Bill Nye slams creationism [Archive] - Page 5

mouse

10-22-2012, 03:03 AM

So wait... let me get this straight. Nova refused to display a non-peer reviewed (KEY POINT) piece of psuedo-science and fired the guy because he had biased religious views? Shocking!

guaranteed those "fossils" he had where peer-reviewed and debunked.

do you even understand what peer-review is in regards to the sciences?

The show "Ancient Aliens" is quite entertaining, especially the guy with the crazy hair, but none of it is peer-reviewed and accepted as real, plausable science. It's fun to think about, but its not supported by the mainstrean thoughts on reality.

Thanks for that info. If what you say is true I have no problem reconsidering using that piece as part of my data on Age of earth Science.

I also have no problem accepting new data or if any of my data is found to be not legit. I'm not here to "win" a smack off I want to educate and maybe learn something in the process.

If I was the Science text book publisher I would definitely make sure the next edition of Science books were properly updated for the next school year.

That is really the only issue I have had lately with Science and the text books. They don't ever revise anything they still have the old fossil charts from the 1800s they never want to show the other side of how man might have have started life on this planet it's Darwin's theory and nothing else. To me that is not science.

I will delicate a few hours to re-examine your claims before I give up on supporting the story.

It's a shame many debates in this forum can't be this civil and cooperative.

Once again thank you for the very informative reply. I'm impressed.

:toast

mouse

10-22-2012, 03:09 AM

On a side not you can see why I said man must of been here for "25 Million" years. Also the Smithsonian has refused many other types of fossils and information that may go against Evolution. and i have art work that has been modified to support my findings that they use in describing fossilized footprints they added them to an ape like creature which is not fair to do unless you have an agenda to support evolution.

Also you mentioned the man had a religious motive in the fossils why does his religion have to be an issue with his discovery?

Wild Cobra

10-22-2012, 03:52 AM

I have a tendency to believe the Samaritan on how long man has walked earth. In our present evolutionary stage, I believe we were here for about 60,000 years. I am not solid on that number, and man would have been limited to the equatorial regions until the ice age ended.

redzero

10-22-2012, 09:47 AM

I am going to try and explain to this person I am "not" supporting the population growth theory! re-read my "origina' reply.

Since you are incredibly stupid, I will explain slowly why your argument fails.

I am saying it doesn't make sense just as he is saying, why cant you see my point?

But the population numbers DO make sense. The reason why the population isn't much larger is because such a large population cannot possibly be maintained. Your. Argument. Is. False.

your making my point each time you post.

Actually, I'm destroying your point. The population would not have grown exponentially like you argue, because there are not enough resources for everybody.

Your argument: The population would be much bigger today if the earth was really billions of years old.
My response: No, it wouldn't. The population rates are due to several factors, one of which being the amount of resources available. So, to claim that the population would be bigger completely fails to take into account the contributing factors.

You have yet to acknowledge that your argument is flawed. All you have done has been trying to claim that my argument somehow helps yours, even though it does the exact opposite.

Since your lost on this point and have no evidence my data is false i will move on to another point.

You are completely delusional. Your argument was absolutely terrible, and I soundly debunked it.

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.

Yet again, you fail to respond to my request. Show me any scientist who claims that humans have been around for 25 million years. I want to see a peer reviewed study.

mouse

10-22-2012, 01:31 PM

Everybody has beliefs, retard.

RandomGuy

10-22-2012, 02:31 PM

List of Scientists who disagree with Evolution.

Debunked logical fallacy... ad populum

RandomGuy

10-22-2012, 02:32 PM

I don't duck questions

Yes, actually you do.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202739&page=33&p=6150427&viewfull=1#post6150427

RandomGuy

10-22-2012, 03:07 PM

today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. MG]

Debunked, "same now as it was in the past" idea. Same as saturns rings, same as the comets, same as the niagra falls. This type of calculation assumes that the rate of what ever is measured
is exactly the same now as it was in the past, when you have no evidence to support it, something that you yourself admit to.

"Unicorns are real. Because unicorns are real, I can put a saddle on one and have a pleasant unicorn ride through the countryside."

My ability to have a pleasant unicorn ride is dependent on the existence of unicorns.

Your ability to make a claim of the age of the universe or the existence of mankind is dependent on the rates you put forth never changing, among other things.

mouse

10-22-2012, 10:21 PM

Yes, actually you do.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202739&page=33&p=6150427&viewfull=1#post6150427

I may have not read one of your replies but that is not a "Duck" to your question it just means I didn't read your post.

But one thing is for sure it doesn't matter what I say your head is too far up Darwin's ass to notice.

RandomGuy

10-23-2012, 11:18 AM

I may have not read one of your replies but that is not a "Duck" to your question it just means I didn't read your post.

But one thing is for sure it doesn't matter what I say your head is too far up Darwin's ass to notice.

I reposted those questions at least three times by my count, and you directly referred to it (e.g. "candy experiments") at least twice, so you provably read it.

While I can only guess at the reason why you did not respond to my simple questions, I *can* prove that you didn't answer them. At this point, you certainly have the chance. I'm not stopping you, and the easiest way to prove me wrong is to answer them, something you have *laughably* still not done.

As for having my head up anyones ass: I go where the evidence leads. Your arguments tend to be based on provable half-truths, and provably flawed logic, if not outright non sequiturs. I can show you a documentary where one of the "scientists" who produces the garbage you copy and paste directly admits that if he finds any evidence that contradicts scripture, he simply ignores it.

Every time I subject your copy and pastes to simple background checking they have long ago been debunked, and indeed, it is not uncommon for that material to be disowned by their original writers, as even they know what they have written is deeply flawed.

Further, even when you post things in your own words, you have demonstrated a consistant lack of understanding of what you are criticising, if I am to take your posts as truthful and not trolling.

If you really want a chance to prove you didn't duck the questions put to you honestly and in good faith:

Quote Originally Posted by mouse

[I would find out how many jelly bean are in a jar] 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

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.

RandomGuy

10-23-2012, 11:21 AM

I may have not read one of your replies but that is not a "Duck" to your question it just means I didn't read your post.

But one thing is for sure it doesn't matter what I say your head is too far up Darwin's ass to notice.

Translation:

"I didn't duck your questions, I just didn't answer them, even when you pointed them out to me repeatedly"

:lmao

RandomGuy

10-23-2012, 11:35 AM

Yet again, you fail to respond to my request. Show me any scientist who claims that humans have been around for 25 million years. I want to see a peer reviewed study.

The "55 million year old mortar and pestle" thing appears to be from a paper published in the 1800's, based on one guy's limited understanding. Leave it to mouse to copy and paste bullshit found to be bullshit over a century ago.

It is held up by creationists who are looking a a huge mountain of evidence and cherry picking items they think support their assertion of how flawed the science is, when the science itself self-corrects when something erroneous is found, as this was OVER A CENTURY AGO.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=262

These accounts are quoted in a paper by William J Sinclair, “Recent investigations bearing on the question of the occurrence of Neocene man in the auriferous gravels of the Sierra Nevada”, published in University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, volume 7 number 2 (1908), pages 108-131. After a careful review of the evidence to date, Professor Sinclair concludes that a “review of the evidence favoring the presence of the remains of man in the auriferous gravels, compels one to regard it as insufficient to establish the fact. On the preceding pages, it has been shown either that there have been abundant opportunities for the relies in question to be mixed with the gravels accidentally, or that the geological conditions at the localities are such as to render it improbable that the implements and bones have been associated in the gravels to the extent supposed”.

This is exactly what I mean by half truths.

Sure, SOMEONE thought this stuff was 55 million years old.

The other half of the truth is:

A professional evaluation of the evidence found the support for that claim to be wholly insufficient, and it was discarded over a century ago.

mouse

10-23-2012, 11:07 PM

Translation:

"I didn't duck your questions, I just didn't answer them, even when you pointed them out to me repeatedly"

:lmao

Just because I haven't giving you the reply you desperately need is not "Ducking" it's making sure I answer properly something you don't practice.

RandomGuy

10-24-2012, 11:06 AM

Just because I haven't giving you the reply you desperately need is not "Ducking" it's making sure I answer properly something you don't practice.

This is, by the way, the 5th opportunity you have had to answer those questions. That is "ducking" by any reasonable definition.

I don't desperately need an answer. The fact that you won't answer them, simply proves you aren't being honest about this debate, and don't care about the truth.

I will assert that, and your failure to answer these fair questions supports that assertion.

Don't answer them, and that proves you don't care about the truth.
Do answer them, and the answer blows a rather large hole in your position. You know this, I am pretty sure at this point, especially since I have already given you what any honest person would answer.

I "win" either way.

mouse

10-26-2012, 02:13 AM

mouse

10-26-2012, 02:14 AM

You want to talk about "erosion" of the planets, or the loss of gravity?

Agloco

10-26-2012, 07:46 AM

You want to talk about "erosion" of the planets, or the loss of gravity?

Do tell.

redzero

10-26-2012, 08:03 AM

RandomGuy

10-26-2012, 11:39 AM

You want to try and debunk my evidence go right ahead but save the Jar of Marbles talk for another topic.

I have yet to use 25% of my data on how the Earth is nowhere near "1 Million" years old let alone "4 Billion" years old.

.... and now I can safely say you don't really care about the truth.

Thank you. Proven beyond any denying and/or reasonable doubt.

