Radiometric dating idiots Chat with hot girlswithout registration
It's too bad that it's buried inside all the Bible-quoting and attempts at disproving Evolution. If you go to the beach in Pensicola, Florida you will see that it is "bare season" all the time there. But apparently making a joke about high school students erases all doubt that life exists outside our solar system. But wait, "these are the only two choices" so it really doesn't matter that I suggested a third one, does it? The Prentice Hall General Science Book states: "Eighteen to twenty billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page." (Prentice Hall General Science Book, 1992, page 61.) All the matter in the universe squished into a dot smaller than a period on a page? I'm not about to prove or disprove either Creation or Evolution, although I think it is clear that I am on the side of Evolution. Hovind does have some interesting theories, specifically his comet theory. It gets off to a slow start, only because Hovind gets off the a slow start. Then it slows down again at the end, following the pace of Hovind's essay. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Now, if God created it, then He is the boss. If God wants to say in His written word that women should dress modestly then he has the right to say that. " I tell them, "No, I taught high school for 15 years; I don't believe there is much intelligent life here on this planet." The Bible says that Eve is the mother of all living. There are trillions of other solar systems in the universe and it's more than likely that somewhere there exists the same conditions as here on earth. Hovind continues: The Bible's answer is considerably different. What does Pensicola, Florida and it's inhabitants' dress have to do with Evolution? Hovind, do you think that there is intelligent life on other planets? Interesting annecdote, but what is that supposed to prove? You are just a bit of protoplasm that washed upon the beach a couple of million years ago. If you are an evolutionist, you came from a cosmic burp about 20 million years ago. This is something that I've observed from a lot of Christians.This idea of majority of opinion being right is crazy.Those doctors that killed George Washington were sincere men.If you find another coin in there from 1600, that doesn't mean anything.We still know from the other coin that the ship sank after 1700.
Some of these planets have little moons going around them. Out of the 60 known moons, Mercury and Venus do not have any. Out of the 60 known moons, at least 11 of them are spinning backwards, 4 of them are traveling backwards, and 2 planets have moons going both directions at the same time. If it all started from a big bang, it should all be going the same direction. Hovind conveniently forgot part of the law of conservation of angular momentum (heh heh, I picked up a physics book. This law states that regardless of changes within the system, the net angular momentum remains constant. " I said, "Very simple sir, in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and God did that it way on purpose just to make the big bang theory look stupid." It is stupid! Mencken's Metalaw: "For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong." Just because religion presents a tidy little solution (without any facts or evidence) is zero proof of it's truth. Hovind's passionate commentary, it's just that: commentary. You might say, "Everybody believes that the world is billions of years old." In the first place, everybody doesn't believe that. Do you know for many years they thought that the earth was in the middle of the solar system and that everything went around the earth? The majority believed it, but it certainly didn't put the earth in the center. Everybody believed that heavier rocks fall faster than lighter rocks.
From recent scientific articles I've read, I think I've got a better handle on the Big Bang theory than he does. The problem with this is, it excuses the conclusion from the initial assumption.
It's saying here we're assuming that nothing can be in motion without being set in motion by something else. I could just ask- "If you first say that nothing can be in motion without being set in motion, what set God in motion?
The only thing is, by this method, science is constantly getting closer to the truth. If I asked you the question, "When did the ship sink?
Pay close attention to this part, only because it is so completely stupid: I'll give you an analogy to show you how this works. " you would say, "I don't know;, I didn't see it; I just found the box." I say, "Okay, let's see if we can figure out when the ship sank.
They were highly educated, intelligent, and dead wrong in what they believed. Trying to use science's system of theory revision as an attack on science.