44% of people are idiots.

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
They are tested by experiment, and specifically observation. You don't "observe" math.

Really - observations are tested against theories by experiment? Do you even know what that means? Observations are the results of experiments. They're tested against the prediction of theory by way of mathematical predictions of said theory. Are you really going to go to the mat with me on this one?

No, in other words, the answer went over your head. We can use parallax to triangulate the position of astronomical objects such as stars, thereby calculating their distance and minimal age of the universe.

You obviously know next to nothing about stellar parallax.

No, in other words you don't understand how physics works. We detect parallax because we're measuring photons coming from an object. It's how your eyes calculate the distance to objects, how astronomers calculate the distance from one star to another, and so on. Yes, I understand. What you don't understand is that, if the universe appeared in a given initial state, that state would include all of the photons which are predicted by your theory. This is no different than me specifying that I made a solution of Kool-Aid by pouring in a bunch of powder at time t, then watching how the powder diffuses through the water over time, or whether I buy it in a bottle - the same molecules are present in both cases and all observations of the final product (taste, smell, color, viscosity, and anything else) will be exactly the same. Really, this isn't even a challenging concept.

Any amount of googling for the age of the universe will supply you with the relevant information. The real problem is that you don't understand the fact that your 10,000 year old proposition does not qualify as a scientific hypothesis the way that the naturalistic one does. Science must be methodologically naturalistic out of necessity, and you're too fucking stupid to know that. See my other responses to you in this thread for the illustrations of the consequences of your sloppy thinking.

I didn't pretend to propose a hypothesis. In fact, I unequivocally stated in my original post that neither qualifies as a hypothesis, a point that you have repeatedly contested. I have, however, thoroughly demonstrated that the "naturalistic" hypothesis is equally invalid from a scientific perspective. You are completely unable to differentiate between scientific and philosophical questions. In the absence of a time machine which would allow us to collect data prior to 10k years ago, these two theories are scientifically equivalent as both make identical predictions regarding all available data. It couldn't be any more clear to anyone with three brain cells. A third grader would have gotten the point by now. I mathematically proved my point in the response just above this, yet I bet you'll still try to argue against a proof which uses pure logic (which is what math really is - hardly an informal language used to express ideas). Keep your ignorance in your pants.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Most human beings haven't got a clue what they believe, Fact. Most FEEL something . But just can't grasp what it is. We look at animals and we can see clearly that we are a seprate unearthly creature compared to the Rest. Were a contradition to our environment in so far as Evolution is concerned. Hence the clothing.

The Bible As you refer to it is incomplete. The Book of Enoch The most important works ever written . Other than Gosphel. Was removed From the Scriptures. Yet it was always their Until the HRCC was Created. And the works of Paul were made the LAW!!!!.


Heres Why they Removed The First written works in history. Enoch is father of written word.

OK ya know the Bible version of creation . Forget everthing up until day 6 . Nothing else matters befor than Other than the 5th day. When the time comes I will explain that to ya.


When Adam was removed from eden was What was called than Midday. Eden was a differant place than what we experiance.

But the fact remains that was the Term. Eden had no morning . No evening. The Earth DID.

But when Adam was removed from eden He pleaded with the creator. Begging to stay . God Having told Adam he would surely die on this day. Could not change that which he uttered. But God feeling Love and pity on Adam . Told Adam He would restore him to Eden in 5 1/2 days . Thats 5,500 man years. As adam was 500 years when he left eden .

See thats the Part they don't want ya to Know. The Religions don't want you to know this. Why.

Because When God Tells Adam That He will Restore him to Eden in 5 1/2 days . THAT STARTS A TIME LINE> THAT Means EVERTHING . WHY

BECAUSE When GOD MADE THAT PRomise We were STILL ON DAY 6 .

A new Time Line started Because of the Promise BY GOD to AdaM . So because it was Midday . That was New DAY ONE. Adam was 500 years old. 500 years latter . Started day 2.



SO what. DAY 7 Never Happened. When God made that promise it meant he couldn't rest till the completion of THE promise.

Now thats Not to say there is no day seven or day of rest because there is. We right now are on year 5,493. Seven years till the end of the timeline God Gives. But GOD cuts short the time to save the elect.


SO what Ya SAY. When All this comes to past. Than GOD REST. THATs THE HOLY DAY OF Completion OF GODs WORK.


Churches Don't Want Ya to Know That. God Commmands That Remember The LORDS DAY. THE DAY OF REST.