Thanks for the fun. It has been an interesting excercise looking into just how and why all of this bullshit is wrong.

:)

Wild Cobra

10-26-2012, 04:00 PM

I have yet to use 25% of my data on how the Earth is nowhere near "1 Million" years old let alone "4 Billion" years old.
If you have so much, then which one will put this issue to rest? Which one is undeniable?

mouse

10-26-2012, 04:38 PM

And at the end I shall resort to overwhelming evidence and facts that almost guarantees silence and lack of replies from the Darwin supporters and the Scientific community.

Ps: Did you want to go with gravity?

redzero

10-26-2012, 05:00 PM

And at the end I shall resort to overwhelming evidence and facts that almost guarantees silence and lack of replies from the Darwin supporters and the Scientific community.

Kind of like how you kept ignoring my posts about the size of earth's population.

Brazil

10-26-2012, 05:45 PM

A vast majority of creationists are illiterate, go to the church every week, live on a shit hole and never travel out of their State... that's saying a lot

mouse

10-26-2012, 08:28 PM

Kind of like how you kept ignoring my posts about the size of earth's population.

There are parts of the Antarctic that have had only 30 people living there in last 30 years and parts of Africa that have gone from 900 to 6,000 people in less than 15 years it did not effect the age of the Earth.

mouse

10-26-2012, 08:37 PM

Well, there's a lot of creationist bullshit out there to copy and paste, but I'm sure you'll manage.

If it's "bullshit" why haven't you debunked any of it?
So anyone who doesn't agree with you is full of "bullshit" your bias one sided views are starting to become very annoying I rather you just read since you bring nothing to the debate.

On a side note. Just because you think your daughter shouldn't have a child from a black man doesn't mean you are a Klu Klux Klan member stop trying to call me a "Creationist" just because I found some facts on one of their sites.

The mere fact that I had to get a few facts and images from a young Earth site is further proof how Bias the Science and biology texts books are.

redzero

10-26-2012, 08:59 PM

There are parts of the Antarctic that have had only 30 people living there in last 30 years and parts of Africa that have gone from 900 to 6,000 people in less than 15 years it did not effect the age of the Earth.

And? You do realize that living conditions factor into how much a society expands, right? Of course not. You didn't think about anything before you copied and pasted that argument from creation.com.

redzero

10-26-2012, 09:04 PM

If it's "bullshit" why haven't you debunked any of it?

I already have, and so have other people in this thread. You just keep ignoring our posts, because you are dishonest.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is full of "bullshit" your bias one sided views are starting to become very annoying I rather you just read since you bring nothing to the debate.

You are probably the most biased person here, since you disagree with scientists all the time for practically no real reason other than to make yourself seem smart.

On a side note. Just because you think your daughter shouldn't have a child from a black man doesn't mean you are a Klu Klux Klan member stop trying to call me a "Creationist" just because I found some facts on one of their sites.

:lol "some" facts. Almost ALL your arguments come from creationists.

The mere fact that I had to get a few facts and images from a young Earth site is further proof how Bias the Science and biology texts books are.

Again, :lol at you pretending that the vast majority of your arguments don't come from creationists, whom you believe 99% of the time on this subject.

mouse

10-26-2012, 09:09 PM

.... and now I can safely say you don't really care about the truth.

Just because I didn't want to answer your jar of marbles question? How much time you think I have doing debates?

Thank you. Proven beyond any denying and/or reasonable doubt.

You have poor reading skills I said Sunday night Monday afternoon I would address your questions.

Thanks for the fun.

Anytime you need to learn something about the Earth you live in you know where to go.

It has been an interesting excercise

Not for me arguing with low IQ bottom feeders is not interesting at all.

looking into just how and why all of this bullshit is wrong.

To bad you couldn't prove that,

mouse

10-26-2012, 10:46 PM

I already have, and so have other people in this thread. You just keep ignoring our posts, because you are dishonest.

What do you care about being honest? You sound more like a bible thump'er than anyone in this topic.

You are probably the most biased person here,

Good maybe now you will go to another debate and add nothing there also.

since you disagree with scientists all the time

You have no proof of that I disagree with the "Science" text books . read more post less.

for practically no real reason other than to make yourself seem smart.

As opposed to what you do?

:lol "some" facts. Almost ALL your arguments come from creationists.

Does the word broken record mean anything to you?

Since Random Lie Bailed on the debate and you have yet to add to the debate I will wait for someone who is old enough to buy beer and has at least an 11th grade education to respond to any further.

Again, :lol at you pretending that the vast majority of your arguments don't come from creationists, whom you believe 99% of the time on this subject.

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/277/1/a/a_broken_record_5000_by_yotrailmix-d303uk7.jpg

redzero

10-26-2012, 10:55 PM

:lol Again, you failed to provide an actual response. I challenged your point about the earth's population, and you have completely failed to respond, just like you keep dodging RandomGuy's points.

This happens all the time: You get destroyed in an argument, and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you dodge the other poster and decide all of a sudden that you are above having arguments with them.

Like clockwork.

mouse

10-26-2012, 11:55 PM

I will wait for someone who is old enough to buy beer and has at least an 11th grade education to respond to any further.

mouse

10-26-2012, 11:56 PM

I will wait for someone who is old enough to buy beer and has at least an 11th grade education to respond to any further.

FYM

10-27-2012, 04:25 PM

Just because I didn't want to answer your jar of marbles question? How much time you think I have doing debates?

say the retard with 22,000 posts without considering his trolls and who has started a 35 pages thread :lol

mouse

10-28-2012, 10:23 PM

As far as the books you posted Mouse, I asked for federal or state approved school texts, those are not school books,

Prove it. Have you researched any of those books? I am willing to give you 100.00 cash for every book in that list list you can prove is "not" a text book if you give me 200.00 cash for every book in that list that "is" a text book, we have a deal?

RandomGuy

10-29-2012, 08:45 AM

Just because I didn't want to answer your jar of marbles question? How much time you think I have doing debates?

It took me less than ten minutes to type up reasonable responses.

Pretty much convinced me you are trolling here, and that responding to your taunts is pointless.

I think it says something when even Phenomaul gives up.

mouse

10-29-2012, 04:44 PM

Come back with real Evidence the Earth is "4 Billion" years old or at least try and debunk my evidence .

I really don't want to talk marbles.

RandomGuy

10-30-2012, 11:08 AM

Come back with real Evidence the Earth is "4 Billion" years old or at least try and debunk my evidence .

I really don't want to talk marbles.

Meh. You avoid the simple talk about jelly beans and jars because the exercise very directly blows your stupid shit out of the water.

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

10-30-2012, 11:13 AM

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

"few fossils"

Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Here of some of the well-tested methods of dating used in the study of early humans:

Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time.
Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time.
Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods.
Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate.
Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/sites/default/files/imagecache/inline_blog_full/Dating_JC_full_0.jpg

RandomGuy

10-30-2012, 11:26 AM

Of course, that is just human fossils.

The earth was around for billions of years before our relatively hairless ape species came along.

http://paleobiology.si.edu/_imgPaleo/rotation/1.jpg

http://paleobiology.si.edu/fossiLab/_imgFossiLab/fossilab-outside-large.jpg

http://paleobiology.si.edu/fossiLab/_imgFossiLab/zimbabwe-jacket-large.jpg

http://paleobiology.si.edu/fossiLab/_imgFossiLab/Fossil-Leaf-in-Ash-small.jpg

http://paleobiology.si.edu/fossiLab/_imgFossiLab/haiti-cave-unsorted-small.jpg

http://paleobiology.si.edu/fossiLab/_imgFossiLab/haitian-cave-sorted-large2.jpg

http://paleobiology.si.edu/fossiLab/_imgFossiLab/jacketing2-small.jpg

http://paleobiology.si.edu/fossiLab/_imgFossiLab/jackets-in-range-small.jpg

http://paleobiology.si.edu/index.html

mouse

10-30-2012, 07:29 PM

Just now woke up and can see someone in this forum actually did some research I must say I'm impressed.

A fare warning though as I get my morning beer, the photos of the fossils, bone castings and seeds etc.... will only help me prove the Earth is Not " 4 Billion" years old

And it will be "your Science" that will contradict your findings.

As for your cute charts they will be exposed as unproven theories and to use the Smithsonian which has been exposed for lying to the public is a huge mistake on your part.

Smithsonian Institute Coverup on Giant Race Pre-existing Modern Man

The Smithsonian Institution, easily the world's largest museum complex, began from the generous gift of James Smithson,
an English scientist, in 1829. Believed born a bastard (especially in the eyes of his later detractors), Smithson was a
"diligent young student," receiving a Master of Arts from Pembroke College, Oxford, in 1786. He became a distinguished
scientist. Passing away in 1829, his fortun went to his nephew, James Henry Hungerford , stipulating that if this man
died without an heir, the remainder of the fortune would go to the government of The United States.

Hungerford died in 1835. Although there was some controversy in the interim, the finding of the Smithsonian, based upon
the more than a half million-dollar gift, took place officially in 1846. His legacy to the American people was, in his own
words, "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge." Since that time, the museum's collections have increased
considerably, with problems in the cataloging and location of stored finds developing due to changing standards of
administrations over the last 150 years. Analogous to the Vatican with its antique cache of confiscated, problematic
treasures, the booty of the Holy See may pale in comparison to the Smithsonian's boatload of diffuse evidence. Pity of it
is that Smithson's request has gone into a different mode of interpretation. Instead of diffusing knowledge, it has
unwittingly become confused with the problem of sprawling storage.

