Reply With Quote
You are re ed.
I'm not here for "adult debate," I simply saw your ignorant remark, and felt like sharing my sentiment.
You're not here to talk NASA. You're here to on anything science-related because it insults you even though you're not paying any of the tax dollars that support it.
You are re ed.
I'm not here for "adult debate," I simply saw your ignorant remark, and felt like sharing my sentiment.
I never replied to your post or quoted you in fact you don't have a post in this topic so who is re ed?
Not posting in this thread makes me re ed?
I said I saw your ignorant reMARK, not rePLY, so what does not having a previous post in this thread have to do with anything?
Lack of reading comprehension makes you the re .
If anything, I feel more re ed for posting in this thread.
Funny I say NASA in all my postings. maybe you should read more and reply less.
I love science, I just don't want science fiction in the school text books. I thought we went over this in the politics forum.You're here to on anything science-related
Every time I go to the VA hospital and have to wait two weeks for lab results or MRI scans I think about my time in the service I think I paid more than enough, the question is have you?because it insults you even though you're not paying any of the tax dollars that support it.
More NASA lies.
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/pk9709nl.htm
No, but quoting someone who has not replied to you in a topic is.
It has much to do with everything how can i debate someone who shows up and starts insulting me when i had no idea you was part of the conversation?I said I saw your ignorant reMARK, not rePLY, so what does not having a previous post in this thread have to do with anything?
Is this to difficult to absorb?
Then my posting shouldn't matter if I am mentally ill you should just scroll over me.Lack of reading comprehension makes you the re .
something we can agree on.If anything, I feel more re ed for posting in this thread.
looks like nasa is going to get paid...
each year come up with bs findings to get more funding from govt....
How about a trade off?
Cancer cured?
Go play on Saturn
Parkinson cured?
go play on Jupiter
Didn't your moms make you do your homework or eat before you went to play in your club house?
What is wrong with fixing unemployment here on earth first before we find more life on Mars?
So, the theory of evolution, which is based on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (ie. things that can be observed, tested and proven) gathered by millions of people is "bull propoganda", whilst a book of stories created by the human mind and re-written hundreds of times between its original form and what we read today is PURE TRUTH?
Believe what you like mouse, that's your right, but get your ing head straight. Science is not propoganda. Religion fits that bill far more closely.
Oh who let Kangaroo boy in the topic? Maybe living down under your clock is set differently than ours so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
read this topic and you will see I have no problem with science i have a problem with bull theories that are in the text books and made to look like scientific facts.
Evolution is a "theory" say it ruff say it over and over until it sinks in. actually it's a religion. And it has no purpose being in the "science" text books.
Since your so he;ll bent on Science and what we can see explain to me how your hero scientist claim the rings in the ice are evidence of millions of years and yet a war plane that was that was lost in 1941 and was found 40 years later under "263" feet of ice?
I will be waiting for an answer use this link if you need help.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...136687&page=22
The lies Evolutionist's spread everyday!
Ancient Ice
Most scientists today believe that various places on this planet, such as Greenland, the Antarctic, and many other places, have some very old ice. The ice in these areas appears to be layered in a very distinctive annual pattern. In fact, this pattern is both visually and chemically recognizable and extends downward some 4,000 to 5,000 meters. What happens is that as the snow from a previous year is buried under a new layer of snow, it is compacted over time with the weight of each additional layer of snow above it. This compacted snow is called the “firn” layer. After several meters this layers snowy firn turns into layers of solid ice (note that 30cm of compacted snow compresses further into about 10cm of ice). These layers are much thinner on the Antarctic ice cap as compared to the Greenland ice cap since Antarctica averages only 5cm of "water equivalent" per year while Greenland averages over 50cm of water equivalent. 1,2 since these layers get even thinner as they are buried under more and more snow and ice, due to compression and lateral flow (see diagram), the thinner layers of the Antarctic ice cap become much harder to count than those of the Greenland ice cap at an equivalent depth. So, scientists feel that most accurate historical information comes from Greenland, although much older ice comes from other drier places. Still, the ice cores drilled in the Greenland ice cap, such as the American Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2) and the European Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP), are felt to be very old indeed - upwards of 160,000 years old.
