Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Facebook Sheeple

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 7
 [ 135 posts ] 
Facebook Sheeple
Author Message
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Facebook Sheeple

Someone on Facebook wants to get into it, and of course that forum has already proven insufficient for this discussion. So I'll archive it here, as I usually do.

Image

Aron Ra
Why are sheeple so fucking stupid?


Justice Frangipane
Aron, I would specifically like to talk to you.


Aron Ra
In what format? Apparently not this one.


Justice Frangipane
Also would like to point out. I'm not a sheeple, I also am not a conspiracy under every event kinda guy. To throw out one instance, I believe sandy hook was not handled or reported remotely accurately. I'm not interested in talking with people who only regurgitated what popular media feeds. I would like to talk to people who can think for themselves and don't mind doing their own research.

Justice Frangipane
By the way I am a young earth creationist, I don't agree with the attack on Bill Nye in this picture. It's obviously immature. If anyone is up for a few questions I would love to ask some. Not looking for a hate fest. I'm a nice guy looking for a few people who would enjoy answering some questions from a scientific and logical standpoint.

Justice Frangipane
Anyone here familiar with Darwin's beliefs?


Aron Ra
I'm very familiar with Darwin's beliefs, although they probably won't be relevant. He only discovered evolution. He has no idea what we've learned in the century-and-a-half since then.

Aron Ra
By the way, today is Darwin's birthday. Happy Darwin Day everyone!

Aron Ra
One thing that had been firmly established by 19th century science was that Young Earth creationism cannot be true. Even "creation scientists" at that time knew better than that.'


Justice Frangipane
While I am happy at a future time to discuss what I believe I would actually like to ask a few questions if you're up for it.


Aron Ra
If you have questions, ask them.

Aron Ra
As for what you believe, that doesn't matter. All that matters is why you believe it, and how accurate you show it to be.


Justice Frangipane
Looking for a specific answer here. Do you know why you believe the earth is 4.6 to 5 billion years old? (I'm assuming you believe the current stats, correct me if that's wrong)

Aron Ra
Yes I know why I believe that the Earth is billions of years old. I was a geoscience major, focusing on paleontology and systematics. I understand how thermodynamics demands that the earth be billions of years old as well. The speed of light was a necessary component of much of my chemistry lessons, and of course we all know what that implies about astronomy. The fact that the earth is at least orders of magnitude only than man's mythology would have it can be determined many different ways.

Aron Ra
Now if I may turn the same question to you: You said you are not a 'sheeple'. I don't see how that could be possible, because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere indicating that the world could be any younger than it could possibly be. The only people who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old are 'sheeple', those who follow authorities rather than evidence; those who believe in fairy tales that have witches, giants, magic spells, and animals that talk and act like people. Look up what a fairy tale is, and then look back at your Bible. It's a story book with no confirmed prophesies, no discernible wisdom and no external support. It's absolutely wrong about absolutely everything it says that can be tested. So we have the evident facts of reality pitted against the irrelevant lies of mythology. All the evidence everywhere contradicts your compilation of fables, and I mean on every level. Because it's not just that it's wrong scientifically and historically and ethically and morally; even the theology is irreconcilable nonsense. So let me ask you, if you're not a sheeple who believes what he's told on faith, then do you know why you believe the earth is so young?


Justice Frangipane
Thank you for the response. As far as my beliefs, I have about 10 to 15 questions to ask and will be happy to defend after that point. If you would like me to defend now, lets start a new thread. As we probably should right now anyway. (this one is really annoying to find) As opposed to branches of study, I would like more specifics. Let me guide a little. Do you believe in the geologic column? Are you familiar with how the ages of the strata in the geologic column were established?

Justice Frangipane
Lets move this to one of our walls if you don't mind. If you're really confident in your stance then lets move it to your wall. But mine is fine as well. Tag me and we can continue there.


I'll do you one better. If this discussion is going to be anywhere near as good as you seem to think, then let's archive it so that it will be accessible at any time with a simple link we can both share.

