Creationists

[HUGGY]

what you would you be blathering about?
"daws is just"- ur I'll take that as a complement ,
your answer proves you have a comp problem and the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.

No need to defend your man crush. Hollie can go either way you want. Need a little Rugged Touch do you?

Wow. Look where this thread has gone. No opposer can actually put up a logical rebuttal so as the old saying goes... if you can't join 'em beat 'em.

My creepy stalkers behavior is typical for stalkers whose every advance has been refused. He's an emotional basketcase who has only to lash out in frustration and anger. When stalkers are refused and get angry is when their a danger to themselves and others.

Didn't you know that the female mind secretes a chemical that renders the stalkers advances impotent?

 

[Hollie]

Thanks but no one asked for your irrelevant answers that weren't part of the original question. Hollie wanted to know how logic is used to delineate the supernatural world.

Actually, Hollie was commenting that your silly suggestion toward using logic to delineate a supernatural world was as pointless as your other claims to supermagicalism.

Provide the link to mine and YWC Harun Yahya cut and pastes liar or beat it.

Can't find the link? It's readily accessible. I was curious to see if the other creationist would step up to the plate.

Does hey-Zeus approve of your lies and deceit?

 

[daws101]

Huh?

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

Wow, all those years in theatre and you still don't grasp Shakespeare??? You really did ride the shortbus didn't you? I know exactly the context it was used in. NP was going overboard trying to say he wasn't attacking me because he disagrees with me when that is exactly what he was doing.

it's you who doesn't grasp Shakespeare and your "use" is /was so far out of context it ,like you is laugable,
Np like everyone else you claim (in your paranoid state) is attacking you,is in reality giving you some much need payback for your hubris and dumbfuckery.
you seem to think it's OK for you to character assassinate anyone and everyone but you cry like a bitch when you get some.
put your big boy pants on...

 

[daws101]

You always have trouble staying on topic. No need to come to your man love's defense here.

your delusion is acting up, the point of this post is your imagined authority to question another poster's credibility.. so it's spot on topic.
BTW you can end the I'm following the rules farce.

If someone makes outright lies about me personally in a post, that calls their credibility into question. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

since you lie all the time your faux issue with credibility is ironic.

 

[newpolitics]

Wow!! Ignorant people shouting ignorance to others all over the place. I doubt you, Hollie or Huggy have any comprehension of the theory of relativity.

What does relativity have to with this discussion? Absolutely nothing. Stop pea-cocking for no reason. This isn't a dating website.

We were discussing the speed of light in the universe, right? For those of you who missed it...

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." Amos Bronson Alcott

You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.

For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.

Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Haha. Well said, sir

 

[Hollie]

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



What a maroon!

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

Oh the old closed system stupid atheist argument. So where did all the massive chaos go to balance out all the order on earth. Did it leave on a spaceship?

Oh my, not the profoundly stupid, ICR nonsense. Fundies really should understand that real science will castrate the really, really absurd creationist arguments that rely on profound stupidity to be believed.



A Visit to the ICR: Part 8

Miscellany and Conclusions
A few concepts from the Institute for Creation Research's Museum of Creation and Earth History did not fit neatly into any previous category, but deserve some analysis.

This is the ICR's treatment of the First Law of Thermodynamics:
The law of conservation of energy (also known as the first law of thermodynamics) is the best-proved and most universal law of science. It states that energy (capacity to do work) can change forms, but can be neither created nor destroyed. Energy includes everything in the physical universe (even matter); therefore nothing is being created. This reflects the completion of God's work of creating and making all things (Gen 2:1-3) and refutes the evolutionary concept of ongoing 'creation'.

In another misguided appeal to authority (this time, interestingly, an appeal to scientific law), the ICR distorts the First Law to convince its largely scientifically illiterate patrons that even science precludes evolution. It is interesting to me that the ICR chooses to use science in this manner. Is it possible that even the ICR realizes that the public, though distrustful and even perhaps fearful of science, realizes that it has a credibility beyond that of the Bible?

