Age Of The Earth by Dr. Kent Hovind

[freakazoid]

Age Of The Earth by Dr. Kent Hovind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZR022_GbzU&feature=PlayList&p=0DBFE3F47B0BEFE7&index=0&playnext=1

Comments?

[Carrot]

So stupid it scares me.


http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Comments?

[freakazoid]

So stupid it scares me.


http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/fe-scidi.htm)

Comments?

What part was stupid and why? Reasons, sources, facts, proof? What was stupid?

[yee-haw]

Carrot is still hungover, Everything will seem stupid for the next few hours.

[freakazoid]

Carrot is still hungover, Everything will seem stupid for the next few hours.

http://jordebot.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/hung-over-punk-rocker-dangling-a-carrot.gif

[Carrot]

I'm perfectly fine thanks.

Did you watch the video haw? It's some half-wit claiming the earth was only 6000 years old with idiotic evidence and laughably flawed arguments.

I'm not going to dignify stupidity of that level with a response, there's plenty of evidence if you don't purposely blind yourself out of retarded and narrowminded approach to faith.

If you base your end conclusion on an ancient book full of at best helpful metaphors then saying anything is a utter waste of time.

You can't help people who choose to be miseducated.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Comments? :rolleyes:

[LedZap]

6000 years old...isn't that a Jehovah witness thing ?

[Claude Clay]

perhaps in the long ago entropy was different and time being relative,
people had more time for theirs (relatives). i mean for sure if i had only my relatives to hang with, id feel like i was 800 years old to:rolleyes:

and where was everyone to complain when simon & garfunkel professed that
they were a rock :cool:

live & let live--just don't be letting my dog see ua:D

[yee-haw]

I'm perfectly fine thanks.

Did you watch the video haw? It's some half-wit claiming the earth was only 6000 years old with idiotic evidence and laughably flawed arguments.

I'm not going to dignify stupidity of that level with a response, there's plenty of evidence if you don't purposely blind yourself out of retarded and narrowminded approach to faith.

If you base your end conclusion on an ancient book full of at best helpful metaphors then saying anything is a utter waste of time.

You can't help people who choose to be miseducated.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Comments? :rolleyes:

Well, I do agree that the earth has been here for far longer...
I don't see how you view it as stupid, I found it to be irrelevant is all.
We know the earth is really old, No way of knowing for sure how old exactly but older than 6000 years yes!

[freakazoid]

6000 years old...isn't that a Jehovah witness thing ?

Might be. But I disagree with that point of the Earth being only 6000 years old TOTAL, BUT, I do agree that the current condition of the Earth is about 6000 years old. Hence what is known as the "Gap Theory."

Genesis 1:1 ...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

INSERT Billions of years here; I.e., The "Gap Theory" where the history of the heavens (space) and Earth are not discussed. Next...

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was [or BECAME in Hebrew...both "was" and "became" is accurate] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

* Time line...

From the recreation of Earth and Adam's creation to the Flood - about 1680 years, from the end of the flood to now - about 4440 years.

Conclusion - VERY plausible. And there is NO PROOF that this did not happen.

[Carrot]

Well, I do agree that the earth has been here for far longer...
I don't see how you view it as stupid, I found it to be irrelevant is all.
We know the earth is really old, No way of knowing for sure how old exactly but older than 6000 years yes!

"The sahara is 4000 years old the oldest desert should be much older."

Erm, climate change, it WASN'T a desert at some point? Movement of tectonic plates? No just leave those out...

How is that not stupid? Come on.

And using the great flood as an explanation for oil...the list just goes on and on. Holds as much water as the flat earth theory. All "counter evidence" is just wrong or made up by scientists to disprove God. Sure.

[yee-haw]

Might be. But I disagree with that point of the Earth being only 6000 years old TOTAL, BUT, I do agree that the current condition of the Earth is about 6000 years old. Hence what is known as the "Gap Theory."

Genesis 1:1 ...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

INSERT Billions of years here; I.e., The "Gap Theory" where the history of the heavens (space) and Earth are not discussed. Next...

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was [or BECAME in Hebrew...both "was" and "became" is accurate] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

* Time line...

From the recreation of Earth and Adam's creation to the Flood - about 1680 years, from the end of the flood to now - about 4440 years.

Conclusion - VERY plausible. And there is NO PROOF that this did not happen.

It don't mention aliens in the bible either, Certain things wer'nt mentioned for the fact that they were irrelevant and did not matter to our functioning of humans..point & case.

[freakazoid]

It don't mention aliens in the bible either, Certain things wer'nt mentioned for the fact that they were irrelevant and did not matter to our functioning of humans..point & case.

Exactly! Good point! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Carrot]

Might be. But I disagree with that point of the Earth being only 6000 years old TOTAL, BUT, I do agree that the current condition of the Earth is about 6000 years old. Hence what is known as the "Gap Theory."

Genesis 1:1 ...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

INSERT Billions of years here; I.e., The "Gap Theory" where the history of the heavens (space) and Earth are not discussed. Next...

Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was [or BECAME in Hebrew...both "was" and "became" is accurate] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Genesis 1:4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Genesis 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

* Time line...

From the recreation of Earth and Adam's creation to the Flood - about 1680 years, from the end of the flood to now - about 4440 years.

Conclusion - VERY plausible. And there is NO PROOF that this did not happen.

Oh, that clears that up!

Like I said, so stupid it scares me.

Good thing you aren't home schooling anyone.

[LedZap]

Well I got about half way and took a break to say , I kinda like that guy.Sure , his points can be argued but a lot of what he says is interesting...I'm sure this thread will last quite a while. Good post Freak...and Prome , we need you and Pais to chime in on this as well. Please remember , Freak posted this for discussion...not flaming.

[yee-haw]

Well I got about half way and took a break to say , I kinda like that guy.Sure , his points can be argued but a lot of what he says is interesting...I'm sure this thread will last quite a while. Good post Freak...and Prome , we need you and Pais to chime in on this as well. Please remember , Freak posted this for discussion...not flaming.

Agreed!!
Good thread and very interesting topic!

[Carrot]

Agreed!!
Good thread and very interesting topic!

You can't be serious.

[yee-haw]

You can't be serious.

Carrot, You're eating retard sandwiches and making little to no sense today.

[freakazoid]

The MOST important point that I get out of this video is that observed evidence can be reasonably interpreted to prove other conclusions than the standard high school / college model of the Earth and life and where it all came from.

So-called "scientists" have a tendency to conclude something because of a predisposed belief system, Dr. Hovind is offering other potential conclusions based on observed evidence. And he is in fact pointing out mistakes in the commonly held beliefs concerning origins.

Carrot's response is more or less typical at first, but I have seen hard core atheists have to admit, in college style debates with Dr. Hovind, that Hovind is a scientific force to be reckoned with and that he knows what he is talking about. They may hate him, BUT they do respect him.

[yee-haw]

The MOST important point that I get out of this video is that observed evidence can be reasonably interpreted to to prove other conclusions than the standard high school / college model of the Earth and life and where it all came from.

So-called "scientists" have a tendency to conclude something because of a predisposed belief system, Dr. Hovind is offering other potential conclusions based on observed evidence. And he is in fact pointing out mistakes in the commonly held beliefs concerning origins.

Carrot's response is more or less typical at first, but I have seen hard core atheists have to admit, in college style debates with, Dr. Hovind, that Hovind is a scientific force to be reckoned with and that he knows what he is talking about. They may hate him, BUT they do respect him.

There is always 3 dementions ...you have here, There and then there is a grey area.
You have to look at all sides and possibilities, If not you are under educated on the subject and therefore stupid by definition, Hovind does have interesting views and they should be studied and ponderd...Above all atleast discussed!

[Carrot]

Why do you think he never engages in email debates, or writes out a full and proper paper? Sow typing speed? Sure.

It's because his success relies on charisma and winning over the audience through presentation skills and appealing to initial reactions, without going into detail in certain points.

[Prometheus]

I have already touched on this ----> Christain Dogma: Earth is only 6000 years old. (http://forum.bullshit.com/showthread.php?t=5192&highlight=earth+6000+years)


You guys know what I think but for debate's sake......:rolleyes:

How old is the earth?

If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”

If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)

If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.

If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.

If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.

If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”

If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).

The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)
-The Christian News, March 26, 2001, page 18.

If not, then when?

Although many people don't accept the Bible's timeline of history, they have difficulty deciding exactly when to start disagreeing with it.

* Was Jesus Christ real? The Bible says he was, and no serious historian doubts it.
* Was King David real? The Bible says he was. Again, there is no reason to doubt it.
* Was Abraham real? The Bible says he was. There seems no reason to doubt this either.
* Was Enoch real? The Bible says he was. There is no reason to think the Bible has suddenly lapsed into fiction when the other people were genuine historical figures.
* Was Adam real? Well, Enoch was a son of Cain, who was a son of Adam. So if Enoch was real there is no reason to think that his father Cain wasn't, or that his grandfather Adam wasn't. They were only two generations away.

And Adam was the first man, created in the first week of the earth's existence.

According to the Bible, he lived about 6000 years ago.

Irish Archbishop James Ussher
http://www.creationtips.com/Pix/james_ussher.jpg

In his famous work The Annals of the World, Ussher used the Masoretic text of the Bible to come up with fairly precise dates for people and events mentioned in the Bible. His calculations led him to determine that God created the universe on 23 October, 4004 BC.

Other Bible historians and scholars always come up with a date not far from Ussher's, because even if you use slightly different methods for determining Bible chronology, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible will point you to a date of creation about 6000 years ago.

Earth is 6,000 Years Old ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00
U.S. State Senator: Earth Is 6,000 Years Old ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVAzYIbh2Qg
Young Earth Politico - Worst Person, July 8, 2009 ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3usTktRGz-4

'Where did a young-earth worldview come from?

Simply put, it came from the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “the earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.

God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using my personal birth certificate, I can calculate how old I am at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin calculations of the age of the earth.

Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first 5 days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.

Adam was created on Day 6, so there were 5 days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

So a simple calculation is:

5 days
+ ~2000 years
+ ~4000 years
______________
~6000 years

At this point, the first 5 days are negligible. Quite a few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what most English translations are based on) and, with careful attention to the biblical details, have arrived at the same time-frame of about 6,000 years, or about 4,000 B.C. Two of the most popular, are a recent work by Dr. Floyd Jones and a much earlier book by Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656):

Table 1 Jones and Ussher
......Who?......................Age calculated.......Reference and date

Archbishop James Ussher.......4004 B.C.........The Annals of the World, 1658 A.D.4

Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones............4004 B.C.........The Chronology of the Old Testament, 1993 A.D.5

Often, there is a misconception that Ussher and Jones were the only ones to do a chronology and arrive a date of about 6,000 years. However this is not the case at all. Jones gives a listing of several chronologists who have undertaken the task of calculating the age of the earth based on the Bible and their calculations range from 5501 to 3836 B.C. A few are listed

...NAME.........................Calculation date...... Calculation
Julius Africanus....................c. 240...................5501
George Syncellus..................c. 810...................5492
John Jackson..........................1752............. .....5426
Dr William Hales...................c. 1830..................5411
Eusebius.............................c. 330...................5199
Marianus Scotus...................c. 1070.................4192
L. Condomanus.........................n/a..................4141
Thomas Lydiat.....................c. 1600.................4103
M. Michael Maestlinus............c. 1600.................4079
J. Ricciolus...............................n/a..................4062
Jacob Salianus.....................c. 1600.................4053
H. Spondanus.......................c. 1600................4051
Martin Anstey..........................1913.............. ...4042
W. Lange.................................n/a..................4041
E. Reinholt...............................n/a...................4021
J. Cappellus........................c. 1600..................4005
E. Greswell.............................1830......... ..........4004
E. Faulstich............................1986......... ..........4001
D. Petavius.........................c. 1627..................3983
Frank Klassen..........................1975............. ......3975
Becke.....................................n/a...................3974
Krentzeim................................n/a...................3971
W. Dolen................................2003......... .........3971
E. Reusnerus............................n/a...................3970
J. Claverius..............................n/a...................3968
C. Longomontanus.................c. 1600.................3966
P. Melanchthon.....................c. 1550.................3964
J. Haynlinus..............................n/a..................3963
A. Salmeron.........................d. 1585..................3958
J. Scaliger............................d. 1609.................3949
M. Beroaldus.........................c. 1575.................3927

As you will likely note from Table 2, the dates are not all 4004 B.C. There are several reasons chronologists have different dates7 but the two primary ones are:

1. Some used the Septuagint or another early translation, instead of the Hebrew Masoretic text. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, done about 250 B.C. by about 70 Jewish scholars (hence it is often cited as the LXX). It is good in most places, but appears to have a number of inaccuracies. For example, one relates to the Genesis chronologies where the LXX indicates that Methuselah would have lived past the Flood, without being on the Ark!
2. Several points in the biblical time-line are not straightforward to calculate. They require very careful study of more than one passage. These include exactly how much time the Israelites were in Egypt and what Terah’s age was when Abraham was born. (See Jones’ and Ussher’s books for a detailed discussion of these difficulties.)

