Reply With Quote
C'mon folks . . . the answer is simple. Which came first? The Rooster came first!
I never knew there were scientists 4 billion years ago. Thanks, science.
C'mon folks . . . the answer is simple. Which came first? The Rooster came first!
you mad?
You keep getting refuted at almost every turn as the days go by. You often think you win in your arguements but thats just the thinking I would expect from a brain washed person.
No matter the evidence presented, its easily refuted by beliefs. There is no intulectual arguing with you. Its just merely fun to do so at this point.
The answer to your question is Sciense itself you idiot.Pages and pages of Ruff and his Darwin lovers have been lecturing us for years now telling us how life on earth was started "4 BILLION" years ago, (like they have a clue) and now they want to just change the rules all of a sudden?
Science never claims to be the end all, be all of answers..... Unlike certain beliefs.
Sciense is always evolving as we learn to understand the things around us.
That is the essence of science at its whole.
The problem you all-powerfull being worshipers have is that it doesnt fit with your 2000yr old belief that a magical man from the sky that walks on water and raises from the dead doesnt fit into logical thinking.
Deal with it.
Whoops!!!
It goes both ways Mouse.
The difference is Science is WILLING to admit it's failings when proven wrong.
Religion is hanging its threads on "faith".
I hold faith that I will hit the lotto and live forever.
I know for a fact that I have to work and will die.
Last edited by phyzik; 07-16-2010 at 12:44 AM.
why did the chicken cross the playground?
to get to the other slide.
Break on through to the other side!!!!
I don't support the bible so you can take back your "Whoops" and add you a Boo-ya! while your at it.
I will ask you so called intelligent, semi educated, simpleminded Darwin lovers one question.
How is it you guys know what took place 4 Billion years ago and yet can't even explain Stonehenge?
Where's the boot!?!?!
LOL I got a good laugh especially reading the first one. It doesn't criticize carbon dating it just says the sample taken from the shroud was inconsistent with the rest of the shrouds composition.
I do love me some catholics defending fairy tale relics though.
I will say though that you are the best troll I have seen on any forum. Kudos, holmes.
They actually have explained Stonehenge. HERE is a good video explaining how they could transport the monoliths over that distance. Pretty cool I think.
2012 is coming
Now that the secret is uncovered, Mother Nature is going to beat the out of us
By my count, we are whooping her ass with global warming.
Games not over yet though.
For the record, I believe global warming is not a myth, but I do believe we will eventually, as the human race, figure out something. I have faith in humans.. not in some fairy tale where some magical man is going to come down and save us.
People need to realize faith alone isnt going to save the world as we know it. No belief, no matter how hard you believe, is going to help us.
Bottom line. It's going to be man that fixes our own problems, regardless of what people believe in.
No "higher power" is going to bail us out.
Last edited by phyzik; 07-20-2010 at 02:08 AM.
Well, since there are no written records of what it was used for, we can only speculate.
The methods on how it was built and how old the stones are can be reasonably guessed though. Of course, it doesnt fit in with your 6000yr old Earth theory, so no point arguing with you.
Patiently awaiting your picture of the Petrefied Boot,
-Phyzik
Last edited by phyzik; 07-20-2010 at 02:02 AM.
Speculate? are you serious?
for months you and your tree hugging wannabee scientist have preached how science is dead on with dates quotes and bull carbon testing and now your all cool with your feet up talking about speculating?
where was this easy going ,relaxed no big deal Phyzix fella last year?
If its all speculation why do the text books start off with "4 Billion years ago"
"25 million years ago" why not say Scientists speculate 1000's of years ago or maybe longer yoda yoda yoda....why must you guys claim you knew what took place millions of years ago and your still trying to explain the pyramids?
So its all a guessing game? How about figuring out how WTC7 came down before you try and think about some old rocks that are 1000's of years old?The methods on how it was built and how old the stones are can be reasonably guessed though.
you guys crack me up you pull out the science card when you attack the bible thumper's then you pull out the "its a wild guess" card when science is proven wrong..(again)
when did I say the earth was 6,000 years old?Of course, it doesnt fit in with your 6000yr old Earth theory,
Translation: I need an easy way out before I get schooled again.so no point arguing with you.
