Al Gore and his peace prize. *this might get monkey*

[133794m3r]

the N.P. is just a piece of ice though, it cannot have been anywhere close to the equator, and that the S.P. used to be around the equator might have more to do with the fact that it was connected to Australia.. the actual axis-wobble is only 23.5 degrees before it wobbles back (to 23.5 degrees the other way) and is extremely slow, like this:

Yes but I was talking about the relative location. But did you also check what I said. The last time that all of the planets, mini planets and the moon where all inline with the sun we went from having N.A. and S.A.on the equator to what we now have. Thus we can say that on this day the earth might change in an extreme way. Yes it could change in that little of a degree but it could go almost 90 degrees before it's done. The history channel even did a show on it. I think it was during their apocalypse week last year. [/img]

[King Harold]

No offense, but as soon as "all of the planets, mini planets and the moon are inline with the sun" sort of says "superstition" all over it.. Ok it would cause massive tides, but planets like Uranus and Neptune are really too far away to matter.. (Jupiter certainly does, but it's huge)
How would you explain they change the rotation of the earth?
I guess you could change it pretty dramatically by throwing big rocks at it (about the size of a small town or so), aim them quite "low" so most of their energy goes into changing the earths rotation.. Sounds crazy, but it could probably be done with a few atomic bombs in the asteroid zone..
But seriously, how is pulling at the earth from two opposite sites going to change anything but the tide? (having the planets lined up would do just that..)

[JoostinOnline]

@King Harold The earth is not millions of years old, so I am afraid that chart won't work.
Btw, I am not trying to start a war.

[133794m3r]

Harold: I was talking about the extreme gravitational anomaly that will be formed. But I guess that you could see it that way. All of it in line will cause an intense gravitational fissure to run through our galaxy. Like I said , the earth will defiantly change.

[Super Speler]

The earth is billions of years old, and anyone who claims it isn't millions of years old is either uneducated or brainwashed.

[JoostinOnline]

The earth is billions of years old, and anyone who claims it isn't millions of years old is either uneducated or brainwashed.

Sigh...I wish you wouldn't act like that. You insult people if they don't believe what you do.

Besides, I am neither of those things. I have studied every major religion for years (it makes high school difficult when you add an extra class ), and found several faults in evolutionary theories. I am not taught to believe something is true because my text book says it is. I am taught to challenge everything that I hear.

[DigiTan]

Sigh...I wish you wouldn't act like that. You insult people if they don't believe what you do.

Second. It's a sign of a weak argument. Though at this point, I'm curious about what 1337 meant by "getting monkey."

[dysfunction]

The earth is billions of years old, and anyone who claims it isn't millions of years old is either uneducated or brainwashed.

Sigh...I wish you wouldn't act like that. You insult people if they don't believe what you do.

Besides, I am neither of those things. I have studied every major religion for years (it makes high school difficult when you add an extra class ), and found several faults in evolutionary theories. I am not taught to believe something is true because my text book says it is. I am taught to challenge everything that I hear.

Oh really? Name them.

This should be fun.

[Homestar]

Didn't we already go through this one?

Remembering correctly, *goes back and looks for the thread* There were several points left unproven (except that of the spaghetti monster ) by the both sides, and several arguments made by the theology side, that were never dis-proven.

Rather than starting the same "I believe you're wrong because you're stupid, and because I don't have the time to understand your views", just read the thread again, or better yet, grab an educated book written against your personal view and really think through the arguments, earnestly trying to understand, then disprove .

It's one thing if we were going to have a "civilized" conversation, but I can see the personal attacks as some can't restrain themselves.

I'm curious about what 1337 meant by "getting monkey."

I think this is what he had in mind

[King Harold]

@King Harold The earth is not millions of years old, so I am afraid that chart won't work.
Btw, I am not trying to start a war.

The earth already existed before the Cambrian, but that is a bit too long ago to know much about that time.. Possibly because the Cambrian is the first era from which there are hard fossils

Unless you want to believe that god created the earth with fossils in it and the universe so that it appears older than it "actually" is. It's rather hard to actually disprove it, but isn't it a bit far-fetched? In other words, either the earth is billions of years old, or god is trying to make us believe that it is.

So why is the universe that old? Well you can see the "edge", the "edge" of the visible universe is as many light years away as it is old, so it has been calculated almost exactly how old it really is. (unless god created it to look old on purpose, but why would he?)

Fossils are easy to find in many places, if you know what to look for. Especially after it has rained. I have a lot of them from Germany (the Netherlands do not have many since it's mostly sand, and relatively new compared to the rest of Europe) you could see them as proof of the earth's age - except the earth is much much older than the oldest fossils, the earth is much older than life.


See, that was pretty civilized

ps: Super Speler is right

[thecheat]

regardless of what you think about the rest of the site, a pretty good article on a fossilized hat.

apparently it doesn't take trillions of years to fossilize...

link

just 50 years.

So all we need is some very highly mineralized water... like some certain flood....

PS: a fun point that sadly common sense doesn't come with smartness. Though that's not a "you're stupid" comment, it's a "perhaps they aren't seing the whole picture?"

On the al-gore comment... man, that guy scares me! his proposal I think (or someone he advocates) was giving a prize for someone who could profitably siphon off ozone! Gah! Could you imagine? what if they're wrong and end up killing us all by radiation via a depleted ozone?

things like that scare me. Besides that, he's a sore loser. period. You should hear the clips of him screaming hate speech.

