Yep, had to arrive sometime I suppose - the above link is nowt but a creationist hodgepodge of crapola which claims that the speed of light has conveniently decayed enough for the universe to be, wait, 6,000 years old.
Never mind that 1) observed supernova light curves at cosmological distances uttery disprove this 2) the creationists own calculatations myseriously "ignore" a whole host of data which disproves their hypothesis and 3) their calculations would lead to the Earth being a radioactive slag-heap not 4,000 years ago.
So take the above link with a massive truckload of your favourite saline product.
Far from having been proven false, Po218 is a continuing mystery to ancient-earth believers. It takes a lot of faith in evolution to continue to believe in the face of that hard evidence.
Nonsense. Gentry's halos have been debunked time and time again. See http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/gentry.htm for example.
If you note the original post, ashtonb initiated it by stating that anyone who didn't believe in evolution was someone he put in the same class as someone who believes in the flat earth. Actually many scientists in past centuries believed in a flat earth, that heavy objects fall faster than light, etc. And did you know that such giants of our past as Newton, Maxwell, Pasteur, Pascal, and Babbage were creationists?
Is this the best argument you can muster? You're even more pathetic than I first thought. Hint: Sometime go and look up the birth dates of most of them and then look up the date of publication of the Origin of Species.
For example, there is evidence that man (ya, homo-us) was alive at the same time dinos roamed the earth, however, it's dismissed.
It's dismissed because the "evidence" is nothing but creationist fabrication.
Such a notion screws up tons of other theories and there isn't another theory which can take the place of human evolution. So, it's just easier to go on proving how things are right based a keystone which is wrong rather than start from the beginning and attempt to figure out what is really going on. I would like to remind you that several key pieces which are need to prove human evolution have never been found.
Now you're talking shite. There is literally mountains of evidence to support the current picture of human evolution.
Of course you seem to be the "If I close my eyes and stick my fingers in my eyes all that nasty evidence will go away" type of person.
On the other hand, there is evidence which proves it to be wrong. Go figure. Nonetheless, the current flawed theory stands. Case in point.
What evidence? All you cretinist loud-mouths constantly harp on about it and never present any of it...
Yes we can. The evidence tells us that creationists are nothing more than willfully ignorant liars. Sorry if this offends you, but it's the truth. Creationists are no better than holocaust deniers.
Nope. It doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynaics. Because of that big ball of hot stuff in the sky (the Sun) which provides the energy neccessary.
Any creationist who tells you that it does violate the 2LoT us a liar or a fool.
C-14 dating is not based upon a guess. And the recent revising was because it was found that calculated dates were 10% younger then they actually were.
Nah. They're talking utter bollocks as usual. The changes that are talke about add up to a 1 in 100,000 change in the fine structure constant since the Big Bang.
Any cretinist who trys to use this as some sort of argument for a young-universe is a liar. Mind you, most of them already are anyway, so no change there.
First creationists, and now all the other crackpots with their pet theories are climbing out from underneath whatever stone they're usually hiding beneath.
The Sun is powered by thermonuclear reactions. The evidence is overwhelming.
If you don't like this fact, tough. Get over it.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
It can't. It already is a white dwarf. Sirius itself isn't massive enough. The closest candidates for a supernova is probably Rasalgethi (Alpha Herculis) at about 380 light years distant.
You sir, are nowt but an ignorant fool - the modern day equivalent of a flat-earther.
The rest of you, ignore this nonsence. See http://www.talkorigins.org for lots of info debunking creationist lies such as the above...
Re:Links to Better Sources of Supernova Info
on
Star In A Jar
·
· Score: 1
Mod this post up!
Re:pressures and densities of the sun
on
Star In A Jar
·
· Score: 1
Cretinist Alert! Cretinist Alert!
The Universe is billions of years old, my fundie friend. No amount of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "does not" at the top of your voice will change this fact. If you and your religion can't deal with this, then I suggest you find a new religion that can deal with reality.
Re:how a supernova explodes
on
Star In A Jar
·
· Score: 1
But not at the speed of light, or even anywhere close.
Supernova Info (Was Re:Great research)
on
Star In A Jar
·
· Score: 1
For lots of info on Supernovae, see my Supernovae and Supernova Remnants FAQhere
Frankly I'm of the opinion that people who use these tools as the sole source of thier interface design mechanisms shouldn't be programming at all. Because thier too stupid to work out the right way to build the application, rather than using the cookie cutter method. Oh, and actually thinking about what one is doing usually cuts down on development time. Believe it or not, it's true.
Or it maybe the case that people are tired of reinventing the wheel and spending literally thousands of lines of code just to display one dialog box on the screen.
Or it maybe the case that people are tired of these snobs who claim that C should be used for everything when most people use it in a way that just gives the impression it's the most hideous jumble of cack ever invented.
But then, you're not a real programmer since you don't use dip-switches, a-la PDP-8 to enter your code, now do you?
As opposed to scientist gluing moths to tree trunks to try and "prove" evolution,
I think you'll find that the moths did change colour depending on their environment.
or doctoring drawings of
embryos to try and "prove" evolution,
or saying that a tooth is proof of monkey/men (Scopes Monkey
Trial) when it was actually a pig tooth. No secular scientist are always ethical;)
You see, that's the difference between science and creationism. Science is constantly self-correcting and identifying mistakes and proposing better and better hypotheses which turn into theories. It's the evidence that counts...