Patiently awaiting your picture of the Petrefied Boot,
-Phyzik
don't just post a photo explain to me how long it takes again for something to be petrified?
where are your science pals now?
You left out the words.........
Speculate,believed, and theory, these are words used inside the books and tv shows that are very good signs they are just guessing.
That hasn't stop you guys before in printing books with exact dates.....
That hasn't stop you guys before in printing books with exact dates.....
Come on now Mouse, even your not that gullible. No one ever said an exact date. It's ALWAYS been an approximate.
I've just realized since then that there is no point arguing with an Ibex.where was this easy going ,relaxed no big deal Phyzix fella last year?
you forgot the qualifier words... They dont ever give a definate date, you know that, its always "about" or "close to". Id say dont be an idiot, but it would be an excersize in futility.If its all speculation why do the text books start off with "4 Billion years ago"
No one has ever claimed with absolute certainty the dates that have been purposed."25 million years ago" why not say Scientists speculate 1000's of years ago or maybe longer yoda yoda yoda....why must you guys claim you knew what took place millions of years ago and your still trying to explain the pyramids?
A Plane flew into them.So its all a guessing game? How about figuring out how WTC7 came down before you try and think about some old rocks that are 1000's of years old?
Your learning how science works but you dont quite have the concept down yet. It's not a "wild guess". It's an educated guess on what factual knowledge is available.you guys crack me up you pull out the science card when you attack the bible thumper's then you pull out the "its a wild guess" card when science is proven wrong..(again)
OK, I'll give you that you never said it in those exact words.... tell me. how old is the earth again according to your moon theory?when did I say the earth was 6,000 years old?
translation: Sticks and stones.... You have brought "evidence" from people that most would consider "crack-pots" or "fringe-scientists" since I can remember.Translation: I need an easy way out before I get schooled again.
Well.... Since you asked.....don't just post a photo explain to me how long it takes again for something to be petrified?
where are your science pals now?
Lets focus on your favorite boot....
first, there are different types of fossilization.
Unaltered remains, Permineralization, Recrystalization, Dissolution and Replacement and Carbonization.
Then you have to factor in location and environment.
Your "boot" is a prime example of Dissolution and Replacement.... Look it up.
fossilization occurs at different rates on different materials. Carl Baugh is the guy that made your favorite claim that the earth cant be that old since a boot from the 1950's looks to be fossilized. In any case, Baugh's website essay also stated that only the contents of the boot are fossilized, not the boot itself, which means some materials fossilize faster than others.
This next section was admitedly copied from a website......
Although Baugh and Patton have repeatedly referred to the bones in the boot as "fossilized," they have presented no evidence that they are anything but modern bones surrounded by hardened modern sediment. One sees no indication in the bones of foreign mineral replacement, or even any infilling of the air spaces in the inner "spongy-bone" portions of the bones . If these are "fossilized" bones, it certainly is not apparent in the photographs.
Furthermore, the material around the bones does not appear to have the shape of a human leg. The bulk of the matrix appears to take the shape of the boot itself, and its surface seems to record the contours and texture of the inside of the boot. Thus, rather than representing fossilized flesh, it seems more likely that the matrix around the bones is simply a natural cast composed of whatever sediment (probably a limy mud) filled the boot after the flesh rotted away. The mud probably became fairly hard as it dried (which is not unusual) but is unlikely to be true limestone, let alone petrified or "fossilized" flesh.
In fact, the boot advocates have not even demonstrated that the bones in question are human. The bones appear to be compatible with a large mammal, but seem surprising large in relation to the size of the boot. Without more thorough do entation, it is diffult to say what creature they belong to. For all we know, someone could have stuck some cow bones in a muddy boot. On the other hand, if the bones are really human as Baugh maintains, then he should report the remains to the authorities, since they could relate to a missing person or criminal case.
A 2006 web site article, by strict creationist Ian Juby, which includes several high-resolution images of the boot, parrots the claims of Baugh and Patton about the boot, with an interesing new twist. Evidently realizing that the matrix in the boot conforms to the texture and shape of the boot and not that of a human leg, Juby proposes the following explanation: "This poor person when they died had obviously fallen from a tremendous height, literally compressing the entire lower leg into the boot and liquifying their flesh. ...They might have fallen from a high cliff, but an airplane is just as reasonable."
