|
Author
|
Topic: Both or neither.
|
TruthDetector
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 76 of 134 (79286)
01-18-2004 6:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by JonF
01-17-2004 6:56 PM
|
|
Re: Why not?
I realize our country isn't perfect - it was just an idea!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by JonF, posted 01-17-2004 6:56 PM | | JonF has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 97 by JonF, posted 01-19-2004 8:36 AM | | TruthDetector has replied |
|
TruthDetector
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 77 of 134 (79287)
01-18-2004 6:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
01-17-2004 3:17 PM
|
|
Re: Why not?
I know - It's a great idea - but there's only enough time for 1 view to be taught so the kids don't have any other views. I see how it is.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2004 3:17 PM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4400 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: 11-15-2003
|
TruthDetector - is your detector permanently disfunctional?
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’. The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51. Comets disintegrate too quickly Not enough mud or salt on the sea floor The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast Many strata (mountainous area) are too tightly bent Helium in the wrong places I can go on, would you like me to?
I agree the winding problem has been known for a long time. But the spiral density wave theory has NOT been discarded or fallen apart. The M51 (Whirlpool galaxy) observations you refer to are talking about some discrepancies between theoretical models of the interaction of M51 and it's companion and observation. BUT these models assume M51 was not a spiral before the interaction. This may not be true and some of the latest observations are more in line if M51 was a spiral prior to it's current interaction. Either way this is not a refutation of the density wave theory. Comet argument - refuted so many times it's become a joke in the astrophysical community Mud/Salt - stupidity in the extreme - go back to high school! Magnetic field argument - perhaps the most egregious use of misquotes and data manipulation in the Creationist realm AND that is saying a lot. Why do ancient pottery samples have fields often weaker than today? Strata too tightly bent? - your kidding right? Helium in the wrong places? - don't know what you mean here BUT then you probably don't know what you mean either! Oh, please don't go on - I hate bearing witness to repeated idiocy. By the way, what are your outstanding qualifications in the scientific realm? What original thoughts and/or research have you done? Treading out a PRATT list does not count.
|
TruthDetector
Inactive Member
|
Re: TruthDetector - is your detector permanently disfunctional?
O, please, I hate people who call things idiocy when they know half(at least) were not only good theories but facts. Read and disprove ALL of the evidence on http://answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp then, and only then will you have anything.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 80 by Eta_Carinae, posted 01-18-2004 6:55 PM | | TruthDetector has replied | | | Message 96 by JonF, posted 01-19-2004 8:35 AM | | TruthDetector has not replied |
|
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4400 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: 11-15-2003
|
Re: TruthDetector - is your detector permanently disfunctional?
Why would I read AIG, a bunch of ex unpublished psuedoscientists talking about subjects outside their realm of expertise. Just about everything on AIG is a twist of the facts or outright fanciful speculation to buttress their untenable worldview. What good theories and facts are you referencing? [This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 01-18-2004]
|
TruthDetector
Inactive Member
|
[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-18-2004]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by Eta_Carinae, posted 01-18-2004 6:55 PM | | Eta_Carinae has not replied |
|
TruthDetector
Inactive Member
|
read it- then talk
|
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4400 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: 11-15-2003
|
I have read it - the entire site.
It's crap.
|
TruthDetector
Inactive Member
|
wow - I would like to know why so I can quite using it. Please disprove everything on the website.
|
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4400 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: 11-15-2003
|
Re:
I think if you spend enough time searching the old threads upon here you will find refutations to everything on their site. Could you please perhaps answer a couple of my questions earlier: Why does ancient pottery show the magnetic field was weaker in the past than now? What is your science background so you can make an informed decision upon the evidence?
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
Your turn
Truthdetector, what is done to keep debate moving is if you think a reference has something to say, especially a big site with lots of stuff then you pick the piece you like best. You offer a short discussion of it in your own words or why you like it. Then we offer our views and references. As far as AIG goes I'd be surprised if there is much, if any, of it that hasn't been discussed here. Do you want Eta or someone to pick the very weakest pieces? That makes it harder for you.
What goes? The Nose Knows! 
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Yes, if you think about plant seeming less 'evolved' as you move down fossil layers it would explain the global flood. After the flood, the plants would be in new environments, climates, ect, so they would have to adapt to the new surroundings. Wait a minute, now, you need to think about that. You can't have fossils after the flood in your model, because the flood is the source of strata and fossilization. So fossil plants can't be after the flood, they have to be there before the flood. And anyway, what you're describing - plants adapting to new environments by increasing complexity - is exactly evolution. So you're refuting evolution with a theory that relies on evolution? How does that make any sense?
How do you KNOW they have "been there way to long"? Did you click the link and read the thread? It's a little sketchy I know, because all I have is the abstract, but the long and the short of it is that given known amounts of solar radiation, the asteroids can only spin the way they do - in more or less the same direction - if they've been absorbing solar radiation for billions of years. If the solar system was only 6000 years old, the asteroids wouldn't have absorbed enough energy to normalize their spins - their spins would instead be totally random because of collisions.
Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. I think what you meant was "astronomers". Evolutionists do biology, not astronomy.
I can go on, would you like me to? Why bother? Not a one of those things you mentioned is true. Oh, I know AiG wants you to think they are, but they're lying to you, and we can demonstrate any time you care to open a new thread on the subject.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1492 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
It may be the same process but it is totally different - even in theory. How? If you admit that it's even the same process, how can it be different? If you agree that 1 + 1 = 2, then why doesn't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5? You're just making stuff up, now.
|
sfs
Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: 08-27-2003
|
quote:
If they're is a 48%, a 30%, a 2%, and a 20% it is still a majority.
No, that's a plurality.
|
sfs
Member (Idle past 2559 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: 08-27-2003
|
quote:
There is a legit arguement for all of those. ( young earth, global flood theory, ect) How do YOU think they are rubbish. probably becauuse you don't agree with them!
No, I don't think they're rubbish because I disagree with them -- there are lots of things that I disagree with that I can see rational reasons for accepting. They're rubbish not because they're theories that are wrong, but because they aren't even theories. There's no model that connects the creationist claims to the observed data. Nowhere in YEC is there a coherent, consistent theory that is used to explain a range of data. What creationists offer is at best a bunch of ad hoc explanations that frequently contradict one another; the rest of the time they don't offer anything at all -- they just ignore the data. That's true of the bulk of the data in my own field. Creationism simply has no explanantion for it, and ignores it. I find it impossible to accord much respect to "theories" that resolutely turn their back on reality.
|
™ Version 4.2