They Give it a day in the week . Thats Not WHAt It IS . WE were suppose to remember his return and the completion of His work . But save only a small % Even have a clue as to what the trueth is.


Ya want to know About the Creaton . You read that one yourself. Read the African Bible Version Of Enoch . You won't like it . But it makes way more sense. Than Ya really want to comnnect the dots read the samerian Tablets. ALL of them . Learn What they new . That could only have been known so much . But They new way alot. Ya want to learn why man was created without the religion sugar coating . There it is. But GOD did infact Pick a line out . Noehs.

 

[Zebo]

Fact: We are all idiots at certain times ...well maybe all but Fedor and Jesus, but then again Jesus was pretty stupid having Fedor like super powers and shit and letting them Romans hang him from a cross.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: alexruiz
2) Cyclo, your example is wrong. You are just picking a pair of linear equations where one is displaced in the X axis, hence making the result match the first equation. It obviously will have the same values. To make a VALID comparison, you need to take the SAME equation and pick different points in time. Again, as you would say "use math properly" The model usage you are trying to use doesn;t apply to this situation.

The explanation is perfectly valid. It was just very simple so the knuckle draggers in this thread would be able to understand. Both of them are solutions to the same differential equation (dy/dt=5). The only difference is the initial condition and relative time. The exact same principle applies to the field equations relevant to relativity, mass/heat/momentum transfer, viscoelasticity, or any other time-dependent phenomenon. The only reason I didn't use such an example is that it's needlessly complicated and would at best serve to demonstrate the same point I just made using such a simple example.

Now cyclo, you are the mathematician, or so you say. You are right that having only only measure cannot reveal the initial state of the equation. You are wrong that it cannot be shown at all.
Here is your proof of the universe age, or at least that YOU really can measure the age of some things from the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay
Unlike your example, where you have a pair of equations, hence making it invalid, you need to use only one equation. Geologists measure the amount of some isotope, measure it some point in time later, and then, because we already know the half life of such isotope, calculate the initial amount in the same equation N(t) = N0 * e^(-tau/t) Or, if you wanna do it properly, use the differential equation and solve it dN/dt = -tau/N Your assessment about carbon 14 not being useful is wrong, and you know it. Oh, I forgot, we don't want to know No, we want to know the value of "t" at N0.... simple, just rearrange the equation. Use the values of the 2 measures in time as the integration limits, and you are set.

No, I never said I was a mathematician. I'm an engineer. And your "proof" is meaningless in attempting to say anything about the two "theories" being discussed for reasons I've already gone in to in this very thread. Since you obviously missed the boat in the first example, I'll rework it in terms of your example. Since you brought it up, I'll assume you understand the derivation of exponential decay. However, I'll go into it for the sake of tradition.

To begin, we have a differential equation governing the number N of a given isotope. The rate of disappearance (appearance is achieved by simply switching the sign) of this isotope, dN/dt, is proportional to the size of the current population with proportionality constant tau. This is expressed mathematically as a differential equation,
dN/dt=-tau*N.
This is a very simple differential equation which may be solved by separating and integrating, yielding
ln(N)=t/tau, or N=e^t/tau,
evaluated with the initial condition N(t=0)=N0. This gives
ln(N)-ln(N0)=e^(-(t-t0)/tau), or N=N0*e^(-(t-t0)/tau).

Well, who cares? you might ask. I'll tell you. If you assume that all carbon started out as C14 at t0=0, you get a certain solution for t>0. If instead, you assume that carbon started out in an isotope ratio given by the previous case at time t0 then you will get an identical curve for all times t>t0.

Thus, both theories predict the exact same result. I have even solved one example of this for you in Excel for your convenience, because no one here believes me or they just can't figure it out on their own. Here it is - the middle column is the "Big Bang" theory and the other is the "more recent appearance of everything at the initial state predicted by the BB theory." Enjoy.

tau 6
t0 0 3
N0 1 0.60653066

t Nbb N10k
0 1.000000
1 0.846481725
2 0.716531311
3 0.60653066 0.60653066
4 0.513417119 0.513417119
5 0.434598209 0.434598209
6 0.367879441 0.367879441
7 0.311403224 0.311403224
8 0.263597138 0.263597138
9 0.22313016 0.22313016

edit: forgot to define tau. Not that it matters.

QTF, that's exactly what I was about to post but I was ummm... off eating dinner and you beat me to it. take that all you haters and non believers. I joke about ATOT having a bunch of pseudo intellectual people, but I think CycloWizard is the real deal. I'm not exactly smart enough to understand what you typed out, but my mind is telling me it's legit

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Recent poll finds only 14 percent of Americans believe in Darwinian evolution

Holy crap..

