Reply With Quote
that's a shame.
I hate contradictions myself which is why I have so many issued with the Old Testament.
damn it, there I go again.
that's a shame.
I hate contradictions myself which is why I have so many issued with the Old Testament.
I'd rather see scientific evidence and testing through solid research than your opinions.
You dismissing the proof doesn't mean it hasn't been provided already.You still haven't proved to me the earth is [b]4 Billion[/b/ years old........
How old do you think the earth is?
Appreciated that we can simply have a discussion without setting each other up to look a fool.
The problem is that scientists are humans. Incredibly often, they completely disregard results that do not correlate with their own personal convictions. These possible "anti-naturalist" evidences are buried or reinterpreted to fit an unprovable theory. Examples of this are rampant in the ape/man links they have attempted to sell us before, which is why I question every single shred of evidence concerning "Ida."If you reject common scientific understanding (age of Earth, carbon dating, evolution, etc), then my question is, what is your position exactly?
"I dont know" is not an acceptable answer, to me and me alone. Because thousands of people dedicate their lives, studies, paychecks, grants, education and personal worth on the scientific work you so easily trounce as untrue and patently false.
About these great scientists, much of their work is accurate and truly beneficial for mankind. Problem is, much evidence in this "area" of science (encompassing multiple fields) is very much subjectively interpreted. It is clear simply by the extremely low standards the scientific community adopted for "accurately" dating fossils - it is 100% opinion how old any fossil is.
I don't easily dismiss them. In fact, like I said, microevolution is do ented. Problem is, microevolution is not "true" evolution. Birds changing beaks and colors do not become dinosaurs or vice versa.Basically, what makes you and mouse so incredibly smarter and more informed than the Universities from here to Japan and beyond that all offer undergrad/postgrad curriculum in the fields of study you so easily dismiss?
I don't know a whole lot, but I've read on this subject for several years now. I was originally an atheist and completely bought all evolution had to give me. I was confused many times as to sources of information and true evidence supporting many purported "facts" concerning the theory, which is why I started looking for answers. Two of my professors eventually advised me to "forget about understanding it because scientists don't even agree on most things." To me, that was the final red flag. Too much opinion and exaggerations happens when humans can't agree on what actually happened.Youre either incredibly brilliant, blinded by bias or contradictory for contradictions sake.
Then go watch the discovery channel, web forums are for individuals who have opinions
You dismissing the proof doesn't mean it hasn't been provided already.
psssst! where is it?
no more than 50 thousand years. look around you .How old do you think the earth is?
you actually think all this water and air could survive 4 billion years?
I dont have time to respond to everything, going to lunch in a few minutes.
are you serious? obviously what I said went over your head. The earth recycles itself. You claimed erosion, which I didnt disagree with, I just pointed out that while the earth is doing all this eroding it can also renew what has been eroded away. While it has grown a bit that doesnt mean it will continue to grow at that rate. You seem to think everything is doing something at a constant rate. I hate to break it to you, but there is nothing constant about nature.Then according to your own words the earth should be as thick as the Sun given it had 4 Billion years to get thicker. You see how the 4 Billion fantasy comes back to bite that ass?
Did you not read what I said? IT DOES LEAK OUT!!! I never said it stays underground forever. In fact I agreed with you that it has to come out. It does. Its been known to happen. It doesnt stay underground forever. It escapes. There's proof. What more do you want me to say? you seem to think that if its underground it must stay there for 4 billion years but it cant because the pressure is to great so the earth cant be 4 billion years old. Well, it does escape so that is no way to judge the earths age.Dude 4 billion years is not enough time? How much time you need?
We can measure the time of day against an atomic clock. That's how we know its slowing down by that amount. Let me guess, your going to discredit an atomic clock somehow.Show me how 4 Billion years at 0.005 seconds per year is not a contradiction in itself. Do the math. And who is to say 0.005 is correct?
Also....as the earth’s rotation is slowing down, the moon is gradually receding from earth about 2 inches a year. At that rate, 1 million years ago the moon would have been so close to the earth that it would have fallen into our planet because of the gravitational pull. Also the moon would have been so close that the tides on earth would have been much higher, and would have eroded away the continents and destroyed life.