The Great Smithsonian Cover-up

Noted Native American author and professor of law emeritus, Vine Deloria, writes in a personal communication:

It's probably better that so few of the ruins and remains were tied in with the Smithsonian because they give good reason
to believe the ending of the Indiana Jones movie a great warehouse where the real secrets of earth history are buried.

Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the
North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual
demeanor. The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Institution, created a one-
way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited. This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed
off to any but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning
the deep past.

The first hint we had about the possible existence of an actual race of tall, strong, and intellectually sophisticated people,
was in researching old township and county records. Many of these were quoting from old diaries and letters that were
combined, for posterity, in the 1800s from diaries going back to the 1700s. Says Vine in this understanding:

Some of these old county and regional history books contain real gems because the people were not subjected to a rigid
indoctrination about evolution and were astonished about what they found and honestly reported it.

The title pages of the early county and pioneer history books often included phrases like "CAREFULLY WRITTEN
AND COMPILED" and "LEST WE FORGET."

Some time before archaeology came to subscribe the general public to its view of prehistory generations prior to
Darwin's troublesome theory the pioneers thought that some of the earthworks were as ancient as could be concurrent
with human habitation in America. Some among the early settlers exercised their pens assured that the earthworks were
not built by the direct ancestry of the native people living in the historical period, but rather were constructed in a more
remote era encompassing a different social order. They compared the "Mound Builders," with the "Indians," clearly
discerning the former as belonging to an earlier time possessing a different fate or destiny from the latter.

Evidence for the occupation of this region before the appearance of the red man and the white race is to be found in almost
every part of the county, as well as through the northwest generally. In removing the gravel bluffs, which are numerous
and deep, for the construction and repair of roads, and in excavating cellars, hundreds of human skeletons, some of them
of giant form, have been found. A citizen of Marion County estimates that there were about as many human skeletons in
the knolls of Marion County as there are white inhabitants at present!

The History of Marion County, Ohio
(complied from past accounts, published in 1883)

Mastodonic remains are occasionally unearthed, and, from time to time, discoveries of the remains of Indian settlements
are indicated by the appearance of gigantic skeletons, with the high cheek bones, powerful jaws and massive frames
peculiar of the red man, who left these as the only record with which to form a clew to the history of past ages.

The History of Brown County, Ohio
(complied from past accounts, published in 1883)

Group of Mounds in Brown County, Ohio.

She said also that three skeletons were found at the mouth of the Paw Paw Creek many years later, while Nim (Nimrod)
Satterfield was justice of the peace. Jim Dean and some men were digging for a bridge foundation and found these bones at
the lower end of the old buffalo wallow. She thought it was Dr. Kidwell, of Fairmont, who examined them and said they
were very old, perhaps thousands of years old. She said that when the skeletons were exposed to the weather for a few
days, their bones turned black and began to crumble, that Squire Satterfield had them buried in the Joliffe graveyard
(Rivesville). All these skeletons, she said, were measured, and found to be about eight feet long

eruJnl3V-0Y

FoE8IGIVC7I

mouse

10-30-2012, 09:32 PM

mouse

10-30-2012, 09:39 PM

Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA.

What are the flaws of the molecular clock model in determining relatedness between species?

It assumes that all changes in amino acid sequence are random and aren't affected by natural selection and this probably isn't true. Moreover, sequences of amino acids change at different rates in different organisms

The molecular clock alone can only say that one time period is twice as long as another: it cannot assign concrete dates. To achieve this, the molecular clock must first be calibrated against independent evidence about dates, such as the fossil record.[7] Alternatively, for viral phylogenetics and ancient DNA studies, two areas of evolutionary biology where it is impossible to sample sequences over an evolutionary timescale, the dates of the samples themselves can't be used to calibrate the molecular clock.

Agloco

10-30-2012, 09:53 PM

mouse

10-30-2012, 09:54 PM

Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating,

Potassium-Argon Radiodating Theory

(1) The radioisotope 40K constitutes 0.012% of all naturally occurring potassium. S.T. Butler & H. Messel, "A Modern Introduction to Physics" (vol. 3), Howitz Pub. Inc. P/L & Grahame Book Co P/L: Sydney, p:24 1962

(2) 40K has a half-life of 1.31 billion years.

(3) 40K (parent isotope) breaks down to 40Ar (daughter isotope) by gaining an electron.

http://www.unmaskingevolution.com/images/kdecay.gif

The Experiment

Dr Steven A. Austin (PhD), Professor of Geology (Institute of Creation Research, San Diego, California) used the K-Ar method to date porphyritic dacite rock produced by the Mt St Helens eruption in 1986.

The Sample of Rock

(1) A 7 Kg sample of dacite was collected from the north-west slope of the lava dome formed from the 1986 flow.

(2) A 1 Kg block of rock was sawn from inside the sample. This sample had not been exposed to the argon in the air over the 10 years since it was formed.

(3) The chemical analysis of the sample showed that it was typical porphyritic dacite.
The Preparation of the Rock for Testing

(1) The test block was washed thoroughly to remove any outside contamination.

(2) The rock was crushed and milled using an iron mortar.

(3) Rock powder was sieved through thoroughly washed screens.

(4) The sieved material was washed to remove any contamination from the air.

(5) The resultant powder had a particle size of 0.180-0.075 mm.

(6) The powdered rock was filtered using heavy liquids to remove any contamination.

(7) Part of the powder was separated into four different mineral samples - feldspar-glass, heavy magnetic, heavy non-magnetic, and pyroxene.

(8) Each sample was scanned under the microscope to ensure that there were no foreign particles in them.

(9) The samples were stored in vials away from the air and dust.

The Potassium-argon Dating Test

(1) The 5 samples were analysed by the Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts under the direction of Richard Reesman.

(2) The lab was not told where the rock came from, or that the age of the rock was known.

(3) Flame photometry was used to measure the amount of K (%).

(4) The amount of 40K (ppm) was calculated from the terrestrial isotopic abundance using the K concentration.

(5) The concentration of 40Ar ('radiogenic argon-40') was derived using a mass spectrometer.

(6) Two measurements for each element were taken and an average calculated from them.

(7) The ratio of 40Ar to the total Argon was measured using a mass spectrometer.

The Age Calculation

(1) The age was calculated using the 'general model-age equation'.

t=1/l ln [((Dt-Do)/Pt)+1]

t = the age of the rock

l = the decay constant for 40K (5.543x10-10/yr)

Dt = the number of 40Ar atoms in the rock when it was analysed

Do = the number of 40Ar atoms in the rock when it was formed

Pt = the number of 40K atoms in the rock when it was analysed (0.105)

(2) The equation becomes:- t=1/(5.543x10-10) ln [((1/0.105)(40Ar/40K))+1]

The Results

The ten year old rock was given the following estimated ages:-

Mineral Sample

40K

[ppm]

40Ar

[ppm]

Calculated Age

[million years]

Whole rock

1.102

0.0000225

0.35 ± 0.05

Feldspar-glass

1.250

0.0000250

0.34 ± 0.06

Heavy magnetic

0.693

0.0000370

0.90 ± 0.20

Heavy non-magnetic

0.555

0.0000540

1.70 ± 0.30

Pyroxene

0.533

0.0000870

2.80 ± 0.60

Analysis of the Dating Method

(1) It was an assumption that: Dt-Do = 40Ar

(2) "As a matter of practice, no radiogenic argon is supposed to have existed when the rock was formed." CEN Tech. J., Vol. 10, No. 3, p:340 1996

(3) Because the rock was ten years old, there was no time for 40Ar to form from 40K. Therefore any 40Ar measured was not radiogenic argon.

(4) "The argon analysis of the dacite lava dome show, surprisingly, a non-zero concentration of 'radiogenic argon' (40Ar) in all preparations from the dacite." CEN Tech. J., Vol. 10, No. 3, p:340 1996

(5) Different minerals were shown to contain varying amounts of argon gas.

(6) Verifying this:-"The solubility of Ar in the minerals [olivine] is surprisingly high." Broadhurst, et al, Geochimica et Cosmochimica, Vol. 54, p:299-309

The Conclusion of the Test

K-Ar Radiometric dating does not yield accurate ages under test conditions.

"The primary assumption upon which K-Ar model-age dating is based assumes zero 40Ar in the mineral phases of a rock when it solidifies. This assumption has been shown to be faulty." CEN Tech. J., Vol. 10, No. 3, p:342 1996

The truth

Potassium-argon testing is flawed.

mouse

10-30-2012, 10:03 PM

Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon),

T2BkQs76RHI

THE PROBLEMS WITH

CARBON-14 DATING

The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that is was designed to support.

redzero

10-30-2012, 10:07 PM

Mark Allen is too busy spying on teenage girls to come up with an original thought.

mouse

10-30-2012, 10:07 PM

You could have a least bothered to erase the reference before you plagiarized the passage.

Only you know of such tricks.
I don't need to hide where I get info i leave that to you Mr Professor Google.

Still avoiding a live debate?

More flaws in carbon 14 dating.

Carbon-14 dating is the standard method used by scientists to determine the age of certain fossilized remains. As scientists will often claim something to be millions or billions of years old (ages that do not conform to the Biblical account of the age of the earth), Christians are often left wondering about the accuracy of the carbon-14 method. The truth is, carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as it’s also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.

Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMU’s), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMU’s. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.

Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would. Plants utilize, or “breath in” carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain.

There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.

First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.

The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.

Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.

Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.

We’ve listed five faulty assumptions here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is – at best – reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results – human bias.

If you’ve ever been part of a medical study, you’re probably familiar with the terms “blind study” and “double-blind study”. In a blind study, using carbon-14 dating for example, a person would send in a few quality control samples along with the actual sample to the laboratory. The laboratory analyst should not know which sample is the one of interest. In this way, the analyst could not introduce bias into the dating of the actual sample. In a double-blind study (using an experimental drug study as an example), some patients will be given the experimental drug, while others will be given a placebo (a harmless sugar pill). Neither the patients nor the doctors while know who gets what. This provides an added layer of protection against bias.

Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.

mouse

10-31-2012, 12:33 AM

KjDWbAIzku8

Wild Cobra

10-31-2012, 02:45 AM

Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere.

Not exactly true. Past times have been calibrated, as the atmospheric 14C is know to change. It is still true that accuracy decreased with age, but corrections do exist for changing levels.

I agree with it being plausible that decay rates change, but the reason was not mentioned. I would suggest that natural variances do not alter decay rates. If I am wrong, I would love to read why.

RandomGuy

10-31-2012, 08:44 AM

[ad hominem]

Logically flawed, and mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

RandomGuy

10-31-2012, 08:45 AM

Fossils are great just show me where they are Billions of years old.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dating+fossils

Google works wonders. Get to reading.

RandomGuy

10-31-2012, 08:50 AM

What are the flaws of the molecular clock model in determining relatedness between species?

It assumes that all changes in amino acid sequence are random and aren't affected by natural selection and this probably isn't true. Moreover, sequences of amino acids change at different rates in different organisms

The molecular clock alone can only say that one time period is twice as long as another: it cannot assign concrete dates. To achieve this, the molecular clock must first be calibrated against independent evidence about dates, such as the fossil record.[7] Alternatively, for viral phylogenetics and ancient DNA studies, two areas of evolutionary biology where it is impossible to sample sequences over an evolutionary timescale, the dates of the samples themselves can't be used to calibrate the molecular clock.

Pointing out flaws in a method, do not invalidate its usefulness, as known flaws can be compensated for, as well as taken into consideration when weighing evidence. Any method of measuring and gathering data is subject to flaws.

We learn a lot even so.

I would lastly point out that this particular method is not a way to gauge the age of fossils. You are, in essence, criticizing a puzzle piece for not creating a full picture.

If you understood what you were copying and pasting, you would realize that.

RandomGuy

10-31-2012, 08:54 AM

The truth

Potassium-argon testing is flawed.

Again, already explained.

The funny thing is that these flaws are pointed out by scientists themselves, and these flaws are accounted for in other research.

In other words, these methods have known flaws that are accounted for, and acknowledged.

In the jelly bean experiment, there would be known flaws in your weighing method as well. Despite those flaws, your measurements are still useful data, when you know what you are doing.

RandomGuy

10-31-2012, 09:01 AM

THE PROBLEMS WITH

CARBON-14 DATING

The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that is was designed to support.

"biblical indications"

The bible is not evidence for anything, any more than Harry Potter books are evidence for secret wizard societies. It is funny that you think it is, but funny is not science.

Saying carbon-14 dating is unuseful, and proving it are two seperate things. I can show you direct statements from such people that they actively ignore evidence that they think contradicts the bible. That is not science.

Do you always trust what conservative christians tell you about the world mouse?

mouse

11-02-2012, 03:43 AM

Do you always trust what conservative christians tell you about the world mouse?

I don't look at a persons religious background when I quote them that just shows how bias and one sided your mind works.

Instead of posting "real" evidence you post old pics of Fossils? and have yet to debunk any of my findings/

You let me down I would rather you just not reply and fade away back to the politics forum,

Let me find a few "sinners" aka "non religious" scientist to confirm Carbon dating is flawed how long you think it will take?

mouse

11-02-2012, 03:55 AM

6INhRd4MeXI

mouse

11-02-2012, 03:57 AM

f2hACvYYMh8

mouse

11-02-2012, 04:00 AM

About your fossils.....

8s2U7EsJ1QQ

RandomGuy

11-02-2012, 08:34 AM

I don't look at a persons religious background when I quote them that just shows how bias and one sided your mind works.

Instead of posting "real" evidence you post old pics of Fossils? and have yet to debunk any of my findings/

You let me down I would rather you just not reply and fade away back to the politics forum,

Let me find a few "sinners" aka "non religious" scientist to confirm Carbon dating is flawed how long you think it will take?

Non sequiturs aren't really arguments or "evidence" mouse.

Your posted copy and paste says that radio-isotope dating is wrong because it contradicts biblical indications.

The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young.

The question remains, and is rather central to the copy and pasted items.

Is the Bible valid evidence of anything? You imply it is when your criticisms of scientific methods of dating things is based on it.

RandomGuy

11-02-2012, 08:35 AM

6INhRd4MeXI

Not watching it. You won't watch anything I would post.

RandomGuy

11-02-2012, 08:35 AM

f2hACvYYMh8

Not watching it. You won't watch anything I would post.

RandomGuy

11-02-2012, 08:35 AM

About your fossils.....

8s2U7EsJ1QQ

Not watching it. You won't watch anything I would post.

mouse

11-02-2012, 08:36 AM

I have yet to present the hard evidence that not only can blow your Darwin boat out of the water, but you will feel the sting the night of the post!

That's Pride! fucking with you,

9XliISCN8xs

mouse

11-02-2012, 08:37 AM

Not watching it. You won't watch anything I would post.

tit for tat? ok post something worth watching.

mouse

11-02-2012, 08:39 AM

Non sequiturs aren't really arguments or "evidence" mouse.

Your posted copy and paste says that radio-isotope dating is wrong because it contradicts biblical indications.

The question remains, and is rather central to the copy and pasted items.

Is the Bible valid evidence of anything? You imply it is when your criticisms of scientific methods of dating things is based on it.

So in a nutshell you can't Debunk my shit?

mouse

11-02-2012, 08:40 AM

Not watching it. You won't watch anything I would post.

http://curiousterrain.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/6a00e5505fc4968834010536e09336970b-800wi.jpeg

RandomGuy

11-02-2012, 09:07 AM

So in a nutshell you can't Debunk my shit?

Already have. Multiple times. You keep reposting the same tired, flawed stuff over and over.

If you yourself wanted to see the flaws in the stuff you post, that is out there too. You just haven't bothered to read it, nor do I think you are capable of understanding it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html

Etc, etc, etc.

Everyone of your claims on that list has been debunked. Not only has it been debunked, it has been debunked by scientific methods, such as the one you yourself would use to figure out the number of jelly beans in a jar.

Given so many bad claims, with very solid evidence to contradict them, the weight of evidence is pretty clear.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

RandomGuy

11-02-2012, 09:08 AM

tit for tat? ok post something worth watching.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

RandomGuy

11-02-2012, 09:13 AM

I have yet to present the hard evidence that not only can blow your Darwin boat out of the water, but you will feel the sting the night of the post!

That's Pride! fucking with you,

I simply go where the evidence leads, and want to believe in as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible.

Meh. You will not produce anything new. Peace unto you, though. I hope the search for new stuff makes you happy.

I bet you can't find anything not on talkorigin's list. That should be telling you something, *if* you were interested in the truth, rather than lame trolling.

mouse

11-02-2012, 09:29 AM

Already have. Multiple times. You keep reposting the same tired, flawed stuff over and over.

If you yourself wanted to see the flaws in the stuff you post, that is out there too. You just haven't bothered to read it, nor do I think you are capable of understanding it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2.html

Etc, etc, etc.

Everyone of your claims on that list has been debunked. Not only has it been debunked, it has been debunked by scientific methods, such as the one you yourself would use to figure out the number of jelly beans in a jar.

Given so many bad claims, with very solid evidence to contradict them, the weight of evidence is pretty clear.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

There is a difference between debunking facts and a cheesy youtube video,. Besides why can't you just give us your "personal" views?
why hide behind a video or Google link?

redzero

11-02-2012, 10:05 AM

There is a difference between debunking facts and a cheesy youtube video,. Besides why can't you just give us your "personal" views?
why hide behind a video or Google link?

Oh the irony.

RandomGuy

11-02-2012, 10:15 AM

There is a difference between debunking facts and a cheesy youtube video,. Besides why can't you just give us your "personal" views?
why hide behind a video or Google link?

My personal views are that, based on the overwhelming evidence, the theory of evolution best explains life on our planet.

Other scientific evidence shows that the universe is immensely old, as something of a corollary to that.

I have spent long hours over the last 20+ years looking at that evidence, and looking at the claims of young earther types who generally want to prove their biblical accounts are more accurate than mountains of data and accumulated human knowledge.

Personally, the scientists have proven consistently credible. They have earned my trust as authorities in their field.

The liars and charlatans that write the drivel you copy and paste... not so much. It saddens me that you assign them so much credibility, when they so obviously have motives for lying. I still hold out the hope you are just trolling, and don't buy their foolish flawed criticisms, but that is simply my dogged optimism.

mouse

11-02-2012, 10:36 AM

Reason #11

Evolution fails.

F2i4mUpmbdU

RandomGuy

11-02-2012, 11:47 AM

Reason #11

Evolution fails.

