The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[betazed]

(BTW, betazed: Would you care to start a "betazed KOs theopushionism thread"? Title would refer to my theory that God pushes the planets around because gravity doesn't explain how they move.)

This thread is really cracking me up today. What purpose will such a thread serve? Haven't you heard of intelligent falling? I am pretty sure theopushionism as you aptly name it is right.

 

[diablodelmar]

Sorry. 1 Ga = 1 billion years.

Thanks. Now somebody (preferably The Last Con) contradict these arguements with something realisticly argued (not something like "how do you know thats true?" because that is not a legitamit arguement):

Salt fills the Sea too Fast
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for Billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not possibly be any older than (an upper limit of) 62 million years old, far younger than the billions of years that evolutionists say it has been around for. This indicates a maximum age when assumptions in favour of evolution are made (the sea hasn't been absorbing this much salt for such a long time etc). FYI the input is (currently) 450 million tons of salt every year. The output is only (avg) 27% of that.

Another question to Swede: how much is the moon pulling away from the earth by every year? You who is so good at the physics of orbits and such.

 

[diablodelmar]

If you think gravity is obvious, do you now understand why we think evolution is obvious?

I can actually see the results of gravity. I drop a 300 Newton dumbbell on your face and you scream from pain.

Unfortunatly, I haven't been around for 6 billion years or so to see myself go from a single cell blob to prowling around and hooting to sitting in front of a computer (I'll let you decide which order they came in ).

 

[ironduck]

Unfortunatly, I haven't been around for 6 billion years or so to see myself go from a single cell blob to prowling around and hooting to sitting in front of a computer (I'll let you decide which order they came in ).

Your parents may have seen you go from a single cell blob to prowling around and hooting to sitting in front of a computer. Why don't you ask them?

 

[diablodelmar]

Your parents may have seen you go from a single cell blob to prowling around and hooting to sitting in front of a computer. Why don't you ask them?

I was expecting an answer similar to that. btw you left out the 6 billion years part

 

[ironduck]

I was expecting an answer similar to that. btw you left out the 6 billion years part

It didn't take 6 billion years to create you.

 

[diablodelmar]

It didn't take 6 billion years to create you.

Too true! but aren't you an evolutionist?

 

[diablodelmar]

Thanks. Now somebody (preferably The Last Con) contradict these arguements with something realisticly argued (not something like "how do you know thats true?" because that is not a legitamit arguement):

Salt fills the Sea too Fast
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for Billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not possibly be any older than (an upper limit of) 62 million years old, far younger than the billions of years that evolutionists say it has been around for. This indicates a maximum age when assumptions in favour of evolution are made (the sea hasn't been absorbing this much salt for such a long time etc). FYI the input is (currently) 450 million tons of salt every year. The output is only (avg) 27% of that.

Another question to Swede: how much is the moon pulling away from the earth by every year? You who is so good at the physics of orbits and such.

still waiting for an answer...

 

[ironduck]

Too true! but aren't you an evolutionist?

If by that you mean that I deem the theory of evolution as credible, then that would be correct.

Your point being?

 

[ironduck]

still waiting for an answer...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

 

[The Last Conformist]

Salt fills the Sea too Fast
Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for Billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not possibly be any older than (an upper limit of) 62 million years old, far younger than the billions of years that evolutionists say it has been around for. This indicates a maximum age when assumptions in favour of evolution are made (the sea hasn't been absorbing this much salt for such a long time etc). FYI the input is (currently) 450 million tons of salt every year. The output is only (avg) 27% of that.

As it happens, this is dealt with here. You creationists are awefully predictible.

Edit: , seems ironduck already provided the same link.

Sodium, in case you don't know, is one of the components of table salt, the other being chlorine, and table salt is the dominant component of sea salt.

Another question to Swede: how much is the moon pulling away from the earth by every year? You who is so good at the physics of orbits and such.

~3.8cm/year.

 

[diablodelmar]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html

Sorry but that response does not justify for billions and billions of years.

 

[diablodelmar]

~3.8cm/year.

I applaud your knowledge. Well then, you must know what the radiometric dating given to the moonrocks is?

 

[ironduck]

Sorry but that response does not justify for billions and billions of years.

So? I only said that it didn't take 6 billion years to create you. It took nine months (give or take a bit).

edit - nevermind I thought you were talking about your age, not the link. My mistake. Read the link before you comment on it, ok?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Sorry but that response does not justify for billions and billions of years.

It doesn't justify it, silly - nobody said it does. It shows that the salt content of the oceans is at a steady state, or close enough, which result is compatible with any age for the system.

Now, how about you deal with zircon ages? How come we've got zircons about four billion years old if the planet is much younger?

 

[The Last Conformist]

I applaud your knowledge. Well then, you must know what the radiometric dating given to the moonrocks is?

They're mostly 3.5-4.5 Ga old.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually, it does explain the salt. They measured all the sodium, just not one source, and found that it balanced.

You should note that there was already an answer to your question. This means that your position was refuted a long time ago.

 

[ironduck]

I applaud your knowledge. Well then, you must know what the radiometric dating given to the moonrocks is?

I knew it! I knew it! I just frigging knew it!

It's always the radiometric dating!

How many times do I have to say I want to talk about rain and rainbows before the flood for any creationist to listen?!

 

[diablodelmar]

So? I only said that it didn't take 6 billion years to creat you. It took nine months (give or take a bit).

I was refering to salt levels of the sea...

 

[El_Machinae]

TLC - shouldn't that mean that the Earth or Moon were formed by supernovae 4 billion years ago? That means they must have come from the same supernova, yes?