Creationists

[Hollie]

lie. I called YWC out on that subject previously.

Now run along you creepy stalker.

Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here.

I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.

Oh my. Aren't you the angry fundie. The melodrama is so cute.

YWC is posting. Why don't you ask him?

Where's my stalker? He's suddenly gone silent... hiked up his women's underwear and run away.

Do you need help finding the link?... you lying cretin.

 

[daws101]

You can't prove the age of the earth so how do you know I am wrong in my beliefs ?

another asked and answerd rehash by ywc.
you're not wrong in your beliefs they're just not based on fact.
and that's were you're wrong .

From now on I will no longer respond to your posts unless worthy of a response. I'm thinking we won't be debating much.

that's the second time you've made that claim.
anyone want to bet YWC will be yammering at me within aweek?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.

No man knows how old the universe is nor the earth. I feel the bible gives us that timeline. I believe the earth can be between 6,000 and 13,000 years old.

As for the later end; 6k is completely laughable open up any history book and that is done with. The earliest complex human society we know of is dated back to 12k years ago. As for the earlier end Radiometric dating? Basic chemistry completely blows that out of the water.

I said between 6,000 and 13,000 years depending on interpretation of the scriptures.

 

[daws101]

There are a great many things you choose not to see. Both myself and YWC have provided our educational background on several occasion so there would be no need for them to request them again. Ahhh, you choose to remain in your blindness and your logic about the huge, pink fonts is a fail. You have chosen not to "see" Hollie's constant attack accusations that YWC and I lack education. If you had paid attention to the threads, you would see the huge pink fonts always follow her ad hominem attack accusations on someone regarding their level of education. The only thing anyone needs to get over here is your one sided blindness and prejudicial auto ignore mode. Also, your veiled ad hominem attacks (bolded) above don't go unnoticed. Maybe it is you who should grow up.

First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments. I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you. That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.

I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.

That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.

You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.

me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in their tiny minds.
Hollie's campaigns are not of hate but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.

 

[HUGGY]

First of all, this wouldn't be an ad hominem attack, so stop over-using this term. A personal attack is not synonymous with an ad hominem attack, unless that attack is used as a debate tactic, used to distract from the actual arguments. I am not trying to distract from the debate, but commenting on your behavior which itself, was an ad hominem attack. You don't just get to throw around "ad hominem" attack everytime someone insults you. That's such a cop out. Funny that you accuse me of an ad hominem when asking for education credentials would be the epitome of an ad hominem debate tactic. Their credentials have nothing to do with their arguments, and the same goes for them asking for your credentials. You didn't have to give it to them.

I see you insulting Daws and Hollie all the time, so don't cry "ad hominem." Also, I don't spend as much time here as some others, so I simply wasn't here when Daws or Hollie asked for your education credentials. I am not defending them, I am only commenting on what I see when I come here. Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.

That is not the case. You are the only one I see doing it. Life is unfair sometimes.

You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.

me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in their tiny minds.
Hollie's campaigns are not of hate but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.

Huh?

 

[daws101]

make my day then I will point out the flaws with your methods.

No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?

Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.

wrong! are you really this ignorant...
a light YEAR is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time

 

[daws101]

It must not have been that obvious to you since you made this statement.

Stars which are known to be as far as 13 billion light years away. That means... 13 billion years old.....

... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.

I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.

then your head must bee up your ass as it's ywc argument for creationism ....try to keep up!

 

[HUGGY]

No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?

Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.

wrong! are you really this ignorant...
a light YEAR is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time

It's both actually. Since light is a constant the time it travels in one year can be a measurement in miles. It is scientific shorthand as the distances it refers to are awkward numbers. It is clearly also a reference to time. That's why they call it a light YEAR.

 

[daws101]

No but you are.


And you really should try a different argument.

And we're left to cringe at the notion that fundies want to introduce creationism into the school system.

Would you really want to inflict your "thinking" on school kids who will eventually compete in the job market?

I would want my children to hear both sides of the argument and draw their own conclusions.

how do I put this with out sounding condescending? sure you do..

what happens when or if their conclusion runs counter to yours?
my guess is you'll go bat shit and throw bible verses at them.