The first four in Table 2 (bolded) are calculated from the Septuagint, which gives ages for the patriarchs’ firstborn much higher than the Masoretic text or the Samarian Pentateuch (another version from the Jews in Samaria just before Christ). Because of this, the LXX adds in extra time. Though the Samarian and Masoretic texts are much closer, they still have a couple of differences.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth



The Agricultural revolution predates 6k, we have "Clovis point arrowheads" in New Mexico that are 11k years old....... but I know, These and dinosaur bones where all put here by the "devil" to test my faith in god right.... . Geology is just a superstition, not really a science I guess.

Radiocarbon dating-From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_carbon_dating) [Link]

[yee-haw]

The Agricultural revolution predates 6k,:rolleyes: we have "Clovis point arrowheads" in New Mexico that are 11k years old....... but I know, These and dinosaur bones where all put here by the "devil" to test my faith in god right.... :D. Geology is just a superstition, not really a science I guess.

Radiocarbon dating-From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_carbon_dating) [Link]

That's the whole point dinosaurs were not relevent, The bible actually does speak of the dionsaur... It don't say "DINOSAUR" It says beumoth...the beast that ruled the land.
Satan don't work that way anyhow... His greatest accompishment was convincing man that he does not exist.

[freakazoid]

I have already touched on this ----> http://forum.bullshit.com/showthread.php?t=5192&highlight=earth+6000+years

The Agricultural revolution predates 6k,:rolleyes: we have "Clovis point arrowheads" in New Mexico that are 11k years old....... but I know, These and dinosaur bones where all put here by the "devil" to test my faith in god right.... :D. Geology is just a superstition, not really a science I guess.

Radiocarbon dating-From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_carbon_dating) [Link]

Carbon tests have produced ages of 11 thousand years and more of LIVE SEA ANIMALS, promo_____, so much for so-called "carbon dating."

Proof that they are 11k years old?

Proof that the Agricultural revolution predates 6k?

Who said "dinosaur bones where all put here by the "devil" to test my faith in god...?"

Who said geology is just a superstition?

Did you watch the video carefully, promo_____ ? If not, you're like a child who just wandered into a movie, you have no frame of reference here, promo______.

[Prometheus]

Proof that they are 11k years old?

Proof that the Agricultural revolution predates 6k?

Who said "dinosaur bones where all put here by the "devil" to test my faith in god...?"

Who said geology is just a superstition?

Did you watch the video carefully, promo_____ ? If not, you're like a child who just wandered into a movie, you have no frame of reference here, promo______.

I posted it almost a year ago you malformed man, apparently you didn't see it.

[freakazoid]

I posted it almost a year ago you malformed man, apparently you didn't see it.


Did you watch the video, promo______? If so, prove Dr. Hovind wrong. I'll be waiting.

[Carrot]

Fine. Fine. I give in.

I'm going to address nearly all the points.

1. Human population growth.
The reason the population has been able to enter an exponential phase is due to modern medicine, farming techniques, and technology improvement. To extrapolate that same growth rate backwards to "disprove" the time humans have been around simply doesn't work. Look at theinfant mortality rate a mere 100 years ago. Environmental pressures cap the population.

Completely unfounded in supporting the argument.

Then, he side tracks to add credibility on unrelated points.

2. Thinks vaccines are unnecessary hoaxes...

3.Galaxies have a spiral shape BECAUSE they are being drawn into the centre. Like water around a plughole....
And they are drifting away, as shown by redshift.

4. The number of novas.....does he expect us to be able to see every supernovae that occur in the universe, let alon ones that may have dispersed?

5. Red stars t owhite stars "opposite to evolution". It's a simple progression of a chemical reaction.... Outside pressures aren't put on stars, it's not even comparable.

6. Sirius star: (red to white dwarf)

What the naked eye perceives as a single star is actually a binary star system, consisting of a white main sequence star of spectral type A1V, termed Sirius A, and a faint white dwarf companion of spectral type DA2, termed Sirius B.

Skimmed over that one eh?

7. All the solar system stuff.

Erm, rates? Amounts? i'm guessing the fact he didn't mention them means they don't back up his point, as with everything else he's left out.

Eg, if you are only losing a tiny amount of heat, it's concievable that something....as MASSIVE as jupiter would take so long, andthat's just off the top of my head.

8. Comets
They weren't formed at the same time as the earth (hence the ecliplicat orbits) moot point.

And all this is just twenty minutes in.

I've wasted time I said I wouldn't. And there's no point in continuing.

If you need to delude yourself to strengthen your faith then have fun. I have far more respect for believers who don't need to kid themselves to these ridiculous extents.

[yee-haw]

Somebody is a tad grumpy today...:rolleyes:

[Prometheus]

Did you watch the video, promo______? If so, prove Dr. Hovind wrong. I'll be waiting.

The shit proposed in that video is the most ridiculous stuff you can expect a adult to believe. We were made by a White Man from the middle east:rolleyes: in the sky, how limited is your view of existence? That shit was laughable at best, and the fact you believe any of it sure does explain a lot about the way you behave. I feel sorry for you, seriously, all joking aside, I do feel bad your this gullible.

[Carrot]

Somebody is a tad grumpy today...:rolleyes:

Yeah well, it's all there if you just take a second to think about it rationally.

[freakazoid]

Fine. Fine. I give in.


I'm going to address nearly all the points.

1. Human population growth.
The reason the population has been able to enter an exponential phase is due to modern medicine, farming techniques, and technology improvement. To extrapolate that same growth rate backwards to "disprove" the time humans have been around simply doesn't work. Look at theinfant mortality rate a mere 100 years ago. Environmental pressures cap the population.

He never said medicine didn't play a part. He offered a clear point to address the population of the earth, a plausible one. Go listen again.

Completely unfounded in supporting the argument.

Then, he side tracks to add credibility on unrelated points.

2. Thinks vaccines are unnecessary hoaxes...

He never said that, go listen again. He said be cautious of vaccines, that is good advise, is it not?

3.Galaxies have a spiral shape BECAUSE they are being drawn into the centre. Like water around a plughole....
And they are drifting away, as shown by redshift.

There is a lot of controversy concerning the reason for the various shapes of galaxies, he was offering an alternative theory (or hypothesis). Something that is absolute science today, is garbage tomorrow. Remember when we thought that our galaxy was all there was? And that was only about 100 years ago; we now know that there are millions of galaxies. Truth changes a lot, does it not?

4. The number of novas.....does he expect us to be able to see every supernovae that occur in the universe, let alon ones that may have dispersed?

What is your point?

5. Red stars t owhite stars "opposite to evolution". It's a simple progression of a chemical reaction.... Outside pressures aren't put on stars, it's not even comparable.

6. Sirius star: (red to white dwarf)

Skimmed over that one eh?

Prove him wrong.

7. All the solar system stuff.

Erm, rates? Amounts? i'm guessing the fact he didn't mention them means they don't back up his point, as everything else he's left out.

Prove him wrong.

8. Comets
They weren't formed at the same time as the earth (hence the ecliplicat orbits) moot point.

How do you know they weren't? An assumption, you were there, an eyewitness?

And all this is just twenty minutes in.

I've wasted time I said I wouldn't. And there's no point in continuing.

[freakazoid]

The shit proposed in that video is the most ridiculous stuff you can expect a adult to believe. We were made by a White Man from the middle east:rolleyes: in the sky, how limited is your view of existence? That shit was laughable at best, and the fact you believe any of it sure does explain a lot about the way you behave. I feel sorry for you, seriously, all joking aside, I do feel bad your this gullible.

Yes, but you offer NO proof, only mindless insults. Again I say...prove him wrong, promo______. Yup, I do feel bad you're this brain washed, AND can't spell. Imagine that, a dude who can't even spell right telling us that he has it all covered.

Report back to us when you have. In the meantime, enjoy.

[Carrot]

I'm going to address nearly all the points.

1. Human population growth.
The reason the population has been able to enter an exponential phase is due to modern medicine, farming techniques, and technology improvement. To extrapolate that same growth rate backwards to "disprove" the time humans have been around simply doesn't work. Look at theinfant mortality rate a mere 100 years ago. Environmental pressures cap the population.

He never said it wasn't, go listen again.

Yes he did, go listen again. His point was if people were millions of years old then we would fill the earth, there fore it's impossible. he completely ignored the modern advances amde and pressures in the past.

Completely unfounded in supporting the argument.

Then, he side tracks to add credibility on unrelated points.

2. Thinks vaccines are unnecessary hoaxes...

He never said that, go listen again. He said be cautious of vaccines, that isi good advise.

Did you even read the quote he put up?

3.Galaxies have a spiral shape BECAUSE they are being drawn into the centre. Like water around a plughole....
And they are drifting away, as shown by redshift.

There is a lot of controversy concerning the reason for the various shapes of galaxies, he was offering an alternative theory (or hypothesis). Something that is absolute science today, is garbage tomorrow. Remember when we thought that our galaxy was all there was? And that was only about 100 years ago; we now know that there are millions of galaxies. Truth changes a lot, does it not?

He presented it as fact, and that it would prove it if it was fact.
It isn't fact, and it would prove it even if it was, and takes massive leaps of faith eitherway and have no proof.

4. The number of novas.....does he expect us to be able to see every supernovae that occur in the universe, let alon ones that may have dispersed?

What is your point?

Again, did you even listen to this video before posting it. He said if the universe was that old where are the rest of the supernovae if one occurs every 30 years. There are even more holes to pick in this argument.

5. Red stars t owhite stars "opposite to evolution". It's a simple progression of a chemical reaction.... Outside pressures aren't put on stars, it's not even comparable.

6. Sirius star: (red to white dwarf)

Skimmed over that one eh?

Prove him wrong.

The entire example he used to make his point was wrong. How more wrong can you get?

7. All the solar system stuff.

Erm, rates? Amounts? i'm guessing the fact he didn't mention them means they don't back up his point, as everything else he's left out.

Prove him wrong.

No evidence was presented to disprove. he just smiled and joked with the audience and stated "it is so".

8. Comets
They weren't formed at the same time as the earth (hence the ecliplicat orbits) moot point.

How do you know they weren't? An assumption, you were there, an eyewitness?

They can't have, if they were they would orbit in the same plane as the planets. Read up about it.

And all this is just twenty minutes in.

I've wasted time I said I wouldn't. And there's no point in continuing.

[freakazoid]

Yeah well, it's all there if you just take a second to think about it rationally.

He was being very rational, but you have already decided that you know the facts, therefore you are closed minded and unable to consider any other world view.

Trust me, dude, "modern science" is not all that modern.

[Carrot]

He was being very rational, but you have already decided that you know the facts, therefore you are closed minded and unable to consider any other world view.

Trust me, dude, "modern science" is not all that modern.

Being open minded doesn't mean you don't look at things critically.

