea salt problem has the same logical problem/fail as trying to use Saturn's rings, same problem as using current shrinking of the sun, same problem as using the recession rate of niagra falls, and the same problem as your comet/ooort cloud fail.
.


If my evidence doesn't debunk your "12 billion" year old "big bang" theory why haven't you proven it? How can you have all this evidence in front of you and try and sweep it under the carpet?

You can try and side step the issues I present here but at the end you and your Darwin lovers like Bill Nye are the ones getting "slammed"

[Wild Cobra]

My main point in showing you what science claims is to prove Science contradicts itself. I am using your Scientific findings to prove Science wrong.

I think you forget relevant aspects. Isotopic dating for example is accurate only when you know the source of the isotopes, and we still have a great deal of guesswork. Quite frankly, I don't know how anyone can assign a date to a comet. We don't know where they originated from, or what the isotopic mixes are over what period of times. I haven't investigated by what method they assign these dates either. maybe they do have a good way of telling. It's not like earth geology where we have multiple examples and have a pretty good guess at what the isotopic ratios were at an items formation.

I don't have time to continue. I'm already 3 minutes past the time I usually leave for work.

So long for now.

[mouse]

here is an easy one for the little brains.

Oil pressure.

When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.

How can that be with a "4 Billion" year old earth?

[redzero]

here is an easy one for the little brains.

Oil pressure.

When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.

How can that be with a "4 Billion" year old earth?

Source?

[mouse]

I think you forget relevant aspects. Isotopic dating for example is accurate only when you know the source of the isotopes, and we still have a great deal of guesswork. Quite frankly, I don't know how anyone can assign a date to a comet. We don't know where they originated from, or what the isotopic mixes are over what period of times. I haven't investigated by what method they assign these dates either. maybe they do have a good way of telling. It's not like earth geology where we have multiple examples and have a pretty good guess at what the isotopic ratios were at an items formation.

Then if Science is "unsure" why have it as facts in the Science books?

If what your saying is even 1/2 true the science books have a lot of editing to do.


I don't have time to continue. I'm already 3 minutes past the time I usually leave for work.

So long for now.

We can take this up later give your brain time to heal.

[Blake]

here is an easy one for the little brains.

Oil pressure.

When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.

How can that be with a "4 Billion" year old earth?



Young-earth "proof" #18: The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)

18. The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates that the oil and gas have been effectively trapped. The initial, slow accumulation of oil and gas from the source area (primary migration) would hardly have had a chance to build up great pressure if the trapping rock were leaking like a sieve!

Oil and gas do a lot of migrating, and the oil accumulated in a given reservoir may have recently migrated there from another reservoir. Thus, a given pool of oil may or may not have been there for millions and millions of years. A recent geological shift in the rocks might also increase the leakage of the primary oil pool, which had been hitherto sealed for millions of years. Thus, the mere existence of leaky trapping rocks does not prove that a pool of oil and gas was recently created.

The primary migration of oil from 1 to 5 kilometers deep in the earth, where it is produced under a combination of pressure and heat acting on organic matter, probably goes hand in hand with water migration. Certainly,oil and water are often found together, the oil floating on top of the water within permeable rock. The water is squeezed out as the source sediment experiences more and more pressure. Thus, it may interest you to know how fast water migrates down ther........

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html

Trolls can be funny if they are on the smart side of the argument.

mouse is on the stupid side.

[RandomGuy]

Let's imagine a jar, filled with jelly beans, about as big as a loaf of bread you might buy in a store.

Without taking them out and counting them, what kinds of observations could you make about how many jelly beans are in the jar, mouse?

(this question goes very directly to what you are saying about scientists being "unsure")



When did I claim to be a Science professor? I am merely pointing out facts that you and your bow tie wearing Science pals at Myth busters have no answers for.
If I off base prove me wrong don't attack my credibility it has nothing to do with Saturn.

First off I would find out when Glass was invented. That would give me an idea how old the jar isn't. Then by finding out what the jar weighs w/o the jellybeans and then weighing the jar with the jelly beans I would just subtract the two numbers and come up with a close enough measurement

Ok, so you would use weight. Take the weight of the jellybeans divided by the weight of one jelly bean, to get a number of jelly beans.

1) Would the number of jelly beans that you calculated from this experiment be 100% guaranteed to be correct? Why or why not?

2) Why is this method better than simply randomly guessing a number between one and a trillion? Randomly guessing would also get a number of jelly beans.

[Agloco]

I'll hand it to mouse, his willingness to continue this line of foolishness is quite remarkable if not amusing.

[RandomGuy]

If my evidence doesn't debunk your "12 billion" year old "big bang" theory why haven't you proven it? How can you have all this evidence in front of you and try and sweep it under the carpet?

You can try and side step the issues I present here but at the end you and your Darwin lovers like Bill Nye are the ones getting "slammed"

You don't really have "evidence", though. You have certain facts, and then you either draw illogical conclusions from those facts, or make claims that aren't really supported by those facts. Sorry not falling for the trolling. It is fun and useful to step through the fundamentals of scientific inquiry though.

[mouse]

You don't really have "evidence", though. You have certain facts, and then you either draw illogical conclusions from those facts, or make claims that aren't really supported by those facts. Sorry not falling for the trolling. It is fun and useful to step through the fundamentals of scientific inquiry though.

Translation: I better find a way to bail out on this debate without looking like I lost.

On a side note, you can't call someone with over 20,000 postings a TRoll at some point you have to consider them a regular poster.

[mouse]

You don't really have "evidence", though. You have certain facts,

What is wrong with this statement? ^ So you have facts man Evolved from and ape but no evidence?

You have facts that Eisenstein used cloth diapers but no evidence? If you can use Science books ,Google links,you tube videos,and sworn affiliate's from Agloco, why must I put the crap in your mouth and spoon feed you?

Why not prove me wrong and stop bitching and using cheesy tactics to avoid my questions.

Do I need to lower the bar even further?

This isn't rocket science.

Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere:

Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere.
The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to . It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. Thus, it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old.

In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old. Some of these estimates place the atmosphere's age at 50,000 years, and others at 100,000 but they each pose serious problems for old-earth scenarios not to mention the "4 billion" year old earth fairy tail people with low IQ just seem to always gravitate to.

[redzero]

What is wrong with this statement? ^ So you have facts man Evolved from and ape but no evidence?

Maybe you should have read the rest of the sentence that you left off when you quoted him.


Why not prove me wrong and stop bitching and using cheesy tactics to avoid my questions.

Why not answer my questions instead of avoiding them using cheesy tactics?

Where are you getting these claims of yours from?

[Blake]

What is wrong with this statement? ^ So you have facts man Evolved from and ape but no evidence?

You have facts that Eisenstein used cloth diapers but no evidence? If you can use Science books ,Google links,you tube videos,and sworn affiliate's from Agloco, why must I put the crap in your mouth and spoon feed you?

Why not prove me wrong and stop bitching and using cheesy tactics to avoid my questions.

Do I need to lower the bar even further?

This isn't rocket science.

Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere:

Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere.
The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to . It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. Thus, it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old.

In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old. Some of these estimates place the atmosphere's age at 50,000 years, and others at 100,000 but they each pose serious problems for old-earth scenarios not to mention the "4 billion" year old earth fairy tail people with low IQ just seem to always gravitate to.

” Dr. Hovind (R1): The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

R1. The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed. Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?

This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974,p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. In 1968 another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!

The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast. The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere. The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates. The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around. Finally, when the water reaches a certain level in the barrel, the amount of water going into the barrel is equal to the amount leaking out the perforated sides. We say that the input and output of water is in equilibrium. The water level just sits there even though the hose is going full blast. (The barrel is made deep enough so that we don't have to worry about water overflowing the rim.)”

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

[mouse]

Maybe you should have read the rest of the sentence that you left off when you quoted him.

Maybe your right. I was doing my late night part time gig and had to use a cheesy iPhone when I tried to read his reply and just prematurely fired off an unedited response.


Why not answer my questions instead of avoiding them using cheesy tactics?

because I asked mine first.


Where are you getting these claims of yours from?

Sciencebooks.

[mouse]

Maybe you should have read the rest of the sentence that you left off when you quoted him.

Maybe your right. I was doing my late night part time gig and had to use a cheesy iPhone when I tried to read his reply and just prematurely fired off an unedited response.


Why not answer my questions instead of avoiding them using cheesy tactics?

Because I asked mine first. That is how a normal debate works.


Where are you getting these claims of yours from?

Science books.

[redzero]

Because I asked mine first. That is how a normal debate works.

People also cite their sources in normal debates, but you don't care about doing that.


Science books.

No, where are you getting your "evidence" that the earth is not billions of years old from? It's an extremely simple question that you refuse to answer.

[mouse]

” Dr. Hovind

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

Can you prove him wrong?

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

Can't wait until your over 21 so we can maybe have an adult debate someday.

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

[mouse]

People also cite their sources in normal debates, but you don't care about doing that.

I asked you if you are not gay to cite your sources and you didn't either. Can't i just take your word for it if i can't find proof on Google that your are?

If I am full of $hit why not debunk me or answer my questions?

my sources, really? How about 14 years of research and countless debates in different collage forums with a 2TB HD.
(now you have me sounding like Cosmic Cowboy.) as I post from my 40 ft Bass fishing boat.



where are you getting your "evidence" that the earth is not billions of years old from? It's an extremely simple question that you refuse to answer.

My Data

[redzero]

I asked you if you are not gay to cite your sources and you didn't either.

And I told you that I don't need to cite anybody else because the question is about me, and I know the answer without outside help. How many times are you going to use this terrible example?


Can't i just take your word for it if i can't find proof on Google that your are?

You don't take scientists' word for it, do you? There's this thing called credibility, and you don't have it. You are making these claims without providing any source, which is unacceptable when doing research.


If I am full of $hit why not debunk me or answer my questions?

These are not new questions. They have already been debunked a million times before. Other posters in this thread are debunking them, too.


my sources, really? How about 14 years of research and countless debates in different collage forums with a 2TB HD.
(now you have me sounding like Cosmic Cowboy.) as I post from my 40 ft Bass fishing boat.

Then show where you got this research.


My Data

This is not your data and these are not your claims. Show me the websites where you got these claims from.

Again, this is not an impossible or unfair request. Merely post the url of the webpage you are getting these claims from. You copy and paste everything else, so why are you dragging your feet about copying and pasting the urls?

[RandomGuy]

Let's imagine a jar, filled with jelly beans, about as big as a loaf of bread you might buy in a store.

Without taking them out and counting them, what kinds of observations could you make about how many jelly beans are in the jar, mouse?

(this question goes very directly to what you are saying about scientists being "unsure")



When did I claim to be a Science professor? I am merely pointing out facts that you and your bow tie wearing Science pals at Myth busters have no answers for.
If I off base prove me wrong don't attack my credibility it has nothing to do with Saturn.

