Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism

It is all assumption starting with darwin. He saw animals and made assumptions. Later people found bones and made more assumptions. None of this can be argued without assumption. When dating rocks we assume that we know what the rocks were composed of when they were formed. No one analyzed the rock when it was formed, there are no benchmarks and controls to compare against. This is simple and obvious stuff to to anyone who is capable of critical thought.

1. Millions of missing links
2. Unprovable dating techniques
3. Archeological finds that contradict the theory
4. A history of fraud and fabrications
5. Paintings and carvings thousands of years old depicting dinosaurs that these people would have supposedly never seen
6. A whole world of ancient histories that say otherwise.
7. No answer as to why there are only lagre amounts of fossils in certain layers of earth as opposed to having fossils everywhere or nowehere.
These are the reasons why it is not science. There are no good anwers to these because there are no good answers to these. So to believe in things unseen is faith.

How do scientists "know" how far away the nearest star to the sun is? Once you figure out that there is currently no possible way to know and that it is really just a guess than you will begin to see, unless of course you stick your head back in the sand.

Einstien put it best when he said " Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school"

reply to post by beegoodbees


Aha, I see. Interesting. To summarise your post: "I've been beaten like a drum but I'm going to fail to comprehend all the facts that were thrown at me and instead reiterate all my points in a desperate attempt at pretending that I've won."

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

Aha, I see. Interesting. To summarise your post: "I've been beaten like a drum but I'm going to fail to comprehend all the facts that were thrown at me and instead reiterate all my points in a desperate attempt at pretending that I've won."

No one has been able to answer any of my arguments. Just because some poeple shout loudly doesn't mean that they are right. What "facts" have I missed? I think you have missed the short bus.

You are arguing in circles and I am getting dizzy.

beegoodbees
You are arguing in circles and I am getting dizzy. See Ya.

Translation: I know I'm wrong but this goes against my religious belief so I just pretend that it's not real.

reply to post by beegoodbees


At least he's moving. You're just standing still. Nothing we say or show you can move you. You've ignored everything we've given to you, to prove what we're saying here. You keep insisting there are flaws but can't explain them, you demand proof and then change the subject when confronted with it.

You have no room to complain about anything here.

reply to post by beegoodbees


"How do scientists "know" how far away the nearest star to the sun is?",,really and u quote Einstien??u should be ashamed,, speed of light ,,tells us it is so.
actually NASA tested this speed of light FACT,,,,when the lazered a beam too the moon and back,,
guess what,,
speed of light,,,,FACT.
SO,,take it from there.
e=mc squared.
How do scientists "know" how far away ?
wow.

BobAthome
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

"How do scientists "know" how far away the nearest star to the sun is?",,really and u quote Einstien??u should be ashamed,, speed of light ,,tells us it is so.
actually NASA tested this speed of light FACT,,,,when the lazered a beam too the moon and back,,
guess what,,
speed of light,,,,FACT.
SO,,take it from there.
e=mc squared.
How do scientists "know" how far away ?
wow.

edit on 10/31/2013 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

That is a dumb answer to say the least. You cant shoot a laser to the nearest star and measure the time it it takes to bounce back. They put a mirror on the moon so they could make that measurement. Comparing the moon to the nearest star to the sun is ridiculous. In order to judge distance you must know size and in order to know size you must first know distance. Even if we shot a laser to the nearest star and it did manage to bounce back, we would probably still be waiting for it to come back to us if the stars are as far as has been theorized.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

At least he's moving. You're just standing still. Nothing we say or show you can move you. You've ignored everything we've given to you, to prove what we're saying here. You keep insisting there are flaws but can't explain them, you demand proof and then change the subject when confronted with it.

You have no room to complain about anything here.

edit on 31-10-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

No one has presented anything of substance aside from drivers1492. Just diversionary tactics and copy paste explanations of how radio carbon dating works.

rhinoceros

beegoodbees
You are arguing in circles and I am getting dizzy. See Ya.

Translation: I know I'm wrong but this goes against my religious belief so I just pretend that it's not real.

Funny you say that but have no sensible explanation for anything. I t seems to me that is exactly what you are doing.
If it can't be reproduced through experimentation it is not science. That is a fact.
Keep on launching em and I'll keep on shooting em down.

Other than covering your ears and repeating "I am right and you are wrong" have you any response to my simple points.