I had to edit this because of issues copying over from Facebook.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Last edited by AronRa on Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:29 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1256Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

A young earth creationist huh? I have a question for such an individual:

I'd like to know how it is possible to produce the entire extant biodiversity on the planet, from a couple of thousand pairs of biblical “kinds”, simply through “within-kind” microevolution, in less than 4.000 years, given that according to creationists, beneficial mutations that affect bodyplans are so incredibly rare they’re supposed to be impossible even if evolution had hundreds of millions of years.

In fact, here's a compiled list of creationist claims surrounding mutations:
Diogenes wrote:CREATIONISTS and Intelligent Design proponents themselves have stated clearly that every and all mutations are CATASTROPHIC. Remember that? "Catastrophic."

Every human baby born has somewhere between 100 to 200 more mutations than its parents (depending on how you count)-- and twice that number relative to its grandparents-- and thrice that relative to its great-grandparents-- etc.

Young Earth Creationist Kent Hovind: “A change of only three [DNA] nucleotides is fatal to an animal. There is no possibility of [genetic] change.” (Ken Hovind, Source: http://media.drdino.com/sem/audio/mp3/books2.mp3 @ 82:10, March 2003, cited at http://kent-hovind.com/quotes/sciencei.htm)

Got that? Kent Hovind says only three mutations will kill an animal.

If creationism is correct, every baby has 100 to 200 new CATASTROPHES its parents didn't have-- and twice that number of CATASTROPHES relative to its grandparents-- and thrice that relative to its great-grandparents-- etc. Enough to kill every baby on Earth a hundred times over.

Pro-ID Philosopher William Dembski: “[T]here is now mounting evidence of biological systems for which any slight modification does not merely destroy the system’s existing function but also destroys the possibility of any function of the system whatsoever.” [Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 113]

Pro-ID lawyer Phillip Johnson: “Biologists affiliated with the Intelligent Design movement nail down the distinction by showing that DNA mutations…make birth defects” ["Berkeley's Radical: An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson", November 2000.]

Pro-ID lawyer Edward Sisson: “[T]he theory of unintelligent evolution, which depends entirely on the supposed occurrence in history of trillions of DNA mutations that beneficially affect body shape, has not identified any such mutations” -- [Edward Sisson, “Darwin or Lose”, Touchstone, v. 17, issue 6, July/Aug. 2004]

Uncommon Descent: “As far as I know, the current consensus of population geneticists is that mutations do indeed have disastrously bad fitness.” [Eric Holloway. Uncommon Descent. August 28, 2011.]

Young Earth Creationist Henry Morris: “Inheritable and novel changes (mutations) which take place in organisms today have always been observed to be harmful.” [Henry Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p.vii]

Young Earth Creationist Duane Gish: “the mutations we see occurring spontaneously in nature or that can be induced in the laboratory always prove to be harmful.” [Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No, p. 47]

Duane Gish: “all mutations are bad” [Gish, Dinosaurs by Design (1992), p.83]

Duane Gish: “Remember, all the changes were just mistakes, they were genetic errors, mutations, almost everything which is bad… they're all bad” [Keith Saladin-Duan Gish Debate II, 1988]

Creationist Don Boys: “Not only are mutations always harmful, but they produce changes in present characters, never producing new characters. Mutations are the catalyst for defects, deformity, disease, and death; yet evolutionists scream that they are the explanation for all the varieties we see… [T]he results of all mutations: disorder, defects, disease, deformity, and death.” -- ["Almost a Thousand Major Scientists Dissent from Darwin!", Don Boys. Canada Free Press. May 2, 2010.]

Muslim Creationist Harun Yahya: “[N]ot one single useful mutation has ever been observed… The slightest alteration in [genetic] information only leads to harm.”

The Muslim creationist sex-cult of Harun Yahya says all mutations cause only harm: “Mutations… like all accidents, they cause harm and destruction. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl … freaks of nature… because all efficient(?) observable mutations cause only harm to living things.”


Yet we’re supposed to believe that in those ~4000 years, a single pair of frogs evolved into tens of thousands of different species of frogs, with vastly different lifestyles and large variations in biochemistry and physiology. Some with poison glands that secrete novel toxic proteins, others with pores in their skin where they carry their developing eggs. Tenthousand different species of frogs with all their differences, in 4000 years.