These the same people that put a Democrat in the President's office?

Confirmed. Also, confirmed

 

[Kirby]

I bet I can piss further than anyone on this forum.

Who's man enough to take the challenge?

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I bet I can piss further than anyone on this forum.

Who's man enough to take the challenge?

lol I'd put $500 on it buddy, I do 100 Kegels a day. I'm able to make my piss FLY like an F-15.

bring it on!

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I bet I can piss further than anyone on this forum.

Who's man enough to take the challenge?

lol I'd put $500 on it buddy, I do 100 Kegels a day. I'm able to make my piss FLY like an F-15.

bring it on!

I did not need to know that.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
<plop>.....whiiiiiiiizzzzzzzzzz! Caught another one...

I need to stop coming into these threads....

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Most human beings haven't got a clue what they believe, Fact. Most FEEL something . But just can't grasp what it is. We look at animals and we can see clearly that we are a seprate unearthly creature compared to the Rest. Were a contradition to our environment in so far as Evolution is concerned. Hence the clothing.

The Bible As you refer to it is incomplete. The Book of Enoch The most important works ever written . Other than Gosphel. Was removed From the Scriptures. Yet it was always their Until the HRCC was Created. And the works of Paul were made the LAW!!!!.


Heres Why they Removed The First written works in history. Enoch is father of written word.

OK ya know the Bible version of creation . Forget everthing up until day 6 . Nothing else matters befor than Other than the 5th day. When the time comes I will explain that to ya.


When Adam was removed from eden was What was called than Midday. Eden was a differant place than what we experiance.

But the fact remains that was the Term. Eden had no morning . No evening. The Earth DID.

But when Adam was removed from eden He pleaded with the creator. Begging to stay . God Having told Adam he would surely die on this day. Could not change that which he uttered. But God feeling Love and pity on Adam . Told Adam He would restore him to Eden in 5 1/2 days . Thats 5,500 man years. As adam was 500 years when he left eden .

See thats the Part they don't want ya to Know. The Religions don't want you to know this. Why.

Because When God Tells Adam That He will Restore him to Eden in 5 1/2 days . THAT STARTS A TIME LINE> THAT Means EVERTHING . WHY

BECAUSE When GOD MADE THAT PRomise We were STILL ON DAY 6 .

A new Time Line started Because of the Promise BY GOD to AdaM . So because it was Midday . That was New DAY ONE. Adam was 500 years old. 500 years latter . Started day 2.



SO what. DAY 7 Never Happened. When God made that promise it meant he couldn't rest till the completion of THE promise.

Now thats Not to say there is no day seven or day of rest because there is. We right now are on year 5,493. Seven years till the end of the timeline God Gives. But GOD cuts short the time to save the elect.


SO what Ya SAY. When All this comes to past. Than GOD REST. THATs THE HOLY DAY OF Completion OF GODs WORK.


Churches Don't Want Ya to Know That. God Commmands That Remember The LORDS DAY. THE DAY OF REST.


They Give it a day in the week . Thats Not WHAt It IS . WE were suppose to remember his return and the completion of His work . But save only a small % Even have a clue as to what the trueth is.


Ya want to know About the Creaton . You read that one yourself. Read the African Bible Version Of Enoch . You won't like it . But it makes way more sense. Than Ya really want to comnnect the dots read the samerian Tablets. ALL of them . Learn What they new . That could only have been known so much . But They new way alot. Ya want to learn why man was created without the religion sugar coating . There it is. But GOD did infact Pick a line out . Noehs.

God made taco bell on the 7th day. I ate at taco bell yesterday and know this is true.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Most human beings haven't got a clue what they believe, Fact. Most FEEL something . But just can't grasp what it is. We look at animals and we can see clearly that we are a seprate unearthly creature compared to the Rest. Were a contradition to our environment in so far as Evolution is concerned. Hence the clothing.

The Bible As you refer to it is incomplete. The Book of Enoch The most important works ever written . Other than Gosphel. Was removed From the Scriptures. Yet it was always their Until the HRCC was Created. And the works of Paul were made the LAW!!!!.


Heres Why they Removed The First written works in history. Enoch is father of written word.

OK ya know the Bible version of creation . Forget everthing up until day 6 . Nothing else matters befor than Other than the 5th day. When the time comes I will explain that to ya.


When Adam was removed from eden was What was called than Midday. Eden was a differant place than what we experiance.

