Reply With Quote
(facepalm)
I don't care if you can look it up, the idea is to get mouse to do so, which he won't, and neither does he understand some of the logical implications he is making, that are based on the volume of the sun.
It's nice to see you give up again.
And all I had to ask you was to provide sources for your claims.
(facepalm)
I don't care if you can look it up, the idea is to get mouse to do so, which he won't, and neither does he understand some of the logical implications he is making, that are based on the volume of the sun.
You are attempting to debunk the scientists' claims about the age of the solar system, using calculations based on current observations of Saturns rings, and assumptions for which you just admitted you have no proof.
Your debunking then, is discarded as spurious. If the underlying assumption is wrong, then the whole thing is.
The formation of Saturn's rings has nothing to do with the age of the solar system, or the observations that have led us to solid conclusions about that age.
Let's move on to being "unsure" about something.
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")
I agree with you. I was simply being honest in the fact that I sometimes must look things up. Quite frankly, I surprised myself. I thought I was going to get the equation wrong. Been so long since I used that one.
Mouse.
What I don't get is that you try to say how inaccurate various dating methods are, and then, you use the accepted dating of objects like comets to spin another angle.
What gives? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Comets are still around we can observe them. Dinosaurs are not. I am willing to toss out the Science about comets if your willing to toss out science also we can just have a debate using our personal opinions I have no problem with that. If your willing to live by the Science findings then you shall surely die by the Science findings,
My main point in showing you what science claims is to prove Science contradicts itself. I am using your Scientific findings to prove Science wrong.
Why not go after the text books publishers I didn't write this crap. And why is everyone hung up on where I get my findings from?
Just answer the questions and stop trying to derail the topic.
Another example that the earth is no where near "4Billion" years old is the salt content in the seas.
It has been calculated that about 457 million tonnes of sodium now comes into the sea every year. The minimum possible rate in the past, even if the most generous assumptions are granted to evolutionists, is 356 million tonnes/year. How can you have seas that are not Billions of years old?
Sodium is the most common dissolved metal in the ocean. It exists in seawater as a positively charged ion. Sodium ions (Na+) form the primary salt of the sea along with negatively charged chloride ions (Cl-). The extreme solubility is caused by the cation's small size (ionic radius is 0.97 Å) and small charge (single positive charge), which allows Na+ ions to escape most geochemical processes which remove larger ions with the same or greater charge.
The worldwide delivery of Na+ to the ocean by rivers has been recognized by scientists for hundreds of years. Almost three hundred years ago Edmund Halley [1] recognized that salt cannot easily leave the ocean and suggested that the age of the ocean might be established from knowledge of how much salt enters it year by year from rivers. Nearly one hundred years ago John Joly [2] measured the amount of Na+ dissolved in river water and estimated with extraordinary accuracy the global yearly input of Na+ to the ocean. Joly said it would take 80 to 90 million years for the sea to ac ulate its present amount of Na+, if it did so at a constant rate and had none in the beginning. That calculation was accepted by many scientists as giving the age of the earth.
lol asking for a compromise on facts
The sea salt problem has the same logical problem/fail as trying to use Saturn's rings, same problem as using current shrinking of the sun, same problem as using the recession rate of niagra falls, and the same problem as your comet/ooort cloud fail.
You keep making the same logical mistake, over and over.
My sons are growing right now at 1 inch/year. That does not tell me how much they will be growing in 20 years, or five years ago.
I will, for short hand, simply call this the "look at it now" mistake, simply to avoid having to explain every time you make the same mistake.
Now, answer my previous question.
mouse, how can anybody take you seriously when you refuse to do something as simple as citing your source? All you have to do is provide a link to where you get your arguments from, yet you're acting like I am making an unfair, irrelevant request.
Why are you so afraid of citing your source?
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.
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")
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,
the problem with science they want to tell you the jellybeans are "4 billion" years old and the jar is only "25 Million" years old and it makes no sense .
I try to expose their lies like I am doing daily in this topic to help further educate the misinformed.
For example Science wants you to believe a fossil is of a fish that lived millions of years ago ..
and yet the same fish is found alive today.
Do they update the Science books? no since they have an agenda to push Darwin's religion and disproved theories on the students which is so obvious in here dealing with the misinformed posters as you can see in this topic..
you want to teach Evolution buy some tv time on PBS don't use my tax dollars to teach it in public schools.
If my evidence doesn't debunk your "12 billion" year old "big bang" theory why haven't you proven it? How can you have all this evidence in front of you and try and sweep it under the carpet?