Besides, you're one to talk about benig open minded aren't you?

[Prometheus]

I'm going to address nearly all the points.

1. Human population growth.
The reason the population has been able to enter an exponential phase is due to modern medicine, farming techniques, and technology improvement. To extrapolate that same growth rate backwards to "disprove" the time humans have been around simply doesn't work. Look at theinfant mortality rate a mere 100 years ago. Environmental pressures cap the population.

He never said it wasn't, go listen again.

Yes he did, go listen again. His point was if people were millions of years old then we would fill the earth, there fore it's impossible. he completely ignored the modern advances amde and pressures in the past.

Completely unfounded in supporting the argument.

Then, he side tracks to add credibility on unrelated points.

2. Thinks vaccines are unnecessary hoaxes...

He never said that, go listen again. He said be cautious of vaccines, that isi good advise.

Did you even read the quote he put up?

3.Galaxies have a spiral shape BECAUSE they are being drawn into the centre. Like water around a plughole....
And they are drifting away, as shown by redshift.

There is a lot of controversy concerning the reason for the various shapes of galaxies, he was offering an alternative theory (or hypothesis). Something that is absolute science today, is garbage tomorrow. Remember when we thought that our galaxy was all there was? And that was only about 100 years ago; we now know that there are millions of galaxies. Truth changes a lot, does it not?

He presented it as fact, and that it would prove it if it was fact.
Neither of those statements I just made are true, and take massive leaps of faith eitherway and have no proof.

4. The number of novas.....does he expect us to be able to see every supernovae that occur in the universe, let alon ones that may have dispersed?

What is your point?

Again, did you even listen to this video before posting it. He said if the universe was that old where are the rest of the supernovae if one occurs every 30 years. There are even more holes to pick in this argument.

5. Red stars t owhite stars "opposite to evolution". It's a simple progression of a chemical reaction.... Outside pressures aren't put on stars, it's not even comparable.

6. Sirius star: (red to white dwarf)

Skimmed over that one eh?

Prove him wrong.

The entire example he used to make his point was wrong. How more wrong can you get?

7. All the solar system stuff.

Erm, rates? Amounts? i'm guessing the fact he didn't mention them means they don't back up his point, as everything else he's left out.

Prove him wrong.

No evidence was presented to disprove. he just smiled and joked with the audience and stated "it is so".

8. Comets
They weren't formed at the same time as the earth (hence the ecliplicat orbits) moot point.

How do you know they weren't? An assumption, you were there, an eyewitness?

They can't have, if they were they would orbit in the same plane as the planets. Read up about it.

And all this is just twenty minutes in.

I've wasted time I said I wouldn't. And there's no point in continuing.

Looks like Freak just got PWNED !! :D
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/7196/t3nukedthread.jpg

[freakazoid]

I'm going to address nearly all the points.
Yes he did, go listen again. His point was if people were millions of years old then we would fill the earth, there fore it's impossible. he completely ignored the modern advances amde and pressures in the past.

Wrong, he made no reference to medicine as an agent for or against his population growth theory.

Completely unfounded in supporting the argument.

Then, he side tracks to add credibility on unrelated points.

2. Thinks vaccines are unnecessary hoaxes...

Did you even read the quote he put up?

Yes, his point was CLEAR, SOME may be hoaxes, SOME, I seriously doubt anyone would believe that all vaccines are. His point was valid. See - http://www.whale.to/a/hoax.html and http://theautopsy.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/the-big-autism-vaccine-hoax/ and http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html

He presented it as fact, and that it would prove it if it was fact.
Neither of those staements statements I just made are true, and take massive leaps of faith.

As I said...There is a lot of controversy concerning the reason for the various shapes of galaxies, he was offering an alternative theory (or hypothesis). Something that is absolute science today, is garbage tomorrow. Remember when we thought that our galaxy was all there was? And that was only about 100 years ago; we now know that there are millions of galaxies. Truth changes a lot, does it not?

See (controversy concerning the reason for the various shapes of galaxies) - http://www.jstor.org/pss/3960860



4. The number of novas.....does he expect us to be able to see every supernovae that occur in the universe, let alon ones that may have dispersed?

What is your point?

Again, did you even listen to this video before posting it. He said if the universe was that old where are the rest of the supernovae if one occurs every 30 years. There are even more holes to pick in this argument.

5. Red stars t owhite stars "opposite to evolution". It's a simple progression of a chemical reaction.... Outside pressures aren't put on stars, it's not even comparable.

6. Sirius star: (red to white dwarf)

Skimmed over that one eh?

Prove him wrong.

The entire example he used to make his point was wrong. How more wrong can you get?


OK, post proof that he is wrong, then.

7. All the solar system stuff.

Erm, rates? Amounts? i'm guessing the fact he didn't mention them means they don't back up his point, as everything else he's left out.

Prove him wrong.

No evidence was presented to disprove. he just smiled and joked with the audience and stated "it is so".

Still, YOU prove him wrong.

8. Comets They weren't formed at the same time as the earth (hence the ecliplicat orbits) moot point.

They can't have, if they were they would orbit in the same plane as the planets. Read up about it.

"Same plane" ...Oh really, like Pluto? Oops, didn't think of that planet, did you? A body NOT in the same plane as the Earth. See - http://nineplanets.org/overview.html

And all this is just twenty minutes in.

I've wasted time I said I wouldn't. And there's no point in continuing.

[freakazoid]

Looks like Freak just got PWNED !! :D
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/7196/t3nukedthread.jpg

Ahhhhhh, so sorry, look at my post just above, promoIDIOT. You jumped the gun again. Not very wise, promoIDIOT. Do you EVER tire of making an ass of yourself?

[Claude Clay]

what happens when religion meets philosophy vs free will [and why was will in jail anyways?]

everyones belief system is precious to them.
it need not be scientific nor be it rational.

perhaps the mice were right to save the dolphins.

meanwhile, i'm going out back to get my 6 free tumblers

[Carrot]

Wrong, he made no reference to medicine as an agent for or against his population growth theory.

What? THIS is your counter point! The fact that he didn't MENTION medicine or any sort of advancement and take it into accout proves my point. You can't extrapolte bacwards from recent growth!

Completely unfounded in supporting the argument.

Then, he side tracks to add credibility on unrelated points.

2. Thinks vaccines are unnecessary hoaxes...

Did you even read the quote he put up?

Yes, his point was CLEAR, SOME may be hoaxes, SOME, I seriously doubt anyone would believe that all vaccines are. His point was valid. See - http://www.whale.to/a/hoax.html and http://theautopsy.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/the-big-autism-vaccine-hoax/ and http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_HPV_Vaccine_0.html

"Satan is seeing to it that well meaning parents are destroying their babies immune systems..."
"You'll kill far more children than you would have saved..."
"The WHOLE vaccine business was indeed a gigantic hoax..."

I'm well aware that some vaccines have some problems, but look at those quotes.


As I said...There is a lot of controversy concerning the reason for the various shapes of galaxies, he was offering an alternative theory (or hypothesis). Something that is absolute science today, is garbage tomorrow. Remember when we thought that our galaxy was all there was? And that was only about 100 years ago; we now know that there are millions of galaxies. Truth changes a lot, does it not?

See (controversy concerning the reason for the various shapes of galaxies) - http://www.jstor.org/pss/3960860

As I said .....he said
a) it was fact
b) It would support his theory if it was fact.
Both of these are false.

4. The number of novas.....does he expect us to be able to see every supernovae that occur in the universe, let alon ones that may have dispersed?

What is your point?

Again, did you even listen to this video before posting it. He said if the universe was that old where are the rest of the supernovae if one occurs every 30 years. There are even more holes to pick in this argument.


5. Red stars t owhite stars "opposite to evolution". It's a simple progression of a chemical reaction.... Outside pressures aren't put on stars, it's not even comparable.

6. Sirius star: (red to white dwarf)

Skimmed over that one eh?

Prove him wrong.

The entire example he used to make his point was wrong. How more wrong can you get?

OK, post proof that he is wrong, then.

You mean, you don't only want me to show what he presented is wrong, but that somethin else is right? I did prove his wrong, his proof was quite literally, wrong.

Go and buy many of the thousands of books about it if you want to learn about the one backed up by credible evidence. Go do an astronomy course at college. Speak to a teacher. Google it, you're on the internet right now.

7. All the solar system stuff.

Erm, rates? Amounts? i'm guessing the fact he didn't mention them means they don't back up his point, as everything else he's left out.

Prove him wrong.

No evidence was presented to disprove. he just smiled and joked with the audience and stated "it is so".

Still, YOU prove him wrong.

You're not too sharp are you? Ok, ill make my argument as deep as his. Jupiter is VERY big, therefore, takes long long time to cool down.

8. Comets They weren't formed at the same time as the earth (hence the ecliplicat orbits) moot point.

They can't have, if they were they would orbit in the same plane as the planets. Read up about it.

"Same plane" ...Oh really, like Pluto? Oops, didn't think of that planet, did you? A body NOT in the same plane as the Earth.


There are a few different theories as to why plutos orbit changed. You can look them up if you like.

Since that wont be enough to satisfy you....
The amounts comets lose are dust particles lose small enough to feel the effects of solar wind (even if they were revolving since day one, it's be no guarantee they wouldn't have eroded away) much of it is water, and all evidence points to them starting to orbit after the solar system was created. They are knocked out of much larger orbits or random chunks trajectories carry them into the solar system.

And all this is just twenty minutes in.

I've wasted time I said I wouldn't. And there's no point in continuing.

[freakazoid]

I've wasted time I said I wouldn't. And there's no point in continuing.

Come on, dude. I pointed out several mistakes you make as in my Pluto comment. That was, as were many of my answers to your comments, reasonable rebuttal.

There is room for debate here, but all you want to do is try and convince us that you are right in every point when you are clearly not. In other words, you will not consider other points of view. Very closed minded.

[Prometheus]

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1290/sucksi.jpg

[beelzebub]

Age Of The Earth by Dr. Kent Hovind
Comments?

Great comedian! Worthless interpretation using a book as proof, but funny. :D

Dr Dolittle I presume?

[Carrot]

There is room for debate here, but all you want to do is try and convince us that you are right in every point when you are clearly not. In other words, you will not consider other points of view. Very closed minded.

Tell you what I'll add it to my "open minded" list of things to agree with

Homeopathy
Crystal Healing
Flat earth
Fortune telling
Zodiac signs
Pyramids built by aliens
6000 year old earth
Islam
Magic
Scientology

I've look at the evidence, and made logical descisions with all of these. If only I weren't so closed minded!

[Paisleyspeaker]

So let me get this straight, you’re not just a birther and a bigot, but a creationist and a young earther too. It explains so much, the irony is that you say others are deranged .

On to your video; So your preacher teacher wants to date everything to the flood. He calls a few things “evidence” but ignores scientific theory and practice. A scientist asks a question then lets the facts- measurable facts lead them to an answer. The preacher teacher already has the answer and is simply picking and choosing the evidence that supports it.

The earth is about 4.55 billion years old. This is derived through several methods

“The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.”
(note several radiometric methods)

“The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.”

the rest of the article here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html)

and if your going to bitch about radiometric dating read this:

"John Woodmorappe (1979) went through the scientific literature looking for radioactive dates which are 20% too old or too young. He specifically excluded from his search any date which matched the expected age. This type of selective editing is exactly what Young earth Creationists charge the Evolutionists with. Woodmorappe says

"An objective comparison between the number of fitting vs. the number of anomalous dates in the Phanerozoic is hindered (if not prevented) by the fact that anomalous dates frequently (or usually) are not reported in scientific journals." (Woodmorappe 1979, p. 113)

Thus while he criticizes the old-earther for selectively publishing radioactive dates, he does the very same thing by only publishing bad dates. This seriously hurts his credibility. In his article he listed these bad dates but did not plot them. If he had, he would have seen something remarkable. Above the 350 dates are plotted . A perfect dating result should appear on the line. Note that there are more dates under the line than above the line. If radioactivity is producing dates which are too old, you would expect that there would be more dates above the line than below the line. What this proves is that if a radioactive date is wrong it is far more likely to be too young than too old! Young earth creationists need the dates to be too old if their viewpoint is correct. "

rest of this article here (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm)

and finally at the end your preacher teacher actually said that Noah had dinosaurs on the ark (ROTFLMAO) on the ark!!!!! Now there is no way that boat was big enough and no way it would float.

