Miss South Carolina Answers a Science Question !

[alyosha24601]

Here we find the real bedrock underlying an evolutionary evangelist - he is mad at God. You can tell by the insulting, mocking attitude that his reasoning is not truly scientific. This is also why he asks questions but does not answer them. The real foundation underlying evolution, just as was the case with Darwin and Lyell, is bitterness, not science. Evolution is a state mandated creation myth. It's quack science; most of the world knows it.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 Before you "broke free" to be ruled by sin? Don't be surprised when your own children don't copy your fine morals. I cam from a non-believing family. It was a mess. Drugs, constant fighting, drinking, suicide, even a murder. If you think your decision is going to lead to a good end, you are mistaken. Have a good life.

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 No, I broke free to be responsible for myself. Aww, that's very judgmental of you, but I don't drink, I don't do drugs, and the only people I've killed were killed during war. Here is a philosophical question for you, who is more moral, the person that doesn't rob a store because they are afraid of being arrested by police, or the person that doesn't rob a store because they think it is wrong to do so? The first is akin to religion, the second, reason.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 You're assuming that the store won't be robbed. That's a big assumption. Do you want me to tell you that I'm amazed how good you are? OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but "reason" does not lead to morality. You have no logical reason to be good in fact; you are coasting off your upbringing. Unfortunately, your children will behave more logically, you'll see.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 Again, I have answers, but I have tired with the pattern of me answering questions while you ignore mine. So, we must bring our conversation to a close.Your naturalism has left you with a meaningless life, no justice in the universe, and no ability to change character but through your own will. I hope for a happy life for you & please do not consider me your enemy. Nevertheless I have seen three miracles with my own eyes. I can never become an atheist. The universe revolves around God

[alyosha24601]

Again, I have answers, but I have tired with the pattern of me answering questions while you ignore mine. So, we must bring our conversation to a close. Your naturalism has left you with a meaningless life, no justice in the universe, and no ability to change character but through your own will. I hope for a happy life for you & please do not consider me your enemy. Nevertheless I have seen three miracles with my own eyes. I can never become an atheist. The universe revolves around God, not man.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 You are utterly mistaken. Go to Wikipedia and check out Bristlecone Pines. Your 11,000 year figure is fiction. The massive ice shelf came to exist in conditions that do not exist any more - just after the global flood. Speaking of historically, why is there no historical record of civilizations, say, 50,000 years ago? Why did history begin 5000 years ago? TIme for you to answer my questions, not just ask them. Evolution/old earth = naturalistic religious quack science. The world mocks.

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 Whoa, you got me, Wikipedia is the ultimate resource of all things true right? Why don't you do a little actual research beyond wikipedia, you might actually learn something.

[alyosha24601]

If my science is so "sloppy", then why does your paragraph below include criticism, philosophy, ad hominem argument, appeal to consensus, but not a single word of SCIENCE? Like most evolutionists, you depend on politics and religion. Now tell me, if the world is so old, why every alluvial flood cone in the world dates to 30,000 years? Why do the Sahara and Great Barrier Reefs date to 5000 years? Why is there C-14 in diamonds? Why has atmospheric He not reached equilibrium? The earth is YOUNG.

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 Because I've posited scientific arguments which you ignore. because I know you BELIEVE a supernatural being created the universe and I could present a three hour presentation about how your science is sloppy, and at the end you'd say.. 'There is C-14 in diamonds, so the earth is young'. I've shown you how that is incorrect, I've shown that diamonds have been tested with zero sum C-14, but you're engages in selective comprehension, and nothing will change that.

[briane75]

The fact is, very clear, detailed answers to your questions are easily found on the internet, much more so than can ever be presented in a 500 character text block. But I'll play your game. Why do Egyptians have no record of a flood? Why are there no water marks on the pyramids? Why are fossils in order in the geological column? Why didn't all the fish and plants die in the flood? Why didn't 500 million years of isotope decay in a year's span destroy the planet?

