Bible is pretty weirdly intresting....

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: MichaelD
I am happy that you have discovered something new and exciting. The Bible is indeed a fascinating book. But that's all it is; a book. Written by humans. Interpreted (over and over and over) by humans.

I bet you're great at parties.

All he was doing was letting us know he found a copy of the bible on mp3 and it was neet, and the poor guy gets a lecture about the validity of the bible's origins. I sense some buried animosity in there...





only reason I bother responding to a post like this is because some people urk me when they push their propoganda viewpoints when it's uncalled for.

Ah, but what you DO NOT know, oh unwise one with foot in mouth and head up arse is that Chiwawa626 has posted several other threads in the past asking about "the bible" and "religion." He was already on "a quest for knowledge" of sorts. I had been following his threads. He's interested, I'm happy for him. I never looked down my nose at the guy/gal. I simply stated my opinion on things.

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: rahvinYou aren't argueing facts your spouting garbage. For example you mentioned the Second law of thermodynamics and simultaneously proved that you don't know anything about thermodynamics or reasonable scientific inquiry...

Show me, then. If I am wrong, show me. Correct me. Enlighten me. You obviously think I am wrong, so can you detail where my logic is flawed? What is flawed about my argument on the second law of thermodynamics? Everything tends toward disorder, AKA entropy. If you consider the solar system as a closed system (there's nothing else for a long way), the sun provides energy to the planets. The sun is burning itself out. Only here on Earth are things growing. If you do not organize matter, it will disorganize all by itself. What causes matter to arrange itself? Gravity? The Electro-weak force? I have studied engineering, math, chemistry, and physics since high school. Was I lied to?

What created the first cell? What organized its proteins into DNA? How did that DNA know to reproduce itself?

Also, your argument on evidence in "COLLEGE TEXTBOOKS" is like saying there aren't any books on Capitalism in the USSR's public library. Hitler said, "Let me control the textbooks, and I will control the state." And, "If you tell a lie loud enough, and long enough, and often enough, the people will believe it." Evolution is just that lie. If you actually read what is in your college textbooks, you would see that they have no idea now the first cell or first self-replicating life forms came about. Evolution theory (religion) is rife with speculation and phrases such as "must have happened," "could have occurred," and "probably." It's right there in your books. There is no science backing evolution, only speculation and faith that it happened that way.

You still haven't answered my questions posted previously. You are simply trying to discredit me as uneducated or not as smart and well-versed as yourself. "You aren't argueing facts your spouting garbage" doesn't say what's wrong with my arguments. It simply pegs you as an poor debator.

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5
Where is the "scientific" evidence that God does not exist? Where has evolution been proven? Louis Pasteur proved that life must come from living matter. So how can life come from a dead rock billions of years ago all by itself?

If you look at the complexity of cellular structures, you could not deduce that they happen by chance. How does a bacterium or other single-celled organism move? It has electric motors built at the molecular level. If you see an electric motor at our scale, you would assume it was designed, and did not happen by chance. If you see this same electric motor shrunk down so small that 8 million can fit in the cross section of a human hair, you automatically assume it came by chance? Please open your eyes and look at it from a scientific perspective.

DNA is the most complex molecule in known the universe. It is made from 20 different proteins, all in the right-handed configuration. How did that happen? By chance? The DNA molecule has right-handed proteins because it is used to create left-handed copies of itself--the proteins which actually make up a cell. And this happens by chance? Since you throw in "billlions of years", this is all magically supposed to occur on its own? Why do we have distributed computing projects that take millions of hours of CPU time to simply figure out how a protein molecule folds (Folding @home) so it can perform its functions? Doesn't this imply extreme complexity and possibly was designed by something with intelligence we can't comprehend? Why have we only mapped 3% of the human genetic code? Have we actually been able to do anything with that data, yet?