The concept of "ongoing creation" (or "continuous creation" or possibly even "steady-state-theory") may refer to the now-defunct hypothesis proposed in the 1950's by astronomer Fred Hoyle: the universe was expanding, and "as the space between the galaxies stretched, new galaxies were being continuously created, out of nothing at all, to fill in the gaps" (Gribbin 1993: x). This hypothesis was disproved not by Genesis 2, but by scientists of the 1960's who accrued evidence supporting an alternate cosmology commonly known as The Big Bang (which the ICR doesn't like any better than "continuous creation").

"Ongoing creation" was never a concept related to biological evolution. Possibly what the ICR is trying to get at here is the theory that species don't evolve; they assert that there is no ongoing creation of species. If so, why not just say it? The First Law only refers to heat flow. Energy being converted to other forms is in no way inconsistent with evolution (or even special creation, for that matter). It's not really germane at all.

Another topic that I found fascinating was the concept of apparent age, or "functional maturity" -- the old "Omphalos" argument. This was even more interesting because I had just sat through a lecture by ICR geologist Steve Austin which dealt with, in part, attempts to date rocks. (Why does the ICR bother to do it at all if they know that the rocks just "look old"?).

Creation of a functionally mature creation (sometimes called "apparent age") necessarily implies that the objects and living systems exhibit the appearance of a prior history or process involved in their formation. Fruit trees were mature, fruit-bearing trees, not seeds; Adam was a full-grown man; the land had a fertile topsoil covering to it; the rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements, et cetera. If one denies the true revealed history of the world, and attempts to date the object or the world, this functional maturity could be mistaken for age. (Emphasis added)

There is no logical reason why a god would impart "the appearance of age" into a creation, unless that god's purpose was to deceive the "created" (and that says a lot about the god). We would be completely comfortable emotionally if all dates did converge on 6-10,000 years, and if this were consistent with scientific data. There is no reason why 'rocks would possess a variety of isotopes and elements'; our particular isotope mix is simply whatever was there when the solar system began to coalesce. I invoke the Goldilocks principle here -- if it hadn't been "just right", or at least "OK", we wouldn't be here arguing about this on the internet. Note the emphasis on "true revealed history" as the only accurate dating method -- and make sure it is the revealed history as given to fundamentalist Christians and the ICR, not that of Hindus, Buddhists, or Australian Aborigines. This dependence upon revealed history spills over into the age of the earth debate:

If the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are taken literally, the Creation must have been relatively recent, about 6000 to 10,000 years ago. There are no firmly documented historical accounts older than this. Older ages must be derived from some physical process (eg., radioactive decay), and based on at least three untestable and unreasonable assumptions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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!

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

Daws prove space is not a closed system Daws have you been able to see beyond the stars to know it's infinite ?

You guys are so ignorant of the facts you can't see when you contradict yourself.

 

[Hollie]

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



What a maroon!

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

Daws prove space is not a closed system Daws have you been able to see beyond the stars to know it's infinite ?
If time had a beginning which it is that means you live in a closed system.

You guys are so ignorant of the facts you can't see when you contradict yourself.

"Quote-mining" the nonsense belching out of the ICR only further dismantles your already refuted claims.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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!

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

Types of Systems

 

[Youwerecreated]

These yahoo's get much of their "information" from the people that run The Discovery Institute based in Seattle. I had the fortune to meet these morons in person on a christian related project I was working on about a dozen years ago.

Discovery Institute - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

They are totally whackadoodle. I don't think they really believe in their own bullshit themselves.. I think they are just taking adavantage of some really stupid people so they can make money.

I notice you people when hit with questions you have no answer for you hide behind your rhetoric and pretend the one that calls you out are ignorant and stupid

 

[Youwerecreated]

what's really funny is ywc besides being totally wrong about the first law of thermodynamics the earth and space are not a closed system.
all his so called info is from creationist sites making them invaild.

Daws prove space is not a closed system Daws have you been able to see beyond the stars to know it's infinite ?
If time had a beginning which it is that means you live in a closed system.

You guys are so ignorant of the facts you can't see when you contradict yourself.

"Quote-mining" the nonsense belching out of the ICR only further dismantles your already refuted claims.

Like i said before,address my questions or I will ignore you like I will ignore the other fool that speaks out his butt.

 

[PretentiousGuy]

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 ?

The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.

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"

Kenneth Feder is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.

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

This is the silly conclusion one might come to when one gets their information about cosmology from an anthropology and archaeology text book.

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

Lawrence Krauss (a physicist) has some ideas on this matter, you could read A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing...

