Lying Brainwashing Christians

[SpidermanTuba]

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!... :scratch:

Actually, they are lying. As a gradute student in stellar astrophysics, I was particularly entertained by the section on star formation. I can refute any point you like, name one. There is only one inconsistency they point out, which is the lack of observation of Population III stars. Astrophysics, like EVERY scientific theory, does not explain EVERY observation, which is the reason it is a science in progress.

I find it hilarious that they claim that stars could not have possibly formed - yet, look up at the sky, and there they are!

 

[Powerman]

...and you assume you know where the moon STARTED in it's orbit, in relation to the earth. Could it be the moon started out only, say, 10ft closer since 'the beginning'?

I'm not sure where it started and don't claim to have these answers. Our friend Spiderman here is the astrophysics wiz. He might be better suited to answer such questions. But what I do know is the math they proposed in that particular example is indefensible.

 

[Powerman]

Continuting on with their claims.....


I wanted to keep it all in one post but apparently I've used up to many Characters already. Continuing on with lesson 8.

8 - COMETS—Comets, journeying around the sun, are assumed to have the same age as our world and solar system. But, as *Fred Whipple has acknowledged, astronomers have no idea where or how comets originated. Yet we know that they are continually disintegrating. This is because they are composed of bits of rocky debris held together by frozen gases and water. Each time a comet circles the sun, some of the ice is evaporated and some of the gas is boiled away by the sun’s heat. Additional material is lost through gravitational forces, tail formation, meteor stream production, and radiative forces. The most spectacular part of a comet is its tail, yet this consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. All the tail material is lost in space as the comet moves onward.
A number of comets have broken up and dissipated within the period of human observation. Some of those regularly seen in the nineteenth century have now vanished. Others have died spectacularly by plunging into the sun.
Evidently all the comets should self-destruct within a time frame that is fairly short. Careful study has indicated that the effect of this dissolution process on short-term comets would have totally dissipated them within 10,000 years.
There are numerous comets circling our sun, including many short-term ones, with no source of new comets known to exist.


Given the recent history of items here I doubt that any of this information is true. But even if it was true it is not proof for the universe or the earth for that matter being less than 10 thousand years old. If anything it would only prove that comets only have a shelf life of around 10 thousand years or less. This information is completely irrelevant to subject at hand. It is the equivalent of me saying that I’ve never heard of a dog that has lived for over 30 years so the universe must be under 30 years old.




9 - COMET WATER—It has only been in recent years that scientists have discovered that comets are primarily composed of water, and that many small comets are continually striking the earth. Yet each strike adds more water to our planet. Scientific evidence indicates that, if the earth was billions of years old, our oceans would be filled several times over with water.


That's nice. And it sounds really believable too. But 2 quick points.

1. How do they know that's now how water got there in the first place?

2. Who are these generic "scientists" we keep hearing about. Once again absolutely no proof whatsoever. Make a claim and then have nothing to back it up. How cute.




10 - SOLAR WIND—As the sun’s radiation flows outward, it applies an outward force on very, very small particles orbiting the sun. All of the particles smaller than 100,000th of a centimeter in diameter should have long ago been "blown out" of our solar system, if the solar system were billions of years old. Yet research studies by satellites in space have shown that those small particles are abundant and still orbiting the sun. Therefore our solar system is quite young.


Wait a second. What about gravity you fucking idiots? Of course particles that are a micrometer in diamter aren't going to float our of our solar system. The absolute hilarity is the last sentence of the paragraph. I've never seen something so stupid in my life



11 - SOLAR DRAG—This is a principle known as the "Poynting-Robertson Effect." Our sun exerts a solar drag on the small rocks and larger particles (micrometeoroids) in our solar system. This causes these particles to spiral down into the sun and be destroyed. The sun, acting like a giant vacuum cleaner, sweeps up about 100,000 tons [82,301 mt] of micrometeoroids each day. The actual process by which this occurs has been analyzed. Each particle absorbs energy from the sun and then re-radiates it in all directions. This causes a slowing down of the particle in its orbit and causes it to fall into the sun. At its present rate, our sun would have cleaned up most of the particles in less than 10,000 years, and all of it within 50,000 years.

Yet there is an abundance of these small pieces of rock, and there is no known source of replenishment. This is because each solar system would lock in its own micrometeoroids so they could not escape to another one, and the gravity on each planet and moon would forbid any of its gravel to fly out into space.


So let me get this straight. Just a minute ago I was told that objects of a micrometer in diameter would have floated out of our solar system but now I'm supposed to believe that these seperate solar systems have the gravity to keep micrometeroids from escaping? Sounds like some inconsistency to me.

12 - COMPOSITION OF SATURN’S RINGS—*G.P. Kuiper reported, in 1967, that the trillions of particles in the rings circling the planet Saturn are primarily composed of solid ammonia. Since solidified ammonia has a much higher vapor pressure than even ice, reputable scientists recognize that it could not survive long without vaporizing off into space. This is a strong indicator of a young age for Saturn’s rings.