What about the second law of thermodynamics, AKA The Law of Entropy? Everything tends toward disorder. If you leave something alone, it will decay, not improve. Adding energy requires a mechanism to utilize that energy. If you bombard the Earth with sunlight, the only molecule that works is chlorophyll, and not just chlorophyll by itself. It must be a plant cell with all the correct proteins in place. How did that first organism figure out how to reproduce itself? If it took a few million years, don't you think it waould have been dead long before it figured it out?

Also, evolutionists say that beneficial mutations will make the species better, thus allowing them to be the fittest. Why haven't we been able to produce any beneficial genetic mutations? Why do all mutation experiments produce physically defective offspring?

Also, I forgot to mention that the Earth's rotation is slowing down 1 second every 18 months (approximately). If you only go back 100,000 years, that shortens the day by 66,700 seconds. There are only 86,400 seconds in one day.

Again, please argue on the known facts. Science cannot and has not disproved the Bible or the existence of God. All I'm asking of you is to consider the scientific data.

until you provide RELIABLE sources to where you find your information, you have no argument.

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
until you provide RELIABLE sources to where you find your information, you have to argument.

Pick up any book on cellular biology, and read about DNA, cellular structures, proteins, and how they work.

Pick up any book on physics and read about the second law of thermodynamics. Hell, read about the first law of thermodynamics. Then read in your textbooks where they say all the matter in the universe was concentrated into an infinitessimal region, even smaller than a proton (which is scientifically impossible), no scratch that, there was NO MATTER. Then the Big Bang came along and created all the matter we see today. 1st Law of Thermo: Matter or Energy cannot be created or destroyed. How can they say all the matter came from nothing?

Read the newspaper archives to find out how often we have to add leap seconds (1 second every 18 months approximately). Use a calculator, multiply 24 x 60 x 60 to find out the number of seconds in a day (hint: 86,400). Take 18 months, divide by 12 to get years (1.5), divide that into 100,000 (years) to get 66,667 seconds lost in 100,000 years.

What else?

 

[Red Dawn]

Greek <Mythology is interesting too. Fortunately all the Whackos who thought that crap was real are long gone (Unlike JamesM3M5)

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
until you provide RELIABLE sources to where you find your information, you have to argument.

Pick up any book on cellular biology, and read about DNA, cellular structures, proteins, and how they work.

Pick up any book on physics and read about the second law of thermodynamics. Hell, read about the first law of thermodynamics. Then read in your textbooks where they say all the matter in the universe was concentrated into an infinitessimal region, even smaller than a proton (which is scientifically impossible), no scratch that, there was NO MATTER. Then the Big Bang came along and created all the matter we see today. 1st Law of Thermo: Matter or Energy cannot be created or destroyed. How can they say all the matter came from nothing?

Read the newspaper archives to find out how often we have to add leap seconds (1 second every 18 months approximately). Use a calculator, multiply 24 x 60 x 60 to find out the number of seconds in a day (hint: 86,400). Take 18 months, divide by 12 to get years (1.5), divide that into 100,000 (years) to get 66,667 seconds lost in 100,000 years.

What else?

I know how cellular biology and dna and all that works. I also know that scientists have produced amino acids in a dish in a lab with ease, read up on your technical journals for more information on that.

Physics books I'm pretty good here. Matter or Energy cannot be created or destoryed? *laff* what do you call an atomic bomb? Matter is being destoryed and Energy is being created. I think you are misunderstanding science. Oh and as for packing stuff into the size smaller than a proton? Give me the name of the scientist who said that. Protons Neutrons, Muons, electrons and all the trons are made up of a combination of up and down quarks that move really fast and don't take up much space, those quarks are intern made up of strings that vibrate in certain patterns. I suggest you open an advanced physics book and read up on string theory, relitivity, and quantum mechanics.

Leap seconds? I've never heard of this, and it sounds like that shouldn't be to hard to find on the net, point me to a link that is reliable that backs what you are saying. By reliable, I mean a large organization, not www.drcrap.com

Did I miss anything?

 

[Bobomatic]

I was skimming through this thread and I saw the word banana a couple of times, but im not sure what it was refering to. It still made me want a banana. Im gonna go get a banana.