You can try and side step the issues I present here but at the end you and your Darwin lovers like Bill Nye are the ones getting "slammed"
I think you forget relevant aspects. Isotopic dating for example is accurate only when you know the source of the isotopes, and we still have a great deal of guesswork. Quite frankly, I don't know how anyone can assign a date to a comet. We don't know where they originated from, or what the isotopic mixes are over what period of times. I haven't investigated by what method they assign these dates either. maybe they do have a good way of telling. It's not like earth geology where we have multiple examples and have a pretty good guess at what the isotopic ratios were at an items formation.
I don't have time to continue. I'm already 3 minutes past the time I usually leave for work.
So long for now.
here is an easy one for the little brains.
Oil pressure.
When oil wells are drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous. For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure. However, for some reason it doesn't. Scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.
How can that be with a "4 Billion" year old earth?
Source?
Then if Science is "unsure" why have it as facts in the Science books?
If what your saying is even 1/2 true the science books have a lot of editing to do.
We can take this up later give your brain time to heal.I don't have time to continue. I'm already 3 minutes past the time I usually leave for work.
So long for now.
Trolls can be funny if they are on the smart side of the argument.Young-earth "proof" #18: The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years. (Presumably, the oil or gas would have escaped long before then.)
18. The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates that the oil and gas have been effectively trapped. The initial, slow ac ulation of oil and gas from the source area (primary migration) would hardly have had a chance to build up great pressure if the trapping rock were leaking like a sieve!
Oil and gas do a lot of migrating, and the oil ac ulated in a given reservoir may have recently migrated there from another reservoir. Thus, a given pool of oil may or may not have been there for millions and millions of years. A recent geological shift in the rocks might also increase the leakage of the primary oil pool, which had been hitherto sealed for millions of years. Thus, the mere existence of leaky trapping rocks does not prove that a pool of oil and gas was recently created.
The primary migration of oil from 1 to 5 kilometers deep in the earth, where it is produced under a combination of pressure and heat acting on organic matter, probably goes hand in hand with water migration. Certainly,oil and water are often found together, the oil floating on top of the water within permeable rock. The water is squeezed out as the source sediment experiences more and more pressure. Thus, it may interest you to know how fast water migrates down ther........
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovi...good-yea2.html
mouse is on the stupid side.
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.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-11-2012 at 09:18 AM.
I'll hand it to mouse, his willingness to continue this line of foolishness is quite remarkable if not amusing.
You don't really have "evidence", though. You have certain facts, and then you either draw illogical conclusions from those facts, or make claims that aren't really supported by those facts. Sorry not falling for the trolling. It is fun and useful to step through the fundamentals of scientific inquiry though.
Translation: I better find a way to bail out on this debate without looking like I lost.
On a side note, you can't call someone with over 20,000 postings a TRoll at some point you have to consider them a regular poster.
What is wrong with this statement? ^ So you have facts man Evolved from and ape but no evidence?
You have facts that Eisenstein used cloth diapers but no evidence? If you can use Science books ,Google links,you tube videos,and sworn affiliate's from Agloco, why must I put the crap in your mouth and spoon feed you?
Why not prove me wrong and stop ing and using cheesy tactics to avoid my questions.
Do I need to lower the bar even further?
This isn't rocket science.
Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere:
Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere.
The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14. This means that the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to . It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years. Thus, it appears that the earth's atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old.
In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old. Some of these estimates place the atmosphere's age at 50,000 years, and others at 100,000 but they each pose serious problems for old-earth scenarios not to mention the "4 billion" year old earth fairy tail people with low IQ just seem to always gravitate to.
Last edited by mouse; 10-12-2012 at 07:58 AM.
Maybe you should have read the rest of the sentence that you left off when you quoted him.
Why not answer my questions instead of avoiding them using cheesy tactics?Why not prove me wrong and stop ing and using cheesy tactics to avoid my questions.
Where are you getting these claims of yours from?
” Dr. Hovind (R1): The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
R1. The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed. Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?
This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974,p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. In 1968 another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!
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.)”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
Weeeeeeeeeeeee
Maybe your right. I was doing my late night part time gig and had to use a cheesy iPhone when I tried to read his reply and just prematurely fired off an unedited response.
because I asked mine first.Why not answer my questions instead of avoiding them using cheesy tactics?
Sciencebooks.Where are you getting these claims of yours from?
Maybe your right. I was doing my late night part time gig and had to use a cheesy iPhone when I tried to read his reply and just prematurely fired off an unedited response.
Because I asked mine first. That is how a normal debate works.Why not answer my questions instead of avoiding them using cheesy tactics?
Science books.Where are you getting these claims of yours from?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