[LedZap]

Your whole reply was very scientific.....until the last sentence "Now there is no way that boat was big enough and no way it would float." It seems you are a big fan of Noah after all , considering you know how big and buoyant he built his ark.

[Prometheus]

Your whole reply was very scientific.....until the last sentence "Now there is no way that boat was big enough and no way it would float." It seems you are a big fan of Noah after all , considering you know how big and buoyant he built his ark.

Why does it always seem to surprise you that we have researched the material that we are discussing?

[LedZap]

Why does it always seem to surprise you that we have researched the material that we are discussing?

Sorry , didn't you say you are an atheist ? If so , you wouldn't believe there was an ark , let alone know the dimensions and buoyancy factors.Maybe you're a believer after all . Hallelujah!!

[Prometheus]

Sorry , didn't you say you are an atheist ? If so , you wouldn't believe there was an ark , let alone know the dimensions and buoyancy factors.Maybe you're a believer after all . Hallelujah!!

You not funny.

[LedZap]

You not funny.

I know...but it's hilarious seeing you put your foot in your mouth...

http://i540.photobucket.com/albums/gg345/LedZap/Unusual%20Photos/foot-in-mouth.jpg

[Kaptain Nelag]

There seems to be two sides staunchly oposed to the other's belief. That's right, they are just beliefs. This argument will probably go as long as mankind populates the earth.

The truth is: no one really knows, because there is no way of going back in time and recording the evidence. All we can do is look outside and ask ourselves, "Where did all this shit out there come from?"

So, all you bullshitters out there, enjoy yourselves tearing each other apart. As for me, this is enough said.

[Prometheus]

I know...but it's hilarious seeing you put your foot in your mouth...

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6168/threadgays.jpg
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/8371/tickertape.jpg

[Limbo]

So if the universe is only about 10,000 years old, does that mean that all the galaxies and stars that we can see are within 10,000 light years of earth (otherwise there wouldn't have been enough time for the light to reach us)? That would mean that either virtually all modern scientific knowledge is wrong or that God is up to strange tricks to make it appear that the universe is old when it is not. Now why would he do that?

[yee-haw]

There seems to be two sides staunchly oposed to the other's belief. That's right, they are just beliefs. This argument will probably go as long as mankind populates the earth.

The truth is: no one really knows, because there is no way of going back in time and recording the evidence. All we can do is look outside and ask ourselves, "Where did all this shit out there come from?"

So, all you bullshitters out there, enjoy yourselves tearing each other apart. As for me, this is enough said.

Thank you zack!;)

[freakazoid]

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1290/sucksi.jpg

I've heard that your brain sucks; ah hell, I can't prove that because you haven't got a brain. Oh well.

[freakazoid]

I know...but it's hilarious seeing you put your foot in your mouth...

http://i540.photobucket.com/albums/gg345/LedZap/Unusual%20Photos/foot-in-mouth.jpg

Given the amount of time that he does that, you would think he would learn by now. Learning seems to be a big promoIDIOT.

[yee-haw]

Given the amount of time that he does that, you would think he would learn by now. Learning seems to be a big promoIDIOT.

Stop flaming, There is a thread for that!!

[freakazoid]

Stop flaming, There is a thread for that!!

DUDE!!! You just whipped out a long thread I wrote answering PS point for point? What is up with a that? Why did you do that? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

[yee-haw]

DUDE!!! You just whipped out a long thread I wrote answering PS point for point? What is up with a that? Why did you do that? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

Look, You want to respond and defend your side fine...
Do it without constantly calling her an idiot or stupid or whatever, Can't you make your point without the slander?


Fuck it.. i'm ready to give it up as a mod here.. it's constant grade school bullshit out of you, paisley and promo! i mean wtf?

I'm tired of it say and do whatever the hell any of you want...!!!

[freakazoid]

Look, You want to respond and defend your side fine...
Do it without constantly calling her an idiot or stupid or whatever, Can't you make your point without the slander?


Fuck it.. i'm ready to give it up as a mod here.. it's constant grade school bullshit out of you, paisley and promo! i mean wtf?

I'm tired of it say and do whatever the hell any of you want...!!!

It was mild, and used to make a point that SHE and promo destroy EVERY FARKING THREAD they post in..DAMN IT!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH OF THOSE WORTHLESS ASSHOLES!!! We can't call every minor insult a flame. No one will feel free to say anything.

My thread proved her ignorant ass wrong~! Jesus!

HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO TOLERATE THOSE ASSHOLES!!!

HELL WITH IT, LET THEM HAVE THE FUCKING THREAD.

[yee-haw]

It was mild, and used to make a point that SHE and promo destroy EVERY FARKING THREAD they post in..DAMN IT!!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH OF THOSE WORTHLESS ASSHOLES!!! We can't call every minor insult a flame. No one will feel free to say anything.

My thread proved her ignorant ass wrong~! Jesus!

HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO TOLERATE THOSE ASSHOLES!!!

HELL WITH IT, LET THEM HAVE THE FUCKING THREAD.

All 3 of you can kiss my ass... Say and do what you want!

Fuck it!

[Carrot]

There seems to be two sides staunchly oposed to the other's belief. That's right, they are just beliefs. This argument will probably go as long as mankind populates the earth.

The truth is: no one really knows, because there is no way of going back in time and recording the evidence. All we can do is look outside and ask ourselves, "Where did all this shit out there come from?"

So, all you bullshitters out there, enjoy yourselves tearing each other apart. As for me, this is enough said.

So, what was with zack then eh?

[freakazoid]

Forget it, this thread (not to mention, BS) has been destroyed by PaiseySpeaker (PS, Pathetically Stupid Lesbian Worthless Whore working at 7/11) and her asshole worthless drunk rehab lazy ass leach so-called "husband," PROMOasshole!!!!!!!!!!!!


That is the affect they have on EVERY THREAD THEY INFEST AND VOMIT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY ARE NOT WANTED HERE!!!!!!!!!!

I REPEAT; THEY ARE NOT WANTED HERE!!!!!!!!!!

GO AWAY, PATHETICALLY STUPID, GO AWAY PROMOASSHOLE...

GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Carrot]

Diddums .

[Paisleyspeaker]

Diddums .

um huh? what does that mean?

[freakazoid]

um huh? what does that mean?


IT MEANS GO AWAY, GET LOST, LEAVE US ALONE, TAKE A HIKE, DISAPPEAR. UNDERSTAND?

JUST GO AWAY!!!!!!

[akeohane]

sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

[akeohane]

im sure there is a way to prove the earth is more than 6000 years old, but i cant.
the bible says god took 6 days to create the earth. a day to god could be a million years to us. (100% speculation just show both sides of the argument)

[freakazoid]

sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

Its about time they got the point to GO AWAY! Go back to their idiot "zone" and vomit their crap all over it. Just leave us alone!

[MrJim]

Thank you zack!;)

CAT OUT OF BAG ALERT!!
CAT OUT OF BAG ALERT!!

[beelzebub]

Its about time they got the point to GO AWAY! Go back to their idiot "zone" and vomit their crap all over it. Just leave us alone!

If you cant stand the HEAT get out of the freggin kitchen!

[yee-haw]

Hovind does have interesting points but he does stray off topic from time to time, For the most part i find it irrelevant.

[MrJim]

Well he is a Dr. afterall, and most of you do tend to place a lot of value on education...

But I don't. That being said... I find the likelihood of the universe being 6,000 highly unlikely if not impossible.

[freakazoid]

If you cant stand the HEAT get out of the freggin kitchen!
http://www.loni.ucla.edu/%7Ethompson/MEDIA/AIDS/AIDS-damage2.jpg

[Carrot]

HAY GAIZ, LOOK AT DIS LOL.

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html

[freakazoid]

HAY GAIZ, LOOK AT DIS LOL.

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/holearth.html

We already knew that. Got the t-shirt.

[Limbo]

Perhaps I am belaboring the point, but have a look at this:

http://s.ngeo.com/wpf/media-live/photologue/photos/2010/01/07/cache/025552_600x450-cb1262891598.jpg

This is an image of very distant galaxies. If the earth and the universe are young, why do we need powerful telescopes to view these massive galaxies? Many of these galaxies must be hundreds of thousands of light years in size according to what we understand about gravity and other physical properties of matter, and yet they appear as tiny specks in the sky. Therefore, they must be extremely distant to appear as small as they do.

Again I ask the question, if the earth, and therefore the universe is only a few tens of thousands of years old, how did the light from these distant galaxies have time to reach us?

[freakazoid]

Perhaps I am belaboring the point, but have a look at this:

http://s.ngeo.com/wpf/media-live/photologue/photos/2010/01/07/cache/025552_600x450-cb1262891598.jpg

This is an image of very distant galaxies. If the earth and the universe are young, why do we need powerful telescopes to view these massive galaxies? Many of these galaxies must be hundreds of thousands of light years in size according to what we understand about gravity and other physical properties of matter, and yet they appear as tiny specks in the sky.

Again I ask the question, if the earth, and therefore the universe is only a few tens of thousands of years old, how did the light from these distant galaxies have time to reach us?

I don't agree with the young/6000 year old universe concept that Dr. Hovin believes in, though I do agree with much of what he states. Either way, it could be argued that God simply created the universe in the condition that we see it, and now see it expanding out.

The Bible mentions God having "stretched out the heavens." In the original language it translates like a sower tossing out seeds in a field all around him. Theological food for thought.

[Carrot]

Limbo, logic has no place here.

[Paisleyspeaker]

Perhaps I am belaboring the point, but have a look at this:

http://s.ngeo.com/wpf/media-live/photologue/photos/2010/01/07/cache/025552_600x450-cb1262891598.jpg

This is an image of very distant galaxies. If the earth and the universe are young, why do we need powerful telescopes to view these massive galaxies? Many of these galaxies must be hundreds of thousands of light years in size according to what we understand about gravity and other physical properties of matter, and yet they appear as tiny specks in the sky. Therefore, they must be extremely distant to appear as small as they do.

Again I ask the question, if the earth, and therefore the universe is only a few tens of thousands of years old, how did the light from these distant galaxies have time to reach us?

Limbo, I just love this post. This is such a simple and elegant way to explain the age of the galaxy.

[freakazoid]

Limbo, I just love this post. This is such a simple and elegant way to explain the age of the galaxy.

But only for those who can think outside the box.

[yee-haw]

But only for those who can think outside the box.

Do you just sit there and watch your screen for her, Bub or promo to make a post so you can take a jab at em'?

[Paisleyspeaker]

Do you just sit there and watch your screen for her, Bub or promo to make a post so you can take a jab at em'?

I am afraid he does.

[freakazoid]

Do you just sit there and watch your screen for her, Bub or promo to make a post so you can take a jab at em'?

Nah, I'm far more hi tech than that; my iPhone alerts me when a new PM or post comes in no matter where I am and I can post on BS using it in seconds. Pretty nifty, eh? :Dhttp://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

As for her, I could give a damn who posted what she said, helen is irrelevant and boring. I would have said the same to anyone and I meant it.

Why can't people think outside of their box concerning this subject?

[Carrot]

Nah, I'm far more hi tech than that; my iPhone alerts me when a new PM or post comes in no matter where I am and I can post on BS using it in seconds. Pretty nifty, eh? :Dhttp://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

As for her, I could give a damn who posted what she said, helen is irrelevant and boring. I would have said the same to anyone and I meant it.

Why can't people think outside of their box concerning this subject?

Because all the evidence outside the box is wrong?