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Greek <Mythology is interesting too. Fortunately all the Whackos who thought that crap was real are long gone (Unlike JamesM3M5)

Now that's a constructive argument. You're right. Atheism is where it's at! I was so wrong all the time, and I must thank you for letting me know of my errant ways.

Why don't you try bringing up some evidence that life formed on its own and was not created by an outside source? Leave the personal attacks aside, unless you choose to show everyone how closed-minded you are. If you have evidence that life created itself or even that man has created a living organism from something nonliving, then show me. I am open to all evidence. It is you who chooses not to look at the evidence of creation and the flood.

Did you know that there are over 250 legends of a world-wide flood that destroyed everything except one family with 3 sons and their wives (Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and wives)? China, Babylon, Pacific Islanders, and even the Aboriginees of Australia all have their version, which is very similar to the story in Genesis. No one told you that in Ancient History class, did they?

 

[Cattlegod]

I couldn't debunk your leap second argument because I didn't know about it, but the US navy does, and they did debunk your argument.

"Confusion sometimes arises over the misconception that the regular insertion of leap seconds every few years indicates that the Earth should stop rotating within a few millennia. The confusion arises because some mistake leap seconds as a measure of the rate at which the Earth is slowing. "

Source

You keep posting numbers and facts yet never post any sources. Let me give you an example at what you sound like.

You: "Pigs can fly"
ATOT: "No they can't"
You: "Yes they can, if you don't believe me, read a book."

 

[Red Dawn]

Why don't you try bringing up some evidence that life formed on its own and was not created by an outside source?

Because I don't know how it was created and neither do you. Unlike you and those like you I create Myths for those answers

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Leap seconds? I've never heard of this, and it sounds like that shouldn't be to hard to find on the net, point me to a link that is reliable that backs what you are saying. By reliable, I mean a large organization, not www.drcrap.com

This is the first link provided by google.com:

tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html

Here's a quote:
"The Earth is constantly undergoing a deceleration caused by the braking action of the tides. Through the use of ancient observations of eclipses, it is possible to determine the average deceleration of the Earth to be roughly 1.4 milliseconds per day per century. This deceleration causes the Earth's rotational time to slow with respect to the atomic clock time. Thus, the definition of the ephemeris second embodied in Newcomb's motion of the Sun was implicitly equal to the average mean solar second over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Modern studies have indicated that the epoch at which the mean solar day was exactly 86,400 SI seconds was approximately 1820. This is also the approximate mean epoch of the observations analyzed by Newcomb, ranging in date from 1750 to 1892, that resulted in the definition of the mean solar day on the scale of Ephemeris Time. Before then, the mean solar day was shorter than 86,400 seconds and since then it has been longer than 86,400 seconds.

This scenario is analogous to that encountered with the leap second. The difference is that instead of setting the clock that is running slow, we choose to set the clock that is keeping a uniform, precise time. The reason for this is that we can change the time on an atomic clock, while it is not possible to alter the Earth's rotational speed to match the atomic clocks! Currently the Earth runs slow at roughly 2 milliseconds per day. After 500 days, the difference between the Earth rotation time and the atomic time would be 1 second. Instead of allowing this to happen, a leap second is inserted to bring the two times closer together."

So basically, yes, the Earth's rotation is slowing due to tidal braking. If you read the whole article, is does state that the Earth will probably not stop rotating in a few thousand or million years. We do have to "reset" the atomic clock to agree with the Earth's rotation. Over the last 27 years, we have added 22 seconds total, and we have not removed any seconds, yet. If the Earth is slowing down and has been observed to be slowing down to the best of our knowledge, why would it speed up in the future? What kind of force would it require to accelerate the Earth by 1.4s/day/century?

As for the First Law of Thermodynamics, matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed. Your example was one of converting matter into energy, right? If the atomic bomb/nuclear fission disproved the first law, why do we still study it? I will have to find the passages that state the universe came from quite literally "nothing" according to the author.

