Lying Brainwashing Christians

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Big-P, Dec 5, 2005.

  1. Big-P
    Offline

    Big-P Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    8
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    Before people think this post is a flame I do realize that not all Christians are like this.

    However these people are lying and trying to brainwash children. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    http://evolution-facts.org/

    I am working on an online paper which will completely and utterly destroy the nonsense and lies that are posted throughout this website. I've started on Chapter 4 the age of the Earth. I've gotten about half way through and they haven't made one valid point yet.
     
  2. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    checked out your posted site...they are not "Lying" just giving their opinion...have you not something better to do than bash anothers opinion? Then again ya are probably from the far left and can't stop yourself!... :dunno: :scratch:
     
  3. Big-P
    Offline

    Big-P Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    8
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    No. They are telling outright lies. I will post some of them here shortly. And if they aren't telling outright lies they are the dumbest people I've ever met. For example. Let me give you one of the points from their chapters real quick. It is their contention that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

    Now look at this.
    The current distance from the earth to moon is about 385,000 km. Completely ignoring the fact that it might be made up anyway, according to the article, the closest it could ever have been is 18,400 km. That leaves 366,600 km for it to have moved.
    At a rate of 4 cm/year (according to the article, might be completely made up)=1 meter every 25 years=1 km every 25,000 years.
    So according to the information they provide, the oldest the moon could be is 366,600*25,000, or 9,165,000,000 years old.
    Thats a pretty convincing arguement for why its less than 10,000 years old, I guess.
     
  4. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    it's just an opinion...don't get your panties in a wad...geez! :rotflmao:
     
  5. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741

    I was watching the Discovery Channel when I first heard the moon is moving away from the earth at percisely that rate.

    (shrug).
     
  6. Big-P
    Offline

    Big-P Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    8
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    From the Evolution Cruncher Chapter 4:The age of the earth

    “1 - STAR CLUSTERS—There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. Science tells us that some of these clusters—with their stars—are moving so rapidly, together, in a certain direction that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.”



    Source? How is this impossible? We have a claim with absolutely no evidence or reasoning behind it. This is a theme which I suspect will be repeated.



    “2 - LARGE STARS—Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars radiate energy very rapidly—some as much as 100,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our own sun. On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic.”




    Too gigantic for what? Impossibly Big? What does this even mean? You can’t just arbitrarily say something is impossibly big without giving any reason of why it’s too big or what it is too big for. This one goes along with the theme of the first point. Make a claim and provide no evidence to back it up. That’s what I call science



    “3 - HIGH-ENERGY STARS—Some stars are radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived for a long period of time. This includes the very bright O and B class stars, the Wolf-Rayfert stars, and the P Cygni stars. Radiation levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun are emitted by these stars! Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years.”


    I will evaluate the veracity of this claim later but how does this prove that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old which these people later claim. 50,000 and 300,000 are both larger than 10,000. This tells us nothing.

    *Upon further review of the previous topic I have found that red dwarves can last between upwards of hundreds of billions of years since 90% of their life is spent fusing hydrogen to produce helium in high-temperature and high-pressure reactions near the core.


    The source for the above information can be found here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star


    “4 - BINARY STARS—Many of the stars in the sky are binaries: two stars circling one another. But many of these binary systems point us to a young age for the universe, because they consist of theoretically "young" and "old" stars circling one another.”


    No rational person would conclude that this means anything. Absolute gibberish and nothing more.



    “5 - HYDROGEN IN UNIVERSE—According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.”



    In my limited research I have found that Hoyle does in fact not support the Big Bang theory and has proposed his own Steady State theory. He is also a believer in Panspermia and suggests that advanced alien civilizations brought life here to earth. I have yet to find anywhere where he claims that the universe must be youthful. More to come later…



    “6 - SOLAR COLLAPSE—Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet.
    "By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A. Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage."— *"Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September 1979.
    Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been about twice its present size, making life untenable.



    Really? From NASA:
    There is no evidence that the size of the sun has changed appreciably over the last 100 million years, because the amount of heat the sun produces at the earth depends on the second power of the solar diameter, all other factors being equal, so a little change on the sun would throw the earth into a global heat wave or ice age.

    http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11805.html

    Exposed yet again.



    “7 - SOLAR NEUTRINOS—In 1968 it was discovered that the sun is emitting hardly any neutrinos. This evidence points directly to a very youthful sun. These neutrinos ought to be radiating outward from the sun in very large amounts, but this is not occurring. This fact, coupled with the discovery that the sun is shrinking in size, point to a recently created sun.”

    Well we already know that the sun isn’t shrinking at any rate worthy of noting because I just debunked that with information than NASA but apparently this is a blatant lie as well.
    From Wickipedia:

    quote:

    For some time it was thought that the number of neutrinos produced by the nuclear reactions in the Sun was only a third of the number predicted by theory, a result that was termed the solar neutrino problem. Several neutrino observatories were constructed, including the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory and Kamiokande to try to measure the solar neutrino flux. It has recently been found that neutrinos have rest mass, and can therefore transform into harder-to-detect varieties of neutrinos while en route from the Sun to Earth in a process known as neutrino oscillation [7]. Thus, measurement and theory have been reconciled.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Solar_neutrino_problem
     
  7. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Duplicate Accounts are forbidden, Powerman.
     
  8. JOKER96BRAVO
    Offline

    JOKER96BRAVO Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,433
    Thanks Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +285
    "you and me baby aint nothin but mammals so let's do it
    like they do on the Discovery Cha.."
    Sorry, I got carried away.
     
  9. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    so I really do not understand this persons argument!
     
  10. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    His point is...

    ...is inaccurate as it would take the moon some 9 billion years to move 360,000km were it moving at only 4cm a year, assuming his math is correct.
     

Share This Page