What they fail to mention yet again is that the mean temperature around Saturn is 88K which is equivalient to -185 degrees Celcius and -290 degrees Farenheit if my calculations are correct.


In case anyone would care to know the boiling point of solid ammonia it is -28 degrees Farenheit. Yes as the article points out it is very low compared to dihydrogen monoxide but given the temperature on Saturn it is in no danger of evaporating away.

Exposed once more.

 

[Powerman]

13 - BOMBARDMENT OF SATURN’S RINGS—Meteoroids bombarding Saturn’s rings would have destroyed them in far less than 20,000 years.

Once again 20,000>10,000 and even if it weren't this isn't proof that the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

3 problems with this claim

1. No proof for it as usual
2. It's irrelvenat in the fact that 20 is greater than 10
3. Even if 2. were false it would still be irrelevant as these events don't have anything to do with the age of the universe or the earth.


14 - MORE RING PROBLEMS—NASA Voyager treks have disclosed that Jupiter and Uranus also have rings encircling them! (In addition, a 1989 Neptune flyby revealed that it also has rings—four of them.) These discoveries have only augmented the problem of the evolutionists, for this would indicate a young age for those three planets also.


See the response to point 13. Once again this means nothing.


15 - JUPITER’S MOONS—The Voyager I space probe was launched on September 5, 1977. Aimed at the planet Jupiter, it made its closest approach to that planet on March 5, 1979. Thousands of pictures and thousands of measurements were taken of Jupiter and its moons.

Io is the innermost of the four original "Galilean moons," and was found to have over sixty active volcanoes! These volcanoes spew plumes of ejecta from 60 to 160 miles [97 to 257 km] above Io’s surface. This is astounding.

Nothing on our planet can match this continuous stream of material being shot out by Io’s volcanoes at a velocity of 2000 miles per hour [3218 km per hour]! The usual evolutionary model portrays all the planets and moons as being molten 5 billion years ago. During the next billion years they are said to have had active volcanoes. Then, 4 billion years ago, the volcanism stopped as they cooled. Io is quite small, yet it has the most active volcanoes we know of. Obviously, it is quite young and its internal heat has not had time to cool.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

So let me get this straight. There is a moon that orbits Jupiter that has a lot of volcanic activity therefor the earth is 10 thousand years old?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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

If I were to tell you the gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface is 5.4 m/s^2 - would that be an "opinion" instead of a "lie"?


The idea that evolution is wrong is an "opinion". The contention that He4 cannot fuse into Carbon 12 is a lie.

 

[Powerman]

In case anyone was wondering where the brain washing portion of this came into play you should check this out. This is the exercises to be given to students at the end of the Chapter which is completely full of lies and half truths. It offers no proof whatsoever for anything. This is just putting trash science into the minds of our youth.

1 - Working with your class, make some tree ring samples and date them.

2 - Do you live near any of the types of evidences listed in this chapter? Name them.

3 - On a map of the world, find where some of the things which are evidences of a young earth are located.

4 - Out of all the evidences given in this chapter, which show that our planet is quite young? Which five do you consider to be the best? Memorize them, so you can later tell them to others.

5 - Which five do you consider to be the most surprising? Why?

6 - Why is it that no historical records of any kind go back beyond only a few thousand years B.C.?

7 - Scientists were certain that there should be an extremely thick layer of dust on the moon. Why did they find almost no dust on the moon?

8 - List seven of the strongest reasons from the other planets that indicate a youthful age for our solar system.

9 - List three of the best evidences from our moon that our world is only a few thousand years old. Which one do you consider to be the best? Why?

10 - Which evidence from natural gas and oil do you consider to be the best? Why?

11 - Why do evolutionists find it necessary every few years to keep dramatically increasing the supposed age of the earth and the universe?

12 - How many of the large number of evidences given in this chapter would be sufficient to prove that the earth is not very old?

13 - Why is the decay of earth’s magnetic field such a powerful argument in favor of a young earth only a few thousand years old?

14 - Write a report on one "early earth" evidence which especially interested you. After completing it, explain it orally in class.

 

[KarlMarx]

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.

OK... fine... Christians should be ashamed of themselves for believing in something that can be disproven, what of it? What is the consequence? Their children are going to grow believing that the universe is 6,000 years old... ok... so what?

Of course, there are more perposterous things, we also believe that a man was resurrected after 3 days in the tomb, that He was born of a Virgin and that He was the Son of God.... I suppose we should be ashamed of that, too and furthermore, for teaching our children such lies.....

But, that having been said.... what about these?

How about this? What is the consequence for teaching children that condoms prevent the spread of AIDS rather than encouraging abstinence? Even if condoms are 99% effective that means that 1 out of every 100 sexually active children is exposed to a disease that can kill them. What are the consequences of that?

How about this? What is the consequence of insisting that DDT be kept off of the market when scientific evidence that it hurts the environment is debatable? What about the 2 million people that die each year of malaria? What about the fact that DDT has been shown to be the crucial to killing the mosquitos that spread this disease?

