Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Off topic, but Richard Boone lived a mile or so from where I worked in the 90s. I'm old enough that I watched the show in its original run.
It's been so long since he's been around, I just can't seem to capture the flavor of his posts. Perhaps bourbon would help.
Frre Republic poster Patrick Henry [misnomer] contended that the original Patrick Henry had to be a Creationist since he lived before Darwin. But there were plenty of non-creationists before Darwin. I can't make it any simpler, and I'm not sure why I wasted this much time trying any way. My last post on the subject. I'll leave you and PH alone with each other.
And he opened his mouth, and
taught them, saying,
Blessed are the poor in spirit:
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
I know you won't be shocked to know that some of but some of us find your grammar at times, amusing as well....
The huge canyons, some hundreds of feet deep and in solid rock, around Mount Saint Helens were made in a matter of days. While probably not in half an hour, it is possible for the Grand Canyon to be formed fast.
P.S. It's not smart to publicly call evolution stupid if you're trying to convince people of creationism.
If there was a contest for using the word liar you would win.
You're not dealing with the energy of the radioactive decay from Earth, supposedly speeded up as well in these models. The canopy isn't keeping that out. If anything it's helping to hold it in.
And what O what is keeping a hollow spherical shell of water (ice?) from collapsing onto the Earth through the centuries up to Flood Time?
I have to admit a mistake, though. I looked at your homepage. You aren't Hovind. I'll leave it at that so this post can stay up.
So here we are all these pages later. You've posted the standard "I see no evidence; I understand no evidence and you'll never ever ever make me; Ooooh you evos are such meanies!" creationist claptrap without stop for all that time.
The point is we could calculate the energy output of the sun and the amount reaching the earth based on the speed of light at the time. We can calculate the speed of light necessary to reach the Earth from a specific distance in a specific time. Remember, you are the one claiming that the speed of light and the rate of decay were high enough in the past to give us an error in dating of a factor of 7.5 x 106.
A canopy raises its own pile of questions. What was the composition of the canopy? What were the lower and upper bounds of the canopy? How much did the canopy increase the atmospheric pressure at sea level if at all? How much heat did the canopy retain? What frequencies of light reached the surface? How did this affect plants?
If we ignore the problems of sustaining a canopy above the Earth and assume the canopy reduces the amount of energy heating up the Earth we are still left with the problem of energy from radioactive materials. If the canopy restricts the amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun, it will also restrict the amount of energy radiating out to space from the surface of the Earth, including the huge amount of energy released by an increased speed of decay.
Any way you look at it, in a 6000 year old Earth, heat would prevent most life from existing.
I agree that assumptions affect conclusions, but some assumptions are based on more than wild conjecture. In the case we are discussing, the assumption we operate on is that E=MC2 was as valid then as now. It would take more than an 'assumption' that it was not valid in the past for us to abandon our use of it. We can also assume that the mass of the Sun and of Earth has been consistent as well; if we didn't, the Earth's orbit would be totally different than it is today and would not likely be stable.
I'm no biologist and don't play one on the Internet, but I'll be the one to sound a sour note.
Humans are not descended from any modern monkey species. However, it's highly likely that if you had a time machine and were tracing human ancestry back through time, you would arrive at a population of animals that you would unquestionably call monkeys.
I have "nitpicked", as you call it, on the side of science.
As far as denia, you do know what projection is.
Still, your ever present seething anger makes me know that I have hurt your feelings in the past.
I'm sorry. I haven't meant to hurt your feelings or made you feel bad.
It'll be OK. Cheer up.
There is a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law, but not the one you are hoping for.
Exactly. So stop nitpicking on us and nitpick the witch doctors instead of running interference for them.
(OK, I suspect the literal truth in your quoted sentence was unintentional on your part. Still, there it is.)
I've been quietly reading your posts in this thread waiting for some substantive argument against evolution or positive evidence for whatever your belief system holds as the true cause of the variety of organisms on Earth, but so far all I have seen from you is a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions.
When do you present something that can actually be debated?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.