Bill Nye slams creationism

[redzero]

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

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

Science books.

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

[mouse]

” Dr. Hovind

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

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

Can you prove him wrong?

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

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

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

[mouse]

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

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

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

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

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

My Data

[redzero]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then show where you got this research.

My Data

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

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

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[skips answering].

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

[mouse]

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

So you are gay?

ok that ended that debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

get some new comebacks , Google some fresh replies.

your stuck not moving slowing down the debate.

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

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

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

link?

Then show where you got this research.

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

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

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

Again, this is not an impossible or unfair request.

yes but I am going to miss my flight.

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

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

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

[redzero]

So you are gay?

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

ok that ended that debate.

What debate?

wait cite your sources.

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

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

You see how weak that sounds?

Yes, your defense is extremely weak.

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

There is no difference when it comes to research.

Where is your credibility that your straight and not gay?

Yawn.

You see how ghetto you sound time after time?

Citing sources is ghetto? What?

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

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

get some new comebacks , Google some fresh replies.

your stuck not moving slowing down the debate.

I keep repeating myself because you keep refusing to comply.

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

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

link?

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

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

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

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

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

yes but I am going to miss my flight.

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

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

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

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

No, you should cite your sources.

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

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

[redzero]

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

[Agloco]

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

Analogous to:

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

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

[Blake]

Can you prove him wrong?

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

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

Weeeeeeeeeeeee

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

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

[mouse]

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



What debate?



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

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



Yes, your defense is extremely weak.



There is no difference when it comes to research.



Yawn.



Citing sources is ghetto? What?



I keep repeating myself because you keep refusing to comply.


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



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



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



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



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



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



No, you should cite your sources.

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

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

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

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

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

[mouse]

Just did. You're too stupid.
.

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

[mouse]

Analogous to:

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

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

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

Think before you answer.

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[skips answering].

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

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

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

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

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

[Blake]

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

No reply necessary.

[RandomGuy]

No reply necessary.

Speak for yourself. I really want a reply.

[Agloco]

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

Think before you answer.

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

[mouse]

[Agloco]

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

[Wild Cobra]

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

True.

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

[Wild Cobra]

I was looking for something that included this:

[phyzik]

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

The books specifically state that it is a theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



That is the true shape of the Earth.

The moon is also not a perfect Sphere.

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

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

Because just like Darwin Science has an agenda.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

prove it.

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

Your best quote so far.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Niggga please!

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

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

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

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

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

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

WTF are you talking about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[phyzik]

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

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

[RandomGuy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[skips answering].

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