And creationists tell us no new proteins or metabolic pathways or regulatory networks could possibly have evolved in the 5-15 million years of the cambrian explosion, for example. But apparently unfathomable swathes of novel regulation and biochemistry, in frogs alone, had no issue evolving “within kind” in 4000 years, post-flud. And that's just frogs.

Now multiply the problem for every imagined “kind” on the Ark, which even the most conservative creationists, still estimate would have had to be in the thousands to avoid large amounts of "between-kinds" macroevolutionary change.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:32 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

Justice Frangipane wrote:I have about 10 to 15 questions to ask and will be happy to defend after that point. If you would like me to defend now, lets start a new thread. As we probably should right now anyway. (this one is really annoying to find) As opposed to branches of study, I would like more specifics. Let me guide a little. Do you believe in the geologic column?
Yes, I 'believe in' what i have seen with my own eyes and can easily demonstrate and confirm for others.

Are you familiar with how the ages of the strata in the geologic column were established?
Yes, I am familiar with the ways in which the ages of strata were historically established and many of the ways they are established using modern technology.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:28 pm
Justice FrangipaneUser avatarPosts: 42Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:39 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

Rumraket,
Happy to have a discussion with you, but would you please set up a separate thread. This will help keep this one from getting diluted or confusing. Thank you. Great question btw. Looking forward to replying.

Justice
"Don't confuse the facts with the interpretation of the facts. They are in fact, not the same thing." - Anonymous
Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:01 am
Justice FrangipaneUser avatarPosts: 42Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:39 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

I suppose it would be a good idea to request a few things here before we really get into it. There are a few things that help me determine a waste of effort in any type of conversation. (Aron, I'm sure you have your list)

1. Avoiding questions and topic shifting. I think that each point should be reasoned from start to finish as best as possible, without leaving large unattended gaps.
2. Wild assertions, my favorite is that oh so familiar "If so and so doesn't believe what I believe then they don't understand ANY science, ergo are useless in every scientific task" When it comes down to it, what I believe, and you believe about origins plays very very little into real empirical science. (neither creation nor evolution fall into empirical science)
3. The assumption that either theory must be perfect to be plausible. Evolution has holes in it, so does creationism. I don't, nor will I pretend that a theory or a belief in something is something that can be scientifically proven. Yes, we validate scientific theories as plausible, but plausible does not mean proven.
4. Personal attacks, honestly, I don't expect that here, but I'll say it anyway. Not all creationists are only faith based, some do have brains. Same way some evolutionists haven't thought more then a few seconds past what they've been fed. Really, that statement could easily go for both sides. Grammatical attacks are silly, (I often write "your" instead of "you're" as well as forget to use "than" and write "then" if those mistakes invalidate all of my arguments in your mind please don't waste your time here (talking to the readers not you Aron)
5. Please readers, if you have a comment to make and you're dying to make it, please start another thread. I enjoy this conversation a lot but for the benefit of future readers being able to follow the logic on both sides, please refrain from posting on this specific thread.
6. With the best of our abilities to look at the facts and realize that there is often more then one intelligent way to interpret the data. It is okay to concede that intelligent alternative views exist.
7. I'm sure we will need to define terms fairly quickly here, but since I'm asking the questions to start, we will let those emerge organically from the primordial soup of our conversation =)
"Don't confuse the facts with the interpretation of the facts. They are in fact, not the same thing." - Anonymous
Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:48 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