First off I would find out when Glass was invented. That would give me an idea how old the jar isn't. Then by finding out what the jar weighs w/o the jellybeans and then weighing the jar with the jelly beans I would just subtract the two numbers and come up with a close enough measurement

Ok, so you would use weight. Take the weight of the jellybeans divided by the weight of one jelly bean, to get a number of jelly beans.

1) Would the number of jelly beans that you calculated from this experiment be 100% guaranteed to be correct? Why or why not?

2) Why is this method better than simply randomly guessing a number between one and a trillion? Randomly guessing would also get a number of jelly beans.


[skips answering].

Again, my two questions here were rather basic, and go directly to the point you are attempting to make about scientists' claims. If you could answer them, we can get to a very important idea, that we can both probably agree on.

[mouse]

And I told you that I don't need to cite anybody else because the question is about me, and I know the answer without outside help. How many times are you going to use this terrible example?

So you are gay?

ok that ended that debate.

wait cite your sources. You see how weak that sounds?

Dude i have been doing these type of debates to long to go in circles with someone who is not necessarily a nuance like Blake who can't control his immaturity persona, but you seem curious and for that i shall devote a few more replies in your honor. Trust me when others Google this topic "4 Billion years " later they will have a good laugh.



You don't take scientists' word for it, do you

I question it in the text books there's a difference from "words" to "print"


There's this thing called credibility, and you don't have it.

Neither did Bill gates when he approached IBM with DOS, Neither did Elvis when he walked into his first record studio.

Where is your credibility that your straight and not gay?
You see how ghetto you sound time after time?

Your like an old 80s record and my 1989 turntable needle is rusty and your LP is scratched and all we here in the speakers is....

"where is your..." skip "where is your..." skip "where is your..."

get some new comebacks , Google some fresh replies.

your stuck not moving slowing down the debate.



You are making these claims without providing any source, which is unacceptable when doing research.

That is your opinion, others at ST who read these topics and "also" have Google like millions others do can check out my findings for themselves they don't need you to repate yourdelf. unless...wait ... did you really think our conversation was privet like an IM?




These are not new questions. They have already been debunked a million times before. Other posters in this thread are debunking them, too.

link?



Then show where you got this research.

There goes that scratched record again, I may have to pull out my 8 tract tapes.




This is not your data and these are not your claims. Show me the websites where you got these claims from.

Dude you work part time for TSA? pull the glove out of may ass already I told you all I know.


Again, this is not an impossible or unfair request.

yes but I am going to miss my flight.



Merely post the url of the webpage you are getting these claims from. You copy and paste everything else, so why are you dragging your feet about copying and pasting the urls?

Ok I surrender .. put the Jewish star on my arm send me to the camps.....I promise I will never ever post anything I ever find on the WWW again!

shall I revert back to carrier pigeon or smoke signals to reply next time?

[redzero]

So you are gay?

No, and I don't need anybody else to help me answer that question.


ok that ended that debate.

What debate?


wait cite your sources.

For the millionth time, I don't need any source because I can answer the question myself.

Again, how many times are you going to go this route?


You see how weak that sounds?

Yes, your defense is extremely weak.


I question it in the text books there's a difference from "words" to "print"

There is no difference when it comes to research.


Where is your credibility that your straight and not gay?

Yawn.


You see how ghetto you sound time after time?

:lol Citing sources is ghetto? What?


Your like an old 80s record and my 1989 turntable needle is rusty and your LP is scratched and all we here in the speakers is....

"where is your..." skip "where is your..." skip "where is your..."

get some new comebacks , Google some fresh replies.

your stuck not moving slowing down the debate.

I keep repeating myself because you keep refusing to comply.


That is your opinion, others at ST who read these topics and "also" have Google like millions others do can check out my findings for themselves they don't need you to repate yourdelf. unless...wait ... did you really think our conversation was privet like an IM?

It is standard operating procedure when doing research. It is not just "my" opinion.


link?

Hold on, Mark. You can't ask me backup my claims while refusing to do so yourself. That's hypocritical.


There goes that scratched record again, I may have to pull out my 8 tract tapes.

Then cite your sources, and I won't repeat myself.


Dude you work part time for TSA? pull the glove out of may ass already I told you all I know.

This isn't what you know. The stuff you post is shit you take as gospel from creationists. Please, post the creationist webpages you are getting this stuff from.


yes but I am going to miss my flight.

Again, you know how to copy and paste. This takes seconds; it won't prevent you from doing anything.


Ok I surrender .. put the Jewish star on my arm send me to the camps.....I promise I will never ever post anything I ever find on the WWW again!

I didn't ask you stop posting anything you find on the internet. I asked you to cite your sources. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.


shall I revert back to carrier pigeon or smoke signals to reply next time?

No, you should cite your sources.

All this time you took to post that lame response could have been better used by simply copying and pasting the urls of your sources and posting them here.

You don't have any legitimate reason why you won't cite your sources. All you can do is whine and act like I'm being unfair.

[redzero]

And you equating having to cite sources to the persecution of Jews in the holocaust, is extremely lame.

[Agloco]

The argument may be compared to filling a barrel which has numerous small holes in its sides. We stick the garden hose in and turn it on full blast. The water coming out of the hose is analogous to the continuous production of carbon-14 atoms in the upper atmosphere. The barrel represents the earth's atmosphere in which the carbon-14 accumulates. The water leaking out the sides of the barrel represents the loss (mainly by radioactive decay) of the atmosphere's supply of carbon-14. Now, the fuller that barrel gets the more water is going to leak out the thoroughly perforated sides, just as more carbon-14 will decay if you have more of it around. Finally, when the water reaches a certain level in the barrel, the amount of water going into the barrel is equal to the amount leaking out the perforated sides. We say that the input and output of water is in equilibrium. The water level just sits there even though the hose is going full blast. (The barrel is made deep enough so that we don't have to worry about water overflowing the rim.)”

:tu

Analogous to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_equilibrium

The difference being the presence of a non-radioactive parent in this case (N-14).

[Blake]

Can you prove him wrong?

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

Can't wait until your over 21 so we can maybe have an adult debate someday.

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

Just did. You're too stupid to grasp it.

I'm sure you'll hack more creationist crap and post more unfunny jpegs per your usual.

[mouse]

No, and I don't need anybody else to help me answer that question.



What debate?



For the millionth time, I don't need any source because I can answer the question myself.

Again, how many times are you going to go this route?



Yes, your defense is extremely weak.



There is no difference when it comes to research.



Yawn.



:lol Citing sources is ghetto? What?



I keep repeating myself because you keep refusing to comply.


It is standard operating procedure when doing research. It is not just "my" opinion.



Hold on, Mark. You can't ask me backup my claims while refusing to do so yourself. That's hypocritical.



Then cite your sources, and I won't repeat myself.



This isn't what you know. The stuff you post is shit you take as gospel from creationists. Please, post the creationist webpages you are getting this stuff from.



Again, you know how to copy and paste. This takes seconds; it won't prevent you from doing anything.



I didn't ask you stop posting anything you find on the internet. I asked you to cite your sources. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.



No, you should cite your sources.

All this time you took to post that lame response could have been better used by simply copying and pasting the urls of your sources and posting them here.

You don't have any legitimate reason why you won't cite your sources. All you can do is whine and act like I'm being unfair.


Dude w/o even reading your reply I give you Mad props for your passion!

We may not agree on a subject but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledged "greatness"

now with that said.............

[mouse]

Just did. You're too stupid.
.

I may reply to you again someday the next time I happen to maybe need another South Park Cartman impersonation of an honest opinion on a semi intelligent subject like Science........."sigh".... how about we shoot for November? or is that to soon?

[mouse]

:tu

Analogous to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_equilibrium

The difference being the presence of a non-radioactive parent in this case (N-14).



Do you know how far back Carbon 14 testing can really go back?

Think before you answer.

[RandomGuy]

Let's imagine a jar, filled with jelly beans, about as big as a loaf of bread you might buy in a store.

Without taking them out and counting them, what kinds of observations could you make about how many jelly beans are in the jar, mouse?

(this question goes very directly to what you are saying about scientists being "unsure")



When did I claim to be a Science professor? I am merely pointing out facts that you and your bow tie wearing Science pals at Myth busters have no answers for.
If I off base prove me wrong don't attack my credibility it has nothing to do with Saturn.

First off I would find out when Glass was invented. That would give me an idea how old the jar isn't. Then by finding out what the jar weighs w/o the jellybeans and then weighing the jar with the jelly beans I would just subtract the two numbers and come up with a close enough measurement

Ok, so you would use weight. Take the weight of the jellybeans divided by the weight of one jelly bean, to get a number of jelly beans.

1) Would the number of jelly beans that you calculated from this experiment be 100% guaranteed to be correct? Why or why not?

2) Why is this method better than simply randomly guessing a number between one and a trillion? Randomly guessing would also get a number of jelly beans.


[skips answering].

Again, my two questions here were rather basic, and go directly to the point you are attempting to make about scientists' claims. If you could answer them, we can get to a very important idea, that we can both probably agree on.

[still no answer, sokay, there is a lot going on]

Ok, so you would use weight. Take the weight of the jellybeans divided by the weight of one jelly bean, to get a number of jelly beans.

1) Would the number of jelly beans that you calculated from this experiment be 100% guaranteed to be correct? Why or why not?

2) Why is this method better than simply randomly guessing a number between one and a trillion? Randomly guessing would also get a number of jelly beans.

[Blake]

I may reply to you again someday the next time I happen to maybe need another South Park Cartman impersonation of an honest opinion on a semi intelligent subject like Science........."sigh".... how about we shoot for November? or is that to soon?

No reply necessary.

[RandomGuy]

No reply necessary.

Speak for yourself. I really want a reply. :)

[Agloco]

Do you know how far back Carbon 14 testing can really go back?

Think before you answer.

If you understood what I was saying, you'd agree >6000 some odd years.

[Wild Cobra]

I won't claim to know carbon dating accuracies, but I do know it's complicated since the N14 to C14 conversion is not consistent over time. Do you know of a reference site by chance, that isn't too much trouble for you to find, that gives ratios vs. time?

[mouse]

http://media.photobucket.com/image/carbon%20dating%20ratios%20vs.%20time%20chart/QRAWarrior/CHMA10-IMG-005.png


http://condor.depaul.edu/sbucking/radiocarbon.gif

[Agloco]

http://media.photobucket.com/image/carbon%20dating%20ratios%20vs.%20time%20chart/QRAWarrior/CHMA10-IMG-005.png


http://condor.depaul.edu/sbucking/radiocarbon.gif

Congrats. You dug up a decay curve. Doesn't answer the question posed unfortunately.

[Wild Cobra]

http://media.photobucket.com/image/carbon%20dating%20ratios%20vs.%20time%20chart/QRAWarrior/CHMA10-IMG-005.png


http://condor.depaul.edu/sbucking/radiocarbon.gif


Congrats. You dug up a decay curve. Doesn't answer the question posed unfortunately.
True.

That is not the answer to my question. That is too simplistic.

