Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lizard · 11-29-2002, 04:50 PM

"Marry-go-round?" Is that a term for getting married and divorced frequently? It's spelled "merry-go-round."

And the Big Bang is not just some vague speculation. There is background radiation still existing that is like an echo of the original event. That's how we can tell it happened. Go here:

<a href="http://www.kcfs.org/fliers/fliers.html" target="_blank">The Big Bang Flyer</a>

Check out the flyer entitled "The Big Bang: A Beginner's Guide to the Beginning."

semyaza · 11-29-2002, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
One of the laws of quantum physics is that matter cannot compress past a certain point.

Hmmm...my QM lecturer at University didn't mention this "fact" for some reason....

I suppose it would be too much to ask that Mr Hovind has ever even heard of the Strong and Weak nuclear forces, let alone understand what they are...

tgamble · 11-29-2002, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by semyaza:


Hmmm...my QM lecturer at University didn't mention this "fact" for some reason....

Well, obviously he's part of that huge conspiracy to cover up the truth. He lied to you!

Jimmy Higgins · 11-29-2002, 08:50 PM

Quote:

If you have a group of children on a marry-go-round, and you spun those children really fast, when you reach about 100 miles per hour, those kids are going to fly off the marry � go � round. There is a law of thermodynamics that states that every kid will be spinning in the same direction. According to the big bang theory, after the explosion, everything started spinning really fast (and that�s how everything was formed). If this is true, why do we have two planets, and four moons that spin in the opposite direction.

Well, if we had one planet revolving around the sun in a different direction, perhaps we'd have something there.

But this children on a merry-go-round at 100 mph is intriguing.

That's what, approximately 0.911 g's?

So this leads me to wonder, at what velocity is the maximum a child could hold on without having a harness to the center of the merry-go-round. Hovind also makes another terrible science observation on the rotation. Yak. The only force driving the kid off of the merry-go-round is their tangential acceleration. Tangential meaning, perpendicular to the edge of the merry-go-round. If the kids were to rotate that would suggest that it would be possible to puts kids on a merry-go-round and spin them fast enough that you could get them to orbit the merry-go-round after being ejected. What a dumb-ass! I'm sure he doesn't have any force diagrams to back this crap up. I think its safe to say that Hovind didn't teach Senior Physics in High School.

Quote:

And you see, Quantum Physics "theory" says that once every starts to rotate, all the particles begin to dance the Macarena. This is strictly forbidded by the 15th law of Thermodynamics! I should know all about the most complicated and still highly theoretical field in physics. I sub'd once for a freshman intro to science class.

Can't this man be sued for endangering the welfare of minors with the stuff he's got on his website? Its worse than whatever violence could be shown on tv!

enigma555 · 11-30-2002, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
There is a law of thermodynamics that states that every kid will be spinning in the same direction.

News to me. That must be the "Duh"th law of thermodynamics that I keep hearing about.

Anti-Creedance Front · 11-30-2002, 02:41 AM

I'm no scientist, but I don't think ANYONE has knowledge of the creation of the universe in their hands. That includes scientific philosophers. I don't want to start debating, but if you compressed all matter in the universe into a little dot, wouldn't something have to exist outside that? It's not our place to philosophize on how we got here. Maybe it will be when it's in our sights, but not now.

tgamble · 11-30-2002, 07:02 AM

In response to an age of the earth thread:

Quote:

Let me start off by saying that scientists cannot prove that the Earth is billions and billions of years old. They weren�t around that long. Carbon dating supposedly has a half - life of over 5700 years. Scientists weren�t around that long to know that, and they based this theory by analyzing the carbon for a couple of days in a laboratory. Unfortunately for them, reality isn�t in a laboratory, in reality there could be many other factors that could affect the amount of carbon that�s in a fossil. Whenever the age of a fossil is known, carbon dating is usually inaccurate. As a matter of fact, every time the age of a fossil is known, if you don�t tell the �scientist� anything about the fossil, he / she would have to guess the age of the fossil (because carbon dating has been proven wrong time and time again). Basically, if it can be tested and proven to be wrong, then the method is proven not to work (ex: when they test something that has a known age). However, if the method cannot be tested and proven wrong, it�s assumed to work (ex: something that was around before the method existed). The funny thing is that even though carbon dating is tested and proven wrong (when the age of something is known), it�s assumed to work at a time that it�s accuracy cannot be tested (meaning when it can�t be proven wrong, when the age of something isn�t known). This is not science; this is stupidity.

Quote:

The red shift has never been tested on light (just sound). Even if it were true, the Bible teaches that GOD first created light, then he created the light giver, the Bible still hasn�t made any mistakes. Secondly, light speed is not always the same. I learned in 10th grade that water slows down the speed of light. So it�s possible that light travels faster in space. Not only that, but I have heard of experiments that have made light travel 300 times faster than normal (I don�t know if this is true though, I can�t prove it).

Water slows down light so it would be slower in space?? WTF?!

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

ashibaka · 11-30-2002, 07:10 AM

Hey, can I misquote him on that?

Quote:

Originally posted by Hovind:
There is no reality in a laboratory.

Coragyps · 11-30-2002, 07:10 AM

Quote:

The red shift has never been tested on light (just sound).

He's never been stopped for speeding? What a maroon!

tgamble · 11-30-2002, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Coragyps:

He's never been stopped for speeding? What a maroon!

Don't mean to sound stupid but could you explain that a bit? Thanks!

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

11-29-2002, 04:50 PM	#11
Lizard Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Kansas Posts: 169	"Marry-go-round?" Is that a term for getting married and divorced frequently? It's spelled "merry-go-round." And the Big Bang is not just some vague speculation. There is background radiation still existing that is like an echo of the original event. That's how we can tell it happened. Go here: <a href="http://www.kcfs.org/fliers/fliers.html" target="_blank">The Big Bang Flyer</a> Check out the flyer entitled "The Big Bang: A Beginner's Guide to the Beginning."

11-30-2002, 02:41 AM	#16
Anti-Creedance Front Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Wisconsin, USA Posts: 452	I'm no scientist, but I don't think ANYONE has knowledge of the creation of the universe in their hands. That includes scientific philosophers. I don't want to start debating, but if you compressed all matter in the universe into a little dot, wouldn't something have to exist outside that? It's not our place to philosophize on how we got here. Maybe it will be when it's in our sights, but not now.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.