F2i4mUpmbdU

There is a difference between debunking facts and a cheesy youtube video

Watch this evidence for evolution and debunk it. Punk.

9bZkp7q19f0

RandomGuy

11-02-2012, 11:52 AM

More evidence mouse can't debunk.

DRMBxnxWiNQ

Watch it. This blows your arguments out of the water mouse.

RandomGuy

11-02-2012, 11:59 AM

Reason #11

Evolution fails.

F2i4mUpmbdU

Seriously though, this was simply 7 minutes of a guy who doesn't understand evolution, badly misstating the theory of evolution, then leaping to his preferred explanation, using logical fallacies.

"I find [my explanation] to be more satisfying".

His explanation made him happy.

Not because that is what the evidence shows.

It makes him happy.

Does it make you happy to believe irrational things, mouse?

mouse

11-04-2012, 01:07 AM

Seriously though, this was simply 7 minutes of a guy who doesn't understand evolution,

Who does? Pssssst! it's a theory.

badly misstating the theory of evolution, then leaping to his preferred explanation, using logical fallacies.

Then debunk it.

"I find [my explanation] to be more satisfying".

And after all that's what its all about..."your" satisfaction.

His explanation made him happy.

What other explanation is there?

Not because that is what the evidence shows.

So it was all by chance? Some random action? kinda like your big bang theory. For no reason nothing exploded and now we are here..

It makes him happy.

Figured you'd miss the point.

Does it make you happy to believe irrational things, mouse?

Being a Spurs fan from 1976 to 1998 I had no choice.

mouse

11-04-2012, 01:26 AM

Pointing out flaws in a method, do not invalidate its usefulness, as known flaws can be compensated for, as well as taken into consideration when weighing evidence. Any method of measuring and gathering data is subject to flaws.

Unless your against Evolution and debating RandomGuy your shit better be airtight. So now you get a pass?

All your fucked up data can now be subject to "flaws"? Dude you crack me up, how many times are you going to move the goal posts?

We learn a lot even so

Whats this "we" shit? The only thing anyone has learned from this topic is not to post the earth is "Billions" of years old unless you want to look foolish.

Just as I predicted in earlier pages. When you debunk a weak Science Theory or catch Science in a lie all of a sudden it's "we are learning"

Hey I have an idea if your still learning then pull that fantasy Big bang fairytale out of the school text books.

I would lastly point out that this particular method is not a way to gauge the age of fossils.

Translation: Maybe next time I will not pull out the Carbon dating card unless I did my research first.

You are, in essence, criticizing a puzzle piece for not creating a full picture.

Then take out all the puzzle pieces don't belong in the box before you criticize someone for not putting the puzzle together like you demand .

RandomGuy you can't have it both ways. When you think I am wrong you get on your high horse and go on a major rant to try and expose me for a being a fraud but when your weak outdated debunked evidence is expose you start talking about marbles and Puzzle pieces?

If you understood what you were copying and pasting, you would realize that.

I realized that your no different then the other Imo's in this topic that have No evidence Man evolved from a rock and have yet to "properly" debunk any of the real evidence I have presented.

mouse

11-04-2012, 01:32 AM

More evidence mouse can't debunk.

DRMBxnxWiNQ

Watch it.

That video further proves the lack of Intelligence and demented thought process you need to believe in Darwin which you clearly possess an abundance of.

This blows your arguments out of the water mouse.

To bad you couldn't do it yourself.

RandomGuy

11-07-2012, 10:36 AM

Unless your against Evolution and debating RandomGuy your shit better be airtight. So now you get a pass?

All your fucked up data can now be subject to "flaws"? Dude you crack me up, how many times are you going to move the goal posts?

Whats this "we" shit? The only thing anyone has learned from this topic is not to post the earth is "Billions" of years old unless you want to look foolish.

Just as I predicted in earlier pages. When you debunk a weak Science Theory or catch Science in a lie all of a sudden it's "we are learning"

Hey I have an idea if your still learning then pull that fantasy Big bang fairytale out of the school text books.

Translation: Maybe next time I will not pull out the Carbon dating card unless I did my research first.

Then take out all the puzzle pieces don't belong in the box before you criticize someone for not putting the puzzle together like you demand .

RandomGuy you can't have it both ways. When you think I am wrong you get on your high horse and go on a major rant to try and expose me for a being a fraud but when your weak outdated debunked evidence is expose you start talking about marbles and Puzzle pieces?

I realized that your no different then the other Imo's in this topic that have No evidence Man evolved from a rock and have yet to "properly" debunk any of the real evidence I have presented.

Meh.

Still not falling for it.

I haven't moved the goal posts. I have merely pointed out that the methods we use to date things have limitations. You don't use a hammer to fasten screws, or a screwdriver to drive nails. The methodologies we use to date things have similar aspects to them that are known and compensated for by people who know what they are doing.

Man did not evolve from "a rock". That is not what scientists have determined what happened.

Since that is not what the theory of evolution states, you are either lying and committing a strawman logical fallacy, or ignorant of what the theory actually states.

I think it is the latter.

You do not even understand the theory you are attempting to falsify.

RandomGuy

11-07-2012, 10:55 AM

The molecular clock alone

I would lastly point out that this particular method is not a way to gauge the age of fossils. …
If you understood what you were copying and pasting, you would realize that.

Translation: Maybe next time I will not pull out the Carbon dating card unless I did my research first.

I said you don’t understand what you are copying and pasting, and here is the proof.
The molecular clock method is not the Carbon dating method.

One gives you an estimate as to how long ago any given two species diverged:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock

Carbon dating will give you the age of many (but not all) fossils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

RandomGuy

11-07-2012, 11:05 AM

The age of the earth is in the billions of years, not because of Carbon dating, but because of uranium dating, among others.

Uranium-uranium dating is a radiometric dating technique which compares two isotopes of uranium (U) in a sample: 234U and 238U. 234U/238U dating is one of several radiometric dating techniques exploiting the uranium radioactive decay series, in which 238U undergoes 14 alpha and beta decay events while decaying to the stable isotope 206Pb. Other dating techniques using this decay series include uranium-thorium (using 230Th/238U) and uranium-lead dating.

238U, with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, decays to 234U through emission of an alpha particle to an isotope of thorium (234Th), which is comparatively unstable with a half-life of just 24 days. 23

Half-lives of these things are known, provable and reproducible.

They are not up for debate. You could, if you understood what you were doing, find out for yourself.

There is another way to determine the age of the Earth. If we see an hourglass whose sand has run out, we know that it was turned over longer ago than the time interval it measures. Similarly, if we find that a radioactive parent was once abundant but has since run out, we know that it too was set longer ago than the time interval it measures. There are in fact many, many more parent isotopes than those listed in Table 1. However, most of them are no longer found naturally on Earth--they have run out. Their half-lives range down to times shorter than we can measure. Every single element has radioisotopes that no longer exist on Earth!

Many people are familiar with a chart of the elements (Fig. 6). Nuclear chemists and geologists use a different kind of figure to show all of the isotopes. It is called a chart of the nuclides. Figure 7 shows a portion of this chart. It is basically a plot of the number of protons vs. the number of neutrons for various isotopes. Recall that an element is defined by how many protons it has. Each element can have a number of different isotopes, that is,

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Table 2. Extinct parent isotopes for
which there is strong evidence that
these once existed in substantial
amounts in meteorites, but have
since completely decayed away.

Extinct Isotope

Half-Life

(Years)

Plutonium-244

82 million

Iodine-129

16 million

Palladium-107

6.5 million

Manganese-53

3.7 million

Iron-60

1.5 million

Aluminum-26

700,000

Calcium-41

130,000

RandomGuy

11-07-2012, 11:15 AM

your weak outdated debunked evidence

[chest thumping omitted]
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.

The "55 million year old mortar and pestle" thing appears to be from a paper published in the 1800's, based on one guy's limited understanding.

It is held up by creationists who are looking a a huge mountain of evidence and cherry picking items they think support their assertion of how flawed the science is, when the science itself self-corrects when something erroneous is found, as this was OVER A CENTURY AGO.

http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=262

These accounts are quoted in a paper by William J Sinclair, “Recent investigations bearing on the question of the occurrence of Neocene man in the auriferous gravels of the Sierra Nevada”, published in University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, volume 7 number 2 (1908), pages 108-131. After a careful review of the evidence to date, Professor Sinclair concludes that a “review of the evidence favoring the presence of the remains of man in the auriferous gravels, compels one to regard it as insufficient to establish the fact. On the preceding pages, it has been shown either that there have been abundant opportunities for the relies in question to be mixed with the gravels accidentally, or that the geological conditions at the localities are such as to render it improbable that the implements and bones have been associated in the gravels to the extent supposed”.
This is exactly what I mean by half truths.

Sure, SOMEONE thought this stuff was 55 million years old.
The other half of the truth is:
A professional evaluation of the evidence found the support for that claim to be wholly insufficient, and it was discarded over a century ago.

Your weak, outdated bullshit evidence was so obviously bullshit to real scientists it was discarded before your great-grandfather was born.

That is all you have.

Shit you don't understand, and that has already been debunked, sometimes hundreds of years ago.

The websites you get this stuff from LIE TO YOU, because they either are as ignorant as you are, or actively lying and you are buying it, hook, line, and sinker.

mouse

11-08-2012, 09:41 AM

Meh.