[Wild Cobra]

I was looking for something that included this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Radiocarbon_Date_Calibration_Curve.svg/500px-Radiocarbon_Date_Calibration_Curve.svg.png

[phyzik]

Then say that in the text books. When a "school" text book starts off with "12" Billion years ago a huge explosion took place...that is not theory your printing facts. The Books don't start off saying 1000s of years ago Scientists believe there was a huge explosion, it's just a theory but one many Scientist agree on.
Is that so hard to print?

The books specifically state that it is a theory.





First off its not "data" its speculation you can't tell me something what took place "12 Billion" years ago by what others said.

That is what Science books do they go by what a scientist claims he discovered years before. Why are Darwin's evolution drawings still in the text books?

Science can't come up with their own theory they need his?

Remember at one time Scientist claimed Asbestos was good for you so save me all your "Scientists agree" on something propaganda.

We can prove it by measuring the speed of light by what we can see with telescopes. We are seeing the light from stars that origionated 10-14 billion years ago. We know the speed of light. Its mesurable. Read: DATA

As far as Darwinism is concerned, no one has come up with a better explanation , based on factual findings, thats why it is widely accepted... The proof is piled on every day if you would just look at it while taking your jesus glasses off.



So you feel the Big bang a son Little bang? Are you saying after the big bang took place "12 Billion" years ago and caused all matter spin in an outward motion that some of that matter somehow bounced off some imaginary wall deep in the galaxy and came back to collide with the earth and somehow formed a perfect sphere and now gently rotates around our planet?

Sounds like we just solved Saturn's rings thank you!

Firs of all, the Earth is not a perfect sphere.

http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/share/27/276/653/2765388_370.jpg

That is the true shape of the Earth.

The moon is also not a perfect Sphere.

Second, what the fuck are you talking about as far as a wall in space? Its fucking space you moron. We dont live in a box. You obviously dont understand gravity beyond the most simplistic explanations.




My exact point about the solar system..... we just don't know everything about space and our planets and yet why not say so in the school books?

Because just like Darwin Science has an agenda.

No one, NO ONE, in the scientific comunity has EVER said they know definitevly what the origin of the moon was. Do you even understand what "Theory" is? It's an assumption based on testable facts. Thats the beauty of science. It can, and most often does, admit it is wrong.... Unlike you.




Accepted by who? You mean by the Schools. If the schools had a backbone and said get that shit out of our science books there would be less people to agree with science. That is why many agree with science they had to take science in school!

Is any of this hard to understand? I am not against Science , keep mixing vinegar with baking soda find a cure for Autism just stop with the bullshit and lies and teachers should not use my tax dollars to teach those lies and promoting Darwin's fantasy Evolution religion.

WTF are you preaching? seriously.... What is your agenda, what is your point? Its shit like this that makes me think you are a young earth creationist. Get science out of textbooks? Its fucking SCIENCE moron... not some made up shit from 2000 years ago.




Dude I need to drink what you are drinking. Can you hear yourself post?

Have you seen an explosion in slow motion? Objects don't hit each other like a pinball game each particle has a space and trajectory path it must follow unless it makes contact with a solid object. Are you saying Mr. Big bang had a cousin?

There are simulations that have been done, including at my own work place, that show its not only possible, but likely. I cant post that info from my workplace due to my contract, but other data is readily available on the internet. Here is a simplistic version of it.

http://www.astro-photography.net/images/moon%20formation.jpg





Show me a quote of me saying that. I said NASA lies to people...oh wait, are there Scientists at NASA?
never mind..... I understand the lies now. NASA has to find life on another planet to destroy religion once and for all.

Dont be a bitch Mouse, everyone knows your the troll backing "The moon landing was fake" post.




ok lets try and keep this on an adult level. Show me a quote where I said there is a GOD. and second.....I'm sure there were tons of meteors and comets if a Huge big bang took place after all we still have them today. pssssst! raise the bar on your comebacks.
I am on another level of proof the Earth is not "4 Billion" years old we are past the creator theory. Lets go into the life of a comet.

The oldest comet recorded was 10-15 thousand years old "Scientists" claim comets burn out so that they can't survive any longer than that time.
. After all that is what makes the comet's long tail its debris that is burning off of the mass thus making it smaller as it burns though space.


Well if Comets are a result of the "Big bang 12 billion years" ago then why are Comets still around today if they cant burn longer than 15,000 years?

Where are the Comets coming from? (fingers crossed "please pull out the Ort Cloud fantasy")

OK, I admit I maybe went too far claiming your a god first person regardless of scientific theory.... As far as the Oort cloud is concerned, the data suggest that it is there based off of "long period" comets. A "long period" comet, based on its orbital tragectory, origionates some 50,000 AU outside of the solar system. While it may not be what we think it is, the data suggest there is SOMETHING out there beyond the sight of our scopes.




Thanks for the heads up. I forgot my science text book.

You dont believe in science books, so I had to point it out to be sure.



prove it.

The onus is on you to disprove it. All of the studies on this material is subject to rigurous peer review before it is published.... Are you really going to claim that thousands of scientist, at the tops of their field of study, are wrong because you say so?




Your best quote so far.

Thats the best thing about science... It knows when to correct itself.



So then you don't have the truth right now? take that crap out of the text books why confused the children? and students.

So, let me get this straight. We cant go off of what we know... RIGHT NOW... because it MAY not be the whole truth? So what should we teach exactly? Again, your sounding like a young earth creationist.... Since we dont know, god must have done it so teach that! Am I right? Why dont you tell religious fuckers to take the shit out of the bible that sounds like bullshit until THEY can prove it? You want to hold science to that standard? I want everything else held to the same standard.... Take out the talking snake, the rib woman, the zombie jesus, the walking on water, the water to wine and all that shit. At least science has a base in reality and plausability.



Funny the Science books don't agree with you. Can you email them so they can edit the next years science books thanks.

Science has no say in what is put in literature... Science is'nt the vatican. Science posts its findings and thats it. Weather its put into a textbook is irrelavent. It is what it is.



What has Science figured out? Has people not having to go to cancer treatment anymore? I missed that memo.

Hell your scientists pals can't even stop the meningitis out break we now have but they have 40 Billion dollars to tell us they found a fossil of a cockroach on mars?

Niggga please!

For one, science has allowed you to post on this forum... I really shouldnt have to list the things science has brought to the world unless you have been living under a fucking rock. As far as space travel, do you even understand the trickle-down effect? Its the same shit that creates tech from Formula 1 racing to make it into your every day car.

Here is a list of just a few things that came to fruition BECAUSE we went to space...

Pace Makers
Satalite Radio
Invisible Braces
Scratch resistant lenses
Memory foam (Tempurpedic}
Ear thermometers
Shoe Insoles
Long-distance Telecommunications (your cell phone)
Cordless Tools
Water Filters

The list goes on and on.... You just fail to see the long term benifits because it doesnt help you "RIGHT NOW"!

You just completely fail to understand the benifits of pushing ourselves farther than we have ever been. Pushing ourselves is EXACTLY what creates the technology of the future. It's not going to be scientists sitting at home like Einstein did, those days are long past, we are beyond that now. Its going to be the ones that push our race beyond that limit that we think is possible thats going to create the future. Your just too damn small minded to see the big picture.



Shoulder you be standing in a bar stool at the local VFW club with your medals on your Velcro hat?

WTF are you talking about?


The last time I heard A drunk teen was about to bungee jump off an 18 ft bridge with a 19 foot bungee cord.

Do you have a "born to lose" tattoo on your arm?

No tatoos... again, WTF are you talking about?



Well then you'll just have to see when that day comes.

You don't have to believe in the bible to disagree with Evolution that is what the little brains think. There is Alternative design.

Until there is proof, there is no alternative. Just because you want to believe in something, doesnt make it true. Thats why I bash you as a creationist. At least what I believe in is based on verifiable proof. Weather you choose to look at the proof or not is irrelevant. Its there.

[phyzik]

Ohh, and Mouse, in case you want to pull out your "Old boot" arguement.... That shit has been debunked, Carl Baugh and Don Patton have since removed the origional website after it was proven false.

Unless more rigorous evidence is provided by Baugh or other "limestone cowboy boot" advocates, their claims that the boot contains a fossilized leg must be regarded as dubious at best. It appears more likely that the boot contains unfossilized bones surrounded by whatever sediment filled and hardened in the boot void after the flesh decayed away--providing no evidence against evolution, nor even rapid fossilization.

[RandomGuy]

Let's imagine a jar, filled with jelly beans, about as big as a loaf of bread you might buy in a store.

Without taking them out and counting them, what kinds of observations could you make about how many jelly beans are in the jar, mouse?

(this question goes very directly to what you are saying about scientists being "unsure")



When did I claim to be a Science professor? I am merely pointing out facts that you and your bow tie wearing Science pals at Myth busters have no answers for.
If I off base prove me wrong don't attack my credibility it has nothing to do with Saturn.

First off I would find out when Glass was invented. That would give me an idea how old the jar isn't. Then by finding out what the jar weighs w/o the jellybeans and then weighing the jar with the jelly beans I would just subtract the two numbers and come up with a close enough measurement

Ok, so you would use weight. Take the weight of the jellybeans divided by the weight of one jelly bean, to get a number of jelly beans.

1) Would the number of jelly beans that you calculated from this experiment be 100% guaranteed to be correct? Why or why not?

2) Why is this method better than simply randomly guessing a number between one and a trillion? Randomly guessing would also get a number of jelly beans.


[skips answering].

Again, my two questions here were rather basic, and go directly to the point you are attempting to make about scientists' claims. If you could answer them, we can get to a very important idea, that we can both probably agree on.

[mouse]

The books specifically state that it is a theory.

I take you don't read many Science books. The first line is "12 Billion" years ago..........."25 million" years ago Dinosaurs....

are you going to make me post screen shots of Text books?



We can prove it by measuring the speed of light by what we can see with telescopes. We are seeing the light from stars that origionated 10-14 billion years ago. We know the speed of light. Its mesurable. Read: DATA

Data! from where? Another book you saw online? Look vato just because "you" don't question science and is happy with what ever book you read or link you find on Google doesn't make it 100% "true"

But after all it is your right to do so as you sit on your fishing boat sipping on uncle Jeds moonshine, just keep in mind many people like myself don't buy it.


As far as Darwinism is concerned, no one has come up with a better explanation ,

For who, you?
That comment alone proves my point your just another kick back redneck that doesn't want to have to think much just sit back and accept what it's says on dat der tee vee.

I'm not trying to belittle you in fact I wish I could live in your town of mayberry USA. but I have a news flash for you and Aunt Bee you didn't evolve from a rock as Science claims.





based on factual findings,

post those findings? Did Geraldo Rivera find the missing link? What channel was it on i hoped you TVO'd it I want to see it. Please tell Aunt Bee not to erase just to make room for her best of QVC show I am having problems finding the show on youtube! Can you post a link to where I can see this latest discovery?

thanks.



thats why it is widely accepted...