How about this? Homosexuals are supposedly "born" that way. Yet there is no hard scientific evidence to support such claims. Yet it is being taught to children as if it were. What are the consequences of that?

How about this? The Kyoto Protocol is based on the somewhat debatable assertion that man is primarily responsible for the greenhouse effect. The Kyoto protocol, if implemented, would impose trillions of dollars in costs. Yet some of the biggest polluters e.g. China, would be exempt from having to live by it. What are the consequences of that?

It seems to me that if a score were being kept that the Christians may be guilty of having a mote in their eyes and the secularists have a beam in theirs.....

 

[MissileMan]

How about this? What is the consequence for teaching children that condoms prevent the spread of AIDS rather than encouraging abstinence? Even if condoms are 99% effective that means that 1 out of every 100 sexually active children is exposed to a disease that can kill them. What are the consequences of that?
.

Umm, this statement is ONLY TRUE if 100% of children are HIV positive.

 

[Powerman]

Umm, this statement is ONLY TRUE if 100% of children are HIV positive.

You beat me to it. And the point of this thread is to show that people are knowingly lying to children. If it's what you believe then that's what you believe. But to make up things that you know to be false and then try to brainwash people with it is terrible. What ever happened to thou shalt not lie or however they worded that commandment?

This isn't opinion or belief. It's a step further. It's teaching things that you know to be lies.

 

[KarlMarx]

Umm, this statement is ONLY TRUE if 100% of children are HIV positive.

OK... true... I should have said

1 out of 100 sexually active children takes the risk of being exposed to a disease that can kill them (or a disease which could scar them for life e.g. chlamydia, HPV etc).... while believing that they are protected....

 

[KarlMarx]

You beat me to it. And the point of this thread is to show that people are knowingly lying to children. If it's what you believe then that's what you believe. But to make up things that you know to be false and then try to brainwash people with it is terrible. What ever happened to thou shalt not lie or however they worded that commandment?

This isn't opinion or belief. It's a step further. It's teaching things that you know to be lies.

Actually, the people who teach those things believe them to be true... they don't believe what you do....

Of course, I could go on to talk about all the evidence that has been presented to clear Bush of any accusations of lying about WMDs in Iraq, but still people keep repeating those lies, at the cost of endangering our troops.... but, for political expediency, they keep repeating those lies, too.

 

[archangel]

If I were to tell you the gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface is 5.4 m/s^2 - would that be an "opinion" instead of a "lie"?


The idea that evolution is wrong is an "opinion". The contention that He4 cannot fuse into Carbon 12 is a lie.

My college math level was the basic requirement...since I majored in Law and Criminal Justice I will concede...however I still believe that the presentation was just a opinion...after all who really knows where the moon started out...some say it was caused by a meteor hitting the earth and the portion that was blasted off became the moon...I will concede that I also believe the Earth is much older than the 10,000 years as stated though...that was their opinion and I also disagree on that!

 

[Nienna]

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.

I guess the pivotal phrase to explore here is this: and the rate would have been greater in the past.

Uniformitarianism is an outdated scientific theory.

 

[KarlMarx]

However, isn't it also true that no genetic predecessor to Homo Sapiens has yet been found? In fact, the species Homo Sapiens suddenly appears in the fossil record about 50,000 years ago...

Neathradals and earlier human-like species are not our genetic predecessors.

So.... isn't it still possible that we were not evolved but just appeared and that science may not be able to explain why...

It is also true that the theory of evolution was based on the assumption that the Earth was at a steady state... that no calamitous events occured during its history. An assumption that has been proven to be false.... therefore, if that assumption has been proven to be false, what else about evolution is false? I believe that the theory of evolution, while it has a lot of evidence to support it, is still not a 100% proven fact and has its problems.

 

[Nienna]

Duplicate Accounts are forbidden, Powerman.

This guy seems much more reasonable than PM... at least at my first encounter.

 

[Nienna]

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.

I believe he is referring to the expansion of the systems. ie, if they were very old, they would have expanded much farther than observed.

 

[KarlMarx]

Another thing puzzles me... that is, the fact that the universe went through a period of inflation where it expanded in size at a rate that exceeded the speed of light.... I haven't studied it much, but something there just hasn't been explained to my satisfaction ..... how is it possible that the universe just suddenly expanded faster than the speed of light?

 

[Powerman]

This guy seems much more reasonable than PM... at least at my first encounter.

No it was me. I'm turning over a new leaf. I'm being rational. Unlike the creators of that lying propaganda website.

 

[Hobbit]

Duplicate Accounts are forbidden, Powerman.

I thought the general, condescending tone looked familiar. You think he could've come up with something better than "Big P."

 

[Powerman]

There has been nothing condescending in this thread. I am just exposing the authors of this website for what they are. They are liars who seek to brainwash you and your children into believing their lies. Either that are they are the dumbest group of alleged scientists who have ever lived. You can easily debunk almost 100% of what they say with a little bit of research and logic. I've already done most of the work for you though so you can thank me.