[briane75]

Where did the 4,530,488,766 KM^3 of water from the flood go? Why is there no evidence of a flood in glacial ice cores?? Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Why is there no evidence of a flood in ocean floor cores? Flooding on a scale given the flood would have destroyed the ice caps. the Greenlandic ice cap could not have reformed under the climate conditions of the last 10,000 years.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 The water is called "the ocean" today. If you smooth out the planet there is enough to cover the earth with two miles. Most glacial ice was deposited soon after the flood. The earth was warm, humid but was cooling. Naturalists date every single snowfall as "a year" in order to assume an old earth. This is why we have frozen vegetation at the poles. It is not millions of years old - it still contains Carbon 14! Shocker! Evolutionists always claim "contamination" to fit their religion.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 Tree rings! The oldest living Bristlecone Pines date right back to the flood date, about 3000 BC. Funny though, the fossilized Bristlecone Pines, along with other species, never date past 1400 years - back to creation! Tree rings perfectly date the flood and creation both! No, the Greenlandic Ice Cap could not have formed today, it mostly formed in the 300 years after the flood. Your assumption is confusing your science. This world is young and all of us are responsible to its creator.

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 I just noticed you asked about atmospheric Helium. Really? It's only been 12 years since NASA obtained PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF that polar winds blow Helium (along with other gases) out of the earth's atmosphere and into space, backing up the science from the late 60's that showed that helium escapes the earth's atmosphere at a rate virtually identical to its rate of production. This is why you can't argue science with creationists, they still put forward this BS ignoring hard evidence.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 I didn't know this. But why then is it still increasing? And, if earth is losing gas to space, why do we still have an atmosphere. The solar system does not replenish our atmosphere. And, now please explain the same problem with C-14, which likewise, has not yet reached equilibrium. Now, will you please stop insulting me? I'm getting tired of it. Stick to science, not your religious affirmations.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 What you are unaware of is that you too have a bias. Your bias is a naturalistic presupposition - when the science leads to creation as the only explanation, you cannot accept it, instead preferring to believe the conservation laws make an exception. Big Bang cosmology does NOT yet solve the horizon problem. Tested? Ha! Furthermore, the model incorporates unprovable assumptions, e.g. the earth is NOT at the center. Your science has religion as its foundation - it is actually scientism.

[alyosha24601]

I deleted three of your comments because you keep talking about religion. Funny how evolutionists always do that. So, tell me this: The Big Bang followed by inflation. Current science is merely descriptive of these events but naturalists miss the main point: Such events violate all the conservation laws - if you will, they are "miraculous". This point is a bit obvious, but science has demonstrated creation. Of course it is silent regarding the cause. I prefer to believe it was God, not "a fluke"

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 So, like all creationists, you modify the dialogue to your preference. The Big Bang does not contradict Conservation Laws as is shown by the models of Stephen Hawkins and Alan Guth, which has to date been born out by observation. Science has not demonstrated creation, to be blunt, the only belief system that both violates Conservation Laws and creates something from nothing is your ridiculous theology, which says "I don't understand this, must have been an invisible sky genie".

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 Further, if you think discussing how AiG and ICR and all these other 'creationist' organizations are religious institutions *first* and science institutions a (very) distant second, and that according to their own statements on their own websites that they discard any evidence that does not support scripture is somehow not relevant to the topic at hand, then you are sadly mistaken, It is an established fact that the RATE team, who's findings you so cherish,

[briane75]

Had a Hebrew language scholar to provide oversight and make sure they 'stayed on track'

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 You don't understand people. Everyone has a religion/worldview - everyone. Evolutionary RELIGION demands that people BELIEVE there was a natural cause for everything. That's a religious assumption, not a scientific one. So when such a researcher discovers C-14 in diamonds, his RELIGION cannot conceive that they are young, so he throws out the result. He has produced a religious conclusion, not a scientific one. That's why the earth is COVERED in fossils but no one believes in a flood!