But the fact remains that was the Term. Eden had no morning . No evening. The Earth DID.

But when Adam was removed from eden He pleaded with the creator. Begging to stay . God Having told Adam he would surely die on this day. Could not change that which he uttered. But God feeling Love and pity on Adam . Told Adam He would restore him to Eden in 5 1/2 days . Thats 5,500 man years. As adam was 500 years when he left eden .

See thats the Part they don't want ya to Know. The Religions don't want you to know this. Why.

Because When God Tells Adam That He will Restore him to Eden in 5 1/2 days . THAT STARTS A TIME LINE> THAT Means EVERTHING . WHY

BECAUSE When GOD MADE THAT PRomise We were STILL ON DAY 6 .

A new Time Line started Because of the Promise BY GOD to AdaM . So because it was Midday . That was New DAY ONE. Adam was 500 years old. 500 years latter . Started day 2.



SO what. DAY 7 Never Happened. When God made that promise it meant he couldn't rest till the completion of THE promise.

Now thats Not to say there is no day seven or day of rest because there is. We right now are on year 5,493. Seven years till the end of the timeline God Gives. But GOD cuts short the time to save the elect.


SO what Ya SAY. When All this comes to past. Than GOD REST. THATs THE HOLY DAY OF Completion OF GODs WORK.


Churches Don't Want Ya to Know That. God Commmands That Remember The LORDS DAY. THE DAY OF REST.


They Give it a day in the week . Thats Not WHAt It IS . WE were suppose to remember his return and the completion of His work . But save only a small % Even have a clue as to what the trueth is.


Ya want to know About the Creaton . You read that one yourself. Read the African Bible Version Of Enoch . You won't like it . But it makes way more sense. Than Ya really want to comnnect the dots read the samerian Tablets. ALL of them . Learn What they new . That could only have been known so much . But They new way alot. Ya want to learn why man was created without the religion sugar coating . There it is. But GOD did infact Pick a line out . Noehs.

You see kids, this is why smoking crack is bad.

I LOL'ed @ Adam being 500 years old. If there is no day and night in Eden, how do you have years going by?

This one is awesome too:

We look at animals and we can see clearly that we are a seprate unearthly creature compared to the Rest. Were a contradition to our environment in so far as Evolution is concerned. Hence the clothing.

Yes, that's why there is a fossil record showing hominid evolution. Clothing is proof of your religious ramblings? We wear clothes because, surprise, we aren't covered in fur to keep us warm in cold climates or to stop the sun from beating down on our skin which is why some peoples have dark skin as an evolutionary adaption to this situation.

 

[Paratus]

Another lovely evolution thread where Cycowizzer drops by & dribbles poor logic all over the place.

If you want a lovely example cognitive dissonance there it is.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
...

Originally posted by: QueBert
...

If I visit America do I have to actually go in or can I just watch through the railings?

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Howard
What the hell is going on in here?

A clusterfuck of near epic proportions.

Moar cowbell!

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: QueBert

That doesn't explain how though. To say stars exploded and the big bang happened, why and how were there stars? How the universe began will be a mystery forever. the first particle ever, what caused that? Evolution is a logical explanation of how we got here. But it doesn't explain the very first second ever, there had to be a start to this all.

It's not trying to.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
So unless Earth was rotating very slowly during the creation, I'd say that one instance of daytime and one instance of nighttime add up to about 24 hours.

It was in fact stationary when it was created. As was everything else. However ATOT hadn't been created so God couldn't nef... instead he found another way of amusing himself. He put the Earth on a finger and span it like a basketball and thought "that's cool" but being God and all powerful it didn't really distract him for long, thus his desire to nef was not sated. So he repeated the process on every other body in the solar system, and it was good. The next day in a fit of boredom he created man...


***shhhhhh*** it is a secret so don't tell anyone mmmmmmkay?

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: RichardE
a species ability to overcome very large issues that require enormous leaps in thinking, dexterity and ingenuity in short periods of time?

Care to give an example of an enormous leap in thinking, dexterity and ingenuity on a species level?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Another lovely evolution thread where Cycowizzer drops by & dribbles poor logic all over the place.

If you want a lovely example cognitive dissonance there it is.

Didn't read the whole thread, did you?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
They are tested by experiment, and specifically observation. You don't "observe" math.

Really - observations are tested against theories by experiment?

No, hypotheses are tested by observations made during experiments.