Slavery was widely accepted also.




the proof is piled on every day

then get off your Dale Earnhardt NASCAR shaped sofa and post some.


if you would just look at it while taking your jesus glasses off.

I remembered now why I don't debate you.
you really don't read my original postings "I don't support the bible"

Talking about Evolution and age of earth is hard enough with MIT students and professors having to do it with a drunk redneck is painful.

[mouse]

Now lets address your cute drawing that sold you on how the moon got here...

http://www.astro-photography.net/images/moon%20formation.jpg

First off its from a amateur astrologer who calls himself Rob in fact his website is called Rob's Astrophotography :lmao

The guy is just another rich kid with a high powered telescope that can take pictures and has a blog / website and he wants to tell me how the moon was formed?

:lmao

dude put down the pork skins and find some real science links and get back to me.

http://www.astro-photography.net/Formation-of-the-Moon.html


he clearly states.


Collisional Ejection Theory

psssssst! there is a reason people use that word "theory"

[redzero]

mouse, disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing is just as bad as blindly accepting everything.

[mouse]

mouse, disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing is just as bad as blindly accepting everything.

pssssst! just a heads up.....your Sig kinda tells people something about you hence "your" signature.

So if you can't change it to something else you find amusing and it's still there more than a week tells people a little more about you.

A: That you still think its the greatest gif you every seen.

B:The gif of a guy waving his junk just has you excited and memorized your to visually paralyzed to look away.

or

C: You actually think there are posters that haven't seen it yet and the ones who have would get upset if you removed it after a few weeks.



I am going with B:

[redzero]

:lol Cool non-response. You're getting awfully salty about my sig, so I think I'll keep it for a while longer.

[mouse]

It just makes it hard to waste my knowledge on a subject with someone with your attention span I am not in any way disagreeing with your metro sexual beliefs.

You can be Bisexual and still debate Evolution it's your sig I thought wasn't fresh. Nothing personal.

[mouse]

data suggest there is SOMETHING out there beyond the sight of our scopes.

The Oort cloud is a "theory" you cant use it as proof where comets come from. it's Science's "get out of jail" card.

They had to come up with a reason we still have comets if they are a result of the big bang "12 Billion" years ago. The oldest comet according to science is 10,000 to 15,000 years of age they burn out. they fucked up and didn't do the math so they covered they're tracks with the bullshit Oort cloud.

Who knew the uninformed redneck of the Club would finally pull out the Oort Cloud card?

:lmao


there is SOMETHING out there .

Like a creator? You can't have it both ways dude.

if there is "something" we don't know that could be out there than Science needs to leave the door open for "something" else besides a huge ape like missing link type man that evolved from a snail.

tit for tat

[redzero]

It just makes it hard to waste my knowledge on a subject

Since when did being able to copy and paste from creationist websites, constitute knowledge?

As was demonstrated when you tried to scoff the scientific explanation behind elements, you rely entirely on other people's arguments and are incapable of coming up with any of your own.

[mouse]

Since when did being able to copy and paste from creationist websites, constitute knowledge?

since the world wide web was created? I give up, when?


As was demonstrated when you tried to scoff the scientific explanation behind elements, you rely entirely on other people's arguments and are incapable of coming up with any of your own.

When I write a book or work in a Science lab I will.

[Agloco]

When I write a book or work in a Science lab I will.

And after you wake up from that dream it will be time for you to hit the graveyard shift at the local Wal-Mart parking lot.

Must be hard texting all of your bullshit while trying to steer the golf cart.

[mouse]

And after you wake up from that dream it will be time for you to hit the graveyard shift at the local Wal-Mart parking lot.

Must be hard texting all of your bullshit while trying to steer the golf cart.

So true ha ha! how long did you work at Walmart also?

I knew we had something in common. So a "live" debate is out of the question?

[phyzik]

I take you don't read many Science books. The first line is "12 Billion" years ago..........."25 million" years ago Dinosaurs....

are you going to make me post screen shots of Text books?

Go ahead, I DARE you to post a public school book that literally states it as hard fact. Dont post one line, post the whole section. Im talking textbook in schools, not some shit you pull off a shelf in Barnes and Noble... I Want to see you post an actual text book from school that states it as fact.

Hint: you wont find it.



Data! from where? Another book you saw online? Look vato just because "you" don't question science and is happy with what ever book you read or link you find on Google doesn't make it 100% "true"

But after all it is your right to do so as you sit on your fishing boat sipping on uncle Jeds moonshine, just keep in mind many people like myself don't buy it.

Are you seriously debating the speed of light? You just lost all credibility Mouse. It's a mesurable unit of time/space=Distance. The speed of light is not some made up shit like a jewish zombie who is his own son.




For who, you?
That comment alone proves my point your just another kick back redneck that doesn't want to have to think much just sit back and accept what it's says on dat der tee vee.

I'm not trying to belittle you in fact I wish I could live in your town of mayberry USA. but I have a news flash for you and Aunt Bee you didn't evolve from a rock as Science claims.

You obviously STILL do not understand the science of evolution. At least study it, just a little bit, before you debunk it with your rock=man theories.




post those findings? Did Geraldo Rivera find the missing link? What channel was it on i hoped you TVO'd it I want to see it. Please tell Aunt Bee not to erase just to make room for her best of QVC show I am having problems finding the show on youtube! Can you post a link to where I can see this latest discovery?

thanks.

Seriously? This has been posted MANY TIMES in your other wack-job posts from your other trolls. The fossil evidence is OVERWHELMING!!!

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/250596/The-fossil-evidence





Slavery was widely accepted also.

Yeah, The Earth was flat and the universe revolved around Earth. All proven wrong by Science. We have EVOLVED past that. Whats your point?



then get off your Dale Earnhardt NASCAR shaped sofa and post some.

Seriously Mouse? Seriously? I dont have the time to go through the countless posts where you have been proven wrong with empirical data time and time again. You just choose to ignore it. Why should I even bother? All you have to do is google it if you care to read it.

Also, NASCAR is fucking gay. I have never watched that shit more than 15 minutes in my entire life and those 15 minutes only include news stories about rednecks crashing into eachother. NASCAR is the modern human way of getting rid of the idiots from the gene pool. You should become a NASCAR driver.


I remembered now why I don't debate you.
you really don't read my original postings "I don't support the bible"

Talking about Evolution and age of earth is hard enough with MIT students and professors having to do it with a drunk redneck is painful.

You sure do make a very convincing case contrary to that position. Besides that, I actually WORK in a scientific environment. Southwest Research Institute.... What do you do? washed up never-was comedian and wanna-be computer tech? I KNOW Im right because I see the real data every day at work. You, on the other hand, think that black van passing by your house is the government keeping an eye on you because you think you know something. LOL.

I used to have a customer that thought the same way you did about 14 years ago when I worked for Texas.net... She believed the government was after her (literally, she would call asking if her e-mail account was hacked by the government and then would accuse us of conspiring with them), her e-mail address is [email protected]. I just checked on google, it looks to still be active. her website has since been taken down (with all the same conspiracy bullshit you post) but if you google that e-mail address it still shows up. You two should hook up and compile your conspiracy data. You might even get a piece.

Bottom line, we all REALISTS post peer reviewed data from respected physicist's, Astrophysicist, bioligists, anthro'pologist, geologist's and many other countless respected scientists in the world.... All you have is a transperant theory based off of fantasy science because its what you want to believe regardless of scientifically verifiable facts.

[redzero]

since the world wide web was created? I give up, when?

Nope. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.


When I write a book or work in a Science lab I will.

If you ever write a book on the matter, you would lift all your arguments from somebody else, not cite your sources, and be sued for plagiarism.

[RandomGuy]

Now lets address your cute drawing that sold you on how the moon got here...

http://www.astro-photography.net/images/moon%20formation.jpg

First off its from a amateur astrologer who calls himself Rob in fact his website is called Rob's Astrophotography :lmao

G2y8Sx4B2Sk

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Let's imagine a jar, filled with jelly beans, about as big as a loaf of bread you might buy in a store.

Without taking them out and counting them, what kinds of observations could you make about how many jelly beans are in the jar, mouse?

(this question goes very directly to what you are saying about scientists being "unsure")



When did I claim to be a Science professor? I am merely pointing out facts that you and your bow tie wearing Science pals at Myth busters have no answers for.
If I off base prove me wrong don't attack my credibility it has nothing to do with Saturn.

First off I would find out when Glass was invented. That would give me an idea how old the jar isn't. Then by finding out what the jar weighs w/o the jellybeans and then weighing the jar with the jelly beans I would just subtract the two numbers and come up with a close enough measurement

Ok, so you would use weight. Take the weight of the jellybeans divided by the weight of one jelly bean, to get a number of jelly beans.

1) Would the number of jelly beans that you calculated from this experiment be 100% guaranteed to be correct? Why or why not?

2) Why is this method better than simply randomly guessing a number between one and a trillion? Randomly guessing would also get a number of jelly beans.


[skips answering].

Again, my two questions here were rather basic, and go directly to the point you are attempting to make about scientists' claims. If you could answer them, we can get to a very important idea, that we can both probably agree on.

[RandomGuy]

Ok, so you would use weight. Take the weight of the jellybeans divided by the weight of one jelly bean, to get a number of jelly beans.

1) Would the number of jelly beans that you calculated from this experiment be 100% guaranteed to be correct? Why or why not?

2) Why is this method better than simply randomly guessing a number between one and a trillion? Randomly guessing would also get a number of jelly beans.



Again, my two questions here were rather basic, and go directly to the point you are attempting to make about scientists' claims. If you could answer them, we can get to a very important idea, that we can both probably agree on.

I will give mouse one more chance to actually answer this most important of questions. Then I will simply have to assume he is unwilling or incapable of answering it, for whatever reason.

I suspect mouse does not answer it, because he understands the implication of an honest answer, and would prefer to play troll. Either he answers it honestly, and I get him to admit something that directly sinks his "case", or he lies/ignores, and proves he is lying/ignoring real attempts at getting to his arguments. I win either way. :)

[Blake]

I will give mouse one more chance

Are you sure you can keep it at just one?

[RandomGuy]

Are you sure you can keep it at just one?

Yup. One last time. I am pretty sure he is ignoring me, but even he deserves some small benefit of the doubt. Lots of long, interspersed replies. He *might* have missed it.

[mouse]

Hey RandomLie how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? be careful how you answer this question your whole credibility on Evolution will be ruined.

You want to use jelly beans and basic math to try and prove to someone man Evolved form an Ape go right ahead.

I will just keep posting facts Evolution is a lie and let the readers decide for themselves. If you want to talk candy experiments go right ahead I am to busy in two other topics with "real" debaters who ask "real" questions.

Even if i gave you the correct answer it still doesn't prove Darwin was right or the earth is "4 billion" years old.

As for my good buddy Phyzix since you seem to be able to keep your insults in check and since I know deep down inside your not an idiot I will devote a few hours of my limited time in education you on a subject your very misinformed in.