But if the Big Bang were true, where did the matter come from? Why did it explode in the first place?

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Why don't you try bringing up some evidence that life formed on its own and was not created by an outside source?

Because I don't know how it was created and neither do you. Unlike you and those like you I create Myths for those answers

Actually, I do. The Bible states "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...." It said God created man, all the plants, animals, the atmosphere, the planets, and all the stars. This book is not only informative, but factual to the best of our knowledge, including scientific knowledge. I will believe the Bible until it is proven wrong. Even though you may think I'm a religious nut, crazy, whacko, whatever, that's your opinion. Who is to say that I'm not crazy, and that book is really true after all? The Dead Sea Scrolls match the original Hebrew text exactly, don't they?

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5
There is also overwhelming evidence that the Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

The moon is moving away at a rate of 4 inches per year. 1.5 billion years ago, it would be touching the Earth's surface. 100 million years ago, the tides would have been enormous, drowning everything on Earth twice daily.

The oceans are getting saltier. If they were fresh water at the beginning, they only have enough salt in them to be a few thousand years old.

The oldest living organism is a pine tree in Southern CA. It is 4300 years old.

The largest stalactite and stalagmite formations can easily be reproduced in less than 5000 years. There are 50" long stalactites under the Lincoln Memorial, built in 1922.

The Sahara Desert is expanding. It is has been found to be less than 4300 years old.

There is only enough sediment in the ocean floors to indicate a few thousand years of erosion.

The Earth's magnetic field is decaying. It cannot be more than 25,000 years old. The Earth's magnetic field is in its crust, not in the molten center. The magnetic field cannot reverse.

The planets are cooling down. Even if they only lost 0.001 K per year, that means they would have been 1 million Kelvin hotter 1 billion years ago.

say for the sake of arguement i agree that the earth is say 5k years old. so god magically said pow and in a couple days the earth was there! then he made two people and they dissed him by eating an apple. and for that he cursed them to a life of suffering, being that he is an all loving and knowing god. what a sadistic bastard eh? oh yea add in some natural disasters to kill off innocents, wonderful! not a god worth worshiping by any standard.

 

[Cattlegod]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
Leap seconds? I've never heard of this, and it sounds like that shouldn't be to hard to find on the net, point me to a link that is reliable that backs what you are saying. By reliable, I mean a large organization, not www.drcrap.com

This is the first link provided by google.com:

tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html

Here's a quote:
"The Earth is constantly undergoing a deceleration caused by the braking action of the tides. Through the use of ancient observations of eclipses, it is possible to determine the average deceleration of the Earth to be roughly 1.4 milliseconds per day per century. This deceleration causes the Earth's rotational time to slow with respect to the atomic clock time. Thus, the definition of the ephemeris second embodied in Newcomb's motion of the Sun was implicitly equal to the average mean solar second over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Modern studies have indicated that the epoch at which the mean solar day was exactly 86,400 SI seconds was approximately 1820. This is also the approximate mean epoch of the observations analyzed by Newcomb, ranging in date from 1750 to 1892, that resulted in the definition of the mean solar day on the scale of Ephemeris Time. Before then, the mean solar day was shorter than 86,400 seconds and since then it has been longer than 86,400 seconds.

This scenario is analogous to that encountered with the leap second. The difference is that instead of setting the clock that is running slow, we choose to set the clock that is keeping a uniform, precise time. The reason for this is that we can change the time on an atomic clock, while it is not possible to alter the Earth's rotational speed to match the atomic clocks! Currently the Earth runs slow at roughly 2 milliseconds per day. After 500 days, the difference between the Earth rotation time and the atomic time would be 1 second. Instead of allowing this to happen, a leap second is inserted to bring the two times closer together."

