Bill Nye slams creationism

[RandomGuy]

Ok Random lie you want to be the rain man of Saturn, go right ahead. I will be sure to look you up first before I try Google next time.

But what about the earth slowing down 1.4 milliseconds that has to be added to the clocks.

Multiply 1.4 milliseconds by 4 Billion years how fast would the Earth be spinning?

Saturn's rings statement debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE240.html

Moon age statement debunked:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

You can't read that site only suggest a different prospective they don't claim to actually debunk anything.

here is an actual quote.

Response:

1. Saturn's rings may be less than 100 million years old (Cuzzi and Estrada 1998). However, that says nothing about the age of the planet. The rings could have formed when Saturn captured a small moon that fell within the Roche limit (the distance below which moons will be pulled apart by tidal forces). This could have happened any time in Saturn's history.

You call that scientific evidence debunking? You can't tell a judge in court when he ask how old you are and if you have a drivers license.

"well judge I may be 21 or I may be 17.. I could have a drivers license and I may have a car.

Where is the Scientific proof? That lame webpage is by a man named Mark Isaak, Do you even know who he is?

I just remembered why I avoid debating with you just can't reply w/o your immature outdated insults can you?

On a side note before I place you back on the no reply to list.

Your Buddy Mark Isaak has been been known for hating creationist and even has a book called The Counter-Creationism Handbook.

Nice try bringing a Bible hating book author to a scientific debate.

But you should know that since your not lazy and stupid

"your not" LOL

Anyway, you don't debate, you just repeat.

You never learn, you never abandon ed ideas when given better information.

You just wait a few days and repeat the same ed ideas as if no one has ever shredded them for the idiocy they are.

One doesn't have to do much debunking when the underlying ideas you are pushing are basically, fundamentally, flawed.


Both the Saturn's rings idea and the moon distance idea are based on the same logical premise:
That the current rate can be used to calculate an actual age.

The current rate cannot be used to calculate actual ages for either. Neither can the rate at which the sun is currently shrinking.

It is all basically flawed simply because you have to know two things:

1. Is the rate the same now as it was in the past?
2. When did the clock start ticking?

You don't know what the rate of the moon receding, or the rate at which Saturn's rings 100 years ago, let alone 1,000 or 1,000,000 years ago.

This makes your entire ed idea, ed.

It is ed because if your starting assumption is bad, then the calculation is bad.

Take the statement:

I ride my unicorn to work.
This is obviously a ed statement. Unicorns don't exist.
Therefore I can't ride one to work.
"Using todays rate for X, I calculated the age of Y"<< this is a ed statement.
It is ed, because your entire calculation is based on the assumption that the rate has never changed, something you have no evidence about.

Do you understand you have no evidence about the past rate of the moon receding or how fast Saturns rings were dissipating?

Sorry, already debunked. Same stupid as before.

[mouse]

I just remembered why I avoid debating with you just can't reply w/o your immature outdated insults can you?

[mouse]

[mouse]