However, far from being reasonable, this proposal is devoid of logic and evidence. Thousands of people have fallen from great heights; none have had their limbs liquefy from the impact. Indeed, due to the laws of physics regarding free-fall, gravity and air resistance, even a person falling from a plane will achieve a terminal velocity of only about 120-130 mph. Such a speed can shatter bones, but not liquefy flesh. Moreover, any force that could "liquify flesh" would hardly leave the boot in the largely intact condition seen in the photos.
I am not a creationist,and i don't support the bible. You would think this is the first time you was in a debate topic with me.
Can't you just stick with the facts that science is not what you and your pals claim it to be. Don't take it personal. Let me see your thoughts on the subject not some anti creationist websites thoughts.
Stick with the facts, science does a lot of speculating and that is ok with me just don't put it in the text books as fats.
Example: Science when confronted......What is the real age of the earth?
"well we speculate from our findings it could possibly be 1 to 4 billion years old, that is the theory we have.
The text book: "4 billion years ago....the earth was a hot ball of gas....
Why can't the text book print what the scientist claim? Are they worried the students might question it?
Will they get attacked like others in here if they don't conform to your scientific ways of thinking, will they be called Bible thumper's?
Funny how science can change their theories on what came first the chicken or the egg but the text books stay the same and never updated i wonder why.
Last edited by grindmouse; 07-21-2010 at 08:13 AM.
So... your questioning Science.... which questions itself..... Gotchya.
Thats exactly what science wants!!! Question EVERYTHING!!! The reason they dont put it in print as "fact" is that its not "fact".Are they worried the students might question it?
The problem I have is that religion presents itself as "fact". They use the word "faith" but thats not what they really mean. Everyone knows it. They have such a conviction of "faith" that no ammount of "fact" will change their minds. To them "Faith" is "Fact" and that honestly gets me angry... that someone could be that gullible.
My whole point is that Science is obviously willing to question its own "beliefs". Thumpers are unwilling to admit that may be wrong in a 2000yr old fairy tale.
Congradulations on obviously not understanding the idea of science.
Last edited by phyzik; 07-22-2010 at 01:42 AM.
The questions I have been asking have been asked before science was even a word, man since day one has always wondered about the age of the earth and how old it is. look pal.. It's not my fault science has no real answers so your left with circular reasoning to help salvage your reputation for having mediocre debating skills.
but what ever works I guess.
Are you serious?Thats exactly what science wants!!! Question EVERYTHING!!! The reason they dont put it in print as "fact" is that its not "fact".
when was the last time you saw Stephen Hawking ask someone how old the earth is? Pass what you are smoking bro. You want to come in here and act like science is all about asking questions? If they knew how to how to ask questions they would ask who the put the earth is 4 Billion years in the "science books" why would any book say 4 billion years old if science is still asking the question?
How irresponsible is that? Either science lies to people or they have an agenda to disprove the bible why else do they try and prove the earth can't be less than 20,000 years old ?
You come in here like some proud pea every time NASA finds a roach egg on Mars and yet you curl up in the fetal position when Science is shown to be a lie or wrong? you know how pathetic you look trying to defend your misguided scientist pals? To be honest it breaks my heart and I don't think I can read anymore of your desperate attempts at tossing Darwin's salad on a daily basis.
You still find a way to use the religion card? what part about facts and no bible bashing do you not get? Save it for Angel_luv's posse.The problem I have is that religion presents itself as "fact". They use the word "faith" but that's not what they really mean. Everyone knows it. They have such a conviction of "faith" that no ammount of "fact" will change their minds. To them "Faith" is "Fact" and that honestly gets me angry... that someone could be that gullible.
That may be true but it doesn't answer any of my questions. or add to the discussion.My whole point is that Science is obviously willing to question its own "beliefs". Thumpers are unwilling to admit that may be wrong in a 2000yr old fairy tale.
Congratulations for exposing science as a lie and proving my point.Congradulations on obviously not understanding the idea of science.
Wow some people are really that re ed.
God created a chicken its that simple.
This still doesn't explain it. The Chicken egg could've acquired the protein somewhere else and been hatched from an egg that eventually evolved into a reproductive system.
OH my GOD. We've gone so long without a religion debate. Can we not just agree to disagree?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