Also, the moon isnt moving 2 inches a year but thats close enough, its more like 1.5 inches. Again though, your assuming that the moon has ALWAYS been moving away at that speed.
The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon’s gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth’s rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth’s rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.
The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth’s rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.
The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirty-eight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).
(Brush, 1983, p.78)
Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush’s figure. Thus, the “problem” disappears!
This is the reason why I will no longer debate with you. Its clear you are just arguing to argue now. You cannot seriously believe humans have lived on the planet for 4 billion years and frolicked happily with the Dinosaurs. Anyway, time for lunch.4 Billion years of people having sex show me the people? You have no solid evidence.
I have. they agree with the rest of the scientific community that the earth is more than 4 billion years old.
You ask for proof and opinions at the same time. Make up your mind, troll.
It's been posted ad nauseum in this forum time and again, much less this thread.psssst! where is it?
You dismissing it time and again does not mean it hasn't been provided.
pssst! where is your proof?no more than 50 thousand years. look around you .
pssst! water and air is not an issue in regards to the age of the earth.you actually think all this water and air could survive 4 billion years?
It's pretty much like this in any debate with mouse and the trolls.
people posting talkorigins bull while discrediting creationist websites are huge hypocrites. Talkorigins is completely biased for evolution, and many of its arguments are opinionated, outdated, and nothing more than a biased or "evolution in the gaps" based. Why doesn't talkorigins answer some of the problems with evolution, because there are NONE?
Last edited by z0sa; 05-28-2009 at 12:21 PM.
Tell me how the crow burgers taste!
And the head on my shoulders.are you serious? obviously what I said went over your head.
I will go reread most of it i was in a hurry and just figured you disagreed with everything I said so I responded in a hasty fashion, I apologize but to be fare this Blake fella and all his Troll talk threw my game off a tad.The earth recycles itself. You claimed erosion, which I didnt disagree with, I just pointed out that while the earth is doing all this eroding it can also renew what has been eroded away. While it has grown a bit that doesnt mean it will continue to grow at that rate. You seem to think everything is doing something at a constant rate. I hate to break it to you, but there is nothing constant about nature.
That is true but what makes you think anything can stay in place and stay fresh for a billion years? Don't you see the lack of common sense to think any liquid matter can just be present after Millions of years and you want 4 billion? If you could only drop the Billion talk you may sound like there is hope for mankind. Why go by what some scientist say (in the last 200 years) as gospel? Have an open mind even Jesus and Einstein are quoted as making mistakes also.Did you not read what I said? IT DOES LEAK OUT!!! I never said it stays underground forever. In fact I agreed with you that it has to come out. It does. Its been known to happen. It doesnt stay underground forever. It escapes. There's proof. What more do you want me to say? you seem to think that if its underground it must stay there for 4 billion years but it cant because the pressure is to great so the earth cant be 4 billion years old. Well, it does escape so that is no way to judge the earths age.
That is still a theory you have to at least admit the jury is still out on this one topic.We can measure the time of day against an atomic clock. That's how we know its slowing down by that amount. Let me guess, your going to discredit an atomic clock somehow.
Also, the moon isnt moving 2 inches a year but thats close enough, its more like 1.5 inches. Again though, your assuming that the moon has ALWAYS been moving away at that speed.
The tides, chiefly caused by the Moon’s gravitational attraction and the orbiting of Earth and Moon about a common point, act as a brake to slow down the earth’s rotation. The nearer tidal bulge, which carries the greater effect, runs slightly out of alignment of the Moon overhead; the gravitational interaction between it and the Moon serves to speed up the Moon in its orbit even as it slows down the earth’s rotation. As it speeds up, the Moon moves to a higher orbit.
The effectiveness of this tidal brake on the earth’s rotation strongly depends on the configuration of the oceans. Thus, we should inquire as to whether the current arrangement is an average value or not.
