Reply With Quote
Sorry mouse, but the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
So let me guess the Darwin lovers turn a perfectly good debate into a semi entertaining smack off to avoid explaining away the evidence I have provided to them that the earth is no way anywhere near millions of years old and to think the school text books have the nerve to say Billions of years old?
who writes this comedy?
mouse 10
Snail people who evolved from hot soup billions of years ago to grow legs and use them to stand inline at best buy on black Friday,0
Sorry mouse, but the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
mouse knows this. he just loves to play devil's advocate
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...ight=accretion
he even debates that there was a moment of creation
and to answer his question that he asked me in the thread about venus...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ct-may-explain
Last edited by The Reckoning; 04-18-2010 at 01:47 PM.
I've already tried to educate mouse on this subject years ago, but there's no point. The evidence runs millions of pages long, and you can find it in any library, but youneed me to summarise it for you?
"Perfectly good debate"? "Evidence"? I don't see either in this thread.So let me guess the Darwin lovers turn a perfectly good debate into a semi entertaining smack off to avoid explaining away the evidence I have provided to them that the earth is no way anywhere near millions of years old and to think the school text books have the nerve to say Billions of years old?
who writes this comedy?
mouse 10
Snail people who evolved from hot soup billions of years ago to grow legs and use them to stand inline at best buy on black Friday,0
cue long thread on merits/flaws of evolution/creationism... in ... oh wait, its already started.
The two sided pancake
side A
(Ruff,Blake and all the we evolved from hot soup posters)
They post a photo or ask a question and they demand answers and they will call you out if you don't reply with something intelligent.
side B
(Ruff,Blake and all the we evolved from hot soup posters)
You post a photo for them or ask them question they avoid answering it and in turn try to insult you.
Case in point...
They swear up and down on their great great great great grandfather's who swung from a tree millions a years ago that stalac es take millions of years to form.
along comes an educated man like myself and shows them a stalac e growing underneath a 40 year old subway and they go silent.
what kind of debating is that?
Actually mouse the double standard for evidence is usually your schtick.
Just about every bit you end up posting has been explained or debunked, as being fully compatible with a universe/earth that is billions of years old.
You assign absolute credibility to bits that reinforce your beliefs, but none to any contravening evidence.
That's all good. Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, mouse has to believe in pink unicorns.
I have made my peace with your absolute determination to believe in patently illogical things.
Another case in point....
Ruff,Blake and all the Darwin lovers keep saying how the earth is not millions of years old but get this........it's "billions" of years old, and yet they can't seem to find any proof.
The oldest tree is 20,000 years old and the oldest coastal reef found on earth is around 5 to 6 thousand years old. Where is the million year old tree? The million year old coastal reef?
Scientist's have found with the use of lasers and reflectors placed on the moon by Unmanned spacecraft that the moon moves away from the earth around 4 inch's a year. With that in mind...If the earth was just one million years old do you know how close the moon would have been to the earth one million years ago?
Well before you pull out the calculators to find out keep in mind the earth is 4 Billion years old.
who writes this comedy?
The stalac es are waiting.....for your answer.....
You're making a false equivalence between stalag es as though they were all composed of the same materials. You can go to the beach and create a very impermanent stalagmite by dribbling wet sand, but good luck doing that with a wet granite stone.
For that matter, assuming your rate of separation between Earth and Moon is true, why do you assume it is a constant?
Light moves at 186,000 miles per second. This is a fixed cosmological constant, an absolute, immutable law of physics.
Even given the expansion of space time, if the Earth were, as some claim, only a few tens of thousands of years old, we would not even see the smallest fraction of our galaxy let alone be able, using radio telescopes, to see objects billions of LIGHT YEARS away.
The very observable fact that we can see the rest of our galaxy indicates that the universe is much older than 10,000 years. All you have to do is look up at the stars to see this.
Indeed, there are children's websites that show how you can create stalagmites/stalag es in a week or two.
The softer and more water soluable the rock the faster they form, as you stated.
The existance of fast-forming stalag es is fully compatible with an old earth, and is fully explainable and reproducible using readily verifiable chemistry.
The speed of formation is determined solely by how much mineral can be dissolved by a drop of water.
Mouses willful ignorance of chemistry allows him to continue to believe that all minerals dissolve at the same rate. This is provably false.
What ever the case may be I really don't give a rats ass where they come from and how long they take to form I just want the lies taken out of the text books.
lets move on...................
An estimated 60 tons of dissolved minerals are swept over Niagara Falls every minute, Niagara Falls has moved back 7 miles in 12,500 years and may be the fastest moving waterfalls in the world.
If you divide 12,500 into 4 Billion where does that put Niagara?
Pssssst! stalac e boy is still waiting......
Do all minerals dissolve in water at the same rate?Pssssst! stalac e boy is still waiting......
Deep in bull country, I reckon.
The danger of the 'staight-line' assumption, i.e. assuming conditions in the future/past are/were identical to those of today.
If one were to calculate, in an identical manner using current population growth rates, how many people there will be in 20,000 years, the total mass of human flesh would be more than the mass of the known universe.
Mouse's ignorant assumption (one of them at any rate) in that statement is actually quite similar to his ignorant assumption in the stalag e statement.
He assumes that all the rock formations that the river flows over dissolve at the same rate.
He also assumes that rivers do not change courses, yet another provably false assumption. Ask any good civil engineer if rivers always stay in the same channel.
(hint: they don't)
Both assumptions underpin the question about 'dividing by age'. If your underlying assumptions are false, then the question is meaningless.
It is like asking: "how many leprachauns can I fit in my van?" The question assumes that leprachauns exist and can therefore be measured.
what are the truths that should be left in the text books?
Careful, fella -- you may be branded an elitist snob if you suggest textbooks should contain anything.
you have been provided proof over and over again.
you can't seem to grasp it.
You constantly digging up stuff from creation websites and going round and round is comedy up to a point. After that, it's sad.who writes this comedy?
What a sad, sad state of affairs this country is in. No need to divulge on this. It is what it is with you supid kids these days, believing any and all crap that comes out of academia. You kids will buy anything that isn't bible-based yet turn your faces away from the book that will be read at your funerals.
No worries. You scientist's will get yours one day.
What I don't understand is why it's taken as a given that the knowledge we derive from science is necessarily contrary to scripture. Why is it a given to say the Earth is x-years old based on one man's contested interpretation of the Bible? Or that evolution is not the work of God? Or that our being made in the likeness of God means we are morphologically static beings?What a sad, sad state of affairs this country is in. No need to divulge on this. It is what it is with you supid kids these days, believing any and all crap that comes out of academia. You kids will buy anything that isn't bible-based yet turn your faces away from the book that will be read at your funerals.
No worries. You scientist's will get yours one day.
I firmly believe in God, but I also believe science is a tool to help me better understand both scripture and my faith.
You've hit it on the nail. That is exactly how I view it just as well.
Science was a tool given to us to understand HIS complexity. No problems with that. Science is not all as these idiotic kids believe.
I am with you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
