religion

[Gaffin 7.0]

you guys need help and im talkin about some sun therapy

[Dior]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I copy/paste things that I don't understand.

Quite the opposite of yourself.

Fixed it for you Holy Robot Elvis that came back to the living.

[RobotElvis]

Quote from Kaga: I'm on the same page with Bill Nye when he says "If you show me a theory that better explains how life on earth got to where it is today than evolution does, give me the evidence. If the numbers check out, I'll be instantly convinced". End quote



The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the great age of the earth, required by evolution. The temperature increases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50 feet, or 100 degrees per mile. Therefore, at 2 mi., water would boil; at 18 mi., glass would melt (1850°); at 28 mi., every known substance would melt (2700°). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles thick,--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if the thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 mi., as indicated by the San Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the crust is 21.91 mi. thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380 years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's age at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210 years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible. Note how these figures agree with the age of the earth according to the Helmholtz contraction theory. The thinness of the earth's crust is also proven by the geysers, the volcanoes, and the tremors and earthquakes occurring annually in all parts of the world

[Dior]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Quote from Kaga: I'm on the same page with Bill Nye when he says "If you show me a theory that better explains how life on earth got to where it is today than evolution does, give me the evidence. If the numbers check out, I'll be instantly convinced". End quote



The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the great age of the earth, required by evolution. The temperature increases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50 feet, or 100 degrees per mile. Therefore, at 2 mi., water would boil; at 18 mi., glass would melt (1850°); at 28 mi., every known substance would melt (2700°). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles thick,--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if the thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 mi., as indicated by the San Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the crust is 21.91 mi. thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380 years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's age at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210 years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible. Note how these figures agree with the age of the earth according to the Helmholtz contraction theory. The thinness of the earth's crust is also proven by the geysers, the volcanoes, and the tremors and earthquakes occurring annually in all parts of the world

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul04.html

Is where you lifted that post from. Your ctrl+c should have quite the impressive indentation.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Dior [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul04.html

Is where you lifted that post from. Your ctrl+c should have quite the impressive indentation.

Nope try again

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...

"the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible"

Here is the main problem with this argument:

The Earth isnt a bonfire. We know that radioactive elements that take billions of years to decay have kept Earth's interior hot. Your calculations do not account for it.

[Glenzig]

So copy/paste is a rebuttal now? Who cares if its copy/pasted! Its sound information. Do you have an actual response?

[RobotElvis]

During the historical period, the species have remained unchanged. If over 1,000,000 species of animals have arisen in the 60,000,000 years, as is claimed, over 2000 of them must have arisen in the last 6,000 years. As evolutionists can not name a single new species that has arisen within that time, their theory falls to the ground. No species in that time, has passed into another. No species has been divided into two or more. No lower species has advanced into a higher. History gives no scrap of evidence in support of evolution. Even the horse, whose history has been dubiously traced for 3,000,000 years, has been a horse unchanged for the last 6,000 years. Even if the missing links in the development of the horse _could_ be supplied, it would still be the same species all the while.

But there are no transitional forms showing alleged changes in the development of the horse from the four-toed creature of squirrel like size. Many varieties and individuals under the skill of man have been developed and improved, but not a single new species in historic time. There are 5,000 varieties of apples but no new species. But when the evolutionist is hard pressed to answer, he takes to the wilds of eternity where it is hard to pursue him, and to check up on his guesses. He answers that changes are so slow, and take so many millions of years, that they can not tell of a single new species in the last 6,000 years, when over 2,000 are required.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But there are no transitional forms showing alleged changes in the development of the horse from the four-toed creature of squirrel like size.

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

Since you are basically doing nothing but posting long since debunked bullshit from talkorigins then I will resort to posting page after page of long winded quotes too:

"Creationists acknowledge what they call “micro-evolution” (observed changes due to mutation and selection, as with Darwin’s finches) but they insist that what they call “macro-evolution” (the result of cumulative changes over time) is impossible. We sometimes call this the “micro-macro mambo."

If you ask a creationist why “macro” changes are impossible you’ll be told that it’s just impossible — some magic barrier interferes to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” Because of that unevidenced magical mechanism, which only the magic designer — blessed be he! — can overcome, creationists flatly assert that regardless of time, one species cannot evolve into another — despite the abundant fossil evidence to the contrary. Therefore, creationism requires belief in a two-part dogma consisting of: (1) the Great Barrier; and (2) the miracle that breaks through the barrier.

The error is enormous, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

Being clueless as to how anything might have come to be, the creationist quotes some big number he copied from somewhere to claim that the universe (or a protein molecule, or life, or DNA, or human evolution) coming into existence or happening “by chance” is improbable, therefore … Oogity Boogity! But ignorance isn’t evidence of anything, except the need to get to work trying to figure it out.

The typical “odds” argument is easily rebutted. Here’s how we do it: There are 52 playing cards in a deck. The odds against the sequence resulting from a good shuffle are — as the mathematicians say — 52 factorial. You need to multiply 52 x 51 x 50, etc., and keep going until you get to the last card. That’s what factorial means. Fifty-two factorial is a big number. It works out to be 8.06581752 × 1067. That’s 8 (and a tad more) times 10 to the 67th power, a far larger number than the creationist usually quotes (or makes up) to “prove” that the odds are against evolution. For comparison, 52 factorial is much larger than the estimated number of stars in the universe, which is “only” 1021 (source: this NASA webpage). But there are decks of cards all over the place; and each of them is arranged in an extremely improbable sequence. Further, as we explained three years ago, the algorithm of evolution can easily defeat those odds. See The Inevitability of Evolution (Part III)."

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

Since you are basically doing nothing but posting long since debunked bullshit from talkorigins then I will resort to posting page after page of long winded quotes too:

"Creationists acknowledge what they call “micro-evolution” (observed changes due to mutation and selection, as with Darwin’s finches) but they insist that what they call “macro-evolution” (the result of cumulative changes over time) is impossible. We sometimes call this the “micro-macro mambo."

If you ask a creationist why “macro” changes are impossible you’ll be told that it’s just impossible — some magic barrier interferes to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” Because of that unevidenced magical mechanism, which only the magic designer — blessed be he! — can overcome, creationists flatly assert that regardless of time, one species cannot evolve into another — despite the abundant fossil evidence to the contrary. Therefore, creationism requires belief in a two-part dogma consisting of: (1) the Great Barrier; and (2) the miracle that breaks through the barrier.

The error is enormous, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

Being clueless as to how anything might have come to be, the creationist quotes some big number he copied from somewhere to claim that the universe (or a protein molecule, or life, or DNA, or human evolution) coming into existence or happening “by chance” is improbable, therefore … Oogity Boogity! But ignorance isn’t evidence of anything, except the need to get to work trying to figure it out.

The typical “odds” argument is easily rebutted. Here’s how we do it: There are 52 playing cards in a deck. The odds against the sequence resulting from a good shuffle are — as the mathematicians say — 52 factorial. You need to multiply 52 x 51 x 50, etc., and keep going until you get to the last card. That’s what factorial means. Fifty-two factorial is a big number. It works out to be 8.06581752 × 1067. That’s 8 (and a tad more) times 10 to the 67th power, a far larger number than the creationist usually quotes (or makes up) to “prove” that the odds are against evolution. For comparison, 52 factorial is much larger than the estimated number of stars in the universe, which is “only” 1021 (source: this NASA webpage). But there are decks of cards all over the place; and each of them is arranged in an extremely improbable sequence. Further, as we explained three years ago, the algorithm of evolution can easily defeat those odds. See The Inevitability of Evolution (Part III)."

Decks of cards are created things. Thanks for lending more credence to creation.