The present rate of tidal dissipation is anomalously high because the tidal force is close to a resonance in the response function of the oceans; a more realistic calculation shows that dissipation must have been much smaller in the past and that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was well outside the Roche limit, at a distance of at least thirty-eight earth radii (Hansen 1982; see also Finch 1982).
(Brush, 1983, p.78)
Thus, our moon was probably never closer than 151,000 miles. A modern astronomy text (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.173) gives an estimate of 250,000 kilometers (155,000 miles), which agrees very closely with Brush’s figure. Thus, the “problem” disappears!
pot meet kettle.This is the reason why I will no longer debate with you. Its clear you are just arguing to argue now.
You drew first blood by saying I was silly and mocking Dr Hovind don't fall off that high horse your on and trey and look like your only post quotes you like to hit below the belt also.
But you can bail if you want.. I figure you know whats coming a 2000 plus word of quotes of me debunking your half ass theories you scoop up off Google and you rather not be part of it, that's cool you can leave,(smart move) as long as Blake is still around we will still have all the we can handle.
You cannot seriously believe humans have lived on the planet for 4 billion years and frolicked happily with the Dinosaurs.
When did i ever say man and dino shared the earth?
the dinosaurs were 90 billion years ago man was only 600 billion years on this one trillion year old planet. did you not see the latest carbon 18 test results yet?
Don't forget to pray first!Anyway, time for lunch.
Actually I wish they would care to explain how the Hadrosaurs that was found in the Creek Formation Badlands of North Dakota back in 1999 could still retain its soft tissues, skin, muscles, blood vessels, ligaments, nerves, spinal discs and tendons... after 65-67 million years!!!people posting talkorigins bull while discrediting creationist websites are huge hypocrites. Talkorigins is completely biased for evolution, and many of its arguments are opinionated, outdated, and nothing more than a biased or "evolution in the gaps" based. Why doesn't talkorigins answer some of the problems with evolution, because there are NONE?
The prevailing 'rapid mineralization' theory doesn't really explain how an organism of that size can be preserved for such a staggering amount of time... especially when its proteins and genetic material managed to remain well preserved as well...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 05-28-2009 at 01:27 PM.
I agree. I don't like that website.
Their aim seems to be more at bashing creationists than to discuss theories of the universe.
there are some problems with evolution, but there are more problems with the book of Genesis being the source of someone's science.
how long do you think the hadrosaurs were there for?
how long should it have taken for the skin etc to deteriorate?
what mistake did Jesus make?Have an open mind even Jesus and Einstein are quoted as making mistakes also.
do honestly wonder why nobody takes you seriously?You drew first blood by saying I was silly and mocking Dr Hovind don't fall off that high horse your on and trey and look like your only post quotes you like to hit below the belt also.
But you can bail if you want.. I figure you know whats coming a 2000 plus word of quotes of me debunking your half ass theories you scoop up off Google and you rather not be part of it, that's cool you can leave,(smart move) as long as Blake is still around we will still have all the we can handle.
++++ The Sun is expending mass to fuel its nuclear reactions: FACT
++++ As the Sun's mass diminishes it's gravitational field also diminishes: FACT
++++ As the Sun's gravitational field diminishes its fusion rate deccelerates: FACT
++++ As the fusion rate deccelerates, the hydrogen consumption rate diminishes: FACT
++++ As the Sun's gravitation field diminishes the rate of radial shrinkage also slows down because the sun's mass isn't held (compressed) as tightly: FACT
++++ Solar flares expel significant quan ies of solar mass and energy away from the Sun; such events also contribute to the above process as well.
That is what we do know about studying solar dynamics today. That is what my observations were based on... Again, I felt no need to link that line of reasoning to some other source when it can easily be derived.
Umm the most outspoken ones do... The other ones tag along with the "collective consensus" although no "collective" examination of the data ever really occurs...
Actually, I pointed out that said rates weren't constant. Saying that they have no relevance to the past however, is ignorant. Today's consumption rates serve as a reference point... the Sun's hydrogen consumption rates had to be higher in the past than they are today due to the Sun's noted dynamics above. They are relevant no matter what you say to the contrary.
IMO <100,000 years
"IMO <100,000 years"
You outsmart and self-congratulate yourself. How much is the Creation Inst paying to troll your ignorance here?