So basically, yes, the Earth's rotation is slowing due to tidal braking. If you read the whole article, is does state that the Earth will probably not stop rotating in a few thousand or million years. We do have to "reset" the atomic clock to agree with the Earth's rotation. Over the last 27 years, we have added 22 seconds total, and we have not removed any seconds, yet. If the Earth is slowing down and has been observed to be slowing down to the best of our knowledge, why would it speed up in the future? What kind of force would it require to accelerate the Earth by 1.4s/day/century?

As for the First Law of Thermodynamics, matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed. Your example was one of converting matter into energy, right? If the atomic bomb/nuclear fission disproved the first law, why do we still study it? I will have to find the passages that state the universe came from quite literally "nothing" according to the author.

But if the Big Bang were true, where did the matter come from? Why did it explode in the first place?

You are incapable of discussing this issue effectively.

I read your article, and it is virtually the same as the one I posted and look at what I found in your article.

"Confusion sometimes arises over the misconception that the regular insertion of leap seconds every few years indicates that the Earth should stop rotating within a few millennia. The confusion arises because some mistake leap seconds for a measure of the rate at which the Earth is slowing."

Do you even know what tidal braking is? You have to learn how to understand issues fully before you make posts. Tidal braking is the shifting of the water in the ocean in one direction, once it is done shifting in that direction it will return back like a pendulum leading to tidal acceleration.

When the Earth rotates it undergoes NO friction, this means that there is no reason why it will slow down in the long run.

"What kind of force would it require to accelerate the Earth by 1.4s/day/century?"

EDIT: and if you do the math right, it turns out to be .14s/day/century.

An equal and opposite force that caused it to decelerate, just as I explained above.


As far as thermodynamics goes, you need to read up on it more. As I said above, you go into an argument without fully understanding all issues, the law does not say energy and matter cannot be destoryed or created but that if one is destroyed, the other must be created.


The big bang question. This requires a deep understanding of time, most people are incapable of understanding this issue. People see time as a line, it is not. It is just another observable property of the universe. There was nothing before the beginning, time started at the big bang so it was not possible for anything to be there before it -- there was not time, nothing was there, not even empty space. I assume you do not know much about relitivity and quanta, so going any further in this issue would be futile.

 

[rahvin]

Show me, then. If I am wrong, show me. Correct me. Enlighten me.

Pay me and I'll do it. Otherwise the obligation is on you to prove each and every single allegation you wish you make.

What is flawed about my argument on the second law of thermodynamics?

First off you don't even know what the second law says. Second you don't know what assumptions it makes and third you don't even understand the concept. Easy isn't it, you are clueless as I said before. You want to prove that life violates the second law of thermo state the second law of thermo (the real one) and all the assumptions that law makes then go on to show that each assumption applies in your case. After that I will show you how you screwed up because you don't actually understand what the second law is discussing.

Evolution is just that lie. If you actually read what is in your college textbooks, you would see that they have no idea now the first cell or first self-replicating life forms came about.

Evolution isn't concered with abiogenesis, they are different theories and evolution is exclusive of how life started. If YOU had actually read college text books on biology you would understand that point. See much like thermo you don't have a clue what the science is that backs the idea and so you attack mindlessly things you feel are confrontational to your own beliefs.

Your attacks on science to validate your own religion are the equivalent of us discussing god and you walking out and shooting the neighbors dog. It's pointless and only serves to show YOUR ignorance.

As for the First Law of Thermodynamics, matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed. Your example was one of converting matter into energy, right? If the atomic bomb/nuclear fission disproved the first law, why do we still study it? I will have to find the passages that state the universe came from quite literally "nothing" according to the author.

Energy = Mass more or less. Education is a good idea if you want to actually debate scientific points.

 

[Nefrodite]

and please stop bringing up the 2nd law of thermodynamics. creationists love bringing up the same arguements over and over.


Creationist claims:


The second law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. The second law will not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. To do so would violate the universal tendency of matter to decay or disintegrate.

Creationists recognize that in many cases order does spontaneously arise from disorder: seeds grow into trees, eggs develop into chicks, crystalline salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapor molecules. In cases like these, creationists have assigned an attribute that there must be a programmed energy conversion mechanism to direct the application of the energy needed to bring about the change.