"Oh, god just made it look like the earth is really old, even though it isn't" isn't exactly a great answer/theory.

[freakazoid]

Carrot (http://forum.bullshit.com/member.php?u=1383) This message is hidden because Carrot is on your ignore list (http://forum.bullshit.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist). http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Limbo]

Trying to argue that the universe and earth are young for the sole purpose of salvaging a literal reading of the creation story in Genesis (God creating the universe and earth in six literal days) is just not worth it in my opinion. For one thing, "day" has no meaning before the earth existed, because a day is the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate once. Also, the Hebrew word for day also means time or epoch, which is an indeterminate length of time.

For me, it is good enough that the order of creation in Genesis is correct, the time frame is irrelevant.

[freakazoid]

Trying to argue that the universe and earth are young for the sole purpose of salvaging a literal reading of the creation story in Genesis (God creating the universe and earth in six literal days) is just not worth it in my opinion. For one thing, "day" has no meaning before the earth existed, because a day is the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate once. Also, the Hebrew word for day also means time or epoch, which is an indeterminate length of time.

For me, it is good enough that the order of creation in Genesis is correct, the time frame is irrelevant.

Cool! An intelligent post!

Yup, you make good points and I would have to agree. Will said, Limbo. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Paisleyspeaker]

Trying to argue that the universe and earth are young for the sole purpose of salvaging a literal reading of the creation story in Genesis (God creating the universe and earth in six literal days) is just not worth it in my opinion. For one thing, "day" has no meaning before the earth existed, because a day is the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate once. Also, the Hebrew word for day also means time or epoch, which is an indeterminate length of time.

For me, it is good enough that the order of creation in Genesis is correct, the time frame is irrelevant.

Cool. I have always had respect for scientists like Newton and Einstein who didn't try and shoehorn science to fit their faith. Both were very religious and still respected that which could be proved using scientific methods and faced their findings with honesty and dignity.

I also respect others who are not trying to force the world to fit into their narrow perception of it.

[freakazoid]

Cool. I have always had respect for scientists like Newton and Einstein who didn't try and shoehorn science to fit their faith. Both were very religious and still respected that which could be proved using scientific methods and faced their findings with honesty and dignity.

I also respect others who are not trying to force the world to fit into their narrow perception of it.

RE: "I also respect others who are not trying to force the world to fit into their narrow perception of it. "

Apparently you are not referring to closed minded evolutionists who can't think outside their evolutionist box. Do you really believe that your great great great great grand mother was a dead rock? They do.

[Carrot]

And that's why I respect you limbo. You have your beliefs, but you don't force square pegs into round holes. It's a shame you don't post more often, but I can understand why.

[freakazoid]

Score another ignore! :Dhttp://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif:Dhttp://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Carrot]

Again....wasn't talking to you there either.

But I suppose your next post will be accurate enough, given this one addresses you.

[Kaptain Nelag]

I like the new look to this forum. This is my first visit since this revamp. This is obviously a very controversial subject. The main problem I have with the 'scientists' is that if the research doesn't agree with their pre-determined conclusions, the studies are viewed as being stupid, half witted, or containing flawed arguments. I have always felt that in any studies all the evidence should be evaluated. This is an excellent post and should be viewed by all students who seriously seek truthful answers.

[Carrot]

A tiny number of non-academics disagreeing with it does not make it controversial, no matter how loud they are.

[Kaptain Nelag]

A tiny number of non-academics disagreeing with it does not make it controversial, no matter how loud they are.

Being in the majority does not mean something is true or false. Having the facts correct is the determining factor. My appologies to you, Carrot for any implication that you could ever be included in any catergory of scientists.

So, let me ask you again. If you don't believe in creation, where did all this shit out there come from?

[Carrot]

Being in the majority does not mean something is true or false. Having the facts correct is the determining factor. My appologies to you, Carrot for any implication that you could ever be included in any catergory of scientists.

So, let me ask you again. If you don't believe in creation, where did all this shit out there come from?

I didn't say the majority determines whether it whether it is true or false. I'm saying a tiny number of people with no evidence simply claiming sometihng does not make it controversial. Are psychic celery sticks a controversial subject?

I can't say where "all this shit" came from, (if you can even answer such a question) and it isn't even what was being argued. It's just what the evidence shows as to how it came about, and the time taken, and processes etc. Because if there isn't enough evidence to claim something then you can't. All the current evidence indicates towards everything once being at a point, where it came from I'm quite comfortable saying I don't know, I might theorise idly, but I don't claim anything because that would be stupid.

Who knows, the 6000 year old earth could be true, it's just a shame there is absolutely no evidence backing that up.

[freakazoid]

I like the new look to this forum. This is my first visit since this revamp. This is obviously a very controversial subject. The main problem I have with the 'scientists' is that if the research doesn't agree with their pre-determined conclusions, the studies are viewed as being stupid, half witted, or containing flawed arguments. I have always felt that in any studies all the evidence should be evaluated. This is an excellent post and should be viewed by all students who seriously seek truthful answers.

VERY well said! http://www.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Kaptain Nelag]

I didn't say the majority determines whether it whether it is true or false. I'm saying a tiny number of people with no evidence simply claiming sometihng does not make it controversial. Are psychic celery sticks a controversial subject?

I can't say where "all this shit" came from, (if you can even answer such a question) and it isn't even what was being argued. It's just what the evidence shows as to how it came about, and the time taken, and processes etc. Because if there isn't enough evidence to claim something then you can't. All the current evidence indicates towards everything once being at a point, where it came from I'm quite comfortable saying I don't know, I might theorise idly, but I don't claim anything because that would be stupid.

Who knows, the 6000 year old earth could be true, it's just a shame there is absolutely no evidence backing that up.

Carrot, so your super duper scientific answer is "Shit Happens!" I like that, "Where did the earth come from?" "Shit Happens!"

[Carrot]

My super duper scientific answer is what's already out there regarding how the big bang resulted in what's around now as far as we know. But no one can tell you what was "before" the big bang and "why" it happened, in that respect, shit happens but that's no excuse to come up with conflicting theories on a whim to support a religious, ancient text which most christians think is largely metaphorical.

[Paisleyspeaker]

So I have heard several accusations that evolutionist "pick and choose" their science and ignore the facts. So lets have an example of it. Carrot has provided some great examples of the flaws in the 6000 year theory, even Limbo (whose faith has never been questioned here) has provided some great examples in astronomy.

As a person married to a physics fan I am aware of how many times that field has corrected itself. And I am also aware of the revisions that Paleontology has made after new discoveries.

Is this an accusation that you can back up with examples?

[freakazoid]

"Demons of stupidity," hmmm, interesting...

Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong (http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html)

[Kaptain Nelag]

So I have heard several accusations that evolutionist "pick and choose" their science and ignore the facts. So lets have an example of it. Carrot has provided some great examples of the flaws in the 6000 year theory, even Limbo (whose faith has never been questioned here) has provided some great examples in astronomy.

As a person married to a physics fan I am aware of how many times that field has corrected itself. And I am also aware of the revisions that Paleontology has made after new discoveries.

Is this an accusation that you can back up with examples?

I feel like I'm getting suckered into something that is nothing other than a Red Hering issue, since there is no real way to resolve the issue. O. K. I'm game. I'll let you pull my chain on this one. Let me set some guidelines.

Let me propose the following assumptions:

1. The earth was formed by hot gasses that cooled and formed the earth.

2. Life could not exist on the surface of the earth if the temperature exceeded 250 degrees F.

3. The core of the earth is currently about 1800 degrees F. (Not 28000 as Mr. Gore has stated. That number is unreasonable. )

4.The earth can be modeled with heat transfer analysis'. (Remember Paisley this line you earlier stated from the Sherlock Holmes writings, "Eliminate the impossible, and what remains contains the truth, regardless how improbable it may be?"

5. Everything can be reduced down to the famous Einstein equation: E = M * C ^2. C^2 is a constant. E & M are real measurable units. Where did the E come from and where did the M come from? In other words, I'll restate my original question. If you don't believe in creation, just look outside and ask, "Where did all this shit out there come from?" Let's overlook this for now, since the evolutionists obviously do not have an answer, other than, shit happens, or something similiar to that.

My proposal is, going through this example and making the calculations that are greater than what could actually exist, will eliminate a large part of what should be impossible. The age of the earth when life existed must be below that maximum number. I know that I'm throwing a lot of shit at you, and I have never gone through these calculations, but these should prove to be interesting. (At least to me, anyway.) I don't know when I'll find the time to do this, this one I'll try my best and keep an open mind on this and not manipulate any data. Would any other of you bullshitters out there like to give this a try?

[Carrot]

I feel like I'm getting suckered into something that is nothing other than a Red Hering issue, since there is no real way to resolve the issue.

Why is there no way to resolve the issue any more than any other subject?


Let me propose the following assumptions:

1. The earth was formed by hot gasses that cooled and formed the earth.

2. Life could not exist on the surface of the earth if the temperature exceeded 250 degrees F.

3. The core of the earth is currently about 1800 degrees F. (Not 28000 as Mr. Gore has stated. That number is unreasonable. )

4.The earth can be modeled with heat transfer analysis'. (Remember Paisley this line you earlier stated from the Sherlock Holmes writings, "Eliminate the impossible, and what remains contains the truth, regardless how improbable it may be?"

5. Everything can be reduced down to the famous Einstein equation: E = M * C ^2. C^2 is a constant. E & M are real measurable units. Where did the E come from and where did the M come from? In other words, I'll restate my original question. If you don't believe in creation, just look outside and ask, "Where did all this shit out there come from?" Let's overlook this for now, since the evolutionists obviously do not have an answer, other than, shit happens, or something similiar to that.

1. Fair enough. But if you want to include that for heat analysis the heat generated by pressure would also have to be taken into account.

2. Deep sea vents support life where temperature reaches 750 degrees F.

3. The inner core is currently about 10800 degrees F. This was established well before gore started on anything. What is your number based on, a whim? Are you a siesmologist?

4. Yes it can. There are also depleting radioactive materials such as uranium in the core that generate heat.

5. Creationism doesn't conflict with the age of the earth. Literal interpretations of an old religious text does.
"We" don't have an answer because we don't make ones up we don't have the anwer to.


My proposal is, going through this example and making the calculations that are greater than what could actually exist, will eliminate a large part of what should be impossible...
Would any other of you bullshitters out there like to give this a try?

Fairly weak if you take a second to look at each point.

[yee-haw]

Damn carrot, You just got owned by the kaptain!

Are you ok with that?

[Carrot]

Damn carrot, You just got owned by the kaptain!

Are you ok with that?

Are you drunk or winding me up?

[Carrot]

Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong (http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html)

I'll just go into his a small way.

First point, it's interesting how it only looks at "amatuer evolutionists" and what they say on open internet forums rather from scientific journal or textbooks. Especialy since most seem to be wrong.

However, when they look at anti-evoltion evidence, they look at published books...clearly bias is having an adverse effect. Anyway.

Reason 1.

First they choose an incorrect statement.
Mutations occur randomly, they are not "chosen" for their environment. But they only continue within their environment due to natural selection.

Finches: Oddly enough I found an already typed out response for me.

Now, this is as wrong as can be. As we have seen, it was not Darwin who classified the finches that bear his name; the notion that the finches inspired Darwin is the purest myth; and since he never explicitly mentions them in the Origin of Species, they cannot reasonably be described as the "historic first and foundational evidence for Darwin's theory". Nor does any biologist (still less Darwin) claim that they have undergone complete reproductive isolation.

Moreover, the fact that Darwin's finches can breed between species and even genera[2] proves that he was absolutely right when, writing generally about "the birds of the Galapagos", he described them under the heading of "DOUBTFUL SPECIES", and wrote that they provided a striking example of "how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties."