How does anyone know what the chemical composition of a rock was when it was formed thousands, millions or billions of years ago?

Why are there no transitional fossils?

Where is the half scale half feather?

There should be millions of them, surely we would have found one by now.

Why are there paintings and sculptures thousands of years old depicting dinosaurs not to mention written descriptions.

Why does every ancient civilization in the world have a record of a flood?

Why did all these creatures just appear in the fossil record with no traceable ancestors?

Why do I bother trying to explain any of this to a bunch of religious zealots?

reply to post by beegoodbees


Didn't they teach you this stuff in public school or were you home schooled maybe even some religious school. You are asking questions that you SHOULD already know most of those answers.

Why are there no transitional fossils?

May have been found.

Why did all these creatures just appear in the fossil record with no traceable ancestors?

Do you mean the Cambrian explosion?

No answer as to why there are only lagre amounts of fossils in certain layers of earth as opposed to having fossils everywhere or nowehere.

Just because a animal dies does not mean it will turn into a fossil if you think that you need to honestly do some research into the ways fossils are formed.

Why does every ancient civilization in the world have a record of a flood?

Actually even present day civilization has several records of floods. Flooding is quite common throughout history even this year. Does that answer your question?

beegoodbees
How does anyone know what the chemical composition of a rock was when it was formed thousands, millions or billions of years ago?

Why are there no transitional fossils?

Where is the half scale half feather?

There should be millions of them, surely we would have found one by now.

Why are there paintings and sculptures thousands of years old depicting dinosaurs not to mention written descriptions.

Why does every ancient civilization in the world have a record of a flood?

Why did all these creatures just appear in the fossil record with no traceable ancestors?

Why do I bother trying to explain any of this to a bunch of religious zealots?

edit on 31-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster give me strength... We have the transitional fossils, which can be seen here, here and here.
Please show a single picture of a cave painting of a T-Rex, Stegosaurus or a Brachiosaurus. Or a cite to one of these so-called written descriptions. Most ancient civilizations have records of floods because a) they had local floods and b) they stole the idea off other religions. The story of Noah for example is based on a far older Babylonian myth. And as for the creatures appearing in the fossil record with no traceable ancestors, I suggest that you see my line about more transitional fossils.
And why am I explaining myself to someone who can be classed as a religious zealot - and one with a closed mind???

reply to post by beegoodbees


Thank you for posting that article. It made me howl with laughter.

reply to post by beegoodbees



I have already told you about using the quote function and providing links I have even quoted the T&C for you.

The way you are quoting is paramount to plagiarism.

Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

Didn't they teach you this stuff in public school or were you home schooled maybe even some religious school. You are asking questions that you SHOULD already know most of those answers.

Why are there no transitional fossils?

May have been found.

Why did all these creatures just appear in the fossil record with no traceable ancestors?

Do you mean the Cambrian explosion?

No answer as to why there are only lagre amounts of fossils in certain layers of earth as opposed to having fossils everywhere or nowehere.

Just because a animal dies does not mean it will turn into a fossil if you think that you need to honestly do some research into the ways fossils are formed.

Why does every ancient civilization in the world have a record of a flood?

Actually even present day civilization has several records of floods. Flooding is quite common throughout history even this year. Does that answer your question?

No transitional fossils have been found. Every claimed transitional fossil has many many missing links. For it to be transitional you need the before the middle and the after. It just doesn't exist. I would like you to present one for me to debunk.

No I mean the flintstonian explosion.


I have already addressed the problem with fossils and why it promotes creation. Most of the fossils are only found in certain layers as opposed to all of the layers or none at all which suggests they were buried rapidly. The fact that most animals don't turn into fossils is my point, they normally are eaten and decayed away as opposed to becoming fossilized. Yet in certain layers we see lots of fossilized remains which should not naturally occur.

By flood of course I am talking about the histories of a global flood not a heavy rain. China, India, America, Africa, Australia. Wherever there are long kept histories they all say global flood.

reply to post by beegoodbees

No transitional fossils have been found. I would like you to present one for me to debunk.

look here

Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees

 

No transitional fossils have been found. I would like you to present one for me to debunk.

look here

Ok, that is laughable. That was a picture of two different animals with similar shaped skulls. There should be millions of transitional variations in between those to skulls. Or did it just mutate over night? As far as plagiarism that is equally ridiculous because the name of the author is above the document.