Freethought & Rationalism Archive

j-ogenes · 06-10-2003, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by braces_for_impact
I explained erosion, time, strata, etc. and sat back confident in my arguments. Then she destroyed the entire premise of my arguments in one fell swoop when she said "Well if that's true then the niagara falls would have eroded it's way through the whole earth by now and cut it in half!"

I calmly beat my head against my keyboard, and moved on. Surprisingly, I later heard she claimed victory in our "debate".

:banghead: [/B]

It's frustrating when someone says, "you see I've proven you wrong" on the basis of some statement he/she has made that
hasn't really done anything. It's a waste of time--you can either
explain something you shouldn't have to repeat or just let her/his claim of "victory" stand. Or, just mention that if one is claiming victory in a debate that pretty much speaks for itself.

openeyes · 06-10-2003, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KC
That may be overly optimistic..

KC

I agree. I use to think that deep down people knew better in many cases, but after seeing such support (approx 2000 people) for "Dr" Kent Hovind a couple months ago, and an ensuing discussion with a couple of "regular" folk who agreed with his point of view, my opinion of people's ability to reason and think critically has plummeted. (Well, all the support for Bush and his policies isn't helping either, but that's another thread.)

unregistered_user_1 · 06-10-2003, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by roxrkool
Oh I like that one! I will definitely have to use it. Thanks!!

Someone beat you to it: this is the variation I found, by AIG's Dan Lietha, the "CreationWise" cartoonist: (he took this off, but it had a picture of a prof saying that we evolved from an "ancient pond", with the next picture being of a pregnant woman.

The narration under the first picture goes: "if life originated from pond scum"...~~>under the pregnant woman picture "then it's no wonder people look at this (the fetus) as 'rearranged' pond scum"!

The Lone Ranger · 06-10-2003, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Calzaer
Ok, I *know* this is wrong... but I just realized that I don't know why, exactly. I mean, duh, the earth won't be cut in half, but I'm not sure what keeps all those large waterfalls from eroding their beds down to more reasonable levels when they've been around for millions of years. Is it the composition of the bedrock in the area?

Most waterfalls are young, as mentioned earlier. Another thing is that erosion doesn't occur just where the water is falling into the plunge basin at the base of the waterfall. If that were the case, the flowing water would bore down into the earth, and the plunge basin would get deeper and deeper over time.

The greatest erosional force is generally where the water is flowing over the lip of the fall. As the lip is eroded away, the waterfall slowly migrates upstream. Niagara Falls is somewhat farther upstream today than it was 10,000 years ago.

Cheers,

Michael

Happy Wonderer · 06-10-2003, 05:44 PM

For willful and obstinate stupidity that makes you want to grind your teeth to nubbins, take a peek at this. I do not envy science teachers...

"Socratism" attempts to prove that stars cannot from from clouds of interstellar gas:

Quote:

John Boy happened to mention gravity and star formation and seems to be under the impression that gravity can bring diffuse gas together.

I always thought that you could take a cylinder of high pressure gas into space , open the valve and the gas would disperse until it is a diffuse gas again.

Why is that?

It gets worse. When shown pictures of stars forming from interstellar clouds of gas, he responds:

Quote:

Perhaps those who reject God just see those things that look like stars forming, because they refuse to believe in creation of the universe by God.

question by 'Frumius Bandersnatch':What makes you think that rejecting God has anything to do with theories of star formation? �

Because the vast majority of people who think that stars formed "naturally" reject the idea that God made them as He said He did in His word.

He then says that nobody has shown how the physics can work. When shown the equations, his riposte is

Quote:

The assumption is that one can approximate the action of gravity in a cloud by assuming that it is concentrated at a central point.

Thus, your word "equilibrium" refers to the action of gravity as opposed to the action of the temperature of the gas and setting the two forces equal will allow one to calculate the Jean's mass, which would then be the minimum size of a cloud that could collapse by gravitational attraction.

This is a good approach and gives a valid answer regarding the minimum mass necessary for a star to form, however it does not mean that the cloud will necessarily collapse in its initial stages since the initial assumption is only an approximation.

!!!

hw

Minnesota · 06-10-2003, 09:03 PM

Happy Wonderer,

Quote:

"Socratism" attempts to prove that stars cannot from from clouds of interstellar gas:

I find it odd that despite Socrates obvious ploy of I'll Say Anything To Get A Rise Out Of You, people continue to get sucked into his absurd game, taking him on as if he really cared what others say and think.

Wise up people, Socratism has been playing you for a sucker. :banghead:

roxrkool · 06-10-2003, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by unregistered_user_1

Someone beat you to it: this is the variation I found, by AIG's Dan Lietha, the "CreationWise" cartoonist: (he took this off, but it had a picture of a prof saying that we evolved from an "ancient pond", with the next picture being of a pregnant woman.

The narration under the first picture goes: "if life originated from pond scum"...~~>under the pregnant woman picture "then it's no wonder people look at this (the fetus) as 'rearranged' pond scum"!

Oh yes, that's exactly what I thought of my child... eejit!

Osiris · 06-10-2003, 09:50 PM

Quote:

First of all, man is no longer viewed as created in the image of God. According to Scripture, man was created in God's image, and, although fallen, is strictly under God's law. Man cannot be reduced to the level of an animal. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The state is made for man, not man for the state. Man is called to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever, and the world is man's dominion under God. But the evolutionary theory views man as a product of the world rather than a destined lord over it in Christ. Man is seen as having evolved out of the fortuitous concourse of atoms and out of the primeval slime. Instead of being set over nature, man is set under nature as a product of it. Man is reduced to the same slavish status as existed during antiquity in ancient Egypt and other states which held to an evolutionary concept.

I found this quote here:

http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v03n1p05.htm

I think this gets to the heart of the problem presented by creationists. We are told a story which says we, humans, are special. The world was created for us. And, even bringing evolution into the story, which most sane people must do, we, humans, still are presented as the 'result' of evolution. We are the highest form of evolution, as we are taught.

The rediculousness of the quote above tossed aside, as evolutionary missionaries, we really are full of sh*t thinking we are the ultimate evolutionary byproduct. If 'consciousness' gives us our claim to fame, we are standing on shakey ground. The population explosion and the tendency towards controlling human evolution and everything else, will lead to our demise ultimately.

Given the history of the earth, consciousness is merely a second in the year of the planet, easily forgotten.

roxrkool · 06-10-2003, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Minnesota
Happy Wonderer,

I find it odd that despite Socrates obvious ploy of I'll Say Anything To Get A Rise Out Of You, people continue to get sucked into his absurd game, taking him on as if he really cared what others say and think.

Wise up people, Socratism has been playing you for a sucker. :banghead:

I' noticed that now. It's a complete waste of time discussing anything with him.

Calzaer · 06-10-2003, 10:06 PM

Quote:

The greatest erosional force is generally where the water is flowing over the lip of the fall. As the lip is eroded away, the waterfall slowly migrates upstream. Niagara Falls is somewhat farther upstream today than it was 10,000 years ago.

I WAS thinking about the lip of the waterfall. It just didn't occur to me that the waterfall would move upstream. I'm not much of a visualization-type person.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.