[briane75]

What you fail to admit to yourself is that we know the science behind RATEs research was both sloppy and biased. We know that in better conducted research there have been diamonds tested with zero sum C-14. We know that proposed flood geology would have destroyed the earth. Worldview != Religion, and your attempts to shoehorn us in with you are silly. Here is the thing with Creation, even if your arguments were more plausible, why would I give a biblical version more credit than norse mythology.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 I've seen the rate results. The actual testing was done at a secular establishment in Canada - the best in the world. Not sloppy. Guess what, all four dating methods yielded different results on the very same rocks. Your scientism is the problem; you won't even consider good results that don't fit your evolutionary religion. When you "scientists" get a young age in a rock or fossil you just throw it out. No flood? Tell me why the Mississippi alluvial cone dates to only 30,000 years.

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 You know why they can't include the name of the establishment right? They viewed the work sloppy enough that they used legal means to prevent their name being used in the paper. I'm not going to bother to answer your question, it's simple, and a quick google search will net you the answer. Although it is ironic that you're trumpeting a date that would put the earth as more than 3x older than creationists claim it to be as evidence.

[briane75]

I would suggest you take your 'debate' to places like Thunderf00t's channel, or Richard Dawkins foundation, where you can enjoy a wider debate that you can't moderate.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 As if I'm being unfair! Almost every university in the country will fire a professor immediately who even flaps a wing against the sacrosanct religion of evolution. I'm not a debater of even a scientist; I have no money or media. What I do have is the scientific facts on the side of creation. If the simple scientific facts were allowed to be added to the textbooks, no one would believe in the evolutionary quack science any more. Most of the world laughs at us because of it.

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 Uh. no. You're taking the equivalent of a thimbleful of sloppy and inaccurate 'science' and willfully ignoring a mountain of scientific and historical evidence. That combined with your continuing to call evolution a religion and that you actually believe people don't know about creation science makes you a fool. The creation museum in KY has been mocked internationally. It's even sadder that you don't seem to know that far more Americans believe in creation than secular evolution

[briane75]

But, since you brought it up, RATE explains this as 500 million years worth of isotope decay happened within the one year flood period. This would produce enough heat to evaporate the oceans, melt the Earth's crust, and obliterate the surface of the Earth. To compound this, to answer where the flood water came from and went, they have to produce *more* heat. The Thermodynamics of creationist proposed flood geology would leave the earth a barren lump that would take *millions* of years to cool

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 This is a great reply. The first real science in a year that I have no ready answer for. I look forward to looking into this. I compliment you, since 99.9% of what I receive here is just insults and evolutionary religious "statements of faith". And now I'm looking forward to you dealing with the other 100 issues that defy evolution and an old earth.

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 You also didn't posit an answer for how we see light from stars more than 10,000 light years away. I'm not going to go point by point with you though, I understand this belief to be intrinsic to your view of self and the universe, you are welcome to it, I just have an issue when you try to force it on everyone.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 So,you're trying to force me not to force my view?It's OK for you to have an opinion but not me?Or, people who agree with YOU can speak, but not others? // Now, IF earth was at the CENTER of the expansion - all I've adjusted is the boundary conditions - and IF the available matter has not filled the finite space, then the earth would have been at the center of a huge gravity well. Light would have arrived here but new light still take 10,000 years. Earth's random place is an assumption

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 No, I'm saying you are making faith based arguments disguised with psuedoscience trappings. It is pointless to argue with faith based beliefs, because they are impervious to logic. Russell Humphreys's White Hole Cosmology adds three assumptions on Einstein's equations, and is not only rejected by the scientific community, but criticized by other creationists.

[alyosha24601]

briane75 has parroted the conventional wisdom regarding creation science, but I do not believe he has ever watched a debate himself. What usually happens is that the creationist talks science and the evolutionists talk philosophy, just as you have done. If you would like to discuss the moon's orbit, the earth's slowing, the magnetic field, DNA degeneration, the ATP motor, irreducible complexity, natural selection... (cont)

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 On what basis do you believe I've never watched or taken part in these debates before? You have none. As typical, you insult me and then try to flip it back on me. I am well familiar with all the tired creationist arguments, although that begs the question of whether you are a young earth, old earth, gap, intelligent design, etc creationist.