First off when i get home tonight i will post over 5-10 Science and biology books found in the schools today. feel free to Google these books and trace what schools they are in. I am shocked you have no idea the science and Biology school books say the Earth "is" 4 Billion years old and the solar system "is" 12 - 20 Billion years old. They don't say long long ago dinosaurs roamed the earth they say "25 Million" years ago.

The books even say how long the earth took to cool down for life to form. Can you imagine how insane you would have to be to even say in a text book what life was like on planet earth 50,000 years ago? And yet these clowns claim they know what happened "12 billion" years ago?

If you really think a few Fossils and your misguided links are going to help you win this debate your seriously mistaken.


I will address all your points then i will ask you a few questions and expect the same.

[mouse]

These texts books are in the public schools today feel free to Google them or find a school student and ask to see what Biology or Science book they are using.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/School-text-books-2012.jpg


I really have nothing to hide, I am actually here to help "Expose" the lies in the School texts books.

[mouse]

More books

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/School-text-books-20121.jpg

[mouse]

A few more.....


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/School-text-books-20122.jpg

[mouse]

Did you know the population of the Earth does not mathematically match up to when Science claims man Evolved form a primate?

Population growth, today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. These are topics the Evolutionist avoid.


many of you have no idea where the Big bang theory came from.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/bigbang-lie-112.jpg

[mouse]

Seriously? This has been posted MANY TIMES in your other wack-job posts from your other trolls. The fossil evidence is OVERWHELMING!!!

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/250596/The-fossil-evidence


Do you have any clue how long it takes for Fossilization to occur?

Can you believe your tax dollars are funding this horse shit?

From nothing came something.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Science-text-book-2-1.jpg

[mouse]

As late as the 90s Science really had no idea about the big bang theory they support and kept changing the bullshit.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/bigbang-lie-118.jpg

[mouse]

Some people have no idea how many times Science had to cover Darwin's Bullshit by changing the "Theory" of the size of the "mass" that exploded.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/bigbang-lie-112-1.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/bigbang-lie-119.jpg

[mouse]

then they changed the "Theory"


1965

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/bigbang-lie-113.jpg

1972

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/bigbang-lie-114.jpg

1974

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/bigbang-lie-115.jpg


1983

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/bigbang-lie-116.jpg



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/bigbang-lie-117.jpg



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/Science-text-book-lies-1.jpg

[redzero]

Did you know the population of the Earth does not mathematically match up to when Science claims man Evolved form a primate?

Population growth, today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. These are topics the Evolutionist avoid.

There's an obvious explanation for this. It's common sense, really. Before I answer, though, I want you think for a few minutes of a reason why the population hasn't exploded to ridiculously large numbers.

Okay, now that you thought about it, tell me one reason why the population would not have exploded. Play Devil's Advocate for a moment and think from the other side.

[mouse]

There's an obvious explanation for this. It's common sense, really. Before I answer, though, I want you think for a few minutes of a reason why the population hasn't exploded to ridiculously large numbers.

Okay, now that you thought about it, tell me one reason why the population would not have exploded. Play Devil's Advocate for a moment and think from the other side.


You tell me.

[mouse]

Where are all the people?


Six billion people live on planet Earth. That sounds like a lot of people. Well, I would not want to invite them all to a barbecue at my house! However, they could all fit into an area the size of England, with more than 20 square metres each. Many of us live in cities, so we have the impression that the world is bursting with people. However, much of the world is sparsely populated.

Nevertheless, many wonder at how the population could have grown to six billion from who survived the Flood that wiped out everyone else about 4,500 years ago. When you do the figures, it confirms the truth that everyone on Earth today is a descendant of the survivors of the flood. Not only that, but if people have been here for much longer, and there was no global Flood , there should be a lot more people than there are—or there should be a lot more human remains!

Many people have problems understanding growth rates of things. When the population doubles from 16 to 32, it does not seem like much, but when it doubles from three billion to six billion it seems like a lot more. But, it is exactly the same rate of growth. Given enough generations, the number of people being added with each generation becomes astronomical. It’s like compound interest on an investment—eventually the amount being added each year becomes very great.

To illustrate this, think of the story of the inventor of chess. His king offered him a reward, but instead of gold he asked for one grain of rice doubled for each successive square on a chessboard. The number of grains would have been 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 etc. The 10th square would have 512; the 20th, 524 thousand; the 30th, 537 million. The amount of rice on the last square1would have been a number so great—vastly in excess of the total world rice harvest at present—that it would have represented wealth far exceeding that of the king. Such is the power of compounding. And population growth is compound growth—that’s why so many people are now being added each year. It’s not necessarily that people are having more children than they once did, or that fewer people are dying.
What causes population growth?

The population grows when more people are born than die. The current growth rate of the world population is about 1.7% per year.2 In other words, for every 100 million people, 1.7 million are added every year; i.e. births net of deaths.

Many assume that modern medicine accounts for the world’s population growth. However, ‘third world’ countries contribute most of the population growth, suggesting that modern medicine is not as important as many think.

Population growth in a number of South American and African countries exceeds 3% per year. In many industrialized countries with modern medical facilities, the population growth is less than 0.5%. Some relatively wealthy countries are actually declining in population.

The move from agriculture to manufacturing/technology has been a big factor in slowing population growth in industrialized countries. Farmers needed to have sons to help with the farm work. This was particularly necessary before mechanization. My own family records show that in the early- to mid-1800s in Australia, couples commonly had 8–10 surviving children. One couple had 16! And this was before the discovery of the germ basis of disease,3 aseptic surgery,4 vaccines3 and antibiotics. Opportunity to expand, combined with biology, saw growth in population of 4% or more, plus increases due to immigration. High rates of population growth were also seen in Quebec, Canada, from 1760 to 1790, following the British conquest of Canada in 1759,5 and well before the impact of modern medical knowledge.

In industrialized countries, the advent of social security pensions and retirement plans (superannuation) has probably been another major factor in the decline of population growth. These schemes mean that people do not see the need to have children for security in their old age. Furthermore, people can now easily choose how many children they have because of modern birth control methods, such as the contraceptive pill.
What growth rate is needed to get six billion people since the Flood?

It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

Of course, population growth has not been constant. There is reasonably good evidence that growth has been slow at times—such as in the Middle Ages in Europe.

Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in Shem’s line ranged from 35 to 29 years , with an average of 31 years,7 so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people.

Do the math...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D9eeEzAduEk/UBnGiLBW2WI/AAAAAAAAFX4/NfE-ReDG1yg/s1600/CheckmateD.jpg

[redzero]

You tell me.

Sigh. I knew you wouldn't give me an answer. You know, one of the most important aspects of being a good debater is knowing the opponent's stance (even better than they know it). The fact that you don't think about what your oponent's stance would be, shows how far behind you are.

Nevertheless, I will hold your hand through this so that you understand the answer. But first, I will ask you two "yes" or "no" questions (all you have to post in your response to this post is "yes" or "no" for both questions):

1.) Do you honestly want to know the answer to the question you posed? Yes or no?
2.) Do you stick by your stance? I don't want you backpedaling and claiming that your position was misunderstood. Are you saying that there would be billions, possibly trillions, more people on earth right now if it was billions of years old? Yes or no?

[redzero]

And if you are going to plagiarize, remove the personal information of the guy you are stealing from.

[mouse]

Sigh. I knew you know, one of the most important aspects of being a good debater .

Producing facts?


2.) Do you stick by your stance? I don't want you backpedaling and claiming that your position was misunderstood. Are you saying that there would be billions, possibly trillions, more people on earth right now if it was billions of years old? Yes or no?





I didn't say a thing this is public knowledge.

you can play your shell game all you want.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/WhyEvolutionisStupid-KentHovindavi_snapshot_013819_20120922_021908.jpg


Science tries to push the evidence to Geology.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/WhyEvolutionisStupid-KentHovindavi_snapshot_013822_20120922_021922.jpg

geology passes the question to Biology



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/WhyEvolutionisStupid-KentHovindavi_snapshot_013917_20120922_022028.jpg


in the end, no one wants to support Darwin

[redzero]

:lol Are you seriously incapable of answering yes or no to my inquiries? All I want from you right now are answers to my questions.

Is the answer to my first question yes or no?
Is the answer to my second question yes or no? You are posting these things as "proof" that the earth is not billions of years old, so it would be reasonable to assume that you actually think this is a good argument.

If you want to actually discuss this subject, we will. All you have to do is answer those questions.

You do want to discuss this population matter, right?

[mouse]

And if you are going to plagiarize, remove the personal information of the guy you are stealing from.

Are you saying you paid that person in your Avatar before you used it?

Do you have glass dildo that far up your High horse ass your going to pull out the copy write card?

I would have more respect for you to just not post and not involve yourself in this public humiliation.

But we all know form your postings your a Nat buzzing around the fresh shit.





Where are all the bodies?

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years11 when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artifacts—cremation was not practiced until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artifacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the Earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found.12 However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artifacts should still be found.

Now the number of human fossils found is nothing like one would expect if this ‘Stone Age’ scenario were correct. The number found is more consistent with a ‘Stone Age’ of a few hundred years, Many people groups could have used stone tools having lost the technologies of metal smelting.

[redzero]

Okay, mouse, I will go ahead anyway, because you probably will try stalling by not answering my questions.

What is one major thing a civilization would need to grow and prosper?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Okay, mouse, I will go ahead anyway, because you probably will try stalling by not answering my questions.

What is one major thing a civilization would need to grow and prosper?

I'll go with:

http://www.guidospaper.com/pictures/misc/triscuit.JPG

[mouse]

Okay, mouse, I will go ahead anyway, because you probably will try stalling by not answering my questions.

What is one major thing a civilization would need to grow and prosper?

Population Statistics

The evolutionary idea proposes a "stone age" of about 100,000 years estimating that about 10 to 100 million people lived. Don Batten in his column "Where are all the people?" "If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artifacts…If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found."


It is important to understand the rate of population growth. when a population doubles from three billion to six billion people it seems incredible but it is the same rate of growth. Like compound interest, the amount of people being added each year grows very fast. The growth rate of the world's population today has been estimated at about 2 % per year. The average growth rate needed to produce the six billion people in today's population Of course, many things including war and disease affect population growth and the calculations are influenced by many unknown events of history. However, even when considering these variables, what is known about true history remarkably confirms the ages proposed by the Bible and illustrates the impossibility of millions of years.

The problems with the old-earth position by considering the simple mathematics of population statistics. "…Suppose man has been around for one million years, as evolutionists teach. If present rates are typical there should be about 10 to the power 8600 people alive today! That's 10 with 8600 zeros following it. This number is obviously absurd, and no evolutionist would claim it to be accurate." To illustrate how outrageous this large number is, consider the number of seconds that have ticked off the clock since the beginning of time on the evolutionist's timescale. Today, evolutionists estimate the age of the universe from 12 to 15 billion years old, but for the sake of example let's say it's 30 billion years old. The number of seconds in 30 billion years is less than 10 to the 18th power!

