Well it looks like scientists have discarded the Big Bang and replaced it with the theory that the earth was formed by the attraction of molecular dust by gravity. According to the science channel, this dust apparently came from the stars. Never mind that they don't explain how the stars or gravity got there, they have simply put them there.
And get this: They explained how water got on the earth by the bombardment of asteriods! And yet they tell us at the same time, that asteroids colliding with the earth will destroy the earth.
So once again, not only have scientists discarded their old theories and replaced them with new ones which happens every generation, but they have contradicted themselves in the process. So those who put their faith in scientists are putting their faith in shifting sand.
41 comments
Cairco once again demonstrating his complete lack of any kind of education, logic, reason, or scientific knowledge. The "Big Bang" was never a theory on how the Earth was formed, but Cairco, true to form, once more barells down a path he can't see.
Well it looks like scientists have discarded the Big Bang and replaced it with the theory that the earth was formed by the attraction of molecular dust by gravity. According to the science channel, this dust apparently came from the stars. Never mind that they don't explain how the stars or gravity got there, they have simply put them there.
The dust was what was left over after most of it condensed into a burning mass of hydrogen call the sun. Gravity is a force that is created by the sun’s huge mass. How can you not get this? By the way, that dust was originally created by the Big Bang.
And get this: They explained how water got on the earth by the bombardment of asteriods! And yet they tell us at the same time, that asteroids colliding with the earth will destroy the earth.
Yes asteroids brought most of liquid water to Earth by collisions. But it is completely impossible to destroy the Earth with an asteroid, it’s just too big. These collisions would have been large enough to create mass extinctions, which is what you are probably thinking of, but there weren’t any living things on Earth at the time to be killed by the impacts.
So once again, not only have scientists discarded their old theories and replaced them with new ones which happens every generation, but they have contradicted themselves in the process. So those who put their faith in scientists are putting their faith in shifting sand.
No, what scientists have done is create a theory that is at most 60 years old and it supports older theories. You just seem to be incapable or refuse to wrap your head around these concepts which even a ten year old child can understand, and then you try and criticize it. Never mind that there are two different versions of Genesis out there that contradict themselves constantly, there are theories out there that I barley understand that I need to criticize right away.
You know what never ceases to amaze me (Besides the depths of Carico's stupidity, of course)?
I guess my assumption that Carico had to possess a Y chromosome betrays some intrinsic sexist assumptions of mine. Well, now I can blame womankind for this level of stupidity. I hold every one of you PERSONALLY responsible.
Are you sure YOU KNOW WHAT THE BIG BANG IS CARICO?, how the water played a role in the formation of life in the planet?. For God´s sake, child, stop watching SO MUCH TELEVISION.
"Oh, Benson... Dear Benson, you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence."
Get this. Heat can warm you up when you're cold, but too much can also kill you! Wow, that's kind of like those asteroids! I guess you can't just go "x is good" or "y is bad" and expect the generalization to hold up 100% of the time! Life's too haaaaard! Take me Jeebus!
The big bang has nothing to do with how the earth was formed you dumb fuck.
@Adrian 'But it is completely impossible to destroy the Earth with an asteroid, it’s just too big'
*sigh*
The Big Bang theory doesn't explain how the earth was formed, it only explains what happened at the beginning of time that we can measure. Stop confusing the two.
Not that there is any point in trying to explain this to Carico as Carico is willfully ignorant to the extreme.
Carico, you need to watch the whole programme and if it is serialised then, you need to watch them from the start.
Watching 5 minutes of the third part, and then declaring it all wrong only ends up with you making a complete fool of yourself (yet again).
I thought it was Kent Hovind, for a whole first paragraph. Oh the stupidity that is Carico.
I'll try to explain the chronology, again.
The first was the start the others are products of gravi... Bah, why am I tryin?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
