1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhy are you asking me, i never said I actually believed the content, i merely provided the link, and as you have continually stated for a number of years now that you like simply to ignore me, i dont think you can complain when the same is measured out to you, can you? I am not interested in debating these topics, i merely find the thoughts of others and their perspectives on them, interesting.
will you ever post anything resembling proof? who found skeletons in coal? where? what where the dig conditions?
how in the high heavens do you expect anyone to debate you under these conditions? there is nothing to debate against.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat do you mean 'caught in an untruth'? YOUR OWN CREATIONIST WEBSITES HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE MOON DUST ARGUMENT IS RUBBISH! How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?
Just like Dawkins, when caught in an untruth, many scientist attempt to
cover up by devising another story and claim that it was a miunderstanding
on other peoples part or whatever makes them save face.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOkay, then consider if you think I just made this up. Light photons
No, I think he makes up half the stuff he posts. Last time he talked about 'proof' of something it turned out he didn't know what the proof consisted of, but claimed some unnamed scientist somewhere had the proof. His failure to give a reference suggested to me that he made it up.
radiate from the sun and strikes objects in space moving along its
orbit around the sun. These light photons exert a certain force to
impede the forward movement of the object, and over time the object
will lose speed. As it loses speed, its orbit is changed so that it falls
closer and closer to the sun. This is called the Poynting-Robertson
Effect after the scientists who discovered and explained it. Eventually
the object will be slowed down to the point where it can no longer stay
in orbit and will be pulled in by the sun's gravitational force. This
slowing effect is directly related to the mass of the object, so the
scientists can calculate how long it would take for an object of a
particular mass and orbital distance to be pulled in to the sun. Small
objects like cosmic dust should be pulled in a relatively short time, but
there is an abundace of this cosmic dust in outer space. Astronomer
Fred Whipple at Harvard University realized that over time the Poynting-
Robertson Effect would sort out and disperse meteor streams in accordance
with the mass of the objects making up the streams. The degree of the
sorting and the amount of separation between objects of different sizes
would provide a clock for measuring the age of the meteor stream. No
dispersion was found by Whipple and his research team. Whipple then
concluded that the meteor streams must be quite recent in origin. The
astronomer Harold Slusher wrote that the streams must be less than
10,000 years old, since they do not show the dispersion effect that the
Poynting-Robertson Effect predicts.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei merely provided the link
why are you asking me, i never said I actually believed the content, i merely provided the link, and as you have continually stated for a number of years now that you like simply to ignore me, i dont think you can complain when the same is measured out to you, can you? I am not interested in debating these topics, i merely find the thoughts of others and their perspectives on them, interesting.
No you didn't! In two successive 'arguments' you made assertions with no foundations. Firstly about moon dust, telling us to find the details ourselves, then about coal formation. In neither case did you 'provide the link'.
Your statement "i merely provided the link" is untrue.
I did do some research on the first topic and have shown you to be either gullible or deliberately deceitful in that case. On that basis, I see no reason to believe that you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your second statement.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinI am pointing out some arguments that have been used as evidence
What do you mean 'caught in an untruth'? [b]YOUR OWN CREATIONIST WEBSITES HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE MOON DUST ARGUMENT IS RUBBISH! How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?
--- Penguin.[/b]
against evolution. The fact is that the cosmic dust was of some concern
at the time by some scientists. Apparently Neil Armstrong was concerned
about it. Of course, we know today there was nothing to be concerned
about because scientist are not always right. I believe that holds true
for those scientist that believe in evolution today. In time, the scientist
that do not believe in evolution will be proved right.
Originally posted by RJHindsFrom Answers in Genesis:
I am pointing out some arguments that have been used as evidence
against evolution. The fact is that the cosmic dust was of some concern
at the time by some scientists. Apparently Neil Armstrong was concerned
about it. Of course, we know today there was nothing to be concerned
about because scientist are not always right. I believe that holds true
f ...[text shortened]... evolution today. In time, the scientist
that do not believe in evolution will be proved right.
Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.
Do you have ANY evidence that Neil Armstrong was concerned about the thickness of moon dust or are you again regurgitating crap that your own side abandoned nearly 20 years ago?
scientist are not always right.
Of course they are not always right. The whole point about science is the understanding that you cannot always be right. That's why the scientific method is so powerful: it is the best way we have of finding out when we are wrong.