[briane75]

Creationists start out with a belief that the Bible is correct and unquestionable. This is antithesis to the scientific process, which is to question everything. Scientists seek to disprove evolution on a daily basis, creationists seek to fit evidence to their answer. Take the Star light problem. At most, creationist believe the earth to be about 10,000 years old. However we know the speed of light, and we see stars from more than 10,000 light years away.

[briane75]

In order to try and refute this, Creationists put forth three main theories: 1.That god created light already in transit when the earth was created, so it didn't have to travel the intervening distance. 2. That the universe was expanded with earth trapped in an extreme gravity well, allowing billions of years to pass for the outer parts of the universe, while merely thousands passed for earth. The reason this gravity well appeared, disappeared, and everything stayed in balance, was god.

[briane75]

And finally, that the speed of light rapidly decayed exponentially (from a speed of infinite) over a few thousand years. Of course, the research used to support this theory was proven (as virtually all creationist research is) to have misquoted, cherry picked outliers, and generally contain shady bias. The whole point of which is creating the 'god in the gap', which is why I will not debate you. If evolution is ever disproved, it will be because scientists disproved it, not creationists.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 Cherry pick? Not so, that's for quack scientists. For instance, the U of CA recently verified that diamonds contain C-14. C-14 has a half-life of 5730 yrs and do not migrate within a diamond matrix. I see this as proof of a young earth, your side ignores it. Same with ocean salt accumulation, He and C-14 (not yet in equilibrium!) in the atmosphere, earth's rapid magnetic field decay and declining rotation rate, the moon's expanding orbit, lack of micrometeorites in soil

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 lol. Once again, no. You're referring to the work done for the paper "Use of natural diamonds to monitor C-14 AMS instrument backgrounds". Read the title of the paper again, and then enjoy the irony of creationist scientists, who didn't even do the experiment themselves but just cherry pick this paper to write their own paper (and they wonder why they only get published by creationist created periodicals). Our 'side' doesn't ignore it, we just know what we're talking about.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 It was creation scientists who actually made the discovery - because they're the only ones courageous enough to actually look. (Same with C-14 in coal, fossils, and comparing the six major methods of dating rocks through radioactive decay). Mainstream scientists are so certain their quack paradigm is correct that they don't even check. Nevertheless somebody at U of CA Davis did, and verified the fact. C-14 is in diamonds partner, and carbon atoms don't migrate in a diamond matrix!

[briane75]

Uh, no. Dr. Baumgardner can't even cite the laboratory the RATE team sent their samples too in his paper. Creationists have been trying to use trace readings of C-14 in oil and coal since the 70's, and the diamonds are their new dead horse to flog. The RATE team didn't remove the default instrument error rating from their findings in an effort to inflate the numbers, this is a common practice among creation 'science'.

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 Bunk. I've seen the paper myself. It's from the U of CA Davis.

[briane75]

@alyosha24601 The UCLA paper is not from creationists, and the title of the paper is "Use of natural diamonds to monitor C-14 AMS instrument backgrounds". RATE's paper is “14C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth,”

[alyosha24601]

@briane75 WE fit evidence to a theory? Not so, that's for quack scientists. For instance, the U of CA recently verified that diamonds contain C-14. C-14 has a half-life of 5730 yrs and do not migrate within a diamond matrix. I see this as proof of a young earth, your side ignores it. Same with ocean salt accumulation, He and C-14 (not yet in equilibrium!) in the atmosphere, earth's rapid magnetic field decay and declining rotation rate, the moon's expanding orbit, lack of micrometeorites in soil

[alyosha24601]

mutation rates, sexual reproduction, abiogenesis, thermodynamics of evolution, the fossil record, the geologic column, ape men, polonium halos, carbon-14, continental drift, or any real science, at least I can show you that creationists aren't stupid. However, my guess is that, just like the PhDs, you will now insult me and refuse to talk. I'm certainly used to it!

[RogalDorn69]

i can belevie american women evolved from monkeys.....wait....not really

[iamkawaii88]

lol wut..?? 