The discovery that the finches can interbreed thus proves Darwin correct. By one set of criteria, i.e. the finches' morphology, habits, songs, diet, and usual reluctance to interbreed, they would be classified as separate species, and indeed were so classified by John Gould, and are still so classified by modern taxonomists. On the ther hand, a strict application of the "Biological Species Concept" would require us to class all those species and even genera that are capable of interbreeding as different varieties of the same species. When we look at Darwin's finches, the question of whether we are looking at varieties, subspecies, species, or genera depends, as Darwin said, on an "arbitrary" choice as to how to define species.

So far from denying that different species of finches could interbreed, Darwin asserts that "the canary-bird has been crossed with nine distinct species of finches" in chapter IX of the Origin of Species. If he had known about the interbreeding of the Galapagos finches, he might well have cited it as a further illustration of his point. The very concept of evolution implies that there should not be a single, unambiguous, universally applicable definition of "species" that fits our intuitive notions of what "species" should mean. For more information on this subject, see our main article on Species.

Finally, we may note that, as usual, creationists are barking up the wrong tree in trying to attack Darwin, since he had the first word about evolution, not the last. If they wish to attack the theory of evolution, they need to attack what biologists maintain now --- such as the fact that the species of Darwin's finches can interbreed, which was, of course discovered and published by evolutionary biologists.


Next

For mutations to be the driver of the massive amount of information there must be two things true of those mutations.

1. The mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.

2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.

To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation and if they exist they must be exceedingly rare.

Beneficial mutations:
Carriers of cystic fibrosis have improved resistance against malaria.

White skin decreases the cooling rate and allows vitamin D synthesis in low sunlight.

Lactose tolerance (the chinese lack the gene to make them tolerant) spread in dairy farming communities.

And that's just humans in relatively recent history, off the top of my head.


In one instance the single nucleotide substation in a genome was responsible for the resistance to a weed herbicide. This herbicide was made to attach and deactivate a protein needed by the weed. A single change in the genetic code for this protein, in the sector used for defining the herbicide attachment, deprived the herbicide of its attachment point and nullified its effectiveness.

Was this a positive mutation? It may have been a very rare, neutral mutation of an allele that had been in the genome too. But it was specific to the man-made herbicide and had no selective value outside of that. It did not create another function and did not help the weed to adapt any other way. It added no information to the genome and thus no new complexity. There was no evolution here.

It doesn't need to help the weed in multiple ways to classify as "beneficial". A mutation resulted in it being more likely to pass on its trait to the next generation. How is that not a demonstartion of mutation working with natural selection? Also, the fact that it's continuing counteracts the population factors that "new traits" must die out due to normalising factors. they can, but like in this situation, sometimes facotrs simply don't allow that


So you see, mutations can produce an allele of a gene that is neutral (rarely) or produce alleles that are dangerous, but cannot be the driver of massive amount of change that needs to occur to change one species into another. Most people don’t appreciate the massive amount of point change that must occur. For that to occur we should be seeing many positive mutations in the population. Instead we are seeing massive information loss mutations in the population. The X-Men just couldn’t happen outside of the movies.

How about if these changes are stacked once one mutation becomes established in a seperate population. Loss can also lead to greater genetic variation between populations, as long as it isn't detrimental to that specific environment. Well, you just brought up an instance of an X-plant.

Irreducible complexity:
The origin of the cell isn't truely known, since that is essentially the origin of life. Evolution describes how it changes, and many of these mechanisms have been shown to have intermediate steps and uses. But there are obviously some hurdles here.


“Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.” (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phyolgenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B: 167-177

In the eleven years since this quote research has born out this quote. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities; they do not change an amphibian into a reptile. And the mutations do not add any information; they just cause the existing information to be misdirected to create fruit fly legs where fruit fly antenna needs to be for instance.

Do not be misled by the Evolutionists. They constantly try to find the mutation that is positive (I don’t blame them either)

So now they confirm that some mutations can cause massive pheno type changes.
The fact that there are negative mutations doesn't disprove aything.


This is something evolutionists may claim as “part of the great universal acid” of their theory, but evolutionary theory actually prevented researchers from discovering these protein machines because of the assumptions built into evolution. Another failure and another nail in the coffin.

Knowing the path a projectile takes due to gravity doesn't allow you to predict the size of the next planet we'll discover.


Evolutionist speak of natural selection like it is intelligent or something and can spot a mutation that it needs to save.

Again, an amateur rather than someone else.
A trait that increases it's chances for reproducing will be passed on to the next generation, that's all it is.


Now let us get a little more complicated. Let’s figure the odds or probability of randomly spelling the phrase “the theory of evolution”. There are 26 letters and one space possible adding to 27 possible selections. There are 20 letters in the phrase and 3 spaces. Therefore the odds, on the average, spell out the phrase correctly only once in 2723 outcomes! That is only one success in 8.3 quadrillion, quadrillion attempts or 8.3 x 1032. Now suppose ‘chance’ uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second). On the average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this method.

That assumes you need them all to fall the the exact right place in the same instant, which exponentiall increase the amount of time you would need.

If "t" is a beneficial trait in a certain environment, then when it first occurs it will continue in the population.
Suddeny, on average, at one billion per microseconds you get the first letter within 2.7x10^-8 s. Since this trait is already within the population, you only need to look at the next leter, h. And so on.

With the formation of amino acids, it is far more unlikely, but then again they also chose the process which would take the longest amount of time. That is more the origin of life rather than origin of species.

[Kaptain Nelag]

A tiny number of non-academics disagreeing with it does not make it controversial, no matter how loud they are.

What I've observed is that most people who are well educated tend to believe evolution is a fraud. Before his death, even Darwin changed his mind and reversed his position. People who are not well educated are more easily convinced to believe in evolution. Since there are considerably more uneducated and undereducated people, those who believe in evolution are in a majority.

I've started working on a heat transfer model of the earth. This will take a little time, and I'm very curious how the answers will turn out. If anyone out there can give me information on the enthalpy values of the earth's core it would be helpful. I am also trying to locate accurate heat conductivity, K, values.

[freakazoid]

What I've observed is that most people who are well educated tend to believe evolution is a fraud. Before his death, even Darwin changed his mind and reversed his position. People who are not well educated are more easily convinced to believe in evolution. Since there are considerably more uneducated and undereducated people, those who believe in evolution are in a majority.

I've started working on a heat transfer model of the earth. This will take a little time, and I'm very curious how the answers will turn out. If anyone out there can give me information on the enthalpy values of the earth's core it would be helpful. I am also trying to locate accurate heat conductivity, K, values.

Well said, but I would add that it goes beyond the level of education a person has obtained (that is not a statement to diminish yours); people have a tendency to distort and filter facts once they have made up their minds against other possibilities and stubbornly interpret evidence to fit their world view. Sea shells found on high mountain peaks are "obvious proof of a slow rising of the terrain due to plate tectonics" and could in no way be evidence of a world wide flood simply because of the apriori belief that such a flood "did not occur."

[Carrot]

What I've observed is that most people who are well educated tend to believe evolution is a fraud. Before his death, even Darwin changed his mind and reversed his position. People who are not well educated are more easily convinced to believe in evolution. Since there are considerably more uneducated and undereducated people, those who believe in evolution are in a majority.

I've started working on a heat transfer model of the earth. This will take a little time, and I'm very curious how the answers will turn out. If anyone out there can give me information on the enthalpy values of the earth's core it would be helpful. I am also trying to locate accurate heat conductivity, K, values.

Ah, most people believe it, most people are stupid, therefore it is not true. Good argument.

Good luck with the heat transfer model, just try be more accurate than your last 5 points.

Just remember to include the sun, the different absorbtion rates of water and land and respective infrared given off, the percentage of the infrared then absorbed by the atmosphere, the rate of heat generation in the core, convection currents in the mantle etc.

[Carrot]

Well said, but I would add that it goes beyond the level of education a person has obtained (that is not a statement to diminish yours); people have a tendency to distort and filter facts once they have made up their minds against other possibilities and stubbornly interpret evidence to fit their world view. Sea shells found on high mountain peaks are "obvious proof of a slow rising of the terrain due to plate tectonics" and could in no way be evidence of a world wide flood simply because of the apriori belief that such a flood "did not occur."

The himalayas have been measured as rising at the rate of 5mm per year, and there are sea shells on the top of everest.

I agree, people definately filter facts to fit their world view.

[freakazoid]

The himalayas have been measured as rising at the rate of 5mm per year, and there are sea shells on the top of everest.

I agree, people definately filter facts to fit their world view.

Yup, they sure do ("Carrot" temporarily removed from my ignore list)...

Plate tectonics, currently the most popular theory in earth science, offers unsatisfactory answers to these and other questions. According to this theory, earth’s crust is composed of many plates, 2 each 30–60 miles thick. They move relative to each other, about an inch per year—at the rate a fingernail grows. Continents and oceans ride on top of these plates. Sometimes a continent, such as North America, is on more than one plate. For example, different parts of North America, separated by the San Andreas Fault running up through western California, are sliding past each other. Supposedly, material deep inside the earth is rising toward the crest of the entire Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Once it reaches the crest, it moves laterally away from the ridge. This claimed motion is similar to that of a conveyor belt rising from under a floor and then moving horizontally along the floor. However, many little-known problems, discussed below, accompany plate tectonics.

Cutting across the Mid-Oceanic Ridge at almost right angles are hundreds of long cracks, called fracture zones. Whenever the axis of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge is offset, it is always along a fracture zone. [See Figure 44 on page 109.] Why? According to plate tectonics, plates move parallel to fracture zones. But fracture zones are not always parallel. Sometimes they are many degrees “out of parallel.”3 How then can solid plates be bounded by and move in the direction of these fracture zones? Can a train move on tracks that aren’t parallel? Notice the white arrows in Figure 44 showing nearly intersecting fracture zones.

In at least eight places on the Atlantic and Pacific floors, segments of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge overlap for about 10 miles. These are called overlapping spreading centers.4 [See Figure 45.] If plates are moving away from the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, then the distance between overlapping segments must be increasing. However, overlapping regions are always near each other.

Two of the most perplexing questions in the earth sciences today are barely verbalized in classrooms and textbooks: “What force moves plates over the globe? What is the mechanism and energy source?” The hydroplate theory gives a surprisingly simple answer. It involves gravity, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and water—lots of it.

Ref.: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview3.html

[Carrot]

Hi "freakazoid" we all knew you were reading my posts the entire time.

Great, yet another pseudo science site working towards an already chosen answer. :rolleyes:

What force moves plates over the globe? Convection currents in the mantle.

What is the mechanism and energy source? The core.

Besides, if you agree the himalayas are rising...well then look at the original point I was addressing.

[freakazoid]

Hi "freakazoid" we all knew you were reading my posts the entire time.

Great, yet another pseudo science site working towards an already chosen answer. :rolleyes:

What force moves plates over the globe? Convection currents in the mantle.

What is the mechanism and energy source? The core.

Besides, if you agree the himalayas are rising...well then look at the original point I was addressing.

Wrong, as posted a few times, you have been on and will soon be back on my ignore list. I felt that your latest postings in this thread were so ignorant that I had to reply. I clicked on my bookmark for the forum and this thread without logging in and had the misfortune of seeing your weak post. That was a drag! But, no matter...

5mm, eh? Do you really believe that a mountain range the size of the Himalayas could be measured that accurately? You really don't believe that, do you? I see, it couldn't possibly be an error or a rigged experiment. I mean there is no possible way that the location of the measuring instruments could not have dropped 5mm a year, or the so-called "plates" move up and down over the centuries, could it Carrot? No way that a massive mountain range such as the Himalayas could expand and contract over the centuries a mere 5mm in a year or two or more, could it Carrot. Oh, yes, and they have been measuring it for centuries, haven't they, Carrot, and in fact witnessed a steady rise from the bottom to the top??

Dude, are you really THAT naive?

By the way, dumb dumb, they claim it is rising ONE CENTIMETER a year, NOT 5mm/year. Get your facts straight. And I quote...

The Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to the north have risen very rapidly. In just 50 million years, peaks such as Mt. Everest have risen to heights of more than 9 km. The impinging of the two landmasses has yet to end. The Himalayas continue to rise more than 1 cm a year -- a growth rate of 10 km in a million years! If that is so, why aren't the Himalayas even higher? Scientists believe that the Eurasian Plate may now be stretching out rather than thrusting up, and such stretching would result in some subsidence due to gravity.

Ref.: The United States Geological Survey - http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html

It's really too bad that you are incapable of a decent debate and conversation. You seem to be taking your queues from the idiocy of promo____ and his wife.

[Carrot]

Right, every scientific fac is in fact a massive conspiracy because for some reason scientists are desperate to disprove anything in connection to the bible, and as such have just fabricated all results and made shit up all along.

Meanwhile, hiding on the internet, true seekers of truth have used this fabricated data to prove the bible literally true down to the last letter.

Righto matey! You have fun ignoring my posts, feel free to drop in when you think you actually stand a chance as you seem to be doing now. Jump in, post a link, jump out, now that's debate!

You seem to be taking your ques from religious fanatics and a literal interpretation of events in a book from around 2000 years old.

Oh wait, you are. What a surprise.

[freakazoid]

Right, ...

...every scientific fac is in fact a massive conspiracy because for some reason scientists are desperate to disprove anything in connection to the bible, and as such have just fabricated all results and made shit up all along.

I did not say that. Your answer is a typical debating tactic. Sorry, won't work with me. So you think "scientists" never lie? Never manufacture results? Have you never read of so-called "Piltdown Man?" "Absolute fact proving evolution...LMAO!!! Yeah, right!!! See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Have you never heard of "global cooling?" The "coming ice age?" Oh, wait, I forgot, it was "global warming," no, wait, it was to be "global cooling," no wait, "global warming."

Want to see more bullshit from so-called "scientists" who have "all the facts?" See my posts at - http://www.bullshit.com/showthread.php?6535-Blizzard-is-caused-by-global-warming&p=113414#post113414

"How to Survive the Coming Ice Age; 51 things you can do to make a difference"

Meanwhile, hiding on the internet, true seekers of truth have used this fabricated data to prove the bible literally true down to the last letter.

Hide? LMAO!! Doesn't look like it to me...ROTF!!

Righto matey! You have fun ignoring my posts, feel free to drop in when you think you actually stand a chance as you seem to be doing now. Jump in, post a link, jump out, now that's debate!

Do you want to be ignored? I can if you want. I should, you rarely post anything worth reading.

You seem to be taking your ques from religious fanatics and a literal interpretation of events in a book from around 2000 years old.

Are your "facts" any better? So far, yours are pretty weak.

Oh wait, you are. What a surprise.

Enjoy my posts, "matey."

[freakazoid]

Right, every scientific fac is in fact a massive conspiracy because for some reason scientists are desperate to disprove anything in connection to the bible, and as such have just fabricated all results and made shit up all along.

Meanwhile, hiding on the internet, true seekers of truth have used this fabricated data to prove the bible literally true down to the last letter.

Righto matey! You have fun ignoring my posts, feel free to drop in when you think you actually stand a chance as you seem to be doing now. Jump in, post a link, jump out, now that's debate!

You seem to be taking your ques from religious fanatics and a literal interpretation of events in a book from around 2000 years old.

Oh wait, you are. What a surprise.

See my PM to you, for some reason my posts are being censored.

[beelzebub]

See my PM to you, for some reason my posts are being censored.

You know the reason why... you just choose to ignore it. Igronring truth is also called IGNORE ANCE.

:-)

[Carrot]

I have solid proof it's 10 years old, any evidence otherwise is atheist lies.

[freakazoid]

You know the reason why... you just choose to ignore it. Igronring truth is also called IGNORE ANCE.

:-)

Talking with you is worthless, beelze_____. Utterly worthless.

[Kaptain Nelag]

Ah, most people believe it, most people are stupid, therefore it is not true. Good argument.

Good luck with the heat transfer model, just try be more accurate than your last 5 points.

Just remember to include the sun, the different absorbtion rates of water and land and respective infrared given off, the percentage of the infrared then absorbed by the atmosphere, the rate of heat generation in the core, convection currents in the mantle etc.

Carrot: What I've stated in my post is an observation, not a conclusion. Since I'm a simple minded person, as you know, the purpose of my analysis is to look for a maximum number and not get bogged down on issues that will reduce the number and confuse the issue. You have posted some very significent issues and possibly these issues could be studied later. The one issue that gives me trouble is the rate of heat generation in the core. Everything else has cooling effects. Where is this heat generation coming from? Can it be measured or evaluated? In an earlier post you stated the earth's core is about 1000 deg. F. (If my memory serves me right) I have difficulty believing the earth's core could be in a molten (liquid) state at that temperature. I do realize that when matter is subjected to extreme pressures the melting temperatures are reduced, but this sounds like a little too much.

[Carrot]

Carrot: What I've stated in my post is an observation, not a conclusion. Since I'm a simple minded person, as you know, the purpose of my analysis is to look for a maximum number and not get bogged down on issues that will reduce the number and confuse the issue. You have posted some very significent issues and possibly these issues could be studied later. The one issue that gives me trouble is the rate of heat generation in the core. Everything else has cooling effects. Where is this heat generation coming from? Can it be measured or evaluated? In an earlier post you stated the earth's core is about 1000 deg. F. (If my memory serves me right) I have difficulty believing the earth's core could be in a molten (liquid) state at that temperature. I do realize that when matter is subjected to extreme pressures the melting temperatures are reduced, but this sounds like a little too much.

1. They don't all decrease the time, in fact most increase it.
2. The sun even adds heat. Think about how much heat is gained from the ground during winter...not much.
3. TEN thousand degrees, not ONE thouosand.
4. The inner core is solid anyway.
5. Melting temperatures increase at higher temperatures.

[Carrot]

Twice in the thread and a pm? :rolleyes:

No one answered cause no one cares, you don't need to repost it over and over. If you want attention that badly you can wear a silly hat.

"freakazoid" on my ignore list now! If I reply to him it's because I was reading his posts anyway to check for good points to jump in (still definately ignoring him though ;))

[freakazoid]

Twice in the thread and a pm? :rolleyes:

No one answered cause no one cares, you don't need to repost it over and over. If you want attention that badly you can wear a silly hat.

"freakazoid" on my ignore list now! If I reply to him it's because I was reading his posts anyway to check for good points to jump in (still definately ignoring him though ;))

I'm not going to tell you why the multiple posts, there was a good reason as discussed with Yee-haw, I'll just let you bang your head around in your ignorance, you seem to be good at that. It amazes me how dumb you are and determined to remain that way.

Nice new ignore list function...I can turn it on and off at will. Gotta love it! http://www.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[freakazoid]

Twice in the thread and a pm? :rolleyes:

No one answered cause no one cares, you don't need to repost it over and over. If you want attention that badly you can wear a silly hat.

"freakazoid" on my ignore list now! If I reply to him it's because I was reading his posts anyway to check for good points to jump in (still definately ignoring him though ;))

I'm not going to tell you why the multiple posts, there was a good reason as discussed with Yee-haw, I'll just let you bang your head around in your ignorance, you seem to be good at that. It amazes me how dumb you are and determined to remain that way.

Nice new ignore list function...I can turn it on and off at will. Gotta love it! http://www.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Carrot]

It's amazing, you reply more often when you're ignoring me than when you're not. Impressive!

[Carrot]

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=86RRV9O8

Interesting stuff, for anyone other than freak.

[Prometheus]

..............................
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/6408/athiesm1.jpg

[freakazoid]

Unfortunately you are a sadly under and uneducated person evidenced by the content your posts (including terrible grammar and spelling). You post content you have been brainwashed with. That is a very sad thing, promo.

[Prometheus]

......................

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3024/creationism1.jpg
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7951/biblethruth2.jpg
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/9339/bibletruth.jpg
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5592/faith1d.jpg

[Prometheus]

Unfortunately you are a sadly under and uneducated person evidenced by the content your posts (including terrible grammar and spelling). You post content you have been brainwashed with. That is a very sad thing, promo.

.................YOU WIN FreaKKK
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7696/youwine.jpg

[Carrot]

Unfortunately you are a sadly under and uneducated person evidenced by the content your posts (including terrible grammar and spelling). You post content you have been brainwashed with. That is a very sad thing, promo.

Pot calling the chalk black.

Made me laugh though, I'm never going to put freak on ignore.

[freakazoid]

......................
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5592/faith1d.jpg

Read and watch; that is IF you have any guts, promo. Let's see if you do...

WHO MOVED THE STONE? By Ahmed Deedat (http://www.jamaat.net/stone/TheStone.html)

John Ankerberg - Proof of the Resurrection of Christ 1 of 3 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5793497252106494775&ei=fUuDS7WwM4iEqQPXs-3ZCA&q=proof+of+the+resurrection&hl=en#)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SekR-QHCXVU

[Kaptain Nelag]

1. They don't all decrease the time, in fact most increase it.
2. The sun even adds heat. Think about how much heat is gained from the ground during winter...not much.
3. TEN thousand degrees, not ONE thouosand.
4. The inner core is solid anyway.
5. Melting temperatures increase at higher temperatures.

Carrot: Since my senile mind is treading in a new area I can use all the help I can get. Here is some info I've obtained from Google: Per experiments at the Instute of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Sweden - 1994, the innermost core of the earth is believed to be at 6150 deg. K. and 6130 deg. K at the boundary interface w/ solid mass. The molten core has approximately a 2900 Km radius. It is believed to be a mixture of MgSiO3, MgO and iron. The estimated pressure density is 7850 Kgm/m^3. The sun definitely is the most significent factor in the earth's temperature. In fact nearly all the thermal energy at the earth surface currently comes from the sun. Will you explain item 5 to me. I'm having some problems understanding the concept.

[Carrot]

Carrot: Since my senile mind is treading in a new area I can use all the help I can get. Here is some info I've obtained from Google: Per experiments at the Instute of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Sweden - 1994, the innermost core of the earth is believed to be at 6150 deg. K. and 6130 deg. K at the boundary interface w/ solid mass. The molten core has approximately a 2900 Km radius. It is believed to be a mixture of MgSiO3, MgO and iron. The estimated pressure density is 7850 Kgm/m^3. The sun definitely is the most significent factor in the earth's temperature. In fact nearly all the thermal energy at the earth surface currently comes from the sun. Will you explain item 5 to me. I'm having some problems understanding the concept.

I will quite happily explain 5.

If something is under pressure, then you need a higher temperature to melt/evaporate it.

So, if you have water in a pressurised environment, the pressure is forcing the water molecles closer together. Therefore you need more energy in the form of heat to overcome the pressure and evaporate the water. The same priciple applies with solids melting.

To think of it another way, if you have water vapour in a container and slowly compress it you force the molecules closer together, which turns the vapour into a liquid, even though it is at the same temperature at both states. There are massive tables used in thermodynamics with the vapourisation temperatures needed at different temperatures.

The reason you got confused is that if you rapidly compress something it will heat up. Just like if you rapidly decompress something it will cool.



Yet another way of looking at it. Water will instantly evaporate in a vaccum, even at temperatures below 0c. So the melting point dropped with the decrease in temperature, no heat energy is needed to overcome the (nonexistant) pressure.

Edit: The temperature you posted is the boundary temperature, all the sources I can find put the centre temperature around 9-10 thousand degrees F.
Also, since the sun is the far more prominent source of heat at the earths surface, then surely that would mean the earth can't be cooling (at least as a general trend over billions(or even thousands...) of years)? Even without a radioactive heat source?

Edit two:
Oh, that rolling stone story is adorable.

[LedZap]

Visions of metallic hydrogen come to mind. http://i540.photobucket.com/albums/gg345/LedZap/Avatar%20%20Signature%20and%20Icons/wonder.gif

[Kaptain Nelag]

I will quite happily explain 5.

If something is under pressure, then you need a higher temperature to melt/evaporate it.