Justice Frangipane wrote:3. The assumption that either theory must be perfect to be plausible. Evolution has holes in it, so does creationism. I don't, nor will I pretend that a theory or a belief in something is something that can be scientifically proven. Yes, we validate scientific theories as plausible, but plausible does not mean proven.
I must correct you on an important point. There is only one theory being discussed here. Evolution is the only theory of biodiversity there is or ever was, and it is one of the best-supported theories in all of science. It includes multiple mechanisms, testable and potentially falsifiable hypotheses, and encompasses a few natural laws specific to that field. There are many ways to prove evolution, and that has been done. There are many aspects of evolution which I can show you to be demonstrably factual, but there are no facts pertaining to, supportive of, or concordant with creationism. There is no mechanism to creationism, no supportive evidence whatsoever, and not one natural law applicable to it (or that is not broken by it). It can't be indicated or vindicated, verified or falsified by any means that creationists will accept -yet it has still been utterly disproved in every testable claim that it makes. Creationism meets exactly none of the criteria required of a scientific theory.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:26 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2682Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

MOD NOTE:

I took the liberty of setting up a new and separate thread for Aron and Justice, restricted to only those two, since Justice sort of requested that this particular discussion be exclusively between the two of them.

It is here: New thread

If this is not desirable, then just ignore me and that other thread.

Also, welcome aboard, Justice!
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:03 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

The problem with the new thread is that we lose the context of the initial post and some of the follow-up. I would rather stay on this thread.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:50 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

Nevermind. I fixed it. The new thread will suffice.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:52 pm
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

Justice, points 2 and 3 already show a vast ignorance of the scientific method and what evolution is. I'm sure Aron will correct you on both. From those 2 points alone I can say you are not (yet) capable of discussing this in any way. I think Jacques Monod said it best:

Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually, as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.
Jacques Monod, On the Molecular Theory of Evolution (1974,) reprinted in Mark Ridley (editor) Evolution (1997) page 389


Point 6 is noted, but I don't want to engage with you in conversation, I'm merely stating an obvious fact. I'm afraid that, like with most other creationist, this will be a waste of time. First you have to concede on the fact that you know practically nothing about what you want to discuss here with Aron. This is not meant as a personal attack and you don't have to respond to me. I just hope you don't turn out to be just another case of Dunning-Kruger. If you are truly open for it, you will walk away as a (theistic?) "evolutionist" (for lack of a better word).

It's very insulting to think that you would know more about this subject than people like me or Aron (or any of the other science majors on this forum) that have had an actual education in this and are pursuing a career in science. You think you know a lot, but you don't. I thought I knew a lot too when I started my BSc , but when you learn more and more you realize all the things you don't know. For instance, I'm a marine biologist, concentrating on coral reef conservation. Even though I'm a marine biologist, don't ask me about other ecosystems than coral reefs because I know practically nothing about them. I know a lot about a little, and little about a lot. And that's after 15 years. I also have a BSc in Ecology & Evolution but Rumraket schooled my ass on Phylogeny a while back. Most creationists think that reading some stuff on YEC websites, watching some youtube videos and reading some scientific abstracts gives them enough basis to discuss this stuff. It doesn't, it really really doesn't.

Aron always says that you have to make a decision: Will you become intellectually honest with yourself or remain a creationist!?

All things aside, I'm looking forward to your discussion with Aron.
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Fri Feb 14, 2014 4:34 pm
WWW
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3484Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

The first question AronRa should ask Justice Frangipane is to define evolution. Once Justice Frangipane fails to give the right answer, the discussion could move to a free education for Justice Frangipane.

It also appears Justice Frangipane is, much like Ham in his debate, trying to claim that evolutionary theory is not an empirical science. Funny to see a creationist use that argument so soon after Nye corrected it.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:27 pm
YIM WWW
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1256Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

Justice Frangipane wrote:Rumraket,
Happy to have a discussion with you, but would you please set up a separate thread. This will help keep this one from getting diluted or confusing. Thank you. Great question btw. Looking forward to replying.

Justice

New thread set up here.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:40 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3484Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

Seeing as how this is now the peanut gallery for the other thread, I have to ask why AronRa posted the same thing twice?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:58 am
YIM WWW
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

I think he accidentally hit the quote button instead of the edit button. His quote is a little different than the original post.
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Sat Feb 15, 2014 1:05 am
WWW
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

Blimey. What are the chances of finding another creationist who has no bloody idea what he's talking about... The level of ignorance of the basics of the discussion in that last post is eye-boggling.