If a two percent growth rate seems too high, Morris continues, "…Let's assume man has been here for one million years. We can calculate the population grown rate necessary to produce today's population in that length of time from an original pair, and we find it to be only 0.002 percent, quite different from known measured rates throughout recorded history."

"Even so, starting one million years ago, with a growth rate of 0.002 percent, and a present population of six billion, can you guess how many people would have lived and died throughout history? The number is so large, it is meaningless, and it's approximately the number which could just fit inside the volume of the entire earth! If all these people lived and died, where are their bones?"

In addition to the obvious problem with the lack of human bones in the fossil record many other problems exist; what about: the bones of the millions of years of human ancestors, the bones of the animals (not just one million years but 300 million years) , the volume of plants that would have existed during this time, etc. Thus, considering the most conservative estimates of the evolutionary timescale the numbers just don't add up for evolution. (Rather, the numbers add up too much.)



Population size and population growth rates indicate that of a young earth is a much more realistic explanation of the past then the old ages proposed by evolution .

[mouse]

Another point the Darwin clones avoid.....

The Dead Sea:

The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.

[cantthinkofanything]

Another point the Darwin clones avoid.....

The Dead Sea:

The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content. Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these it is possible to estimate how long this process has been going on for. Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.

how is this more important than a couple having sex on a restaurant table?

[mouse]

how is this more important than a couple having sex on a restaurant table?

According to your Atheist pals those are two snails having sex.

[redzero]

Population Statistics

You didn't answer my question.

Put the script down. Your creationist websites aren't going to help you right now. Answer my question in your own words.

What is one major thing a civilization would need to grow and prosper?

[mouse]

Answer my question in your own words.

What is one major thing a civilization would need to grow and prosper?

A Club of they're own.

[mouse]

Organic material in Dinosaur bones:

The fact is that dinosaur bones carbon date the same age as fossil mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, and Neanderthals: i.e. only thousands of years old: as opposed to millions. In this regard, dinosaur bones have been found to still retain collagen, elastin, and laminin: which should have decayed in less than 50,000 years.

The Oldest Fossil Trees have about 1600 tree rings. this isn't rocket science people.

[redzero]

A Club of they're own.

So you're not actually going to respond seriously? I thought so.

For all your posturing, when it comes down to it, you're too stupid and dishonest to have an actual debate with.

[mouse]

So you're not actually going to respond seriously? I thought so.

For all your posturing, when it comes down to it, you're too stupid and dishonest to have an actual debate with.

Pssssst!
Why not try and bring some evidence the earth is billions of years old or try and maybe debunk my evidence the earth is not Billions of years old,
and then maybe you can say you know how to debate someone who doesn't go around asking how many jelly beans are in a jar.

[Leetonidas]

not being able to think in such gigantic spans of times or conceptualize 15 billion years versus 50 million or even 100,000 really hinders the human mind tbh

[redzero]

try and bring some evidence the earth is billions of years old or try and debunk my evidence it's not Billions of years old and then maybe you can say you know how to debate someone who doesn't go around asking how many jelly beans are in a jar.

I am trying to debunk one of your pieces of "evidence," but you don't seem like you actually want to talk about it.

[Leetonidas]

Pssssst!
Why not try and bring some evidence the earth is billions of years old or try and maybe debunk my evidence the earth is not Billions of years old,
and then maybe you can say you know how to debate someone who doesn't go around asking how many jelly beans are in a jar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

"The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old"

[Leetonidas]

Just thought I'd give you some evidence even if you'll discredit it. Enjoy your argument

[mouse]

I am trying to debunk one of your pieces of "evidence," but you don't seem like you actually want to talk about it.

I need real Scientific evidence not your back alley "what if?" scenarios you come up with. I honestly don't have the time or wish to lower the debate bar to play your paper rock scissor games.


I have a broken LCD on my iPhone wont be able to reply until tonight if I can get a signal on the work laptop. Anyone with a used 2g iPhone for 40-50 dollars let me know.

This break in the debate should give the wannabee Scientist like DeadZero and Wild Coldbrain time to Google some serious comebacks..........

[mouse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

"The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old"


Do you know how carbon dating works?

If you did you would know Carbon dating is really only useful for organic matter that is less than 3 to 5,000 years old. Most people don’t know that but now you do!

on a side note my reply was for redZero

[redzero]

I need real Scientific evidence not your back alley "what if?" scenarios you come up with.

This is scientific evidence. It's based in history.


I honestly don't have the time or wish to lower the debate bar to play your paper rock scissor games.

How is answering simple questions lowering the debate bar?


This break in the debate should give the wannabee Scientist like DeadZero and Wild Coldbrain time to Google some serious comebacks..........

Sorry, I don't need to use google all the time like you do.

:lol Watching mouse make excuses like this is fucking hilarious. He has no justification whatsoever for why he won't answer my question, yet he is still trying to claim that I am the one getting off subject.

[mouse]

Just thought I'd give you some evidence even if you'll discredit it. Enjoy your argument

I welcome all who want to learn something about the earth they can't get in the public schools.

Considering Scientist can't figure out how old the the Shroud of Turin is I wouldn't trust them with Dinosaur bones.

http://www.innoval.com/C14/

[mouse]

:lol Watching mouse make excuses like this is fucking hilarious. He has no justification whatsoever for why he won't answer my question, yet he is still trying to claim that I am the one getting off subject.

And yet you still refuse to brig any Scientific evidence to support your findings and have yet to debunk any of mine.

You are a truly a waste of my time and vast knowledge on this subject.

(keep in mind I knew that 5 pages ago)

[redzero]

And yet you still refuse to brig any Scientific evidence to support your findings

You're doing everything in your power to ensure that that's the case by refusing to answer my questions.


and have yet to debunk any of mine.

You won't let me. I am asking you these questions because I intend to debunk your position, but for some reason unbeknownst to me, you refuse to answer my question.

For the third time, what is one major thing a civilization would need to grow and prosper? I will try to debunk your position if you answer my questions.

[mouse]

For the third time, what is one major thing a civilization would need to grow and prosper? I will try to debunk your position if you answer my questions.

I don't work for panned parenthood so your asking the wrong person, now do yo "have" and "evidence" man Evolved from a rock?


If not I suggest you go find Wild Cobra in the politics forum.

[redzero]

^ A completely nonsensical response.

I'll change my question:

mouse, if there is not enough food for a group of people, is that group likely to grow?

[mouse]

mouse, if there is not enough food for a group of people, is that group likely to grow?

I don't work for the food bank so your asking the wrong person, now do yo "have" and "evidence" man Evolved from a rock?


If not I suggest you go find Wild Cobra in the politics forum.

[redzero]

I don't work for the food bank so your asking the wrong person,

Are you saying that you are so stupid that you do not know that food is crucial to the growth of population?


now do yo "have" and "evidence" man Evolved from a rock?

Where are you getting this from? Did I claim that I had evidence that man evolved from a rock? If so, link please.

Mouse, can a society grow with insufficient resources? Yes or no?

[redzero]

And if you aren't knowledgeable in this area, why are you posting stuff about it as if they were absolute truths? You don't know enough about the subject, so how do you know that the stuff that you are posting is the truth?

[mouse]

And if you aren't knowledgeable in this area, why are you posting stuff about it as if they were absolute truths? You don't know enough about the subject, so how do you know that the stuff that you are posting is the truth?

I researched it.

Now can you prove man evolved from a lizard, or the Earth is "4 billion" years old?

[redzero]

I researched it.

How do you know that creation.com is a credible source? Or do you automatically assume that every piece of "evidence" that conforms to your opinion is true?

[mouse]

Science books written decades ago say the Earth is "4 Billion" years old many Scientists today disagree.

http://www.examiner.com/article/growing-list-of-scientists-who-consider-young-earth-creationism-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk

[redzero]

*dodges question*

Again, how do you know that creation.com is a credible source? Or do you automatically assume that every piece of "evidence" that conforms to your opinion is true?

[mouse]

Again, how do you know that creation.com is a credible source? Or do you automatically assume that every piece of "evidence" that conforms to your opinion is true?

I did the math.

[redzero]

I did the math.

:lol You really are that stupid.

Mouse, if there were ten times as many people on earth tomorrow, would there be enough food and water for everybody?

[mouse]

List of Scientists who disagree with Evolution.

Chemist John F. Ashton edited a book first published in 1999 with essays from 50 scientists describing why they believed in creationism.
21 famous scientists, such as Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Leonhard Euler, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage, James Prescott Joule, Louis Pasteur, Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, and Wernher von Braun

[mouse]

List of Scientists who disagree with Evolution.

Chemist John F. Ashton edited a book first published in 1999 with essays from 50 scientists describing why they believed in creationism.
21 famous scientists, such as Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Leonhard Euler, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage, James Prescott Joule, Louis Pasteur, Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, and Wernher von Braun

[redzero]

*dodges question again*

Getting you to answer questions is likely pulling teeth.

Again, if there were ten times as many people on earth tomorrow, would there be enough food and water for everybody?

[mouse]

Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, in his book Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, vol. 2, p. 15, argues that "First, it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men to be told that the whale and the humming-bird, man and the mosquito, are derived from the same source... the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand."


As reported by Newsweek: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."Martz & McDaniel, p. 23

[mouse]

Straight out of the Science books


Niagara falls
It is said that the Earth was created 4,600 million years ago. Ever since that time, the forces of nature have been masterfully creating an artwork of ever changing landscape and seascape known as Niagara.

Eons ago, the Niagara area the bottom of an ancient tropical salt water sea. Ancient specimens are being found today deep under the soils of Niagara that are still today found at the bottom of our great oceans.

Approximately 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous and the beginning of the Tertiary periods, scientists claim that a giant asteroid collided with the Earth in the area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. This collision resulted in a massive amount of debris being propelled into the atmosphere on a world wide scale which caused a catastrophic change in the climate and led to the extinction of the dinosaur and many other life forms.

This event continues to be re-examined and debated and will continue to be debated well into the future, "however there is little doubt" (by who?) that the climate made a dramatic change to an era of the Ice Age.

They actually teach this shit in schools :lmao



http://tr1.harunyahya.com/functions/thumb.php?image=http://207.44.240.34/files/book/pictures/DARWINISM_REFUTED.jpg&width=320

[mouse]

Scientific Facts:

Not even RedZero can dispute

Biological evidence

DNA in "ancient" fossilsimg. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the worldimg is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.

Discontinuous fossil sequences. E.g. Coelacanthimg, Wollemi pineimg and various "index" fossils, which are present in supposedly ancient strata, missing in strata representing many millions of years since, but still living today. Such discontinuities speak against the interpretation of the rock formations as vast geological ages—how could Coelacanths have avoided being fossilized for 65 million years.

[mouse]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670

[redzero]

Straight out of the Science books


Niagara falls
It is said that the Earth was created 4,600 million years ago. Ever since that time, the forces of nature have been masterfully creating an artwork of ever changing landscape and seascape known as Niagara.

Eons ago, the Niagara area the bottom of an ancient tropical salt water sea. Ancient specimens are being found today deep under the soils of Niagara that are still today found at the bottom of our great oceans.

