Bill Nye slams creationism

[mouse]

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?

Could they have been formed sometime after? Why or why not?

Well then if your going to question Saturn's rings and say they may have came later then that means your not sure what happened during the "big bang" you cant have it both ways by putting in the text books what took place "12 Billion" years ago and then start to say your not sure about Saturn.

Either the big band is a Theory or its a fact pick a side already.

[mouse]

The origin of the universe is separate from the origin and evolution of life on this planet.

.

So can you have Evolution without the big bang?

[redzero]

It's bad enough I am kicking your ass in this debate

No, you aren't.

Just try and debunk my findings and move on. If what I say is not true that shouldn't be so hard to do.

They aren't your findings. They are the findings of other people whom you plagiarized from.

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)

The Big Bang was a rapid expansion, not just some explosion. I already destroyed you on this.

[phyzik]

First of all, the Big Bang IS just a theory.

But its backed by much more scientific data than just saying an omnipotent being snapped his fingers for a few days.

One of Mouse's big points of interest is in regards to the moon and its creation. He poses that the moon was created at the same time of the earth (which it was most likely not). That there is no way it would be the distance it is at now if the Earth was 4.5b years old based on its trajectory leaving the earth (about 3.8 centimeters per year). He uses this current scientific data (LOL, funny how he uses it when it supports him) to posit his theory that the earth is much younger.... However, he figures this as a linear mathmatical equation as if its always been this speed, and that the moon existed at the same time of Earths "creation". He doesnt account tidal drag, rotational mass, gravitational friction and attraction, Tectonic plate location, and the actual time of a huge impact that created the moon in the first place.

No one can be certain of the age of the moon, but the most accepted theory is that a mars-sized object struck the earth roughly between 30-100 million years after the creation of the earth and the resulting debris created the moon as it is today.... supported by the fact that alot of the rocks and debris brought back from the moon is similar to earth-based material and even further with the analysis of Mars material (I guess I should make this clear for idiots, Im not saying mars crashed into earth and created the moon and then went on to be Mars as we know it. I would hope people would have better deductive reasoning but this is the internet and I am addressing Mouse after all.)

( , I forgot to account for Mouse's conspiracy that we didnt land on the moon... oh wait, we did). Of course, if you ask Mouse how all the craters on the moon got there so quickly if its only a few thousand years old, he will probably say something like God was poking his finger at it.

As far as the rings of Saturn... Scientists think that since the rings are so bright, the rings must not be very old (relatively speaking (((JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR MOUSE, WE ARE TALKING BILLIONS OF YEARS))))). The reason for this is because the particles that make up the rings would collect space dust and would get dull just like dust on Earth dulls our furniture. Next, he will proably ask why other planets dont have rings?... He would be wrong. Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus all have rings. Jupiter's rings would be much older than Saturn's rings if the scientists are right when they say brighter rings are young because they haven't gotten dusty (and so far, in regards to the science, they have been right). Neptune and Uranus have very dark, almost black, rings. Here again, the rings would be much older than Saturn's rings because they are so dark. Scientists aren't sure how those rings were formed, either. But that doesnt mean we wont find the answer in the future.

As my final point, just because we dont know yet, doesnt mean science is wrong.... If you cling to the stuff that science hasnt figured out yet, your just holding on to a shrinking world that will hopefully be non-existant before I die or at least before my children die. Keep claiming the supernatural to stuff we cant explain just yet for as long as you can. It wont be much longer until people accept the truth.

We all live, we all die... There is nothing after. Enjoy it while you can. Me personaly? I'd be happy with keeling over right now, but I honeslty am hoping to survive to the day that humans can be made to live forever and leave this idiotic planet for better pastures (in reality, that is, not some fantasy utopia described by men ~3000 years ago.)

[RandomGuy]

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?

Could they have been formed sometime after? Why or why not?

Well then if your going to question Saturn's rings and say they may have came later then that means your not sure what happened during the "big bang" you cant have it both ways by putting in the text books what took place "12 Billion" years ago and then start to say your not sure about Saturn.

Either the big band is a Theory or its a fact pick a side already.

I am not questioning the observable fact that Saturn has rings.

You presented a calculation that implied that those rings have been in existence since the origin of our solar system. I was merely asking questions to determine how you knew that the rings of Saturn were of the same age of the solar system.

Are they? What is your evidence of their age? How would you go about determining the age of those rings?

[RandomGuy]

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. You 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.

Is the relationship between volume of a sphere and it's radius a linear one? Why or why not?

(i.e. if you make the radius larger by one unit of distance, does this mean you add one unit of volume?)

[Agloco]

rofl I wonder what got mouse so pissed off about science for him to ramble like this.

I'll take credit for that.

[Agloco]

Is the relationship between volume of a sphere and it's radius a linear one? Why or why not?

(i.e. if you make the radius larger by one unit of distance, does this mean you add one unit of volume?)

Oh here we go with those troubling non-linear relationships......

Another familiar face is having a bit of trouble with them in the political forum as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Is the relationship between volume of a sphere and it's radius a linear one? Why or why not?

(i.e. if you make the radius larger by one unit of distance, does this mean you add one unit of volume?)

More importantly, how does the mass change? Considering the composition of the sun, that is what gets complicated.

[RandomGuy]

More importantly, how does the mass change? Considering the composition of the sun, that is what gets complicated.

Indeed.

First things first. Kind of hard to have a meaningful discussion of the sun, if one does not understand the implications of volume and mass on such things.

[mouse]

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?

Could they have been formed sometime after? Why or why not?




I am not questioning the observable fact that Saturn has rings.

You presented a calculation that implied that those rings have been in existence since the origin of our solar system. I was merely asking questions to determine how you knew that the rings of Saturn were of the same age of the solar system.