So, if you have water in a pressurised environment, the pressure is forcing the water molecles closer together. Therefore you need more energy in the form of heat to overcome the pressure and evaporate the water. The same priciple applies with solids melting.

To think of it another way, if you have water vapour in a container and slowly compress it you force the molecules closer together, which turns the vapour into a liquid, even though it is at the same temperature at both states. There are massive tables used in thermodynamics with the vapourisation temperatures needed at different temperatures.

The reason you got confused is that if you rapidly compress something it will heat up. Just like if you rapidly decompress something it will cool.



Yet another way of looking at it. Water will instantly evaporate in a vaccum, even at temperatures below 0c. So the melting point dropped with the decrease in temperature, no heat energy is needed to overcome the (nonexistant) pressure.

Edit: The temperature you posted is the boundary temperature, all the sources I can find put the centre temperature around 9-10 thousand degrees F.
Also, since the sun is the far more prominent source of heat at the earths surface, then surely that would mean the earth can't be cooling (at least as a general trend over billions(or even thousands...) of years)? Even without a radioactive heat source?

Edit two:
Oh, that rolling stone story is adorable.

Carrot, I haven't read that story yet. I'll take your word for it. You still haven't explained how melting temperatures increase at higher temperatures.

So, you agree that thermodynamics is a valid science?! Good! So do I! It then follows that, if my calculator is correct, 6130 degrees K = 11034 degrees R = 10574 degrees F. My number is slightly higher than yours, but I am more inclined to believe the University of Upsalla. I am still trying to collect data for the conditions of 250 degrees F, the initial conditions we agreed too. I'll welcome any help you can offer.

[Carrot]

Carrot, I haven't read that story yet. I'll take your word for it. You still haven't explained how melting temperatures increase at higher temperatures.

So, you agree that thermodynamics is a valid science?! Good! So do I! It then follows that, if my calculator is correct, 6130 degrees K = 11034 degrees R = 10574 degrees F. My number is slightly higher than yours, but I am more inclined to believe the University of Upsalla. I am still trying to collect data for the conditions of 250 degrees F, the initial conditions we agreed too. I'll welcome any help you can offer.

Haven't I?

When a solid melts, it's volume increases (most of the time).
If it is under high pressure, then it prevents it from expanding. Therefore you need more energy in the form of heat to overcome the pressure.


Of course I agree thermodynamics is a valid science, I've had multiple examinations on it! My number isn't calculated by me, but on livescience journal and all the other ones you get when you google.

As for the 250 F.... lava when it comes out of a volcano is two thousand degrees F. So I don't see why you would use 250.

[LedZap]

As for the 250 F.... lava when it comes out of a volcano is two thousand degrees F. So I don't see why you would use 250.

That's the temp of the Lava in my shorts.

[Kaptain Nelag]

Haven't I?

When a solid melts, it's volume increases (most of the time).
If it is under high pressure, then it prevents it from expanding. Therefore you need more energy in the form of heat to overcome the pressure.


Of course I agree thermodynamics is a valid science, I've had multiple examinations on it! My number isn't calculated by me, but on livescience journal and all the other ones you get when you google.

As for the 250 F.... lava when it comes out of a volcano is two thousand degrees F. So I don't see why you would use 250.

Carrot: If you have studied thermodynamics and have passed exams in the subject, you must be an intelligent student. This is the toughest course in Engineering. Therefore, you are not a retard! Why are you acting like one and deliberately trying to scuttle this study? Are you afraid of the end results?

[Carrot]

Carrot: If you have studied thermodynamics and have passed exams in the subject, you must be an intelligent student. This is the toughest course in Engineering. Therefore, you are not a retard! Why are you acting like one and deliberately trying to scuttle this study? Are you afraid of the end results?

I forgot you wanted to use 250 for life etc. Thought you were still talking about the core or something.

Continue if you must.

[Kaptain Nelag]

I forgot you wanted to use 250 for life etc. Thought you were still talking about the core or something.

Continue if you must.
Carrot: I'm sorry for getting short tempered with you about this. I'm very curious about how this will come out. There are a lot of properties that may not be directly available, so estimates and interpolations will be made. Overall, I will try to keep this as accurate as possible. This will take quite a while. I'm trying to set up the initial conditions at year zero. At 250 deg.F the earth will have a cloud of steam covering the surface. This cloud should be at equilibrium with the oceans, that do not have the same composition.(i.e. the ocean will be salt water and the steam will be from distillation.) Not knowing any better, I'll treat it all as fresh water. Do you think this will create too large of an error?

I am also making the assumption that the same amount of air exists

[Carrot]

You can probably safely ignore the salt content. Especially since It wouldn't have started out as salty (I assume).

[Paisleyspeaker]

Read and watch; that is IF you have any guts, promo. Let's see if you do...

WHO MOVED THE STONE? By Ahmed Deedat (http://www.jamaat.net/stone/TheStone.html)

John Ankerberg - Proof of the Resurrection of Christ 1 of 3 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5793497252106494775&ei=fUuDS7WwM4iEqQPXs-3ZCA&q=proof+of+the+resurrection&hl=en#)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SekR-QHCXVU

So this book written after the fact, by people who didn't see what they wrote about, or talk to the people they wrote about; this book that was broken up and had parts culled by the council of Nicea; this book that has many different translations some with more chapters some with less chapters, some meaning one thing and some meaning another; this book is truth?

Why?

The bible is truth because the bible tells you so?

isn't that just what the cartoon says?

Yeah and this is the part where you call me stupid and post links that barely have anything to do with the subject (kinda like this one) and don't really support your point.:rolleyes:

[freakazoid]

So this book written after the fact, by people who didn't see what they wrote about, or talk to the people they wrote about; this book that was broken up and had parts culled by the council of Nicea; this book that has many different translations some with more chapters some with less chapters, some meaning one thing and some meaning another; this book is truth?

Why?

The bible is truth because the bible tells you so?

isn't that just what the cartoon says?

Yeah and this is the part where you call me stupid and post links that barely have anything to do with the subject (kinda like this one) and don't really support your point.:rolleyes:

RE: "The bible is truth because the bible tells you so?"

Apparently you didn't pay attention. Or, you don't have ears to listen or eyes to see. Try again.

[Carrot]

No, the bible is true because the earth is 6000 years old, noahs ark was awesome and a snake talked. Duh.

Come on pais, pay attention.

[Paisleyspeaker]

maybe there would be something to glean if it was a useful link.

let's see first he discusses how science told us the earth was round, but says nothing about what science says about the bible. Then he tells us he wrote a book, but again nothing substantial. Then he tells us he did a "historiography"

(noun)

The principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation.
The writing of history based on a critical analysis, evaluation, and selection of authentic source materials and composition of these materials into a narrative subject to scholarly methods of criticism.
A body of historical literature.

it isn't even what he said it was, it is not a test that you perform on a manuscript.

then he starts about a bibliographical test- which is usually only seen discussing the bible. It goes a little something like this : You look at how many copies are in existence and the amount of time that passes between the copies. The theory being that there is a better chance that any changes would be caught in closely spaced copies. Sounds good.

But it doesn't address certain facts - like the book was written hundreds of years after the events transcribed occurred. And the author or authors are unknown. That the Council of Nicea met to decide the official doctrine of the Church including the books that were included in the bible, what was left out, and whose ideas were heresy.

The mind of a skeptic sees that as evidence of inaccuracy. If the book were the word of GOD then some parts were removed. That and the people who did the writing never met the folk they were writing about and even though through time the copies vary little - a close examination shows that the gospels do disagree with each other.

[freakazoid]

No, the bible is true because the earth is 6000 years old, noahs ark was awesome and a snake talked. Duh.

Come on pais, pay attention.

Do you think some of the greatest thinkers in the world (present and past) would believe the Bible if it were as stupid as you have mentioned in your total ignorance? If so, you are sadly mistaken and far dumber than I had thought.

Yeah, come on"pais," pay attention...

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html#xpEFL5Xn4M43)

(http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/famous-atheist-now-believes-in-god.htm) Famous Atheist Now Believes in God (http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/famous-atheist-now-believes-in-god.htm)

A Major Proof of the Bible (http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm)

Carrot, you are one stupid person as witnessed in your simple minded posts. You are totally disappointing...

OK, back on my Ignore List http://www.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[yee-haw]

Wait!!!

A snake talked, Why am i just hearing about this.

[Carrot]

Do you think some of the greatest thinkers in the world (present and past) would believe the Bible if it were as stupid as you have mentioned in your total ignorance? If so, you are sadly mistaken and far dumber than I had thought.

Yeah, come on"pais," pay attention...

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html#xpEFL5Xn4M43)

(http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/famous-atheist-now-believes-in-god.htm) Famous Atheist Now Believes in God (http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/famous-atheist-now-believes-in-god.htm)

A Major Proof of the Bible (http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm)

Carrot, you are one stupid person as witnessed in your simple minded posts. You are totally disappointing...

OK, back on my Ignore List http://www.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

I think your ignore function is broken.

By the way, I'm not talking about a belief in God, but a literal interpretation of the bible. Pay attention freak.

[Carrot]

I'm not talking about a belief in God freak, but a literal interpretation of the bible.

Pay attention.

By the way, you seriously need to fix your ignore function, it doesn't seem to work very well.

[yee-haw]

I'm not talking about a belief in God freak, but a literal interpretation of the bible.

Pay attention.

By the way, you seriously need to fix your ignore function, it doesn't seem to work very well.

What about the talking snake, You made that shit up did'nt you?

Do snakes read?
Do they have penises and vaginas??

Do they know how to read?
What if they had wings?

Are they good pets??
Can you walk a snake on a leash?

What color is your favorite snake?
Does snake really taste like chicken??

Would you like to see a tube steak snake?
How much do snakes cost??

I don't know much about snakes.

[Carrot]

What about the talking snake, You made that shit up did'nt you? It's not made up, the bible says so.

Do snakes read? Ask freak.
Do they have penises and vaginas?? In some form or another.

Do they know how to read? Lol, do you?
What if they had wings? They would fly!

Are they good pets?? If you want a pet tha just sees you as something warm but too big to eat.
Can you walk a snake on a leash? Sure.

What color is your favorite snake? The jungle book one, so green.
Does snake really taste like chicken? Dunno.

Would you like to see a tube steak snake? Yes.
How much do snakes cost? Free if you can catch 'em.

I don't know much about snakes.

[yee-haw]

Would you like to see a tube steak snake? Yes.


Really?
...Wow, I'll leave that one alone.

If you're really interested we have trouser trout as well.

[Carrot]

Really?
...Wow, I'll leave that one alone.

If you're really interested we have trouser trout as well.

Trouser trout is obvious.

But a snake steak? Those actually exist as a snake, cut up ready to fry up!

[yee-haw]

Trouser trout is obvious.

But a snake steak? Those actually exist as a snake, cut up ready to fry up!

you've never been brave enough to eat one or what?

I hear in texas they eat snake and gator on a regular basis...
Alabama it's all about the possum.

[Carrot]

I've never come across one.

Would like snake or gator.

But possums are just tree-rats.

[BuSab]

I seen this thing on TV just today. And it must be true cuz it was on TV. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Everybody says so.

[MrRee]

I seen this thing on TV just today. And it must be true cuz it was on TV. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Everybody says so.

Don't know, I'm not as old as Haw so I wasn't around then to see the birth of earth.


When I lived in Texas, I killed a big diamond back rattler. wasn't about to eat it, just made a hat band out of what was left after I shot the hell out of it.
Neighbors all told me what a "delacacy they are and asked for the next one. Next one was shot up so bad nobody wanted it :)

[eyeonyou]

you've never been brave enough to eat one or what?

I hear in texas they eat snake and gator on a regular basis...
Alabama it's all about the possum.

I'll eat rattlesnake or gator anyday. But you can keep the possum. Even my Uncle's possum was bad to me, and he could cook any wild animal as good or better as anyone.

[MrRee]

I will eat P--------------------oh never mind.