--- Penguin
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinSorry but you are talking pants, AGAIN, the only link that i have provided was for the creationist museum in Texas, which was what Zapansy was referring to, i have said nothing about either moon dust, coal dust, nor of fairy dust. Your havering, the statement is true, its you who have taken it and attempted to apply it to something I have said nothing about. Stating to twithead that he should do his own research rather than expect others to pander to him is relevant to my link, how?
[b]i merely provided the link
No you didn't! In two successive 'arguments' you made assertions with no foundations. Firstly about moon dust, telling us to find the details ourselves, then about coal formation. In neither case did you 'provide the link'.
Your statement "i merely provided the link" is untrue.
I did do some research on the f ...[text shortened]... e that you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your second statement.
--- Penguin.[/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsOf course not. Its just heresay. Without references I have no way of knowing whether or not your source just made it up. You probably have no way of knowing either - which is why you didn't provide references. You know that if you do, someone will look it up and explain to you why it is not correct - as happened with your claim regarding cosmic dust.
Will you accept that as evidence of a young solar system?
Of course instead of admitting that your were wrong, you will just remain silent on the matter and find some other lie to post. For some reason you believe that lying to support your religion is a good thing.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieoh, i misunderstood then. you just posted a link for the funzies. so in the future if i were to post a pro-nazi link without explanation and after some dude claimed how awesome nazism is i shouldn't be deemed a nazi myself as i don't actually believe the content.
why are you asking me, i never said I actually believed the content, i merely provided the link, and as you have continually stated for a number of years now that you like simply to ignore me, i dont think you can complain when the same is measured out to you, can you? I am not interested in debating these topics, i merely find the thoughts of others and their perspectives on them, interesting.
Originally posted by RJHindsbut if scientists are not always right, why can't the "scientists" that don't believe in evolution be proven wrong in time?
I am pointing out some arguments that have been used as evidence
against evolution. The fact is that the cosmic dust was of some concern
at the time by some scientists. Apparently Neil Armstrong was concerned
about it. Of course, we know today there was nothing to be concerned
about because scientist are not always right. I believe that holds true
f ...[text shortened]... evolution today. In time, the scientist
that do not believe in evolution will be proved right.
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanziyes, its a misunderstanding, i am not a young earth creationist, never have been. I was only interested in what they professed and more importantly why. It was thinkofone who asked for a reference, so i gave him one, although he cited reference's calling into question the validity of the credentials of some of the people that work there, that's fine. I have offered no comments, nothing other than, do your own research and materialism stinks. To be fair to you i can now see how it may be construed as such, but its not the case, sowwy.
oh, i misunderstood then. you just posted a link for the funzies. so in the future if i were to post a pro-nazi link without explanation and after some dude claimed how awesome nazism is i shouldn't be deemed a nazi myself as i don't actually believe the content.
As for Nazism, wanna buy a medal from the Eastern front? 😉
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy mistake Robbie, I do apologise. It is RJHinds I intended to berate on his 2 arguments: moon dust and coal. The moon dust argument was admitted to be crap by Answers in Genesis 20 years ago. after that fiasco, I am not even going to bother looking for confirmation of the coal assertion. I will simply assume he is talking out of his arse again, unless he provides links himself.
Sorry but you are talking pants, AGAIN, the only link that i have provided was for the creationist museum in Texas, which was what Zapansy was referring to, i have said nothing about either moon dust, coal dust, nor of fairy dust. Your havering, the statement is true, its you who have taken it and attempted to apply it to something I have said nothin ...[text shortened]... ould do his own research rather than expect others to pander to him is relevant to my link, how?
On this occasion, I mistakenly implied that you were either a liar or a fool and I would like to retract that.
RJHinds on the other hand, is either a liar or a fool on this occasion.
--- Penguin.
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinLol, relax dude, its fine, no apology necessary, what you doing on the net, you should be out in your favourite place, with people that you love and who love you, not jousting with this mottely crew of half baked lunatics, vagabonds, drummers and mathematicians 🙂
My mistake Robbie, I do apologise. It is RJHinds I intended to berate on his 2 arguments: moon dust and coal. The moon dust argument was admitted to be crap by Answers in Genesis 20 years ago. after that fiasco, I am not even going to bother looking for confirmation of the coal assertion. I will simply assume he is talking out of his arse again, unless he pr ...[text shortened]...
RJHinds on the other hand, [b]is either a liar or a fool on this occasion.
--- Penguin.[/b]