Spirituality
03 Jun 14
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseExpelled: No Intelligence Allowed - NCSEexposed.org
You are assinine to believe that, that is your paranoia talking, your self lobotomized brain rationalizing everything outside your little creationist fantasy world. Like people who believe in evolution controls the universe or some such rot.
First off, 40+ percent of the US population doesn't even believe in evolution so why are not all those people, som ...[text shortened]... ushing for political power and NOTHING more. They want POWER which has nothing to do with truth.
Ben Stein narrates the ground-breaking documentary 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'. The film documents many scientists and professors who were persecuted (anywhere from being fired to denied tenure) for merely questioning the validity of Darwinian evolution.
A shot clip from the documentary
27 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsRight. Ben Stein, an avowed creationist. Gee, he wouldn't be biased now would he?
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - NCSEexposed.org
Ben Stein narrates the ground-breaking documentary 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'. The film documents many scientists and professors who were persecuted (anywhere from being fired to denied tenure) for merely questioning the validity of Darwinian evolution.
A shot clip from the documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoNBJeMiBC8
I know about that so-called documentary. He made a fool of himself. I used to think he was intelligent till this video came out.
27 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseSo you are on Allen Colmes side in this interview, right?
Right. Ben Stein, an avowed creationist. Gee, he wouldn't be biased now would he?
I know about that so-called documentary. He made a fool of himself. I used to think he was intelligent till this video came out.
27 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't know the politics of Allen Colmes. But he is making points about the use of Hitler in an attempt to squash evolution and that is dirty politics. Hitler may have used Darwinism to rationalize ethnic cleansing but so what? I'm sure Stalin and Pol Pot and Idi Amin had their own brand of rationalizations too.
So you are on Allen Colmes side in this interview, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk1UCBa7klc
The bottom line is it is really dirty politics to even bring up Hitler in a debate about evolution.
There is NOTHING in evolution that suggests ethnic cleansing.
That is abhorrent in the extreme. OF COURSE despots will rationalize their monstrous behavior.
That has nothing to do with evolution and if you think so you are sicker than I thought.
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseAllen Colmes ia a liberal Democrat just like you.
I don't know the politics of Allen Colmes. But he is making points about the use of Hitler in an attempt to squash evolution and that is dirty politics. Hitler may have used Darwinism to rationalize ethnic cleansing but so what? I'm sure Stalin and Pol Pot and Idi Amin had their own brand of rationalizations too.
The bottom line is it is really dirty pol ...[text shortened]... ior.
That has nothing to do with evolution and if you think so you are sicker than I thought.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsConsider the distance between the earth and the moon, the rate at which the moon
Irrefutable Proof The Earth is Only 6000 Years Old
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCzXNZRgZUg
receeds, and do the math. You'll find that 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been
between 40 and 50 percent closer to earth. The relation between earth and moon is more
complicated than creationists will admit, but even in the simplistic form you creationists
present it, this "proof" has been debunked so many times that you look foolish bringing it
up.
Originally posted by C HessHe apparently forgot to move his decimal point over because I get 10 billion instead of 1 billion. You seem to be correct, but why does he claim it is irrefutable proof? Well, I will not use that example again.
Consider the distance between the earth and the moon, the rate at which the moon
receeds, and do the math. You'll find that 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been
between 40 and 50 percent closer to earth. The relation between earth and moon is more
complicated than creationists will admit, but even in the simplistic form you creationists
present it, this "proof" has been debunked so many times that you look foolish bringing it
up.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsFor this post, you win a little bit of respect from me. 🙂
He apparently forgot to move his decimal point over because I get 10 billion instead of 1 billion. You seem to be correct, but why does he claim it is irrefutable proof? Well, I will not use that example again.
...for what it's worth...
28 Jun 14
2 edits
Originally posted by C HessIn the following video this guy apparently does not do the math either on the moon example, but instead relies on someone else's calculation. However, what have you got to say about all the other examples he uses. What do you think is wrong with them, if anything?
For this post, you win a little bit of respect from me. 🙂
...for what it's worth...
Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm sorry, but it's just too painful to watch it all. "The next time someone says millions and
In the following video this guy apparently does not do the math either on the moon example, but instead relies on someone else's calculation. However, what have you got to say about all the other examples he uses. What do you think is wrong with them, if anything?
Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PY0zzh8G3c
billions of years old, stop them and ask: 'Were you there?'", that's how far I got. Inmate
Hovind's arguments were debunked before they were presented. I have little time for this.
Give me one specific argument from that video (what you consider to be the killer
argument) and I'll respond to it, if I can.
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by C HessI don't know if I could really judge which of his examples would be a "killer" one. But I am still thinking about the moon example and see that the calculation by the uniformitarian method would not work because of the gravitational pull of the earth is not being considered. There would be a point at which the moon would start falling back to the earth.
I'm sorry, but it's just too painful to watch it all. "The next time someone says millions and
billions of years old, stop them and ask: 'Were you there?'", that's how far I got. Inmate
Hovind's arguments were debunked before they were presented. I have little time for this.
Give me one specific argument from that video (what you consider to be the killer
argument) and I'll respond to it, if I can.
Another problem comes about with explaining how the moon got to its position of orbiting the earth in the first place. If God didn't do it, there seems to be no logical theory as to how it happened. None of the so-called scientific theories seem to work because each has unexplained problems.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThere are still questions to be answered, but I believe the giant impactor hypothesis is the
I don't know if I could really judge which of his examples would be a "killer" one. But I am still thinking about the moon example and see that the calculation by the uniformitarian method would not work because of the gravitational pull of the earth is not being considered. There would be a point at which the moon would start falling back to the earth.
...[text shortened]... d. None of the so-called scientific theories seem to work because each has unexplained problems.
most accepted one right now, according to which the moon was formed in the early solar
system as debree from a collision between earth and a mars-sized object accumulated
over some time. In this case there's no wonder the moon didn't crash into earth, as it wasn't
fully formed yet.