Still not falling for it.

huge mistake....

mouse

11-08-2012, 09:41 AM

How old is the "oldest" comet?

mouse

11-08-2012, 09:44 AM

And if it's under "one Million" years your bullshit ends here.

RandomGuy

11-08-2012, 01:40 PM

How old is the "oldest" comet?

Likely on the order of about 5 billion years or so, as the comets we see are formed from the same materials as our solar system itself, i.e. supernova remnants.

We have already done the "oort cloud" thing before. Your argument on this, as with evolution itself is based on your flawed and incomplete understanding.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE261.html

Claim CE261:
Comets lose material as they near the sun. If the solar system were very old, comets would long ago have evaporated.
Source:
Velikovsky, Immanuel, 1955. Earth in Upheaval. New York: Pocket Books, pp. 261-262.
Response:

The comets that entered the inner solar system a very long time ago indeed have evaporated. However, new comets enter the inner solar system from time to time. The Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt hold many comets deep in space, beyond the orbit of Neptune, where they do not evaporate. Occasionally, gravitational perturbations from other comets bump one of them into a highly elliptical orbit, which causes it to near the sun.

Links:
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof3
Further Reading:
Jewitt, David, n.d. Kuiper Belt. http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~jewitt/kb.html

I told you everything you are putting forward has already been debunked.

:sleep

Wild Cobra

11-09-2012, 04:19 AM

How old is the "oldest" comet?

What method would you use to tell? Non terrestrial objects will have different isotopic mixes than terrestrial objects if you use that method.

RandomGuy

11-09-2012, 10:01 AM

What method would you use to tell? Non terrestrial objects will have different isotopic mixes than terrestrial objects if you use that method.

The very nature of the question implies that comets have different ages. They don't.

Comets are all of the same age. As I stated before, comets were formed out of the same material our solar system was formed, i.e. supernova dust and gas. Occasionally chunks of that get ever so slightly moved by the motions/gravity of the neighborhood stars and our own star into a very wide orbit. Old ones evaporate eventually, and new ones get captured every once in a great while.

Mouse, for his part, doubts the surrounding cloud of ice/gas even exists, because the creationist dumbasses that he gets his information from say it doesn't exist. The problem with that is the dumbasses are not scientists, and don't know that we have actually observed it. Mouse uses others' flawed understanding as a crutch, and his arguments fall over because he understands this stuff even less than the dumbasses do.

The question itself indicates a deep lack of understanding.

RandomGuy

11-13-2012, 04:14 PM

And if it's under "one Million" years your bullshit ends here.

_sD_7rxYoZY
FfSvktyxVYA

Why is it your flood theory cannot explain the evidence?

mouse

11-14-2012, 01:11 AM

Why is it your flood theory cannot explain the evidence?

First off I don't know who Noah is and I have stated over the years I don't support the bible.

But I do support the earth was flooded around 6,000 - 10.000 years ago.

I will examine your cute you tube Tupperware experiment and give you my feedback in 45 minutes.

mouse

11-14-2012, 01:56 AM

Your first video is about "sediments" And how certain sediments take longer to produce than what the Bible says.

Well like I have told you for many years and many postings "I don't support the bible"

Second your video has nothing to do with Science it's some Dr. Hovind hater who has to mention his name every 4 minutes. This man has an agenda he cherry picks his evidence and refuses to do a live debate with the very man he is trying to expose.

What does that say about a person who has to hide behind a youtube video?

In any case that video does not De-bunk the earth ever been under water it merely attacks "Noah" a person from the "Bible"

go look at the latest reply on the video.

mouse

11-14-2012, 02:22 AM

Your second video is the same as the first and the same person created it. The man uses a one sided argument and keeps attacking the same people.

he is out to disprove the Bible something I don't support once again.

Come on RandomLie bring something better to the table and do some research on the authors of the videos before you ruin your reputation on some God hater.

look at the last reply on his youtube link that says it all.

RandomGuy

11-14-2012, 09:59 AM

mouse

11-15-2012, 08:30 AM

Noah's flood, your flood, there is no evidence for any such global flood.

Dude are you really that misinformed or you just want to debate? There are clams found on some of the highest mountain tops you think they got there from falling from the sky?

Let me finish up a project I am doing in Austin I will address your question Sunday morning if not sooner if I can get a good WiFi signal.

If there were a global flood, how do you explain the existence of fresh water fish? The salty oceans rising would have killed them all off.

Your assuming the sea was salty already. Today’s oceans are about 3.6% salt. Between the salts washing in from ground water and the salts leaching in from subterranean salt domes, the oceans could have gone from fresh water to 3.6% in the 4,400 years.

RandomGuy

11-16-2012, 09:25 AM

Dude are you really that misinformed or you just want to debate? There are clams found on some of the highest mountain tops you think they got there from falling from the sky?

Let me finish up a project I am doing in Austin I will address your question Sunday morning if not sooner if I can get a good WiFi signal.

Your assuming the sea was salty already. Today’s oceans are about 3.6% salt. Between the salts washing in from ground water and the salts leaching in from subterranean salt domes, the oceans could have gone from fresh water to 3.6% in the 4,400 years.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

"nu-uh, oceans could have been entirely fresh water back then".

Ok, you aren't serious. Gotcha. Kinda knew that before, sorry to bother you.

mouse

11-16-2012, 10:57 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

"nu-uh, oceans could have been entirely fresh water back then".

Ok, you aren't serious. Gotcha. Kinda knew that before, sorry to bother you.

Translation:

open mouth insert foot.

You have no "evidence" you know that shit you need to win in court?

Science has no evidence of water conditions 6 months ago to solve a homicide you think they can tell you the water conditions 4,000 years ago?

How far up your Ape ass is your thought process?
ease up on the bath salts.

According to NASA Scientists

The "moon" is drifting a way from the Earth at a rate of "4" inches a year.

This has been recorded Google this shit.

If the Earth is "4 Billion" years old how close would the Moon be?

And your head exploded....

RandomGuy

11-16-2012, 12:33 PM

Translation:

open mouth insert foot.

You have no "evidence" you know that shit you need to win in court?

Science has no evidence of water conditions 6 months ago to solve a homicide you think they can tell you the water conditions 4,000 years ago?

How far up your Ape ass is your thought process?
ease up on the bath salts.

According to NASA Scientists

The "moon" is drifting a way from the Earth at a rate of "4" inches a year.

This has been recorded Google this shit.

If the Earth is "4 Billion" years old how close would the Moon be?

And your head exploded....

Sokay, you aren't being serious, I understand that. Again, sorry to bother you.

Wild Cobra

11-16-2012, 07:50 PM

According to NASA Scientists

The "moon" is drifting a way from the Earth at a rate of "4" inches a year.

This has been recorded Google this shit.

If the Earth is "4 Billion" years old how close would the Moon be?

And your head exploded....
This has been brought up before.

The drift rate changes. I'll bet there were times it drifted closer year by year.

mouse

11-18-2012, 03:10 AM

This has been brought up before.

The drift rate changes. I'll bet there were times it drifted closer year by year.

Does it matter if its 4 inches or one inch? The facts are the moon couldn't be where it is today after 2 Billion years let alone 4 billion years.

Because the universe is constantly expanding. Remember the "big bang" ? If your going to use Science then you have to defends its bullshit theories.

You guys crack me up you support science and Darwin and wind up contradicting your own beliefs because the text books are full of lies and lies are hard to cover up you have to be very sharp and remember which lie you said and when.

You want to toss out big bangs and expanding universes like a trigger happy sheriff but as soon as someone calls you out on it you want to say "it's been discussed already"?

Forget the moon what about Saturn's rings? Science claims they are separating each year. If you go back only "one Billion" years the rings would be to tight the whole theory goes to shit.

I'm not here to belittle you but you have to realize the crap your trying to feed me is old outdated and full of lies.

.

Wild Cobra

11-18-2012, 03:42 AM

Does it matter if its 4 inches or one inch? The facts are the moon couldn't be where it is today after 2 Billion years let alone 4 billion years.

You missed the point.

What if the outward drift is 1" now, but -2" before, and later will be -1", then to 2", etc.

What is, at times, it gets closer. Not farther year by year?

Please....

Don't tell me you believe things are consistent over time...

howbouthemspurs

11-18-2012, 05:46 AM

I don't know if mouse is for real or extremely retarded.... Either way he must live a sad life.

mouse

11-18-2012, 06:22 AM

You missed the point.

What if the outward drift is 1" now, but -2" before, and later will be -1", then to 2", etc.

What is, at times, it gets closer. Not farther year by year?
Please....

Don't tell me you believe things are consistent over time...

If you really think moons and planets suddenly stop and by some sort of unknown force start to move in the opposite direction then your either severely misguided or you must have the best weed money can buy.

mouse

11-18-2012, 06:35 AM

I don't know if mouse is for real or extremely retarded...

Then that says it all if you can't figure out the difference between someone with a mental handicap compared to someone who went to MIT

Either way he must live a sad life.

Your way off base I have a dream job , sex when I want, and a killer weed connection that would make a high times centerfold.

I work only 4 days a week which is playing on the laptop or eating, I'm off 3 days were I drink free beer and produce Documentary films when not educating the misguided people in an online debate. So to be quite frankly I love my life. But since your life is soooo important and (Un-sad)

Your welcome to join in on the debate and showcase your vast knowledge in this subject matter.