 

[daws101]

Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.

wrong! are you really this ignorant...
a light YEAR is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time

It's both actually. Since light is a constant the time it travels in one year can be a measurement in miles. It is scientific shorthand as the distances it refers to are awkward numbers. It is clearly also a reference to time. That's why they call it a light YEAR.

thanks huggy I was attempting to let "them" reason that out for themselves ....with no luck it seems

 

[HUGGY]

wrong! are you really this ignorant...
a light YEAR is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time

It's both actually. Since light is a constant the time it travels in one year can be a measurement in miles. It is scientific shorthand as the distances it refers to are awkward numbers. It is clearly also a reference to time. That's why they call it a light YEAR.

thanks huggy I was attempting to let "them" reason that out for themselves ....with no luck it seems

There is something seriously defective about an adult in this day and age of access to all this information and still insists the earth's age is in the thousands of years.

That person is scary stupid. A group of people that stupid is a danger to any community.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, you don't seem to get it. That's all there is. Now, point out the flaw in my method. Are you going to tell me that light gets "tired"?

Light year is a measure of distance. not a measure of time.

wrong! are you really this ignorant...
a light YEAR is a measure of HOW FAR LIGHT TRAVELS IN A YEAR ..so by defintion it's a measure of time

A light-year, also light year or lightyear (symbol: ly), is a unit of length equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (or about 6 trillion miles). As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.[1]

The light-year is mostly used to measure distances to stars and other distances on a galactic scale, especially in non-specialist and popular science publications. The preferred unit in astrometry is the parsec (approximately 3.26 light-years), because it can be more easily derived from, and compared with, observational data.[1]

Note that the light-year is a measure of distance (rather than, as is sometimes misunderstood, a measure of time).


A light-year is a unit of distance.

A light year is a way of measuring distance. That doesn't make much sense because "light year" contains the word "year," which is normally a unit of time. Even so, light years measure distance.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

... making young earth creationism demonstrably false, which was my point, which I already stated. Why did you feel the need to say this and how do you think you are refuting my position? You have aided it.

I haven't seen anyone on here claiming the earth was young. That's a strawman that your side created.

then your head must bee up your ass as it's ywc argument for creationism ....try to keep up!

I think you need another drink.

 

[daws101]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.

You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.

Here again, we see the fundie has a stalkers' obsession with me. I'm afraid the fundie is hoping to compensate for his own lack of education and inability to come to terms with his own failings.

Baiting again??? I'm coming to terms with the fact this is your clever way to disguise your own ignorance.

Come on fundie, let's see more of your posting in gargantuan fonts, trying desperately to pry personal information to placate your lurid obsession.

And while you're lecturing people on "logic", please tell us how logic is used to delineate your supernatural world of gawds and demons.

You can start by reading the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. His arguments for the existence of God are based on logic and reasoning, something which is very foreign to you and I would not expect you to recognize.

I have, and and you are right but
with all it's logic and reasoning it's false, as Aquinas's assumptions are unprovable he ,just like you have no tangible, testable, objective, quantifiable evidence to corroborate it.

 

[daws101]

Here we go...



Niether myself or YWC have ever cut and pasted from Harun Yahya, LIAR.

If you try to ignore this, it is not going away. Now run along you poor dear.

lie. I called YWC out on that subject previously.

Now run along you creepy stalker.

Provide a link or get lost LIAR. You need to be able to back up you lying accusations or you have no credibility here.

I will be waiting for the link where I or YWC quoted Harun Yahya.

WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT YOUR RAVINGS ARE CREDIBLE ?
The only corroboration you can provide is pseudoscience and the opinions of people who suffer from the same delusional thinking you do.
in short, you have no credibilty now ,will have none in the future.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's what you claimed ya Texas halfwit. If the universe was at one point the size of a basketball and it exploded then it took at least your 13 billions years to get 13 billion light years from our observation. THAT means it was 13 billion PLUS the time it took the light we observe to get to us. Comprede'?

Bingo now prove the Big Bang happened.

We can still pick up on the radiation caused by the big bang...

Oh boy let me educate you on this as well.


1st law of thermo dynamics.
The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?

Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.

"in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"

This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.

So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?

Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.

I found this.

A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.

"The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."

Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.

1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.

Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !

The letter included statements such as :
The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.

Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.

Possible causes include :

1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.

other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.

1. Second order Doppler effect.
a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.

2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.

3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.

4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.


So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.

Now getting to your comment.

They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.

Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.

Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.

 

[HUGGY]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyFSdj1J5Vw]Steers and Queers come from Texas - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!!! Curious you are not calling out Daws for his profanity and name calling or Hollie for her bigoted, hate campaign against Theists. What is any logical human being supposed to think?? You are incredibly transparent right now.