Do you even know what that means? Observations are the results of experiments. They're tested against the prediction of theory by way of mathematical predictions of said theory. Are you really going to go to the mat with me on this one?

Yes, because you are a moron. Math is simply a language. It isn't reality. It isn't an observation.

No, in other words, the answer went over your head. We can use parallax to triangulate the position of astronomical objects such as stars, thereby calculating their distance and minimal age of the universe.

You obviously know next to nothing about stellar parallax.

No, in other words you don't understand how physics works. We detect parallax because we're measuring photons coming from an object. It's how your eyes calculate the distance to objects, how astronomers calculate the distance from one star to another, and so on. Yes, I understand. What you don't understand is that, if the universe appeared in a given initial state, that state would include all of the photons which are predicted by your theory.

No, YOU don't understand how science works. What you're talking about is omphalism, which is essentially solipsism, and it is absolutely the opposite of science. If you would've actually listened to me the FIRST time I explained this I wouldn't have to repeat myself, dumbfuck.

Care to explain exactly how a universe could simply appear in a state which contravenes literally all of our knowledge of the natural universe?

THAT is the crux of the issue. You think that because you can come up with some cockamamie just-so story that is totally unfalsifiable that you have said something meaningful or laid a legitimate challenge to real science. This is because you are a complete tool, and utter ignoramus.

This is no different than me specifying that I made a solution of Kool-Aid by pouring in a bunch of powder at time t, then watching how the powder diffuses through the water over time, or whether I buy it in a bottle - the same molecules are present in both cases and all observations of the final product (taste, smell, color, viscosity, and anything else) will be exactly the same. Really, this isn't even a challenging concept.

Oh I know what you're trying to say, but the problem is that you're not saying anything that has any scientific meaning, and yet you think that you are.

Any amount of googling for the age of the universe will supply you with the relevant information. The real problem is that you don't understand the fact that your 10,000 year old proposition does not qualify as a scientific hypothesis the way that the naturalistic one does. Science must be methodologically naturalistic out of necessity, and you're too fucking stupid to know that. See my other responses to you in this thread for the illustrations of the consequences of your sloppy thinking.

I didn't pretend to propose a hypothesis. In fact, I unequivocally stated in my original post that neither qualifies as a hypothesis, a point that you have repeatedly contested.

Because you are wrong. The minimal age of the universe is a hypothesis that has been tested, and the results have shown it to be much older than 10,000 years. YOUR proposal that we could not tell the difference from a universe created 10,00 years ago or 5 mins ago is meaningless, because in contrast to everything I have proposed, your proposal is not -- repeat, not -- scientific. You're just too staggeringly stupid to know it.

I have, however, thoroughly demonstrated that the "naturalistic" hypothesis is equally invalid from a scientific perspective.

No, you absolutely have not, because you don't realize how science works.

ou are completely unable to differentiate between scientific and philosophical questions.

Yes, I can. It is you that cannot, for reasons obvious to everyone but you.

In the absence of a time machine which would allow us to collect data prior to 10k years ago, these two theories are scientifically equivalent as both make identical predictions regarding all available data.

No, they don't, because a universe that suddenly appeared 10K years ago with the appearance of billions of years' age IS NOT A NATURALISTIC ONE. You can't make predictions in a non-naturalistic universe. That's the whole point of methodological naturalism in science. The universe appears to be old because it is old. There appears to be a monitor in front of your face because there is a monitor in front of your face. If you doubt the former sentence but do not doubt the latter, then you are necessarily inconsistent.

It couldn't be any more clear to anyone with three brain cells. A third grader would have gotten the point by now. I mathematically proved my point in the response just above this, yet I bet you'll still try to argue against a proof which uses pure logic (which is what math really is - hardly an informal language used to express ideas). Keep your ignorance in your pants.

You are really doing nothing more than embarrassing yourself at this point.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You are really doing nothing more than embarrassing yourself at this point.

*shrug* I'm pretty sure the readers of this thread can discern which of the two of us knows what he's talking about at this point. Feel free to start a poll thread and see if people have bought into your ignorance. Perhaps if you throw out a few more esoteric terms (which don't actually mean what you think they mean, by the way), more cheap insults, or some more prepubescent name-calling, people will believe you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
You are really doing nothing more than embarrassing yourself at this point.

*shrug* I'm pretty sure the readers of this thread can discern which of the two of us knows what he's talking about at this point. Feel free to start a poll thread and see if people have bought into your ignorance. Perhaps if you throw out a few more esoteric terms (which don't actually mean what you think they mean, by the way), more cheap insults, or some more prepubescent name-calling, people will believe you.

