Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[SMEGMA STENCH]

I would. If the earth has been around for about half-again the total age of the universe, that's pretty significant. If you round it off, and say the universe is 15 billion, and the earth is 5 billion, then that's a third of the age,

[racrguy]

Pretty young, given the perceived age of the universe. Even our sun is young. I forgot how old they think the universe is... was it 14 billion? The earth and sun have been around for a good portion of the universe's total age.

In short, we don't know for sure, but you are correct for the most part. It's estimated the universe is 12-14 billion years old.

With our solar system being 4.5 billion years old, then I wouldn't call it a "good portion of the universe's total age." In my opinion, a good portion>1/2. Given the range of timelines, the solar system is around 1/3 as old as the universe.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

[SMEGMA STENCH]

I'd like to point out that I know of noone who thinks the earth is 600 billion years old. It is ~4.3-4.5 billion years old.

Pretty young, given the perceived age of the universe. Even our sun is young. I forgot how old they think the universe is... was it 14 billion? The earth and sun have been around for a good portion of the universe's total age.

I'm not writing a thesis, I'm on a mustang forum. If you don't believe I know what I'm talking about then don't listen to what I have to say.

You mean "don't believe what I copy and pasted," not what YOU have to say, seeing as YOU haven't said anything.

[exlude]

If you don't believe I know what I'm talking about then don't listen to what I have to say.

okay

[racrguy]

I'm not writing a thesis, I'm on a mustang forum. If you don't believe I know what I'm talking about then don't listen to what I have to say. As I stated, using my resources saves me a lot of time and the validity of the content is not affected. I do know about this argument and enjoy the debate. I cannot get out the large amount of info needed to refute the above arguments in the free time I have on here. That's just how it is.

You may be on a mustang forum, but you are having an intellectual conversation. You can't maintain any form of intellectual integrity whatsoever when you pull these shenanigans.

[Parasite Eva]

Stephen, there is a huge difference between using resources and blatantly stealing someone's material in an attempt to pass it off as your own.

This apparently needs repeating.

[stephen4785]

I'm not writing a thesis, I'm on a mustang forum. If you don't believe I know what I'm talking about then don't listen to what I have to say. As I stated, using my resources saves me a lot of time and the validity of the content is not affected. I do know about this argument and enjoy the debate. I cannot get out the large amount of info needed to refute the above arguments in the free time I have on here. That's just how it is.

[exlude]

Stephen, you aren't going to hurt my feelings and try to tell me I'm copping out. It's overtly obvious how much better versed I am on the subject than you are. Who's more a cop out? The one who copy & pastes his arguments ignorantly or the one who refuses to argue with someone who doesn't know what he's talking about?

I put the effort into my post, sorry you couldn't (literaly couldn't) yourself.

Man, I've been staying out of this, but that is pretty fuckin' weak.

[Parasite Eva]

Riiiight. So I should have spent 30 mins each post to hand type out information I already know when I could have used resources to do it in 5 seconds. The content of the information is not validated or invalidated based on whether or not I physically type out each word. You're right I must be too stoopid to understand your material enough to properly discuss it. Please. You think to highly of yourself IMO.

Oh, you have got to be kidding me.

Stephen, there is a huge difference between using resources and blatantly stealing someone's material in an attempt to pass it off as your own.

I really would have held a minute amount of respect for you, had you credited and linked the websites you outright burgled. Perhaps if you even prefaced it with a statement such as, "Hey, this is in line with what I personally believe... please provide an argument against it so I can further understand your position. copy/paste, credit to author."

But no. You couldn't even do that.

Instead, you ran rampant throughout the interwebz, pulling selections from creationist websites, and threw them in everyone's face as if they were Jesus-centric party favors that you made aaaaaaall by yourself.

Unfortunately, even if your claim of laziness is an accurate statement, no one is going to take you seriously because plagiarizers generally don't understand whatever topic they're having to discuss... hence why they steal from others instead of presenting their own work.

So... I guess the big question is this: Do we expect Stephen to take some responsibility for his mistake, or to just outright abandon the topic now that his plagiarism has been brought to light? Personally, I'd like to see him man up, admit his mistakes, and move forward by presenting his own material. This thread is too interesting to die now!

[racrguy]

"I'm not going to argue with more stuff you plagiarized, as I don't think you understand the material well enough to properly discuss it."

Riiiight. So I should have spent 30 mins each post to hand type out information I already know when I could have used resources to do it in 5 seconds. The content of the information is not validated or invalidated based on whether or not I physically type out each word. You're right I must be too stoopid to understand your material enough to properly discuss it. Please. You think to highly of yourself IMO.

What exlude said is exactly what it means. Go to any school and try to plagiarize material and see what kind of grade it gets you. Plagiarization directly shows that you DON'T know what you're talking about. If you did, you would be able to explain the concepts in your own words.

[stephen4785]

"I'm not going to argue with more stuff you plagiarized, as I don't think you understand the material well enough to properly discuss it."

Riiiight. So I should have spent 30 mins each post to hand type out information I already know when I could have used resources to do it in 5 seconds. The content of the information is not validated or invalidated based on whether or not I physically type out each word. You're right I must be too stoopid to understand your material enough to properly discuss it. Please. You think to highly of yourself IMO.

I fully understand what you are saying about overall entropy in the universe, all evolutionists say the same thing. I just don't agree. Harvard scientist, John Ross, comments:

"...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

In an isolated system the entropy will increase...Let's say you take a light bulb and theoretically seal it off from any outside influences. Over a very long period of time the light bulb will break down into its simplest form. Take that same light bulb and place it into an open system such as Earth and what happens? It breaks down at an even faster rate. This same concept is what creationists believe as related to evolution and the open/closed system and overall entropy debate. An open system such as Earth would increase entropy not decrease it. We do not become a higher more organized life form because that violates 2LOT. Is science to be based on fact and evidence or metaphysical speculations? If your answer is fact and evidence then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all.

