"swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote:
>
> On Apr 25, 12:28 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote:
> >
> > > Cosmologists Can't Agree and are Still in Doubt (Technical)
They're in no doubt that that the universe is ancient. Contrary to
what you imply, that isn't remotely an issue. So when you say they
can't agree, you are pulling the usual Creationist deception, making
it sound like many think the universe is possibly only a few thousand
years old.
> http:[Creationist link spam snipped again]
> > Gladys provided no argument, just another Creationist link.
> > Your writing "(Technical)" means you don't understand its content. If
> > you don't understand what it is trying to say, then you wouldn't have
> > a clue if it deals with the point I was rebutting from the other
> > Creationist. Well, no surprise, it doesn't deal with it at all.
> > However, I'm quite sure that that wouldn't bother someone whose main
> > role here is - as I have said many times - a Creationist link spammer.
> >
> You are right. I did not understand much of the technical language in
> the article.
> The point made in the above website is that there are disagreements
> within the 'Long-ages for the Universe' camp.
So what? Gladys, don't bother trying to imply that the disagreement
has some of the real scientists thinking that the earth and universe
are young. They no more would think that than think that the earth is
flat. How many astronomers does Creation 'Science' have, Gladys? One,
two, none? How about mainsteam profressional astronomers? How many do
you think there are in the world? I'll give you the answers in my next
post.
> However, if you contend that 'Evolution did happen', then long ages
> are needed for the changing of an organism of one kind into an
> organism of another kind, up the tree of life or even along cladistic
> branches.
>
> Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3051
Here is a little problem for you to research, Gladys:
Some star clusters have old and middle aged and new stars; others have
just middle aged and old stars. But none are missing old stars. So one
can reasonably assume, that with the latter kind, the previously young
stars have become middle aged, the previously middle aged have become
old aged and the previously old aged stars have expired. If this rapid
ageing and burning out has occurred in 10,000 years, given the vast
number of stars visible to us, we should be able to observe a rapid
expiration rate. We see nothing of the sort. Even the shorter star
lives would be in the order of hundreds of millions of years.
By all means, seek the assistance of the Creation 'Scientists'. If you
can't figure out how to contact them, I will help you.
> for those who wish to follow other Creationist articles on aspects of
> this issue.
>
> This topic is very pertinent to the inerrancy of the Biblical record;
> it is therefore pertinent to aus.religion.christian.
Once again there is no argument or evidence from you, other than
another spammed Creationist link. In your response to Mark, you add
yet another Creationist link, a link about dinosaurs, ferchrisaake!
Apart from your inability to stay on a subject, it is quite clear that
you are a spammer for the Creationist websites and spammers are
considered to be pests. This appears in the rules for debating at
IIDB:
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85871
~ Arguments based solely via "URL link" are strongly discouraged
~ (e.g., "I challenge you to respond to stuff from this website
~ link which refutes your entire argument").
It is an inferior form of argument and it's an inferior arguer who
employs it - especially one who does it consistently and gratuitously.
Sean McHugh
|