Creationism on the other hand, is nothing but a theologically bankrupt belief system who's adherents are so deceitful that they campaign against any *facts* which go against their dogma.
Creationists are entitled to their opinions, but not to their own facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Never mind that 1) observed supernova light curves at cosmological distances uttery disprove this 2) the creationists own calculatations myseriously "ignore" a whole host of data which disproves their hypothesis and 3) their calculations would lead to the Earth being a radioactive slag-heap not 4,000 years ago.
So take the above link with a massive truckload of your favourite saline product.
Best,
Kelddath
Nonsense. Gentry's halos have been debunked time and time again. See http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/gentry.htm for example.
If you note the original post, ashtonb initiated it by stating that anyone who didn't believe in evolution was someone he put in the same class as someone who believes in the flat earth. Actually many scientists in past centuries believed in a flat earth, that heavy objects fall faster than light, etc. And did you know that such giants of our past as Newton, Maxwell, Pasteur, Pascal, and Babbage were creationists?
Is this the best argument you can muster? You're even more pathetic than I first thought. Hint: Sometime go and look up the birth dates of most of them and then look up the date of publication of the Origin of Species.
Best Regards,
Dave
It's dismissed because the "evidence" is nothing but creationist fabrication.
Such a notion screws up tons of other theories and there isn't another theory which can take the place of human evolution. So, it's just easier to go on proving how things are right based a keystone which is wrong rather than start from the beginning and attempt to figure out what is really going on. I would like to remind you that several key pieces which are need to prove human evolution have never been found.
Now you're talking shite. There is literally mountains of evidence to support the current picture of human evolution.
Of course you seem to be the "If I close my eyes and stick my fingers in my eyes all that nasty evidence will go away" type of person.
On the other hand, there is evidence which proves it to be wrong. Go figure. Nonetheless, the current flawed theory stands. Case in point.
What evidence? All you cretinist loud-mouths constantly harp on about it and never present any of it...
Best Regards,
Dave
Should you not be better off in Afghanistan with your comrades-in-arms the Taliban? Oh, and take Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson with you.
Yes we can. The evidence tells us that creationists are nothing more than willfully ignorant liars. Sorry if this offends you, but it's the truth. Creationists are no better than holocaust deniers.
So is Object Pascal.
To creationists: Stop trying to claim your dogma is factandStop trying to get it inserted as fact into schools.
Any creationist who tells you that it does violate the 2LoT us a liar or a fool.
Oh wait, the Bible.
So the Bible is the Word of God because.....the Bible says so....
C-14 dating is not based upon a guess. And the recent revising was because it was found that calculated dates were 10% younger then they actually were.
Any cretinist who trys to use this as some sort of argument for a young-universe is a liar. Mind you, most of them already are anyway, so no change there.
Bollocks to VB. Use a decent language/environment, like Delphi.
First creationists, and now all the other crackpots with their pet theories are climbing out from underneath whatever stone they're usually hiding beneath.
The Sun is powered by thermonuclear reactions. The evidence is overwhelming.
If you don't like this fact, tough. Get over it.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
For more info, see The Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young-Earth Creationism FAQ which covers this in some detail.
Disclaimer: I'm the author of said article
Yawn. Go look up the CMBR *before* spouting off ill-informed crap.
You sir, are nowt but an ignorant fool - the modern day equivalent of a flat-earther.
The rest of you, ignore this nonsence. See http://www.talkorigins.org for lots of info debunking creationist lies such as the above...
Mod this post up!
The Universe is billions of years old, my fundie friend. No amount of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "does not" at the top of your voice will change this fact. If you and your religion can't deal with this, then I suggest you find a new religion that can deal with reality.
But not at the speed of light, or even anywhere close.
For lots of info on Supernovae, see my Supernovae and Supernova Remnants FAQ here
Frankly I'm of the opinion that people who use these tools as the sole source of thier interface design mechanisms shouldn't be programming at all. Because thier too stupid to work out the right way to build the application, rather than using the cookie cutter method. Oh, and actually thinking about what one is doing usually cuts down on development time. Believe it or not, it's true. Or it maybe the case that people are tired of reinventing the wheel and spending literally thousands of lines of code just to display one dialog box on the screen. Or it maybe the case that people are tired of these snobs who claim that C should be used for everything when most people use it in a way that just gives the impression it's the most hideous jumble of cack ever invented. But then, you're not a real programmer since you don't use dip-switches, a-la PDP-8 to enter your code, now do you?
Correct. Netscape 4.7 under Solaris doesn't work.
I think you'll find that the moths did change colour depending on their environment.
or doctoring drawings of embryos to try and "prove" evolution, or saying that a tooth is proof of monkey/men (Scopes Monkey Trial) when it was actually a pig tooth. No secular scientist are always ethical ;)
You see, that's the difference between science and creationism. Science is constantly self-correcting and identifying mistakes and proposing better and better hypotheses which turn into theories. It's the evidence that counts...
Creationism on the other hand, is nothing but a theologically bankrupt belief system who's adherents are so deceitful that they campaign against any *facts* which go against their dogma.
Creationists are entitled to their opinions, but not to their own facts.
Stuff and nonsense. Wyatt is a known fraudster and liar (just like the rest of you creationists). You're nothing but modern-day flat-earthers...