Or you could ask a history professor.

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."

Which scientists and why?

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 !

Firstly, what predictions.

Secondly, you are familiar with the nebular theory right? No shit! There were collisions?

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.

Dark energy has been observed with the expansion of the universe.. The nature of dark matter makes it a bit more difficult due to the nature of it.

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.

Doesn't follow YWC you provided other hypotheses you did disprove the big bang as a source. Did you get this argument from an anthropology text book as well

Now getting to your comment.

Took you long enough.

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.

Im sorry Im going to have to ask you to elaborate on your highly technical and descriptive word "smooth". What do you mean by that? Im sorry to ask but I haven't read to many anthropology text yet so I'm kind of out of my depth here.

 

[HUGGY]

These yahoo's get much of their "information" from the people that run The Discovery Institute based in Seattle. I had the fortune to meet these morons in person on a christian related project I was working on about a dozen years ago.

Discovery Institute - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

They are totally whackadoodle. I don't think they really believe in their own bullshit themselves.. I think they are just taking adavantage of some really stupid people so they can make money.

I notice you people when hit with questions you have no answer for you hide behind your rhetoric and pretend the one that calls you out are ignorant and stupid

What does that statement calling my post "rhetoric" have to do with me having visited and gotten to know the scam artists you morons follow blindly. Your post is stupid has nothing to do with anything I provided about The Discovery Institute.

You morons just lap up their propaganga like mothers milk with no question..wheras I have actually been at meetings with the brothers that run the Discovery Institute. AKA I know what I am talking about and you duped creationist idiots not so much.

 

[Hollie]

Daws prove space is not a closed system Daws have you been able to see beyond the stars to know it's infinite ?
If time had a beginning which it is that means you live in a closed system.

You guys are so ignorant of the facts you can't see when you contradict yourself.

"Quote-mining" the nonsense belching out of the ICR only further dismantles your already refuted claims.

Like i said before,address my questions or I will ignore you like I will ignore the other fool that speaks out his butt.

Your "question" derives from nonsensical creationist attempts to mold answers to fit a predefined conclusion. Your really silly posts in connection with thermodynamics are typical, boilerplate creationist silliness that has been refuted and discarded as junk science.

You've been spoken to repeatedly about the careless and assinine cut and pasting you dump in this thread and your latest disaster (the thermo nonsense), may be your most careless and assisnie yet.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.

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"

Kenneth Feder is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.



This is the silly conclusion one might come to when one gets their information about cosmology from an anthropology and archaeology text book.


Lawrence Krauss (a physicist) has some ideas on this matter, you could read A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing...

Or you could ask a history professor.



Which scientists and why?



Firstly, what predictions.

Secondly, you are familiar with the nebular theory right? No shit! There were collisions?


Dark energy has been observed with the expansion of the universe.. The nature of dark matter makes it a bit more difficult due to the nature of it.


Doesn't follow YWC you provided other hypotheses you did disprove the big bang as a source. Did you get this argument from an anthropology text book as well

Now getting to your comment.

Took you long enough.

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.

Im sorry Im going to have to ask you to elaborate on your highly technical and descriptive word "smooth". What do you mean by that? Im sorry to ask but I haven't read to many anthropology text yet so I'm kind of out of my depth here.

Ask the author that was quoted,if you didn't notice scietists were quoted

By all means then you should have an answer to where energy came from and where the matter came from.

Quit avoiding the questions and provide some hard data. Don't be reduced to huggy,Daws,and the hallow master.

 

[Youwerecreated]

These yahoo's get much of their "information" from the people that run The Discovery Institute based in Seattle. I had the fortune to meet these morons in person on a christian related project I was working on about a dozen years ago.

Discovery Institute - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

They are totally whackadoodle. I don't think they really believe in their own bullshit themselves.. I think they are just taking adavantage of some really stupid people so they can make money.

I notice you people when hit with questions you have no answer for you hide behind your rhetoric and pretend the one that calls you out are ignorant and stupid

What does that statement calling my post "rhetoric" have to do with me having visited and gotten to know the scam artists you morons follow blindly. Your post is stupid has nothing to do with anything I provided about The Discovery Institute.