Are they? What is your evidence of their age? How would you go about determining the age of those rings?

In a way your making my point. no one knows for sure when the rings around Saturn formed as well as when Saturn first appeared.

You cant have it both ways use Science to tell me how old the Universe is and how it got here and then at the same time not know about Saturn's rings.

I do know they are expanding outwards and you and I and Science agree on that point.

So lets call the Saturn topic a draw. You admit your not sure when the rings came about and I will do also.

I am not as stubborn as you think. My whole rant is Science won't say in the text books we are not sure when the universe formed and how Saturn got its rings, No they put in print the Earth is "4 Billion" years old and how life formed like they are experts and happened to be there when it all took place. It's all speculation.

Science won't say they are not sure when the Universe formed that would leave the door open for the bibles interpretation and that is a major no no in the Science community.


So lets move on to the other reasons the Earth is not "4 billion" years old and how Science lies in the text books.

[redzero]

How come you won't cite your sources? What are you afraid of? My request isn't unreasonable.

[mouse]

First of all, the Big Bang IS just a theory.

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?

But its backed by much more scientific data than just saying an omnipotent being snapped his fingers for a few days.

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.

One of Mouse's big points of interest is in regards to the moon and its creation. He poses that the moon was created at the same time of the earth (which it was most likely not). That there is no way it would be the distance it is at now if the Earth was 4.5b years old based on its trajectory leaving the earth (about 3.8 centimeters per year). He uses this current scientific data (LOL, funny how he uses it when it supports him) to posit his theory that the earth is much younger.... However, he figures this as a linear mathmatical equation as if its always been this speed, and that the moon existed at the same time of Earths "creation". He doesnt account tidal drag, rotational mass, gravitational friction and attraction, Tectonic plate location, and the actual time of a huge impact that created the moon in the first place.

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!

No one can be certain of the age of the moon,

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.

but the most accepted theory is

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.

that a mars-sized object struck the earth roughly between 30-100 million years after the creation of the earth

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?

.

and the resulting debris created the moon as it is today.... supported by the fact that alot of the rocks and debris brought back from the moon is similar to earth-based material and even further with the analysis of Mars material (I guess I should make this clear for idiots, Im not saying mars crashed into earth and created the moon and then went on to be Mars as we know it. I would hope people would have better deductive reasoning but this is the internet and I am addressing Mouse after all.)

Keep in mind my reply before this one was before i read the above post]

( , I forgot to account for Mouse's conspiracy that we didnt land on the moon

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.


.

.. oh wait, we did). Of course, if you ask Mouse how all the craters on the moon got there so quickly if its only a few thousand years old, he will probably say something like God was poking his finger at it.

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")

(((JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR MOUSE, WE ARE TALKING BILLIONS OF YEARS)))))

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

the scientists are right

prove it.

Scientists aren't sure how those rings were formed,

Your best quote so far.

. But that doesnt mean we wont find the answer in the future.

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

As my final point, just because we dont know yet, doesnt mean science is wrong...

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

.

If you cling to the stuff that science hasnt figured out yet, your just holding on to a shrinking world that will hopefully be non-existant before I die or at least before my children die. Keep claiming the supernatural to stuff we cant explain just yet for as long as you can. It wont be much longer until people accept the truth.

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!

We all live, we all die... There is nothing after. Enjoy it while you can.

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

The last time I heard

We all live, we all die... There is nothing after. Enjoy it while you can.

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?

Me personaly? I'd be happy with keeling over right now, but I honeslty am hoping to survive to the day that humans can be made to live forever and leave this idiotic planet for better pastures (in reality, that is, not some fantasy utopia described by men ~3000 years ago.)

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.

[Blake]

It's called the big bang ”theory” in text books.

No theory: You're a ing idiot.

[mouse]

How come you won't cite your sources? What are you afraid of? My request isn't unreasonable.

Are you gay? How come you won't cite your sources? What are you afraid of? My request isn't unreasonable.

Your circling the drain esse you have nothing really to add to the discussion , but I do appreciate your effort in trying to participate in the debate. Who knows you may actually learn something from this and someday use my valuable information to educate others in future debates as you carry the torch of truth to the next decade.

[redzero]

I don't need to cite anybody else if I can answer a question without outside help. Your comparison is idiotic, and your fear of having to cite your sources shows your hypocrisy.

[mouse]

I don't need to cite anybody else if I can answer a question without outside help. Your comparison is idiotic, and your fear of having to cite your sources shows your hypocrisy.

This coming from someone who cant even update his signature ?

[redzero]

That comeback makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[mouse]

That comeback makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

thank you for proving my point.

[redzero]

What was your point?

[mouse's iPhone]

This coming from someone who cant even update his signature ?

Speaking of updates, when are you getting me iOS6?

[AussieFanKurt]

Who woulda thought a conversation about creationism could go for so long. I can't believe anyone in the 21st century still believes this. Even if evolution isnt proven yet, there is significantly more basis for it. Just because we haven't got the whole idea yet doesn't mean lets just believe in a fairytale with adam and eve

[mouse]

What was your point?

That swift breeze of wind that few over your head.

[mouse]

Who woulda thought a conversation about creationism could go for so long. I can't believe anyone in the 21st century still believes this. Even if evolution isnt proven yet, there is significantly more basis for it. Just because we haven't got the whole idea yet doesn't mean lets just believe in a fairytale with adam and eve

people with WWW access.

[Wild Cobra]

Indeed.

First things first. Kind of hard to have a meaningful discussion of the sun, if one does not understand the implications of volume and mass on such things.

The volume is easy to solve, though I must admit, I would have to refresh myself of the formula. It is something like 4/3πr^3, but I might be mixing some of formula the area formula with it.

Now I will look it up...

Hey... I got it right...

Area is 4πr^2