Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is Not Science
joz
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 270 (7591)
03-22-2002 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by KingPenguin
03-21-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
1)(KP)...See now youve lost credibility, dont say stuff like that. Having faith is having faith. its not like science where you can be lazy and go off of things you can observe.
2)(mark24)Time is relative & easily altered? LOL! Would you accept this argument if I presented it against a 6,000 year old earth evidence? Not a chance! Even if you CAN show that time can be altered under 1G (earths gravity) by 1,000,000%, which I sincerely doubt, the even larger numbers simply make your position even more untenable.
(KP)okay einsteins wrong your right.

1)Damm the secrets out boys we`re all going to have to get proper jobs as missionaries and stop lazing around all day doing science....
Science is LAZY?????
Try it sometime KP it may surprise you, its actually quite demanding....
2)Oooops your first attempt at being a lazy scienticic person and you screwed up already.... Time proceeds at exactly the rate we measure here on Earth under acceleration of 1G as per the equation:
(delta t1 - delta t2)/delta t = (Phi2 - Phi1)/c2.....
So according to Einstein it can`t be done thus your statement of "okay einsteins wrong your right" in response to Marks statement of "Even if you CAN show that time can be altered under 1G (earths gravity) by 1,000,000%, which I sincerely doubt" is quite interesting given that his position is based on Einsteins theory of general relativity...
Oh and P.S Mark your right to be skeptical if GR holds time can`t be made to go faster under a constant acceleration.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by KingPenguin, posted 03-21-2002 11:16 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 270 (7769)
03-25-2002 1:13 AM


Hey I think I`ve solved the problem of the lack of water for the flood.....
1)Uniformity is wrong...
2)At the time of the flood water was half as dense as it is today and everything else was twice as dense (except for the creationists because they wouldn`t have survived to breed if they were that dumb) thus there was effectively 4 times as much water...
All I gotta do now is kick back and wait for that Nobel prize...
Whats that Joe there are serious problems with my model....
Well I understand this subject as well as you do Joe...
What? You want me to actually do the math Joe?
Um I had a devastating agument all typed up but I backed out on my browser and lost it Joe....
Sound familiar?????
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-25-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by TrueCreation, posted 03-25-2002 4:12 AM joz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024