Like the coelacanth fish from the previous page. This is another claim made that has been proven wrong. The assumption was that for every light and dark area found in ice, in either the north or south pole. Would represent 1 passing year. And because science has basically cornered the market of doing ice core drills. They figured no one would ever prove them wrong. They basically made this statement about the different colors found in ice cores, without really testing it to make sure. So it was a guess based on a theory (evolution, and the time required for it to happen) that they wanted to support. A theory that was starving for supporting evidence. So evolutionists stuck their foot in their mouth on this one, and are unwilling to admit their mistake. And this mistake is still being taught in every science-evolutionist class in both high school, and college. It is even in the school text books.
Just like the Ernest Haeckel fraud , which by the way will be reprinted and taught again (what next, Piltdown man?). Science refuses to remove the information, unless someone makes them. And like the Stanley Miller experiment. The problems are not mentioned, so that the theory of evolution can for the most part, always go unchallenged.
Just in case some of you still are in the dark scientist claim the layers of each core show how many years the ice is and the rings are solid proof the earth is Billions of years old.
You see these shows on the Discovery channel all the time.
Now for the truth.
BTW The next sound you may hear is the sound of ass cheeks puckering up as the Evolutionist's in this forum know what's coming next..... as I expose this re ed theory they love to teach the children in the classrooms.
At first glance you have no reason to doubt the scientist after all how many of you dig in the polar caps for ice? We must take their words as gospel, truth,and facts. what choice do we have?
You do have a choice now. You see in 1941 a plane was lost and 48 years later is was found , are you ready?......................
Under 263 feet of ice! which by the way kills any bull Ice core method of dating how old the earth is. So much for your ice ring lies Pat-Na!
I give you ........................
I mean, no bull now, mouse...
You dont really believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, do you?
Seriously, now.
I totally agree. If we could cut NASA's funding off we could save a ton of money for things like health care and the wars we wage against Saddams Al Queda.
He does.
First off the topic is about NASA, if I start to engage in any debate about the age of the earth I will surely get accused of hijacking the topic or I will have the tree huggers of the forum posting why is this topic starting to be about religion or God even though it is not me who is bringing it up.
Why can't people go back and see that the topics that I am participating in have other posters who make the first insults or change the subject, all people see are my world class come backs and fresh ground breaking smack.
They assume it was me who starts all the . I enter every topic with the intentions of adding to it brining humor and photo shop skills. It's the sex deprived taint sniffers aka mouse haters that can't control themselves and feel they need to form an angry mob and start casting stones in my direction.
But to answer your question.
You dont really believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, do you?
Seriously, now.
Does it really matter what I believe? Not to get off the NASA subject but I am about lies in the students text books. Just because I drink beer and Smoke pot doesn't mean I want it in the text books telling kids its ok to do. If i love to masturbate and worship Satan That doesn't mean I want kids to think it's cool.
I don't think the earth is 10,000 years old but I know for a fact it's not in the Billions like your Darwin worshiping scientist claim. You know a scientist is only as smart as his teacher and the scientist before him or her.
Just because you are a scientist doesn't mean you have a magic 8 ball and you have all the answers. back in the 40s and 50s scientist claimed tobacco was good for you and promoted smoking Lucky Strikes. They also claimed Asbestos is not harmful. Scientist are always having to take back what they say.
So if you can't look at a burning comet that scientist claim can only burn for 10.000 years then why would we still have them billions of years later?
It is a question scientist had to answer so they created the "oort cloud" this made up cloud no one has seen to explain why there are still comets today.
You people get on the bible Thumper's for making up stories about Noah and the flood and yet you can create the Oort Cloud?