[alyosha24601]

@iamkawaii88 Give it some more thought - it's subtle!

[alyosha24601]

@xxx2341boy I'm glad you enjoyed Miss SC! If you'll have a look at the forbidden science, you'll see she's pretty representative of evolutionists!

[TheTorbjoern]

wait wait erhmmm what?

[alyosha24601]

@TheTorbjoern Nope, there really is a point to this, but if I tell everyone, it will ruin the suspense!

[CaptJiggles]

I have a novel idea, HOW ABOUT WE LET CREATIONIST BE CREATIONISTS!?!?!

[alyosha24601]

@CaptJiggles Jiggles, I don't know what you're talking about but anyone with a name like yours must be a good fellow.

[CaptJiggles]

@alyosha24601 Lol, I chose that a LONG time ago, I should check if I can change it. But maybe I'll just make a new YouTube account so that I can have two names, and so YouTube will think I'm 18.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CaptJiggles Because they're clogging up the educational system with ignorance.

[alyosha24601]

@TheScienceFoundation Who's pushing gnorance? My son and I were watching a dino documentary where some evolutionary paleontologist had discovered fossilized dino-footprints on a Montana rock. After explaining to the camera that they are "millions of years" old, he turns to his student and says "Don't step on the footprints, they're millions of years old!" My son and I immediately howled with laughter. Same thing happens in caves! Once I saw a 4 ft stalactite in a Chinese bathroom! Must be old!!!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@alyosha24601 'Who's pushing gnorance?' Creationists. I feel bad for your son being indoctrinated with such stupidity.

'Once I saw a 4 ft stalactite in a Chinese bathroom!'

Must be more theist ignorance. talkorigins(.)org/indexcc/CD/C­D250.html

[alyosha24601]

@TheScienceFoundation I saw this with my own eyes in a building built in the 1980's about six years before. It takes an evolutionist to contrive that it was millions of years old. These things are found all over the planet, under bridges, etc. Do you have to see a picture to believe it? No, you wouldn't believe it if you took a sample - you'd say some creationist stole it from a cave and glued it ! You are deluded my friend.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@alyosha24601 Apparently you were having a problem getting to or reading the article. It basically points out that different materials produce stalactites at different rates. You can produce one overnight with salt, water and string, this has nothing to do with how they're formed in caves.

[alyosha24601]

@TheScienceFoundation It makes me happy that you have admitted something! Yes, stalactites can form very quickly, but that fact won't keep those indoctrinated cave guides from telling their duped visitors, "Don't touch, these things took (deep voice here needed) "millions of years" to form! Bunk.

Hooray for real science! Hooray!

[RabbotRedux]

@alyosha24601 In case you didn't notice, what was said is that different material can form stalactites more rapidly, this has nothing to do with how quickly calcium carbonate forms stalactites.

[alyosha24601]

@RabbotRedux I do believe that the four-foot long bathroom stalactite was also Calcium Carbonate, as it was being fed out of the concrete. Even so, I would expect the stalactites in a WET cave will also grow very quickly, especially if the water is just a bit acidic. But you'll never be told that is even possible, they won't measure, they'll just tell you "millions of years". I've heard that in every cave I've been in. Cheers.

[RabbotRedux]

@alyosha24601 'I do believe that the four-foot long bathroom stalactite was also Calcium Carbonate'

Source?

'as it was being fed out of the concrete'

That has nothing to do with anything.

[alyosha24601]

@RabbotRedux Yeah, OK. I don't know what it was. CaCO3 or CaO I guess. I never took a sample of it, though I did touch it. I can't say how old the building was either, perhaps six years? It was as solid as a rock - must have been there millions of years, right? Stalactites can form very very quickly - it takes a geologist to come up with "millions of years". Actually it's not just me, such bridge and building stalactites are all over the world.

[Kaopsis]

@alyosha24601 Yes and they're a completely different composition than the stalactites which take millions of years to form.