Approximately 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous and the beginning of the Tertiary periods, scientists claim that a giant asteroid collided with the Earth in the area of the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. This collision resulted in a massive amount of debris being propelled into the atmosphere on a world wide scale which caused a catastrophic change in the climate and led to the extinction of the dinosaur and many other life forms.

This event continues to be re-examined and debated and will continue to be debated well into the future, "however there is little doubt" (by who?) that the climate made a dramatic change to an era of the Ice Age.

They actually teach this shit in schools :lmao

What is your point and why are you refusing to answer my question?

[RandomGuy]

Let's imagine a jar, filled with jelly beans, about as big as a loaf of bread you might buy in a store.

Without taking them out and counting them, what kinds of observations could you make about how many jelly beans are in the jar, mouse?

(this question goes very directly to what you are saying about scientists being "unsure")



When did I claim to be a Science professor? I am merely pointing out facts that you and your bow tie wearing Science pals at Myth busters have no answers for.
If I off base prove me wrong don't attack my credibility it has nothing to do with Saturn.

First off I would find out when Glass was invented. That would give me an idea how old the jar isn't. Then by finding out what the jar weighs w/o the jellybeans and then weighing the jar with the jelly beans I would just subtract the two numbers and come up with a close enough measurement

Ok, so you would use weight. Take the weight of the jellybeans divided by the weight of one jelly bean, to get a number of jelly beans.

1) Would the number of jelly beans that you calculated from this experiment be 100% guaranteed to be correct? Why or why not?

2) Why is this method better than simply randomly guessing a number between one and a trillion? Randomly guessing would also get a number of jelly beans.


[skips answering].

Again, my two questions here were rather basic, and go directly to the point you are attempting to make about scientists' claims. If you could answer them, we can get to a very important idea, that we can both probably agree on.



Hey RandomLie how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? be careful how you answer this question your whole credibility on Evolution will be ruined.

You want to use jelly beans and basic math to try and prove to someone man Evolved form an Ape go right ahead.

I will just keep posting facts Evolution is a lie and let the readers decide for themselves. If you want to talk candy experiments go right ahead I am to busy in two other topics with "real" debaters who ask "real" questions.

Even if i gave you the correct answer it still doesn't prove Darwin was right or the earth is "4 billion" years old.

As for my good buddy Phyzix since you seem to be able to keep your insults in check and since I know deep down inside your not an idiot I will devote a few hours of my limited time in education you on a subject your very misinformed in.

First off when i get home tonight i will post over 5-10 Science and biology books found in the schools today. feel free to Google these books and trace what schools they are in. I am shocked you have no idea the science and Biology school books say the Earth "is" 4 Billion years old and the solar system "is" 12 - 20 Billion years old. They don't say long long ago dinosaurs roamed the earth they say "25 Million" years ago.

The books even say how long the earth took to cool down for life to form. Can you imagine how insane you would have to be to even say in a text book what life was like on planet earth 50,000 years ago? And yet these clowns claim they know what happened "12 billion" years ago?

If you really think a few Fossils and your misguided links are going to help you win this debate your seriously mistaken.


I will address all your points then i will ask you a few questions and expect the same.

You didn't answer my very simple questions again. I will assume that you will not do so. Unable, or willing, I am not sure.

I will answer them for you, then.

1) No. Weighing the jelly beans will not get you a 100% guaranteed answer. There would still be a chance that your calculation was slightly off. Unless you counted them, you would never be perfectly sure about how many jelly beans were in the jar.

2) By gathering data, you can start eliminating possibilities, and get closer than randomly (HA) guessing. If your random guess was that there was 600,000,000 jelly beans in jar, and you know from your observations that 600,000,000 would weigh as much as small office building, you can rule out that guess, as well as obviously low numbers, such as 1 or 2.

Even though you aren't completely sure what the number is, you can make some statements about what the number is, and what the number is NOT.

The universe is NOT 10,000 years old. The earth is NOT 10,000 years old.

The data we have gathered allows us to eliminate these possibilities, just as surely as we know that there are not 10 jelly beans in the jar. The same principle applies to all things. Guesses, even ones we are not perfectly certain of, based on data and observed measurements are better than randomly pulling something out of a hat.

All the science book covers you could post in the world will not change this.

[RandomGuy]

I am shocked you have no idea the science and Biology school books say the Earth "is" 4 Billion years old and the solar system "is" 12 - 20 Billion years old. They don't say long long ago dinosaurs roamed the earth they say "25 Million" years ago.

We started taking in data about our observable universe in meaningful and applicable ways over two centuries ago.

Since then we have gathered more information, and done more experiments, and refined our guesses about the ages of both our planet, the solar system, and the universe itself.

We are never going to get either down to any exact date, but we are very, very certain that we are close to within a few hundred million years for both.

Even with this potential for error, we know that the universe, and our planet, are not 10,000 years old.

[RandomGuy]

The Oort cloud is a "theory" you cant use it as proof where comets come from. it's Science's "get out of jail" card.

They had to come up with a reason we still have comets if they are a result of the big bang "12 Billion" years ago. The oldest comet according to science is 10,000 to 15,000 years of age they burn out. they fucked up and didn't do the math so they covered they're tracks with the bullshit Oort cloud.

Who knew the uninformed redneck of the Club would finally pull out the Oort Cloud card?

:lmao

Like a creator? You can't have it both ways dude.

if there is "something" we don't know that could be out there than Science needs to leave the door open for "something" else besides a huge ape like missing link type man that evolved from a snail.

tit for tat

This is not what the thinking about that the Oort cloud is. Sorry. It wasn't created during the big bang, and came much after.

There exists, in between the stars in our cluster, the remnants of a supernova, an explosion of a massive star, perhaps even several of them. We see nebulas like this all over that are the results of other novae.

Out of this gas over immense periods of time, clumps formed and gravity did enough to start pulling enough gas/material together to form our solar system. Once enough hydrogen got together at the middle of it, our sun formed, and blew away most of the really light stuff. The stuff that remained was the heavy stuff formed in the core of stars, Iron and so forth, with a few traces of other more heavy stuff like uranium, lead, and gold.

The Oort cloud is out there, and has quite a lot of mass/clumps left over. As our star moves through it, and as other stars move around, the gravity, even weak at the immense distances, will move stuff just ever so slightly, so that it gets close enough to our sun to orbit.

This draws out new comets all the time. Comets were coming out of this before we existed, and will continue to come out of it after we are gone, assuming no huge nova in our vicinity takes us out first.

You don't seem to understand what science says about this, and a host of other things, because you continually, repeatedly, keep posting things that are factually wrong, and easily falsified.

Sorry, not buying your trolling.

[RandomGuy]

I researched it.

Now can you prove man evolved from a lizard, or the Earth is "4 billion" years old?

Fossil.

w5369-OobM4

'nuff said.

[mouse]

random guy I will evaluate your findings in the next 3 days I am busy helping a friend out personal matter but I hope you will evaluate my findings when I present evidence your findings are misleading.

[Proxy]

poor friend... doesn't know he's getting help from someone who thinks man evolved from dinosaurs

[phyzik]

poor friend... doesn't know he's getting help from someone who thinks man evolved from dinosaurs


Thats wrong. Mouse thinks Man was created alongside of Dinosaurs and we lived alongside each other peacefully for a while. Get it straight.

As far as the books you posted Mouse, I asked for federal or state approved school texts, those are not school books, those are opinion pieces you can pull off of a Barnes and Noble shelf. They are books of research, not federal or even state sanctioned school books.. HUGE difference. Try again. Still waiting for an elementary/middle/high school book that definitively claims the Big Bang as fact and not a theory.

Once again: You WONT find it.

[phyzik]

Tell us Mouse, seriously, how old do you really believe the Earth is? Lets get a basis on what your beliefs are. Its obvious what I and many others believe but you love to duck the question...

How old is the Earth in your beliefs? What actual hard data can you provide that wont be laughed at by the majority of physicist, Geologists, astrophysics and Biologists?

Seriously, post all of your REAL data and I bet it can be debunked by just about any RESPECTED scientists.

Nevermind the fact that you TOTALLY ignored what space travel has brought to us medically and scientifically, which is one of your biggest harping points... (Ohh, why cant science focus on this and that here on Earth??? Why go into Space where my beliefs will be put to shame? Why cant we just believe in magic and pray for our problems to go away?). Why dont you argue that fact?

Mouse LOVES to point out that Space exploration doesnt provide "Right NOW!" results, but he obviously fails to see the big picture and what space exploration has done for humanity. Undoubtedly, he will come up with some smart ass answer like Tang and completely ignore the stuff I listed, which is very short compared to reality, just a page or two ago.

[mouse]

Thats wrong. Mouse thinks Man was created alongside of Dinosaurs and we lived alongside each other peacefully for a while. Get it straight.

As far as the books you posted Mouse, I asked for federal or state approved school texts, those are not school books, those are opinion pieces you can pull off of a Barnes and Noble shelf. They are books of research, not federal or even state sanctioned school books.. HUGE difference. Try again. Still waiting for an elementary/middle/high school book that definitively claims the Big Bang as fact and not a theory.

Once again: You WONT find it.

Are you serious?

Have you even done any research? You really want me to take a photo of myself in a school with a student holding one of those text books? That is like me asking you to prove your not gay. I want a photo of your Johnson in a woman's vagina and make sure you post a local newspaper in the photo so I can see its this year.

You remind me of the "birther's" you want proof Obama was born in the usa you wont stop until you see a video of his black ass exiting the womb with an American flag waving in the background.


I think your either misguided or trying to use stall tactics. In any case I will see if I can prove to you that the Science and Biology texts books say exactly what I mentioned. You know you can just hop in that 1998 GMC pickup and visit the nearest public school and see for yourself.



But if I go through the hassle to "once again" prove my point is valid then you need to accept my findings and stop trying to use these weak tactics to somehow stall the debate any further.



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/evolution-debunked337_zpsf18d3db0.jpg

[Proxy]

Thats wrong. Mouse thinks Man was created alongside of Dinosaurs and we lived alongside each other peacefully for a while. Get it straight.




I researched it.

Now can you prove man evolved from a lizard, or the Earth is "4 billion" years old?

[mouse]

Tell us Mouse, seriously, how old do you really believe the Earth is? Lets get a basis on what your beliefs are. Its obvious what I and many others believe but you love to duck the question...

I don't duck questions I just sometimes refuse to reply to immature wannabee TRolls who are just here to have mini smack downs as they lurk from topic to topic like some sort of sucker fish looking for scraps.



How old is the Earth

From my many years of dedicated research I would have to say 20,000 to 50,000 years.




in your beliefs?


I don't have any beliefs I am not a creationist.



What actual hard data can you provide

Lot's


that wont be laughed at by the majority of physicist, Geologists, astrophysics and Biologists?