This energy conversion mechanism is postulated to "overcome" the second law, thus allowing order to spontaneously arise from disorder.

Creationists believe that changes requiring human thought and effort, such as constructing a building, manufacturing an airplane, making a bed, writing a book, etc. are covered by the science of thermodynamics. Creationists believe that a wall will not build itself simply because to do so would violate the laws of thermodynamics. In building the wall, the stonemason overcomes the laws of thermodynamics!

In the case of organic change, like seeds growing into trees and chicks developing from eggs, creationists believe that the directed energy conversion mechanism that overcomes the laws of thermodynamics comes from God.
Comments on the above five claims:


The degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR chapter states flatly that entropy can never decrease; this is in direct conflict with the most fundamental law of thermodynamics that entropy equals heat flow divided by absolute temperature.

There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics.

The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations of thermodynamics. There is no provision in thermodynamics for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics does not deal with situations requiring human thought and effort in order to create order from disorder. Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics of thermodynamics. If it can't be expressed mathematically, it isn't thermodynamics!
Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors. Metaphors may or may not serve to illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.


more on entropy if you can be bothered with reading. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
probability
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html


as for your arguement for irreducible complexity, we are finding out more and more on how complex structures can be created step by step. just because we don't know how something works yet doesn't mean it cannot exist. the arguement for irreducible complexity basically comes down to ignorance = magic.


you know, i can make a pretty good claim that the moon landing was a fake list a plethora of points and ask you to waste your time answering each

 

[DougK62]

Posts like this are what give creationists a bad rap. I'm all for evolution and an "old earth", but I certainly don't look down on the creationists....until one posts bunk like this.

JamesM3M5 - do you have any idea what you're talking about? Or are you just spitting out things you read in passing at a webpage?

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5
The oceans are getting saltier. If they were fresh water at the beginning, they only have enough salt in them to be a few thousand years old.

So it's just INCONCEIVABLE that salt can be removed from water?

The oldest living organism is a pine tree in Southern CA. It is 4300 years old.

And this helps your point how? You do realize that living organisms have a lifespan and are prone to this thing we call "dying", right? What about dead trees? It's been shown on many occassions that by comparing overlapping tree rings of dead and living trees from the same area that a group of trees can date back more than 10,000 years. A patch of shrubry in the Mojave comes to mind - it's been shown to be more than 11,000 years old.

The largest stalactite and stalagmite formations can easily be reproduced in less than 5000 years. There are 50" long stalactites under the Lincoln Memorial, built in 1922.

Since when is a stalagmite an indication of how old the earth is?

The Sahara Desert is expanding. It is has been found to be less than 4300 years old.

It's common knowledge that the Sahara desert is young and is expanding. How does this help your point? Just because it's a large landform it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the history of the earth. Landforms are constantly changing. I have a creek in my backyard that is supposedly only a few hundred years old. I guess that makes the earth only a few hundred years old too!

There is only enough sediment in the ocean floors to indicate a few thousand years of erosion.

Any evidence? My college textbook says that millions of years worth of sediment have been found on the ocean floor.

The Earth's magnetic field is decaying. It cannot be more than 25,000 years old. The Earth's magnetic field is in its crust, not in the molten center. The magnetic field cannot reverse.

Modern science has proved that earth's magnetic field does reverse and has several times in the past.

The planets are cooling down. Even if they only lost 0.001 K per year, that means they would have been 1 million Kelvin hotter 1 billion years ago.

Who says that planets are cooling consistently?



I did a paper on this in college a couple of years ago. What it basically boiled down to was that most of the creationist arguments are based on very old publications and ideas. Most modern science proves them to be bunk.

JamesM3M5 - I'm not trying to start a fight Please comment on what I've said. Can you refute any of it with facts? If you doubt any of my claims It won't be hard for me to find a reliable source to back me up.