According to you, Science has all the answers... you tell me.
Just know this, the Egyptian mumification process is rarely as proficient.
Mumification of the bodies in Guanajuato Mexico... should also serve as a reference point...
(quick, go and Google it... that's why I hate internet debates, people try and come off as smarter than they really are because they can go 'look up' some
sort of comeback)...
The denaturalization tendencies of DNA at temperature and pressure extremes should also not be overlooked. DNA is easily hydrolyzed by water, weak organic acids and weak organic bases... So even if mineral dirts do chemically bind these agents, the salts produced by their reactions are still corrosive to the genetic material and other "soft proteins"... so how is it they managed to stand the test of time?
Last edited by Phenomanul; 05-28-2009 at 02:20 PM.
Simmer down... It's only my opinion..."IMO <100,000 years"
You outsmart and self-congratulate yourself. How much is the Creation Inst paying to troll your ignorance here?
Bottom line, I believe everything was Created. Likewise, I believe that the timing for that supernatural event is not nearly as important as acknowledging that it is the work of the Almighty Creator...
Furthermore, I have always contended that the supernatural isn't bound to leaving natural evidence. That's what makes it supernatural to begin with...
So light years and the vast solar system are out in your scenario?
BTW there wasn't technically soft tissue in that dinosaur fossil you mentioned above. I don't have time to look but if I recall it was a fossilized skeleton that was likened to mummification which is why there was so much available to study.
I remember quite the uproar over the way it was presented on the History Channel or National Geographic or one of those channels.
Phenomanul 4
Blake 2
BacktoBasics 3
z0sa 4
phyzik 4
The Power Hour. 3
scores may be subject to change.........
the sun shrinking and "expending mass" is not a fact.
It's probably why you felt no need to link a source.
umm, whatr scientists exactly are you referring to?Umm the most outspoken ones do... The other ones tag along with the "collective consensus" although no "collective" examination of the data ever really occurs...
I'm sure you again feel no need to link a source.
since there is no proven constant rate of consumption or shrinkage, there is no reference point to use, no matter how relevant you and other young earth theorists try to make it.Actually, I pointed out that said rates weren't constant. Saying that they have no relevance to the past however, is ignorant. Today's consumption rates serve as a reference point... the Sun's hydrogen consumption rates had to be higher in the past than they are today due to the Sun's noted dynamics above. They are relevant no matter what you say to the contrary.
it's a proven fact that the universe is expanding.IMO <100,000 years
I feel the need to source it for you:
It's really not hard to do the math and come to the conclusion that the universe is easily several billion years old........let alone more than a few hundred thousand years.....The expansion or contraction of the universe depends on its content and past history. With enough matter, the expansion will slow or even become a contraction. On the other hand, dark energy drives the universe towards increasing rates of expansion. The current rate of expansion is usually expressed as the Hubble Constant (in units of kilometers per second per Megaparsec, or just per second).
Hubble found that the universe was not static, but rather was expanding!
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.html
Did Hubble have an agenda?
If the Creator stretched out his creation to form the universe, like a big blob of clay.... couldn't He have done so at trillions of times the speed of light...?? would that necessarily leave a trace???
Again, I don't believe the supernatural is bound by the natural laws and constants that govern everything else.
Blood vessels, ligaments, tendons, muscles, skin, nerves, bone marrow... are not considered soft tissues?
B2B, here's a mouse troll hunting lesson for you:
when you see a troll keeping score and the person that he doesn't like is losing, then you can tell it's usually mouse.
I watch NatGeo, Discovery and the History Channel all the time. I love that kind of stuff. The Hubble, space, archeology and all that stuff fascinates me.
I do believe though the Earth is much more older than thousands of years but hey...I could be wrong and as much as science knows or thinks it knows...nobody really knows.
Your so right!! The sun is an endless ball of energy and as long as it stays connected to the 2200000 volt power supply it will heat up for another 20 Billion years. or until God trips over the cord.
Dam Blake everyone knows the Sun loses mass each day did you fall asleep in Science class that day?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