Wild Cobra

11-18-2012, 07:27 AM

If you really think moons and planets suddenly stop and by some sort of unknown force start to move in the opposite direction then your either severely misguided or you must have the best weed money can buy.
It isn't an unknown force. Just like the earth's eccentricity, obliquity, and precession changes, so do all planets. They interact with each other. There could always be some unknown mass in the past that altered the moon's orbit, or any other planets orbit.

Bottom like is...

We don't know.

I think it's safe to say the drift rate has changed.

mouse

11-18-2012, 12:32 PM

Bottom like is...

We don't know.

I think it's safe to say the drift rate has changed.

Then why have it in the school text books?

I appreciate your semi non bias takes on this subject your one of the few that at least looks into other possiblities.

Ok skip the planets and moons lets move on to what we "do" know.

Scientists claim the Mississippi river loses around a football field size area of mud every 30 minutes to an hour.

If the earth was only "1 Million" years old the Mississippi river should be wide enough to fit Texas inside and you want to claim the earth is "4 Billion" years old?

Agloco

11-18-2012, 08:15 PM

I don't know if mouse is for real or extremely retarded.... Either way he must live a sad life.

You won't even get an argument from mouse on that.

mouse

11-19-2012, 11:10 AM

look around, I'm not alone.

Agloco

11-19-2012, 10:58 PM

look around, I'm not alone.

Yeah you are. The voices in your head don't count.

Agloco

11-19-2012, 10:59 PM

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/11/not-a-bad-idea-heroes-of-science-action.php

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/11/19/heroes-of-science-small.jpg

mouse

11-20-2012, 02:11 PM

All those talented people and yet we still don't have a cure for the common cold?

I'm sure this child with cancer would love some of your science action figures to play with.

http://thegazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/7671661-LAS-Jacob-Flesher-07_14_2012-21.49.44.jpg

The Irony of your action figures is when it comes to curing a deadly disease they don't seem to go into any action at all.

Top 10 Cures That Didn't Work

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/cures/cures.html

Top 10 Science Mistakes

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/science-mistakes/science-mistakes-01.html

phyzik

11-21-2012, 10:46 PM

Oh Mouse, falling back on your "why doesnt science fix diseases?" shtick.

You understand there are different fields right? I hope you dont expect astrophysicist to cure cancer, or an Archeologist to figure out the cause of birth defects.

The fact that your falling back on this shit (which I called out several pages ago) means you are backed into a corner.

As far as your moon theory, I already covered this as well... Your under the assumption that the moon is the same age as the earth. Im not going to detail it for you again but the quick jist of it is that the moon was most likely formed by a large body collision with the young earth creating an accretion disk which eventually formed into the moon.

Scan back a few pages or look it up yourself.

mouse

11-22-2012, 09:47 AM

Oh Mouse, falling back on your "why doesnt science fix diseases?" shtick.

I'm sure the Cancer patients agree with you. It must be nice to have a disease free life for you and your family how does it feel to be immune to Cancer?

Before you answer have huge piece of wood handy to knock on.

You understand there are different fields right? I hope you dont expect astrophysicist to cure cancer, or an Archeologist to figure out the cause of birth defects.

You do realize there are medical scientists in the action figures group right?

The fact that your falling back on this shit (which I called out several pages ago) means you are backed into a corner.

the fact that you don't know I am replying to Agloco and he is bringing up old shit so that is why I re post previous shit is not being in a corner it's wathching Agloco hit another dead end and all you Darwin worshipers in here hit that dead end months ago.

As far as your moon theory, I already covered this as well... Your under the assumption that the moon is the same age as the earth. Im not going to detail it for you again but the quick jist of it is that the moon was most likely formed by a large body collision with the young earth creating an accretion disk which eventually formed into the moon.

I thought you only post the facts what's this "most likely" shit?

Scan back a few pages or look it up yourself.

scan back further and read where you didn't answer my questions.

psssssssst! page 28

phyzik

11-23-2012, 02:26 AM

[quote]I'm sure the Caner patients agree with you. It must be nice to have a disease free life for you and your family how does it feel to be immune to Cancer?

Before you answer have huge piece of wood handy to knock on.

My mom died with cancer in 2006. But she didnt die because of the cancer, she died from surgery. I know full and well what cancer patients and their families go through. If it wasnt for advances in science, she would have died long before that.

You do realize there are medical scientists in the action figures group right?

I honestly dont understand this question.

the fact that you don't know I am replying to Agloco and he is bringing up old shit so that is why I re post previous shit is not being in a corner it's wathching Agloco hit another dead end and all you Darwin worshipers in here hit that dead end months ago.

replay with quotes next time, I rarely visit your conspiracy/magical threads anymore so I dont read everything... They are just for my amusement now tbh. You've been proven wrong time and time again, its just funny now.

I thought you only post the facts what's this "most likely" shit?

Science isn't averse to admitting it is wrong, in fact, thats the greatest virtue of science... With as large as the universe is there is a possibility for anything. You have to allow for that. Having said that, the evidence we have now points to the conclusion I posted and is supported by most of the leading scientists in the respective fields regarding this in the world.

scan back further and read where you didn't answer my questions.

psssssssst! page 28

again, like I said, I check these type of posts now for my amusement... I might go back and check on it, the difference is though that I base my claims on verifiable data from leading scientists.... you get your data from conspiracy theorists and quack psuedo-scientists who are shunned from the major fields.

mouse

11-23-2012, 09:35 AM

My mom died with cancer in 2006.

She didn't have to.

But she didnt die because of the cancer, she died from surgery. I know full and well what cancer patients and their families go through. If it wasnt for advances in science, she would have died long before that.

So now that granny is gone science can slack off and take it's time finding a cure?

What about those who's Grandmothers just found out today they now have a disease that should have been cured around 1989?

Use any scenario you wish the bottom line is this what roach fossil on mars we can find for 4.6 Billion dollars is more important than what causes Autism. It has nothing to do if your an "atheist" or bible thumper.

So you need to back off on all the meaningless insults and put downs cancer has no preference on who its strikes next.

I honestly dont understand this question.

You said "you do know there are other types of science, right ?" and I mentioned how 25% of the Scientific Action figures above studied medical Science. I know the difference from all the different careers in the Science industry and it is big business.

replay with quotes next time,

Translation: Do all the work for me.

I rarely visit your conspiracy/magical threads anymore so I dont read everything.

There lies the rub. You see phyzik you can't go around belittling me if you haven't read the whole topic. how do you know i already didn't kick everyone's ass? You notice they just post jpegs and Googled images and have nothing to add to the topic?I

t's because I asked them questions they could not answer properly, like I asked you and you have yet to reply back.

Dude you can't have it both ways try and laugh at me and yet you have no idea what the debate is about. either your in or your out.

You come across as a Mouse hater and that is no way to be seen online as a unprepared debater who hasn't at least a 10th grade education.

look at what i have to say and disprove it leave the sarcasm and insults in the recycling bin.

They are just for my amusement now tbh

well you don't read them all so how would you know?
.

You've been proven wrong time and time again,

Post the link were i was proven wrong. it's the other way around i exposed Science and Darwin lovers for what they really are a bunch of God hating assholes who have the attention span of a Goodwill employee.
its just funny now.

Science isn't averse to admitting it is wrong, in fact, thats the greatest virtue of science..

You went and pulled out the Get out of jail card so soon? the Bullshit backpedaling science is constantly revising itself and learning shit?

That is another way of Scientists saying we fucked up and we still want to still look smart. Let a creationist be wrong about Noah and you guys will be on that persons ass like justin bieber entering a prison cell of full of horny Back men on death row .
go ahead hide behind that old bullshit excuse. Science is never wrong they have an out.

With as large as the universe is there is a possibility for anything. You have to allow for that. Having said that, the evidence we have now points to the conclusion I posted and is supported by most of the leading scientists in the respective fields regarding this in the world.

Translation: We really have no idea about the Universe and we are still in shock they actually put in the text books the solar system is 12 billion years old when we aren't even sure how Stonehenge was built. This is so cool some old bearded opium smoking hippy lives on an Island and wites a book to tell people they evolved from a snail and they bought that shit?

The intelligent Darwin worshipers must laugh hour on end as they can't believe that shit made it into the school text books?

These guys must jack off to the movie planet of the apes on a weekly basis.

again, like I said, I check these type of posts now for my amusement... I might go back and check on it, the difference is though that I base my claims on verifiable data from leading scientists..

and I prove you wrong and you leave and come back 10 pages later.

.. you get your data from conspiracy theorists and quack psuedo-scientists who are shunned from the major fields.

And we all know phyzik gets his data from Bill Nye himself.

Wild Cobra

11-26-2012, 07:19 AM

Mouse. You claim to have gone to MIT. You have a working knowledge of the theory of relativity?

Now remember that God is telling Moses the creation. From his viewpoint, in words of the Hebrew language.

Imagine God, starting the Big Bang. The temperature, heat, and gravity. With time Every doubling of the expansion, represents a day of time from God's perspective. From out current perspective, day 1, from God's perspective could be 8 billion years. Day 2, 4 billion years long, etc. etc. until day 6 was 250 million years long.

How can Bill Nye disagree with this theory?

RandomGuy

11-26-2012, 04:58 PM

Does it matter if its 4 inches or one inch? The facts are the moon couldn't be where it is today after 2 Billion years let alone 4 billion years.