You ask the tour guide at the Dinosaur museum how they know how old a fossil is they say it depends on how deep it was buried they pull out the Strata theory card, they say a Fossils age is determined by where in the strata it is found. if you ask how do you know how old that layer of Strata is they say they can tell by which fossil they found.
that is what we call...
You people can believe as you wish, you think the earth is a trillion years old fine by me, you want to believe we evolved from a frog because some man in the 1800's writes a book thats your right, but don't call it science and keep the lies out of the text books.
Last edited by mouse; 11-12-2009 at 06:02 PM.
Daaaaaaaaaaaamn, Mouse!
I go away for a couple of years, come back, and you're having the SAME DAMN ARGUMENT you were having when I left!
So your saying I am reliable and also consistent? What does that say about the same people who are on the other side of the argument?
People have been debating God,religion, the real age of the earth, and Abortions for years why stop now?
I suggest you put down the pork skins and maybe add something to the topic or sit back and watch me wax another Atheist ass.
You see the problem with Evolution is it teaches us how life evolves for the better.
If that was true why would we lose our tails? There are many times I wish I had a tail.
Just think you can drive your car as you drink coffee and hold a joint or a cigarette.
You get home with both arms full of groceries ........................
As far as the mission to the moon goes, Mythbusters confirmed that a flag can wave in a vacuum. In fact they got the exact specifications of the flag pole from NASA and put in in a vacuum chamber and it reacted the exact same way shown in your little conspiracy theory video.
Not only that, they debunked every other conspiracy theory regarding the lunar landing.
I suppose Mythbusters are in on the conspiracy as well now.
Interesting discovery.
Ok, just making sure to avoid you on this subject.
First, I have never eaten pork rinds in my life.
Second, even a BAD standup comedian writes some new material once in a while. Unless he's Mencia, in which case he just turns on a tape recorder at another standup's gig.
Just sayin'.
Great
Mythbusters are in bed with NASA.
Sorry to bust your man love fantasy bubble you have for your heroes at Mythbusters but they have admitted to working as special effect editors prior to their new show and have been exposed for tricking the public.
"MythBusters--using tools and materials in ways for which they were not intended."
every trade has its tricks. We've developed many of ours during years spent designing special effects for movies and commercials. That work has given us some real insights into tools and materials.
Prepare to be Busted - Mythbusters Debunked addendum
http://fliiby.com/file/392977/11l7gg2h32.html
So you never had oral sex with your wife?
Is that the comedy your looking for?
Mythbusters DEAD WRONG on AirplaneMIT proves Mythbusters wrong! Archimedes could have had a death ray afterall
Posted by on January 24th 2007 to Jedi Knights of Science, Science Questions Answered
One of the great science mysteries of the ancient world is the famous Archimedes Death Ray. The gist is Greek soldiers using highly polished shields to focus the Sun’s rays on an enemy ship and cause it to burst into flame. Of course, this is based on the always fun magnifying glass and Sun trick (which has caused untold carnage to insects). Mythbusters tried to make the Death Ray and said it was busted. Well leave it to geeks at MIT to prove them wrong.
http://mcgonnigle.wordpress.com/2008...conveyor-belt/
Could the Mythbusters be wrong?
http://www.sephyroth.net/2008/01/cou...ters-be-wrong/
I don’t think there’s anyone who hasn’t seen the antics of Jamie and Adam on Discovery’s extremely popular program Mythbusters (by the way, if you didn’t know, the show is actually made by Beyond Productions Pty. Ltd., an Australian company with branches around the world). Usually, they can be the definitive source on whether something is true or not. However, they’re not perfect, and they know it.
Please tell me your not resting all your hopes in proving NASA really landed on the moon by a bunch of wannabe Steven Spielberg's.
Mythbusters Revisited
http://www.tvsquad.com/2005/10/17/my...ers-revisited/
Mythbusters wrong about something?
http://litwc.com/2007/05/11/mythbust...out-something/
you want more?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
-fig.gif)
