Reply With Quote
You reply to yourself all the time, though.
I cite my sources.
You reply to yourself all the time, though.
Darwin didn't say anything evolved from the big bang. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the big bang and origin of the universe.
"many people" disagreeing with something has jack to do with truth. "many people" could decide that running out into traffic is a fun sport, that doesn't make it a good idea, or "many people" could decide the sun is a giant marshmallow, and that wouldn't make for a good theory either.
Let's try a different tack, since you seem to be thinking that scientists are just making things up, let's see if you can agree to the fundamental principles underlying their positions. I will give up on trying to make you understand the science.
100% Serious:
Is Bigfoot real?
Yes, but if many people decided this, it would quickly turn into "few people" thinking that running into traffic is fun.
Bump, just for s and giggles. I need some this weekend and I'm confident that mouse will deliver.
Can you hear yourself typing?
The "Origin" of the Universe was a result of the "big bang" how can you have a Universe without the Big bang, and Darwin's book talked about how life Evolved as a result from it.
Maybe you think this is a 9/11 topic or you forgot its called Bill Nye slams creationism
You can't debate creationism without mentioning the Big Bang or Evolution.
.
I wont won't give up on trying to make you understand the Lies of Science.I will give up on trying to make you understand the science.
Define big.100% Serious:
Is Bigfoot real?
Igor Vovkovinskiy wore a size 37" shoe.
Human bones have been found all over the world showing men the size of 11ft tall.
But don't take my word for it ask Cosmored.
I wont let you down esse...
It really doesn't matter if you believe in a God or think you "Evolved" from an Ape.
The Earth is no where near "4 Billion" years old, and I have the proof.
The planet Saturn has rings as we all know they are a result of debris orbiting it's gravity due to the "Big Bang" Theory.
These rings visible today expand outwards away from the planet at a rate each year that even on a good day if Science was at least 2% right this time and the solar system was just 50 Million years old? the rings would have been so far apart by now it would not even be visible by Hubble telescope.
This is hard evidence Evolutionist and Wild Cobra avoid debating me live.
The Sun looses 5 foot of mass every 30 minutes. (Scientist confirmed)
How big you think the Sun would be if we went back only 500 Million years?
And they really want you to think the solar system is "12 Billion" years old?
Everything in the solar system would have burned up already.
Scientist and Professors at MIT avoid debating me on this subject and many other points I bring up every year and you really think I am intimidated by someone on a Spurs site?
Cite your sources, please.
linear mass correlations of a gaseous/plasma outer body...
Yes...
Please cite your source.
And...
How many feet do you think this 5 feet would be if solid instead of gas? Inches? Maybe less...
The planet Saturn has rings as we all know they are a result of debris orbiting it's gravity due to the "Big Bang" Theory.
These rings visible today expand outwards away from the planet at a rate each year that even on a good day if Science was at least 2% right this time and the solar system was just 50 Million years old? the rings would have been so far apart by now it would not even be visible by Hubble telescope.
This is hard evidence Evolutionist and Wild Cobra avoid debating me live.
I love you man. We gotta go have that beer one day.
You posted it, so you should cite your sources.
So if I asked you if your gay and you say yes why would I need you to cite your sources?
You guys have www access do your own research.
the Royal Observatory in England has recorded the sun is decreasing in size by 5ft per hour for the last 300 years
Last edited by mouse; 10-08-2012 at 05:44 PM.
By pure radiant energy / mass equivalence (e=mc2) the Sun loses a mass equivalent to ~3 feet of its radius in one hour. Add to that the mass of all the ionized material that gets ejected and you could get something like a mass equivalent to 5 feet per hour. (On top of that there's also the fact that the Hydrogen to Helium fusion reaction that powers the Sun results in there being fewer atoms in the core, a 4 fold decrease per fusion.)
You must know all energy eventually runs out. Your car battery,the charcoal in your Bar BQ grill, and so on... Scientist have confirmed the sun will eventually burn out. This isn't top secret information.
Last edited by mouse; 10-08-2012 at 05:44 PM.
Im loving the conversation
No, because I wouldn't need sources to answer that question.
If you are using information from other people, you should cite your source. Kids in school have to cite their sources. Scientists have to cite their sources. What makes you so special that you don't have to cite your sources like everybody else?
Plagiarized from http://www.forums.randi.org/archive/...hp/t-7745.html And here is the rest of the post, since you left it out when you were copying and pasting:However, that doesn't mean that the Sun's radius is actually shrinking that much, just that the mass loss is equivalent to that assuming that the density in the outer layers remains completely constant. It won't. If the Sun is losing mass it's also losing Gravitational force and the two should balance out. The Sun's atmosphere just gets a bit less dense, (unlike the creationists).
Last edited by redzero; 10-07-2012 at 11:57 PM.
Mouse.
Did you know the sun is expanding, not shrinking?
It may be losing mass, but at the same time it's losing gravity. Stars expand as they go through this process. Billions of years ago, it was about 60% the diameter it is now, and before that it was larger.
Do not expect expansion rates to remain steady. I think it's around 10 billiopn years, the sun is expected to become a Red Giant. Some time after that, it may shrink again to a White Dwarf.
At least that is what science predicts.
What evidence do you have that says these rings must have been in existence at the beginning of the solar system, as your logic implies?The planet Saturn has rings as we all know they are a result of debris orbiting it's gravity due to the "Big Bang" Theory.
These rings visible today expand outwards away from the planet at a rate each year that even on a good day if Science was at least 2% right this time and the solar system was just 50 Million years old? the rings would have been so far apart by now it would not even be visible by Hubble telescope.
This is hard evidence Evolutionist and Wild Cobra avoid debating me live.
Could they have been formed sometime after? Why or why not?
The origin of the universe is separate from the origin and evolution of life on this planet.
Darwin himself was ignorant of the Big Bang theory, as it came decades after his death.
You are talking about two entirely separate theories as if they are the same thing. They are not.
Is the relationship between volume of a sphere and it's radius a linear one? Why or why not?
It's bad enough I am kicking your ass in this debate now you want to know what size my foot is and where I got my shoes from?
Just try and debunk my findings and move on. If what I say is not true that shouldn't be so hard to do.
Another issue the Darwin lovers at MIT have they can't explain why some planets and moons rotate in the opposite direction when they were a result of a single explosion (Big Bang)
Well since you pulled out the "Billion" card who can argue your point?
After all I can say in 11 Billion years we will have an alien from another planet as our president how can you disprove it?
The point is if you add the 5 ft of mass to the sun for "4 Billion" years its makes it to large to not burn everything in our solar system.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