In other words, you cannot rebut my refutation of your peurile nonsense.

Par for the course, I suppose.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
In other words, you cannot rebut my refutation of your peurile nonsense.

Par for the course, I suppose.

Yes, you're right. My PhD diploma isn't worth the paper it's printed on, nor are my numerous peer-reviewed publications, because I obviously don't understand science as well as some knuckle-dragger on teh internets who uses a bunch of words incorrectly and thinks that arguments are won by yelling louder rather than being right.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

<plop>.....whiiiiiiiizzzzzzzzzz! Caught another one...

OK, where did this singularity happen?

What was there first?

Where did the matter come from?

Where did the hydrogen come from?


I understand that scientific theories are a bit more than, "Who would win a fight between A and B?"
"Well, based on the comic books I've seen lately, I think..."


I get that...BUT, we do not KNOW how the universe was created, where it was created, and from what materials it was created.
At this point, everything IS mere theory...scientific or not.

Yes, I understand that evolution is the progression from one stage to another, by whatever causors. IMO, evolution is more believable than creation...but hell, sci-fi authors have written about "seeding" planets with life for many years...IMO, THAT's just about as believable as "The GREAT Sky-Fairy" said, "Let there be light," and there was, and he saw that it was good."

I really don't see how theorizing that our current universe started as a singularity means that you need to answer where that singularity came from. It's just the furthest back point that we think we can explain to. It's not supposed to be the start of time, just the start of the universe in it's current form.

That's the crux of the whole creation issue with me. One is saying, "I know where it all came from, so some supernatural being put it all here. Your theory can't be right, because what started time?" Never mind the fact that the creation argument doesn't explain where the creator came from, or all the evidence that shows us at least a fuzzy picture of what a historical time line would look like. Most creationist arguments begin and end with "well it had to start somewhere", but don't realize their own theory doesn't even hold up to the test which they use as "proof".

Even IF the creationism argument was one day reduced to "God created the singularity, and started the big bang", I would STILL think it is retarded, because it STILL doesn't add anything to the time line. We still have an unexplainable starting point, and add in a step which is just there because we want it to be.

This is how I see it, we currently theorize, from natural evidence:

n) Big Bang
n+1) Spark of Life
n+2) Evolution

Creationism argument (ignoring the 3,000 years, dinosaur fossils are a test of our faith nonsense) is that the line looks like

n-1) God
n) Big Bang
n+1) Spark of Life
n+2) Evolution

But doesn't explain where god came from. It just adds a step which doesn't need to be added. It doesn't answer a single question we have about the origin, because it still leaves the exact same question, "Where did the earliest step we can theorize come from". It's just insane to me that people think there can be any support to thinking this.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
In other words, you cannot rebut my refutation of your peurile nonsense.

Par for the course, I suppose.

Yes, you're right. My PhD diploma isn't worth the paper it's printed on, nor are my numerous peer-reviewed publications

If the facts were on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to Argumentum ad Credentialum.

...because I obviously don't understand science as well as some knuckle-dragger on teh internets...

Yes, in this particular instance, it is certainly obvious.

..who uses a bunch of words incorrectly and thinks that arguments are won by yelling louder rather than being right.

Same ol' same ol' from you. You can't address the arguments so you just declare that you're right. Pathetic. Any time you think you can muster up the stones, my arguments remain, heretofore unrebutted by you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: shocksyde
I read through the thread after my comment, and I've got a question for you:

Where does carbon dating fit into your 10K model?

Carbon dating is explained just like the rest of the model: the appropriate ratios of carbon isotopes would have occurred at given locations in either case that I presented.

In what way is this "explained" by your so-called "model"? Why should we expect that the ratios be created in such proportions? How is that a prediction of your proposal?

And I would appreciate it if you would at least recognize that I have never stated "my model" anywhere in this thread. I have simply pointed out two possible theories that explain all known data equally well.

It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than his shoe size that your so-called "thoery" doesn't actually explain anything. It arbitrarily declares that things must be such-and-such, because it must in order to shoehorn the observations into it. That's the antithesis of science, your moronic dickforlips.

There are infinitely many such theories, of course, so I just arbitrarily picked two (one that is commonly accepted, the other that was relevant to this thread).

In Cylcowizard's world, there is no science, because the idea that all of your perceptions are synthetically induced in your brain as it sits in a vat in the laboratory of an Evil Genius "explains" all of that data, and cannot be falsified.

Not so much as a word offered in response to this post.