You morons just lap up their propaganga like mothers milk with no question..wheras I have actually been at meetings with the brothers that run the Discovery Institute. AKA I know what I am talking about and you duped creationist idiots not so much.

Sir, I was educated at the University of Arizona you are just to ignorant to believe scientists don't all agree on the theories that you slurp up as fact.

 

[Hollie]

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 ?

The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.



Kenneth Feder is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.



This is the silly conclusion one might come to when one gets their information about cosmology from an anthropology and archaeology text book.


Lawrence Krauss (a physicist) has some ideas on this matter, you could read A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing...

Or you could ask a history professor.



Which scientists and why?



Firstly, what predictions.

Secondly, you are familiar with the nebular theory right? No shit! There were collisions?


Dark energy has been observed with the expansion of the universe.. The nature of dark matter makes it a bit more difficult due to the nature of it.


Doesn't follow YWC you provided other hypotheses you did disprove the big bang as a source. Did you get this argument from an anthropology text book as well


Took you long enough.

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.

Im sorry Im going to have to ask you to elaborate on your highly technical and descriptive word "smooth". What do you mean by that? Im sorry to ask but I haven't read to many anthropology text yet so I'm kind of out of my depth here.

Ask the author that was quoted,if you didn't notice scietists were quoted

By all means then you should have an answer to where energy came from and where the matter came from.

Quit avoiding the questions and provide some hard data. Don't be reduced to huggy,Daws,and the hallow master.

As usual, you're backed into a corner and can't address a single point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.



Kenneth Feder is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning.



This is the silly conclusion one might come to when one gets their information about cosmology from an anthropology and archaeology text book.


Lawrence Krauss (a physicist) has some ideas on this matter, you could read A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing...

Or you could ask a history professor.



Which scientists and why?



Firstly, what predictions.

Secondly, you are familiar with the nebular theory right? No shit! There were collisions?


Dark energy has been observed with the expansion of the universe.. The nature of dark matter makes it a bit more difficult due to the nature of it.


Doesn't follow YWC you provided other hypotheses you did disprove the big bang as a source. Did you get this argument from an anthropology text book as well


Took you long enough.



Im sorry Im going to have to ask you to elaborate on your highly technical and descriptive word "smooth". What do you mean by that? Im sorry to ask but I haven't read to many anthropology text yet so I'm kind of out of my depth here.

Ask the author that was quoted,if you didn't notice scietists were quoted

By all means then you should have an answer to where energy came from and where the matter came from.

Quit avoiding the questions and provide some hard data. Don't be reduced to huggy,Daws,and the hallow master.

As usual, you're backed into a corner and can't address a single point.

smooth (sm)
adj. smooth·er, smooth·est
1. Having a surface free from irregularities, roughness, or projections; even. See Synonyms at level.
2. Having a fine texture: a smooth fabric.
3.
a. Free from hair, whiskers, or stubble: felt his smooth cheek after the close shave.
b. Having a short dense flat coat. Used of dogs.
4. Having an even consistency: a smooth pudding.
5. Having an even or gentle motion or movement: a smooth ride.
6. Having no obstructions or difficulties: a smooth operation.
7. Serene: a smooth temperament.
8. Bland: a smooth wine.
9. Ingratiatingly polite and agreeable.
10. Having no grossness or coarseness in dress or manner.
v. smoothed, smooth·ing, smoothes
v.tr.
1. To make (something) even, level, or unwrinkled.
2. To rid of obstructions, hindrances, or difficulties.
3. To soothe or tranquilize; make calm.
4. To make less harsh or crude; refine.

I think the word should have been an easy to understand term.

 

[UltimateReality]

what you would you be blathering about?
"daws is just"- ur I'll take that as a complement ,
your answer proves you have a comp problem and the many and foul ploys thou pretends in masked tosspotery.

No need to defend your man crush. Hollie can go either way you want. Need a little Rugged Touch do you?

Wow. Look where this thread has gone. No opposer can actually put up a logical rebuttal so as the old saying goes... if you can't join 'em beat 'em.

My creepy stalkers behavior is typical for stalkers whose every advance has been refused. He's an emotional basketcase who has only to lash out in frustration and anger. When stalkers are refused and get angry is when their a danger to themselves and others.

I just threw up in my mouth again. Please quit verbalizing your fantasies about me pervert.