If any one in any of those professions you mention actually "laugh" they are not serious in the subject matter so I would avoid them and seek out the ones who look outside the box and just not what is in the text books. After all if we went by what was in the text books in the 1800's or early 1900's and laughed at the possibility man traveling in space or being able to send a text to someone I'm sure those so-called nuts were laughed at also. so i don't believe what we have in the text books to be "permanent" or "final" there is so mush to learn.

So I will take all the laughs I can get just as they laughed at Telsa, Al Gros,and Steve Wozniak.

You think being laughed at is something new when it comes to ideas and theories that are hard for the little minds to comprehend?




Seriously, post all of your REAL data and I bet it can be debunked by just about any RESPECTED scientists.

So you have Scientists that are not respected? Or is that a code for "not agreeing with the others"? I am not after respect, nor do i care if you and your cookie cutter Scientist have issues with my data. I rather be laughed at and not taken serious and be right than to be so "well respected" and be wrong.


Nevermind the fact that you TOTALLY ignored what space travel has brought to us medically and scientifically

what has it brought us?




which is one of your biggest harping points... (Ohh, why cant science focus on this and that here on Earth???

Is asking for a cure for "one" disease to much to ask before we use another 4.6 Billion to see if there is a cockroach fossil on Mars?



Why go into Space where my beliefs will be put to shame?

Go to space all you want. I don't have issues with Space travel my issues was with NASA and the lies.



Why cant we just believe in magic and pray for our problems to go away?).

Your mixing your comebacks with the wrong person, I don't support religion.


Why don't you argue that fact?

Did you know doctors in the 40s said it was a "fact" tobacco was good for your health and asbestos was non lethal? What about the people who disagreed with them and got laughed at? It's not a fact anymore it was a "lie" Asbestos is bad for you and so is tobacco so what makes a "fact" permanent?

If some scientist today claims there is a tree found to be 30,000 years old instead of the 20,000 year old tree they have now I am more than "willing" to accept the findings. On the other hand if Scientist tell you the reason your here is because of some random explosion from mass that don't know where it came from and after 4.6 billion years you evolved from a rock that got rained on after 25 million years you eat that shit up and ask for more.

I apologize if my Bullshit radar suspects agenda driven propaganda like your buddy Darwin cooked up in the 1800's

You seem so intelligent and yet why are you so closed minded to just accept everything you read or see on the Discovery channel?




Mouse LOVES to point out that Space exploration doesnt provide "Right NOW!" results, but he obviously fails to see the big picture and what space exploration has done for humanity.

Like what?



Undoubtedly, he will come up with some smart ass answer like Tang and completely ignore the stuff I listed, which is very short compared to reality, just a page or two ago.

I'm sure the cancer victims in the hospital with weeks to live have a copy of that huge list of "wonderful" things space has done for them.

[redzero]

I don't duck questions

Liar. I have asked you three times if there would be enough food and water for everybody if the population became ten times larger, and you dodged my question each time.


From my many years of dedicated research I would have to say 20,000 to 50,000 years.

Your creationist buddies think it is younger than that, and you have been copying and pasting arguments from people who think it is 6000 years old.


I don't have any beliefs I am not a creationist.

Everybody has beliefs, retard. You don't know what "belief" means.


Is asking for a cure for "one" disease to much to ask before we use another 4.6 Billion to see if there is a cockroach fossil on Mars?

Billions of dollars have already been spent trying to find a cure for cancer. Do you think finding a cure is as simple as throwing money at the problem?


Your mixing your comebacks with the wrong person, I don't support religion.

Yet you blindly accept the arguments of creationists.


I apologize if my Bullshit radar suspects agenda driven propaganda like your buddy Darwin cooked up in the 1800's

Your bullshit radar also went off when you saw the explanation for elements, but when pressed you couldn't actually explain why you disagreed with the explanation.


You seem so intelligent and yet why are you so closed minded to just accept everything you read or see on the Discovery channel?

Why do you accept everything creationists tell you?


I'm sure the cancer victims in the hospital with weeks to live have a copy of that huge list of "wonderful" things space has done for them.

It's not NASA's fault they have cancer, so your argument is moot.

[mouse]

Liar. I have asked you three times if there would be enough food and water for everybody if the population became ten times larger, and you dodged my question each time.

And I answered you . You just didn't like my answer.

[quote]Your creationist buddies think it is younger than that, and you have been copying and pasting arguments from people who think it is 6000 years old.

And you have yet to debunk the data. And why are you so hung up on "copy and paste" that is why we have computers and a mouse that has "right click" copy. You never copied or pasted anything?




Everybody has beliefs, retard.

I just remembered why I avoid trying to debate you.

[redzero]

And I answered you . You just didn't like my answer.

Link me to your answer or post your answer again.

I'll bet you'll find an excuse not to do that.


And you have yet to debunk the data. And why are you so hung up on "copy and paste" that is why we have computers and a mouse that has "right click" copy. You never copied or pasted anything?

The difference is that I CITE MY SOURCES. Every time you try to defend yourself on this, you keep ignoring this gigantic fact. You copy and paste, then don't credit the people you got your arguments from. You call this stuff "your" findings and "your" data, even though they aren't. You just copied and pasted them from other websites.

[mouse]

Seriously, post all of your REAL data and I bet it can be debunked by just about any RESPECTED scientists.
.

You just have to go back a few pages i have been doing just that.


straight from the Science text books this fossil is of a fish that died Millions of years ago according to Science

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Evoulution-debunked-by-MAllen-3.jpg


and yet, the same fish that Science claimed has been dead for "millions" of years is still found alive today?

.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Evoulution-debunked-by-MAllen-2.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/Evoulution-debunked-by-MAllen-5.jpg


How much more do you need? Why not debunk my data before you ask for more data?


I don't care if Science is wrong from time to time the issue is they don't update the Science books. Since they have an agenda to push Darwin's religion and disproved theories on the students which is so obvious in here dealing with the misinformed posters as you can see in this topic..

you want to teach Evolution buy some tv time on PBS don't use my tax dollars to teach it in public schools.

[mouse]

Link me to your answer or post your answer again.

.

Pssssssst!

it's on the previous page.





For the third time, what is one major thing a civilization would need to grow and prosper? I will try to debunk your position if you answer my questions.


My reply
I don't work for panned parenthood so your asking the wrong person, now do yo "have" and "evidence" man Evolved from a rock?

[redzero]

That's not the question I am talking about.

Here's the question:


Mouse, if there were ten times as many people on earth tomorrow, would there be enough food and water for everybody?

[mouse]

That's not the question I am talking about.

Here's the question:


And I said....





mouse, if there is not enough food for a group of people, is that group likely to grow?

I don't work for the food bank so your asking the wrong person.

[redzero]

Then how can you claim as fact that the population should be much larger, when you have completely failed to consider the amount of resources it would take to maintain such a gigantic group of people?

You just showed why the argument you plagiarized falls flat on its face. And you also showed how lacking you are intellectually by being unable to realize that there is not enough food on earth right now for 70 billion people. :lol How do you not know that?

[mouse]

Then how can you claim as fact that the population should be much larger, when you have completely failed to consider the amount of resources it would take to maintain such a gigantic group of people?

precisely my point! re-read my post I am saying if the earth was as old as Science says and man was around "25 Million" years ago the population would be much larger.

Do you not get it my point?





You just showed why the argument you plagiarized falls flat on its face.

So glad to finally "show" you something ........I guess.


And you also showed how lacking you are intellectually by being unable to realize that there is not enough food on earth right now 70 billion people. :lol How do you not know that?

That was spoken before you Re-Read my "original" posting so you get a pass.

[redzero]

:lol You are completely full of shit.

Here's your post in which you try to claim that the population would be much larger if the earth was billions of years old:


Did you know the population of the Earth does not mathematically match up to when Science claims man Evolved form a primate?


Population growth, today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. These are topics the Evolutionist avoid.

Nowhere in this post do you even mention the amount of resources it would take to feed the world's population. You're just trying to save face.

Those two arguments are contradictory, so you can't be on both sides. There is a common sense reason why your position is idiotic, and you are trying to weasel your way out of acknowledging stupidity. The population is growing like this for a reason. If the growth rates were uniform throughout history, there would be way more people than can be sustained. But growth rates aren't uniform, so there is a manageable amount of people.

And no credible scientist claims that man was around for 25 million years.

[mouse]

:lol You are completely full of shit.

Here's your post in which you try to claim that the population would be much larger if the earth was billions of years old:



Nowhere in this post do you even mention the amount of resources it would take to feed the world's population.

I never said I was a "nutritionist" what is with all the Food channel questions?




Seriously dude get off that Imaginary "high horse" your soon to be crusted uneducated ass you sit on and start posting something that De-bunks any of my data.







You're just trying to save face.

Your face, your ass..., ...what's the difference?


Those two arguments are contradictory, so you can't be on both sides.

I don't pick sides I pick Evidence something your Pappy Darwin never had , did he?





There is a common sense reason why your position is idiotic, and you are trying to weasel your way out of acknowledging stupidity.


You got me there.



The population is growing like this for a reason. If the growth rates were uniform throughout history, there would be way more people than can be sustained. But growth rates aren't uniform, so there is a manageable amount of people.

Great point. so you do the math , how many people should we have?


And no credible scientist claims that man was around for 25 million years.

ok let me find the data...

[redzero]

Before I even read your post, I am going to bet that there isn't any actual argument in it.


I never said I was a "nutritionist" what is with all the Food channel questions?

It doesn't take a nutritionist to know that a population can't grow without sufficient resources. This common sense fact was completely missed by you.


Seriously dude get off that Imaginary "high horse" your soon to be crusted uneducated ass you sit on and start posting something that De-bunks any of my data.

I just did debunk one of "your" pieces of data, and you are avoiding my response.


Great point. so you do the math , how many people should we have?

The current population is the correct one once one considers all the contributing factors (e.g., medicine, technology, resources etc.). You completely ignored the important factors of population growth when you copied and pasted that creationist's argument.

This is just another case of you blindly believing whatever creationists tell you.

[mouse]

Before I even read your post, I am going to bet that there isn't any actual argument in it.

I am going to try and explain to this person I am "not" supporting the population growth theory! re-read my "origina' reply.

I am saying it doesn't make sense just as he is saying, why cant you see my point?

your making my point each time you post.


It doesn't take a nutritionist to know that a population can't grow without sufficient resources. This common sense fact was completely missed by you.


Since your lost on this point and have no evidence my data is false i will move on to another point.


Someone here wanted me to prove Science claims man has been around for over "25 Million" years. Many posters here keep whining about where is the evidence.

Here is all the evidence you really need. This "man made" tool or eating utensil was found buried under a mine 1880.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/tools3.jpg

Notice the date the Scientist give the tool.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MIT-on-Evolution/tools4.jpg


If a tool "made by man" was found to be buried in a layer of rock dated "55 Million" years old do the math.

[mouse]

Nova did an Evolution special where a man discovered "human" footprints fossilized with "dinosaur" prints. Nova refused to film it. And the Smithsonian museum fired the Museum director for trying to add the fossil to the museum is that "Science" isn't Science about "learning"?

Evolution isn't Science it's a religion that is guarded well.