[alyosha24601]

@Kaopsis Yes you have told me over and over it's a completely different substance. But the truth is that you have blundered with chemistry as well as evolution. CaCO3 is called Calcium Carbonate and it comes from limestone. In caves and in concrete - same. The same exact stuff comes out of solution and builds up, and a stalactite can build up in month. I've seen them in buildings myself. Now I will accept your apology.

[zores2]

dont need her for her brains, need her other things know what im sayin

[alyosha24601]

@zores2 Well, that's why she's famous!

[alyosha24601]

Yes, this video is a parody - a spoof. I think everyone knows that, as Miss South Carolina's question is quite famous. Excepting perhaps some particular beauty queens, people aren't dummies!

[TERRIBLEPRODUCTIONSS]

This isn't real. This isn't her voice, and this is the exact same clip that made her famous. It's also not funny, clever, impressive or interesting in any way.

[alyosha24601]

@TERRIBLEPRODUCTIONSS I'm sorry, you have just missed the point. It's subtle and you just didn't understand it. Most don't. Thanks for commenting.

[alyosha24601]

Other sources are AIG or CMI, which is one of my favorites.

[alyosha24601]

One point that can be gleaned from this video is that a lot of evolutionists have never investigated the scientific facts supporting creationism. The creation scientists seem to know both sides, but the evolutionary scientists don't usually know much of the science on the creation side. Have a look at ICR (or even the goofy Dr. Dino Hovind) and see the kind of material I'm talking about - you'll never hear this kind of science in a school. (Then you can make fun of it like Miss South Carolina!)

[Lunarcide]

@alyosha24601 I get your point, it's just that  your point was formed from misinformation. There IS no science at all behind Creationist claims. Perhaps you should read up a little on what science actually is. If you want to understand a scientific principle, you go to an Evolutionary Biologist, you don't go to a religious zealot who knows nothing of science.

[alyosha24601]

@Lunarcide You are kidding yourself - real science is on the side of creation. I encourage you to learn something of the other side, and if you think you already know, I have a question for you. In the mean time, have a look at Youtube's "The Degeneration of DNA: Mutation Rates Invalidate "Evolution" " If you have the courage to watch it, you just might abandon the evolution religion. I am always here if you want to hear some science they won't teach you in school. (I know, I teach HS)

[Lunarcide]

@alyosha24601 Just like if you had a question about plumbing, you go to someone educated in that field. You wouldn't go to a baker to find out what kind of solder is needed for copper pipes...

[alyosha24601]

@Lunarcide When it comes to evolution, it doesn't matter. Just listen to a creation-evolution debate sometime: I've heard many. Every time the evolutionist talks about the endorsement of the scientific community, philosophy of science, creationist bias, lack of alternatives, creationist foolishness, etc. Meanwhile the creationists prefer to talk about the Big Bang, chemical evolution, star formation, the fossil record, the magnetic field, C-14, degeneration of DNA, mutation, extinction, etc.

[MucusFelidae]

@alyosha24601 "the science on the creation side"

There ain't no such thing as Cration Science, because creationists are all idiots, no exception.

[alyosha24601]

@MucusFelidae If you would like to discuss science instead of just insult, you might learn something. I can assure you that there is a lot of science you know nothing about, and not because it's "idiotic" - rather, because you don't WANT to know.

Evolution is a religion; it is not based on science.

[MucusFelidae]

@alyosha24601 You obviously are one of those I.... people.

Not thinkin' but stinkin' stupid.

I can assure you, that everything you know, I know.

[alyosha24601]

@MucusFelidae All right then, I just ask you verify what you have said. Could you please tell me the four top reasons that creationists cite as they attempt to invalidate evolution? Frankly, I don't think you have any idea. Remember, in science, an insult does not qualify as an argument. In science you must prove a theory through observation, experiment, and reason. If you cannot cite some major arguments, would you be open to learning something new?

[alyosha24601]

@MucusFelidae I didn't see any reasons, just a claim. Where's the beef?

[alyosha24601]

@b0nggggggg Oh, but it did! There is indeed a point to what she said, or, well, couldn't say!

[JLBJoanneB]

Ahhhh Bless her for trying