Like evolution, the theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet, now apparently includes fucking stellar formation. Are astrophysicists a subset of biologists now? It beggars belief that people still trot around, chest puffed like Charlie big potatoes, swaggering like they have a third pendulous leg when they are so fundamentally misinformed about even the most cursory parts of the topic they want to discuss.


I suppose it's interesting to wonder why I always expect more of these people...

Sent from my Commodore 64
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Sat Feb 15, 2014 8:43 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

I see this quickly becoming a very fruitful conversation with an adversary who will soon be much embarrassed. However my student in this discussion should be aware that I am out-of-state at the moment, giving a presentation to the Southern California Secular Humanist Conference, (sdhumanist.org). I'm writing this from a magnificent bed & breakfast in San Diego. I'm busy all weekend. So it will be at least Monday before I can post an adequate reply.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:22 am
IsotelusBloggerUser avatarPosts: 317Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

Whoa.

Well, in regards to the two photos posted (just in case Aron doesn't deal with them directly):
Justice Frangipane wrote:I would call that a tad bit presumptuous. Especially since the levels of carbon-14 have not reached equilibrium.

K-Ar dating for know rock formation doesn't work.

Is this the type of "science" to build a theory on?


Aside from the fact that fluctuations in atmospheric C14 are corrected for, the quote that "Rabiocarbon is forming 23-37% faster than it is decaying" is nowhere in the article that it claims to be cited from. Incidentally, that quote has exactly nothing to do with the topic the article covers, aside from the fact that C14 dating was used. It talks about using C14 to revise dates of human remains originally obtained from amino acid racemization. There is absolutely 0 mention of equilibrium. It's also from 1985. This offers no support for any of the arguments made above (not dealt with here), and suggests to me that the amount of personal research done on this subject is so far insufficient for the purposes of the debate.

Speaking of not using recent sources, the K-Ar dating of New Zealand volcanics is flawed for the reasons outlined here (sorry, couldn't find a public access version.) In summary, using more recent technology, the dates actually agree with the historical data. However, when the minerals were tested under high temperatures, the dates came back as older than the known age of the flows. This is explained by the extra argon escaping from phenocrsyts (crystalized inclusions in volcanic rock, like olivine) during heating that were not completely removed from the samples. In short: contamination.

Getting into a debate about highly technical subjects like this with someone as experienced as Aron will require a little more effort than this. And Hovind's 5 types of evolution? Really?
Punnet square summer camp: Be there or be square!
Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:24 am
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

Justice, the Theory of Evolution is a theory of Biology. It is THE unifying theory of Biology and the best theory to date to explain biodiversity. That's it. I'm a biologist, not a biochemist, nor a physicist, nor a cosmologist, nor a geologist.

The sooner you realize you've been fed misinformation and been lied to the better. You are factually incorrect about pretty much everything thusfar and you don't know how science works.
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:52 pm
WWW
fightofthejellyfishUser avatarPosts: 62Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 5:34 amLocation: Australia Gender: Male

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

This is too far off the topic of evolution for AronRa to bother with so I might as well, plus, pretty pictures.
Justice Frangipane wrote:3. "Origin of stars and planets" Why do we not observe new stars forming?
:facepalm:

Eagle Nebula:
Image
The infrared is so so we can see through the clouds of dust from which stars form to the new stars beneath.

Orion Nebula:
Image Image

This is just a couple of the nebulae that are near enough in our galaxy that we can see stars being formed.

As for planets, they are small and very far away we can't even image all but a few nearby giant stars (we can see the light coming from stars but not the stars themselves they're too far away) but we can see the dust orbiting newly formed stars from which planets form.

Still in Orion:
Image

Justice Frangipane, The reason you haven't seen images of newly formed stars is because you've never looked. I would suggest that this is probably fairly representative of your miseducation on these topics.
Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:59 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2682Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Facebook Sheeple

Well, this quickly took a turn for the usually bad.

I wasn't expecting miracles, but I certainly did NOT expect something so old and awful as that Kent Hovind-y "5 types of evolution".

Nothing new to see here, I'm afraid. :(
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:05 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 7
 [ 135 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Myrtonos and 11 guests