 

[JamesM3M5]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
...I also know that scientists have produced amino acids in a dish in a lab with ease, read up on your technical journals for more information on that...

Actually, if you're referring to the "Urey experiment," that experiment only produced amino acids from an atmoshpere devoid of oxygen (methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen). He assumed that the Earth didn't have oxygen in its atmosphere. No one knows what the atmosphere was like, but they deliberately removed oxygen because it would oxidize anything made in that system. Also, no O2 means that there's no ozone layer, either. UV light destroys ammonia. So how could the atmosphere have ammonia but no O2 and hence no O3 for an ozone layer to block destructive UV light? Then they used a trap to funnel off the "red goo" and found it to be "rich in amino acids". Ah, but there's a catch! It was 85% tar, 13% carboxcylic acid, both of which are poisonous to life. Only 2% of it was amino acids, and they were both left and right hand isomers. And he only made 2 amino acids. You can't write English with only 2 or 3 letters, can you? Even the most simple proteins are comprised of 70-100 amino acids. Can you write more than 5 or 10 words with only 2 letters? Also, amino acids unbond in water faster than they bond, so the oceans would have been counter-productive to producing amino acids, proteins, and DNA simply by lightning striking the atmosphere.

The article on the bacterial flagella is in Nature (not a creationist magazine), don't know the year, "Very fast flagellar rotation". It is actually a molecular-sized motor. If you saw it in our scale, you would automatically assume it was manufactured by an intelligent designer. Search for it on google.com under "very fast flagellar rotation".

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. There are billions of structures just like this electric motor that we have never seen.

 

[Cattlegod]

James, pack up your bags and go home before you lose what respect people still have for you. You are a young buck in your post count and a new member, I would advise against starting out as the forum nutjob.

However, you can redeem most respect you have lost if you say "You are correct, I was wrong on many of my points."

 

[Red Dawn]

Actually, I do. The Bible states "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth...." It said God created man, all the plants, animals, the atmosphere, the planets, and all the stars. This book is not only informative, but factual to the best of our knowledge, including scientific knowledge

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: JamesM3M5

Originally posted by: rahvinYou aren't argueing facts your spouting garbage. For example you mentioned the Second law of thermodynamics and simultaneously proved that you don't know anything about thermodynamics or reasonable scientific inquiry...

What is flawed about my argument on the second law of thermodynamics? Everything tends toward disorder, AKA entropy. If you consider the solar system as a closed system (there's nothing else for a long way), the sun provides energy to the planets. The sun is burning itself out.

How about everything?

Its very very convinient to consider the solar system as a closed system, but why not consider the UNIVERSE instead? Einstein's theory of relativity implies that the universe started from a single point some time in the past. it has been confirmed by Hubble and by cosmic background radiation. Evidence of singularities (black holes) has also been found.

Knowing that, imagine the universe moments after the big bang. The universe at that time was in a state of HIGH ORDER. It was smooth and regular with only minor fluctuations. Look at the universe today, it is in a state of disorderd. you see a galaxy there, a huge emply space, another galaxy here etc. When you consider the universe as a whole, it is in a higher state of disorder now that it was in the past. While the universe is expanding, the second law will hold true. Once (or if) it starts contracting, then the second law will not hold true, as the universe will be moving to a state of higher order.

The following idea is one I read a few days ago in "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. His arguments are logical and supported by evidence. Your arguments? Well, like everything else that you have posted here, they're nothing but a load of crap. Drivel poorly disguised as 'science'. I should not have even bothered posting the above, but oh well.

Go troll somewhere else please.

 

[Jfur]

there are too many adult themes in the Bible for a young man of your age -- make sure you have parental consent

 

[Gaard]

I believe dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years ago.

 

[rubix]

most fantasy stories are. i like willow, legend, and lord of the rings myself.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: rubix
most fantasy stories are. i like willow, legend, and lord of the rings myself.

I'm partial to The Silmarillion myself. Its similar to the bible, but unlike it, its good fantasy