You still missed the reason for me questioning her education level. It's like your ears are magically deaf to anything Hollie posts. I will not continue to try and explain the logic of it to you. You have failed to grasp the concept which has been explained to you twice. I will waste no more time with you on this.

me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in their tiny minds.
Hollie's campaigns are not of hate but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.

Huh?

it's a Elizabethan (aka) Shakespearian shot at Ur's out of context use of Shakespeare..

 

[Youwerecreated]

me thinks the slapdick doth quote the bard out of context ...if any poster prostesth too much tis thou O URINAL ROT.
Daw's profanity is is well met in this debating forum as it fairly shouts of the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.
as to the good Hollie HIS sex is vexing only to the envious dullards who's cod pieces are as small as the shrunked goo that sleeps in their tiny minds.
Hollie's campaigns are not of hate but of true knowledge that seeketh to Pierce the bloated and rotting falsehoods and fakery of the addled.

Huh?

it's a Elizabethan (aka) Shakespearian shot at Ur's out of context use of Shakespeare..

This was directed at you and huggy as well.

Oh boy let me educate you on this as well.


1st law of thermo dynamics.
The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?

Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.

"in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"

This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.

So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?

Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.

I found this.

A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.

"The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."

Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.

1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.

Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !

The letter included statements such as :
The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.

Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.

Possible causes include :

1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.

other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.

1. Second order Doppler effect.
a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.

2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.

3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.

4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.


So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.

Now getting to your comment.

They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.

Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.

Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.

 

[HUGGY]

Bingo now prove the Big Bang happened.

We can still pick up on the radiation caused by the big bang...

Oh boy let me educate you on this as well.


1st law of thermo dynamics.
The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?

Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.

"in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"

This goes agains't the laws of physics,so they can't logically account for the energy.

So where did all the matter come from to form all we see ?

Let's go back to the textbook. " the tiny speck began to expand by 3 minutes atomic nuclei appeared" They can't tell us if the Big Bang took place 6 billion years ago or 13 billion years ago or 20 billion years ago so its constantly changing,yet they are gonna tell us what happened at the 3 minute mark This doesn't make any sense what so ever. This is a religous belief it's not based on testable observable science.

I found this.

A letter signed by dozens of scientists that appeared in the New Scientist (Bucking the Big Bang,182(2448)20,May 22nd 2004) statements included.

"The Big Bang theory can't boast NO predictions that have been validated by observation. Claimed sucesses consist of retrospectively making observations fit by adding adjustable parameters."

Let's look at some of their adjustable parameters they added.

1. cosmic collisions are one of the magic wands which prop up the failed materialistic predictions.

Uranus is tilted over; Venus rotates the wrong direction; mars' atmosphere is too thin; Mercury is too dense; therefore,something collided with them to cause them not to fit the predictions !

The letter included statements such as :
The big bang relies on a groiwing number of never observed entities such as, inflation,dark matter,dark energy and can't survive without these fudge factors,in no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted,its only accepted because it's a religous belief not observable testable science.

Another proof thrown out is red-shifted starlight.

Possible causes include :

1. Stellar motion. assumes stars are speeding outward from the big bang.

other examples of causes of red-shifted starlight.

1. Second order Doppler effect.
a light source moving at right angles to an observer always appears red-shifted,implying the universe is in a circular motion not expanding.

2. Gravitation. The star's gravity or the gravity of a galaxy may lengthen the wavelenglenth of the starlight. Light could be speeding toward or away from the earth.

3. Photon Interaction. That light waves lose energy while traveling across space,reddening its light.

4. other hypotheses include: the slowing of light or galaxies spiraling toward earth may cause the apparent red-shift.


So redshift is not evidence of the big bang.

Now getting to your comment.

They claim MBR is leftover energy from the supposed big bang. they leave out alot of problems with this, for instance, without hypothetical inflation the big bang does not predict the smooth cosmic background radiation.

Yet inflation requires a density 20 times larger than the big bang's explanation of the origin of the light elements implies ! The MBR is going in different directions not one direction, I believe the stars are the source of the MBR.

Also if the big bang took place billions of years ago,by now all of the matter in space should be evenly distributed but it's not. Stars are found in tightly wound up galaies or balls. This is called the winding up dilemma. The universe is to tightly wound up to be old.

Well Hell's Bells!! Why didn't you just say so?



What a maroon!