[gallo]

Quote by: Porfyra lol evolutionists are RUDE

But not as rude as creationists.

gallo all my credits were at the end of the list, which if you read the end of my post, you would know that i could not post it all.

But you stated that is was your list and you didn't post the reference. It doesn't matter that you had more, why didn't you just post a link. I know why. You wanted to claim it as your work and only when I objected did you add the reference. After all, you are a creationist christian and that is expected of you. We have seen it so many times before. Here's the thing. If you weren't trying to claim credit, then why not just post the link to that trite nonsense instead of claiming it as "your list"? The simple answer is that your are a christian.

it was a simple mistake- i forgot to make sure that they were on what part of the list that i had. and making a mistake doesn't make someone un-christian. just in case you hadn't heard, my God is a FORGIVING God. and also:

Except it wasn't a mistake. You wouldn't have posted the reference if I hadn't mentioned it. That's how you christians operate. And, just in case you haven't heard, the christian god forgives only if you confess your sin, which you haven't done. However, it is clear that it was never you intent to honorably admit your theft because you bring up forgiveness in the first place. That would only be relevant if I were correct. So, your god will forgive you only when you confess your sin to those you have wronged - those you have wronged by lying are the members of this board. Otherwise, you will be punished by your god for your sin of lying.

hah thats funny because i think that what you believe is bogus.... humor me- how is that information bogus? you have any evidence to contradict it?

Certainly. Lots. But on the other hand I don't tend to learn my science from young earth creationist fundamentalist preachers. I actually learned my science from scientists (Mr. Hovind has no accredited degrees).

Thanatos- besides questioning everything i said, i didnt actually see any evidence to contradict the list. come on ppl! contradict me! give me something to debate with besides insults!

But you didn't present any evidence. Why should we? In fact, Thanatos told you why your first point (that you plagerized from Humphreys) is wrong. If you were motivated by a desire to learn the truth, you would check out these claims before you post them. Your point #1 is wrong. The question that needs explaining is not why galaxies have not wound down because inner stars orbit faster than outer stars. The question is why outer stars are orbiting at speeds far greater than might be assumed when considering only the visible matter. The problem is that your assumption is not based on actual observation. In fact, observations of near galaxies (Andromeda and M51 among them) that the outer regions do not rotate at speeds that might be expected based only on the visible stars. It seems that there is some sort of gravitational force that extends far out from the center of those galaxies (and thus, probably our own) that causes the outer branches to orbit at speeds much faster than would be expected from the visible light alone. The problem is not why galaxies don't wind up, but why the observed speeds of the outer regions of galaxies is less than might be expected. Let me stress that, given the observed speeds of the outer regions of spiral galaxies, they would not be expected to "wind up."

... and now the end of the list WITH CREDITS to make you all happy:

It might have if you had not claimed it as "your list" in the first place. You lied and claimed that the work of others was your own. And now you sin again by justifying your sin. Jesus is going to get you for this.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata. With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

How stupid. I'm neither a geologist nor a nuclear physicist and I can answer that. The C14 isn't the result of cosmic ray activity in the atmosphere, but the result of radiometric decay in the earth. Of course labs have been aware of it. On the other hand, they wouldn't even attempt to date 250,000 year old samples unless some stupid creationist put up the money. It is really quite well understood that C14 in old samples is the result of neutrons emitted by the radio decay of other elements.

Make effort to educate yourself. If not, you make yourself look foolish.