You continue to redirect the argument away from evolution going against the laws of thermodynamics and bringing it back to how can God exist. We are not discussing your question on the origin of God, we are discussing my question on the evidence that evolution cannot be valid if the 1st and 2nd LOT are true.

Stephen Hawking- "...the universe has not existed for ever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." The universe is unwinding so at some point you would conclude it had a beginning or it was "Wound up". If there were an infinite amount of energy (Energy always existed) then it would never run down. Unfortunately for you it is winding down so the argument that it simply "Always existed" is not valid. If it didn't always exist then it was created (1st and 2nd LOT).

As far as the evidence for a young Earth I posted I assume that you will not address it (What a surprise) because I didn't hand type it out. Doesn't matter. The science is still valid and you still can't prove them wrong. I think it's a cop out on your part but you are entitled to debate with whomever you please. Again, I believe there is plenty of scientific evidence to have creationism taught in science class at any public school. You present your arguments and I present mine and neither of us can empirically prove the other right/wrong. If you cannot prove me wrong then my theory should be taught as an option. It amazes me that evolutionists and atheists go into a frenzy whenever creationism in schools is addressed. If their beliefs rest on such a strong foundation they should have nothing to worry about.

[exlude]

Ok, so I can say several of evolutionists calculations have questions in validity as well. That doesn't necessarily make it true, correct? What part of the calculations have questions? That blanket statement with nothing to back it up is worthless. As far as the universe being a closed system it's funny how it MAY be a closed system, but it would still allow for billions of years of evolution continually going towards a higher, more complex system (Completely opposite of 2LOT) You can't have it both ways.

I'm not going to argue with more stuff you plagiarized, as I don't think you understand the material well enough to properly discuss it.

However, I'll respond to the above. First, I've already mentioned that the timelines used in those experiments were biblical in nature. Seeing as we aren't even sure what a "day" means in the Bible, that seems like a shaky foundation for a mathematical proof. I've already mentioned this, I hope I don't need to again.

As for the 2LOT bit, you still don't seem to understand it. You can have the building of order within a system as long as the system as a whole is increasing entropy. So, seeing the perpetuation of life while the stars are all dying at results in a net increase in entropy...thus fulfilling the 2LOT.

1LOT- Energy cannot be created or destroyed
- Energy was not created by natural (physical) means.
- Yet, the universe exists as energy.
- If the energy of the universe was not created naturally, then it must have been created supernaturally.
So what do you say? Probably that energy always existed. The second law of thermodynamics prevents this from being a valid explanation. It states that there is no natural means to increase the net usable energy in a closed (isolated) system.
Hmmmmm no natural means in a closed system....so we are left with....???

I'll ask the same question I've yet to get an answer to in all of these origin threads: If you believe that God exists and has always existed, how is it impossible to believe that energy exists and has always existed? The 2LOT doesn't cover this, at all. Conservation of energy says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. But if something has always existed then it has neither been created nor destroyed. All of this doesn't even touch on the possibility of overlapping dimensions.

What about the other evidence I mentioned?
1. Based on the observed rotational speeds of the stars about the center of our own galaxy, "if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless smear of stars instead of its present spiral shape."
2. Comets disintegrate rapidly as they approach the sun, most surviving less "than 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years." (Science says the age of cometary material is similar to the 5 billion year age of the solar system.)
3. At the current rate of erosion from water and winds "it would only take 15 million years to erode all land above sea level," depositing it into the ocean. (Science says the age of continents is hundreds of millions of years old)
4. At the current rate of sedimentation, the accumulation of sedimentation from the continents "implies that the present ocean floors have existed less than 15 million years." Fossil evidence supports the current rate of sedimentation. (Science says the age of the ocean floors is around 200 million years old).
5. Assuming that the oceans had no salt to start with, at the current rates of sodium entering and leaving the oceans, the oceans would have accumulated their present amount in less than 42 million years. Using the most generous allowances for evolutionary scenarios, still gives a maximum possible age for the oceans of only 62 million years. (Science says the age of the oceans are around 3 billion years old)
6. The earth's magnetic field energy has been decaying at a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years. At this current decay rate, the earth could not be greater than 10,000 years old. (Science says the age of the earth is around 5 billion years old)
7. Many erect fossil trees in Nova Scotia were found "throughout 2,500 feet of geologic strata, penetrating 20 geologic horizons. These trees had to have been buried faster than it took them to decay. This implies that the entire formation was deposited in less than a few years." (Science says layers were deposited over millions of years)
8. "Many strata are too tightly bent. In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic timescale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition."
9. Radiohalos are spheres (rings in cross section) "of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay." "'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates."
10. All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate Helium (in the form of an alpha particle) as they decay. Taking into account the amount of helium flowing into and out of the atmosphere, "it would take less than 2 million years to accumulate the small amount of helium in the air today."
11. "Helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be billions of years old, their helium retention suggest an age much less than millions of years."
12. There are not enough stone-age skeletons to account for the approximately 4 billion Neanderthal and Cro-magnon people that evolutionary anthropologists say lived during the 100,000 years of the stone age. "Yet only a few thousand skeletons have been found implying that the stone age was much shorter, a few hundred years in many areas."

Yet you don't count any of this as evidence enough to be considered a theory for public schools?

[Maddhattter]

I googled some of "your" statements from that post, they come up on multiple creationists sites word for word.

FAKE SCIENCE FROM SITES WITH EXTREME BIAS - SEEMS LEGIT! lulz
It's like getting a civil rights argument from stormfront.org (white supremacist site for those who don't know) LOL

Dude, you've been busted, just stop, lol.

Nailed it!