[King Harold]

apparently it doesn't take trillions of years to fossilize...

Indeed it does not, but that does not mean that all fossils are new. Of course you could do the radioactive-carbon trick on the earth they are in to see how old they really are

Fear not, you can safely assume that no human has ever seen a living dinosaur or trilobite

Millions of years are not needed, it has just taken that long to find them (except the hat), assuming that C14-dating is roughly accurate (it probably is..)

Siphoning off ozone sounds like utter madness, why would anyone want to remove the UV-shield? Do they like sunburns and skin cancer?

[dysfunction]

regardless of what you think about the rest of the site, a pretty good article on a fossilized hat.

apparently it doesn't take trillions of years to fossilize...

link

just 50 years.

So all we need is some very highly mineralized water... like some certain flood....

Except that 1. There is not, and has never been, enough water on Earth to allow a flood that would cover all the mountains, as the Bible claims, even if every bit of ice on the planet melted, and 2. a flood could not result in the sort of rigid ordering of fossils we find from old to new. Various mechanisms like 'hydrodynamic sorting' have been invoked, proposing that the differing hydrodynamic properties of the bodies of various organisms caused them to be sorted differently as the flood flash-fossilized them.

The problems with this proposal are legion. The first is that this would require the fossilization to have occurred in an incredibly short time, not decades as in the example of that hat, but in hours or at most days, because otherwise all organisms would have time to drift to the bottom, regardless of how slowly their hydrodynamic properties caused them to sink. Second is that we find many examples of species being found in places in the fossil record that contradict what we would expect from hydrodynamic sorting. For instance, many species appear not to have evolved too drastically over the intervening eons, the modern counterparts having very similar body plans to their ancestors, so we would expect, if these species actually existed at the same time and were all drowned in the flood together, to find them in the same place in the fossil record. Yet we find one exclusively in recent (higher) strata, and the other exclusively in older (lower) strata. Shouldn't we expect to find most mollusks, for example in the same general area of the fossil record, rather than neatly ordered from older to more recent? The third problem with this proposal is that we can usually tell the difference between fossils formed by different processes; we can usually tell roughly the speed with which they were formed. We can tell the difference between short fossilizations, like that hat, and ones that required thousands of years. Millions of years are still not required by any fossilization process. The fossil record taken as a whole, however, requires billions.

Carbon dating is indeed relatively accurate, between the limits of a few centuries to about 60,000 years. Items more recent than a few centuries, or older than 60 millennia, will of course not be dated correctly with this method. Fortunately we have many other methods, many of which have some overlap in their ranges, meaning we can cross-correlate their results, and such cross-correlation gives the same results for different methods. Also, we can test our assumptions about the constancy of rates of radioactive decay by looking at distant supernovae. Some of these are millions of lightyears away, meaning any radiation we are now receiving from them is millions of years old, and the qualities of this radiation directly depends on what the rates of radioactive decay were when this radiation originated. We can check what we think we now about radioactive dating against supernovae, and it turns out our assumptions are right.

[Homestar]

It is believed by creationist scientists, that the flood rose from the earth (as described in the Bible as comming from the ground and the sky). This would explain why the earth has a baseball like seam going around it's surface.



the water "splashed" if you will over all the lands. Due to the size, and propulsion, which lasted (according to the Bible 40 days and 40 nights), it is understandable that it would also take quite some time to settle down (estimated by the Bible to be aprox. 330 days).

Go outside and splash a bucket of water on the pavement. It will completely flood the pavement with the torrent, and then settle down into the cracks and crevices, eventually separating once again into "land" and "sea". Multiply this amount of water, and the force with which it was given by several million times. Guess how much longer it would take to settle down?

If you're more adventurous, try putting the water beneath a plywood sheet and jumping on it, as the water came from below not above. However, you will get very similar results.

It is known that the ocean is currently several hundred feet (If I remember correctly it was 440ft) higher than it was during the period of cavemen.

[King Harold]

No offense, but, WTF??

those "seams" are borders between major tectonic plates, if anything comes out of them at all, it'll be lava

anything 'scientific' based on "bible proof" is bogus anyway.. they just want the bible to be "a book of truth", while it's more like a book of moralistic stories.
At least the bible has the order in which things came to exist on earth about right (although it definitely didn't happen in a couple of days)

In the time of the cavemen, there was land ice (it was, after all, in the most recent big glacial period). Which means that a LOT of water was ice, and on land, which leaves less water in the oceans. It must have been quite something when that all melted..

Anyway: where did the water come from? Did someone decide to throw a massive bucket of water on the earth? Where is that water now? Wouldn't that have made a rather large hole on the area that the water first hit? (that much water would wash away rock as though it was sand)
Well, those questions aren't really needed, it's obvious that it's nonsense.
There may have been a big flood, because every culture that recorded history around that time speaks of it, but it cannot have anything to do with tectonic plates are the seams in between them. Nor did the water go through them into the earth, it would be boiled immediately if it would even get that far, and it wouldn't - the oceans aren't being boiled constantly by those seams, and if they did you would be able to see the steam on google earth. They probably blew the whole thing way out of proportion, as is usually the case in the bible and other books like it.

A more detailed picture of the tectonic plates can be found here: http://www.johomaps.com/world/worldtecton.jpg
If you didn't know it already, their movement causes volcanic eruptions, and creates mountains and earthquakes.