Because the universe is constantly expanding. Remember the "big bang" ? If your going to use Science then you have to defends its bullshit theories.

You guys crack me up you support science and Darwin and wind up contradicting your own beliefs because the text books are full of lies and lies are hard to cover up you have to be very sharp and remember which lie you said and when.
You want to toss out big bangs and expanding universes like a trigger happy sheriff but as soon as someone calls you out on it you want to say "it's been discussed already"?
Forget the moon what about Saturn's rings? Science claims they are separating each year. If you go back only "one Billion" years the rings would be to tight the whole theory goes to shit.
I'm not here to belittle you but you have to realize the crap your trying to feed me is old outdated and full of lies.

.

Saturn's rings statement debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE240.html

Moon age statement debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

These two dumb ideas have been debunked repeatedly, by multiple people and this information has been given to you. The only reason you re-state it repeatedly, even after having been shown it is wrong is to get a rise out of people.

Either that or you are too lazy or stupid to bother comprehending it.

Which is it, lazy and stupid or trolling?

I know it is the latter, but you can lay claim to the former if you really want.

mouse

11-26-2012, 06:18 PM

Mouse. You claim to have gone to MIT. You have a working knowledge of the theory of relativity?

It was a 12 week reverse engineering class back in 1986 not everyone who attends MIT studies theory of relativity and Science.

mouse

11-26-2012, 06:29 PM

Now remember that God is telling Moses the creation. From his viewpoint, in words of the Hebrew language.

I don't support the Bible we have been over this.

Imagine God, starting the Big Bang.

Using what to create the explosion?

The temperature, heat, and gravity. With time Every doubling of the expansion, represents a day of time from God's perspective. From out current perspective, day 1, from God's perspective could be 8 billion years. Day 2, 4 billion years long, etc. etc. until day 6 was 250 million years long.

I don't disagree with that point who is to say what a "day" really is? Man created time using sunrise and sunsets and with the 12 month orbit called it a year.

It could very well be called a day, That still doesn't explain how the solar system is "12 Billion" years old the evidence shows otherwise..

How can Bill Nye disagree with this theory?

Buy doing some "real" research and calculating time it takes for fossilization to occur. Looking at the Earths erosion patterns.

And the 100s of other facts that show the Earth is not "Billions" of years old.

mouse

11-26-2012, 06:48 PM

Saturn's rings statement debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE240.html

Moon age statement debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

You can't read that site only suggest a different prospective they don't claim to actually debunk anything.

here is an actual quote.

Response:

1. Saturn's rings may be less than 100 million years old (Cuzzi and Estrada 1998). However, that says nothing about the age of the planet. The rings could have formed when Saturn captured a small moon that fell within the Roche limit (the distance below which moons will be pulled apart by tidal forces). This could have happened any time in Saturn's history.

You call that scientific evidence debunking? You can't tell a judge in court when he ask how old you are and if you have a drivers license.

"well judge I may be 21 or I may be 17.. I could have a drivers license and I may have a car.

These two dumb ideas have been debunked repeatedly, by multiple people and this information has been given to you. The only reason you re-state it repeatedly, even after having been shown it is wrong is to get a rise out of people.

Where is the Scientific proof? That lame webpage is by a man named Mark Isaak, Do you even know who he is?

Either that or you are too lazy or stupid to bother comprehending it.

Which is it, lazy and stupid or trolling?

I know it is the latter, but you can lay claim to the former if you really want.

I just remembered why I avoid debating with you just can't reply w/o your immature outdated insults can you?

On a side note before I place you back on the no reply to list.

Your Buddy Mark Isaak has been known for hating creationist and even has a book called The Counter-Creationism Handbook.

Nice try bringing a Bible hating book author to a scientific debate.

But you should know that since your not lazy and stupid

RandomGuy

11-27-2012, 10:34 AM

[QUOTE=RandomGuy;6210455]Saturn's rings statement debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE240.html

Moon age statement debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

You can't read that site only suggest a different prospective they don't claim to actually debunk anything.

here is an actual quote.

Response:

1. Saturn's rings may be less than 100 million years old (Cuzzi and Estrada 1998). However, that says nothing about the age of the planet. The rings could have formed when Saturn captured a small moon that fell within the Roche limit (the distance below which moons will be pulled apart by tidal forces). This could have happened any time in Saturn's history.

You call that scientific evidence debunking? You can't tell a judge in court when he ask how old you are and if you have a drivers license.

"well judge I may be 21 or I may be 17.. I could have a drivers license and I may have a car.

Where is the Scientific proof? That lame webpage is by a man named Mark Isaak, Do you even know who he is?

I just remembered why I avoid debating with you just can't reply w/o your immature outdated insults can you?

On a side note before I place you back on the no reply to list.

Your Buddy Mark Isaak has been been known for hating creationist and even has a book called The Counter-Creationism Handbook.

Nice try bringing a Bible hating book author to a scientific debate.

But you should know that since your not lazy and stupid

"your not" LOL

Anyway, you don't debate, you just repeat.

You never learn, you never abandon fucktarded ideas when given better information.

You just wait a few days and repeat the same fucktarded ideas as if no one has ever shredded them for the idiocy they are.

One doesn't have to do much debunking when the underlying ideas you are pushing are basically, fundamentally, flawed.

Both the Saturn's rings idea and the moon distance idea are based on the same logical premise:
That the current rate can be used to calculate an actual age.

The current rate cannot be used to calculate actual ages for either. Neither can the rate at which the sun is currently shrinking.

It is all basically flawed simply because you have to know two things:

1. Is the rate the same now as it was in the past?
2. When did the clock start ticking?

You don't know what the rate of the moon receding, or the rate at which Saturn's rings 100 years ago, let alone 1,000 or 1,000,000 years ago.

This makes your entire fucktarded idea, fucktarded.

It is fucktarded because if your starting assumption is bad, then the calculation is bad.

Take the statement:

I ride my unicorn to work.

This is obviously a fucktarded statement. Unicorns don't exist.

Therefore I can't ride one to work.

"Using todays rate for X, I calculated the age of Y"<< this is a fucktarded statement.

Is it fucktarded, because your entire calculation is based on the assumption that the rate has never changed, something you have no evidence about.

Do you understand you have no evidence about the past rate of the moon receding or how fast Saturns rings were dissipating?

Bill_Brasky

11-27-2012, 04:37 PM

Happy birthday Bill :toast

cantthinkofanything

11-27-2012, 04:43 PM

why didn't the black guy dress up more. jeans? shirt is too loud also

mouse

11-27-2012, 06:12 PM

RandomGuy

11-28-2012, 11:39 AM

Ok Random lie you want to be the rain man of Saturn, go right ahead. I will be sure to look you up first before I try Google next time.

But what about the earth slowing down 1.4 milliseconds that has to be added to the clocks.

Multiply 1.4 milliseconds by 4 Billion years how fast would the Earth be spinning?

http://www.physicsmynd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/merry.go_.c.jpg

Saturn's rings statement debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE240.html

Moon age statement debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

You can't read that site only suggest a different prospective they don't claim to actually debunk anything.

here is an actual quote.

Response:

1. Saturn's rings may be less than 100 million years old (Cuzzi and Estrada 1998). However, that says nothing about the age of the planet. The rings could have formed when Saturn captured a small moon that fell within the Roche limit (the distance below which moons will be pulled apart by tidal forces). This could have happened any time in Saturn's history.

You call that scientific evidence debunking? You can't tell a judge in court when he ask how old you are and if you have a drivers license.

"well judge I may be 21 or I may be 17.. I could have a drivers license and I may have a car.

Where is the Scientific proof? That lame webpage is by a man named Mark Isaak, Do you even know who he is?

I just remembered why I avoid debating with you just can't reply w/o your immature outdated insults can you?

On a side note before I place you back on the no reply to list.

Your Buddy Mark Isaak has been been known for hating creationist and even has a book called The Counter-Creationism Handbook.

Nice try bringing a Bible hating book author to a scientific debate.

But you should know that since your not lazy and stupid

"your not" LOL

Anyway, you don't debate, you just repeat.

You never learn, you never abandon fucktarded ideas when given better information.

You just wait a few days and repeat the same fucktarded ideas as if no one has ever shredded them for the idiocy they are.

One doesn't have to do much debunking when the underlying ideas you are pushing are basically, fundamentally, flawed.

Both the Saturn's rings idea and the moon distance idea are based on the same logical premise:
That the current rate can be used to calculate an actual age.

The current rate cannot be used to calculate actual ages for either. Neither can the rate at which the sun is currently shrinking.

It is all basically flawed simply because you have to know two things:

1. Is the rate the same now as it was in the past?
2. When did the clock start ticking?

You don't know what the rate of the moon receding, or the rate at which Saturn's rings 100 years ago, let alone 1,000 or 1,000,000 years ago.

This makes your entire fucktarded idea, fucktarded.

It is fucktarded because if your starting assumption is bad, then the calculation is bad.

Take the statement:

I ride my unicorn to work.
This is obviously a fucktarded statement. Unicorns don't exist.
Therefore I can't ride one to work.
"Using todays rate for X, I calculated the age of Y"<< this is a fucktarded statement.
It is fucktarded, because your entire calculation is based on the assumption that the rate has never changed, something you have no evidence about.

Do you understand you have no evidence about the past rate of the moon receding or how fast Saturns rings were dissipating?

Sorry, already debunked. Same stupid shit as before.