1 2 3
The Amazing Liarbird
Ow wow. This is Time Cube-level crazy rambling.
And hey, Kent, I tried to read your page and didn't get very far. Also I think you may be some guy's parody of insane christians. In the even that I'm wrong about that last bit though, I would like to reply to a few statements you made:
1. Even though cheetahs are all incredibly inbred -- due to a genetic bottleneck they suffered 10-12,000 years ago, where the species was reduced to less than 7 individuals -- there is noticeable variation within the species, and cheetahs don't all look like identical twins. I don't know what ass told you the thing about cheetahs being able to take transplants from any other cheetah with no fear of rejection, but that is also false; there is still a 50% chance of rejection among transplants between random cheetahs.
2. I don't know of ANY mammals that have silver, reflective skin. If no mammals have the capacity to produce such a feature, then why should we expect humans to? At any rate, if you are a mostly-hairless biped living out on the savanna, then skin with lots of melanin will do a pretty good job of accomplishing the same end-result as reflective skin would, albeit by absorption of UV rather than reflection.
3. Time is the god of evolutionists. The evolutionists' claim their time-god is very slow but infinitely powerful. The time-god is credited with the ability to accomplish anything and everything given enough time. It simply takes the time-god millions or billions of years to accomplish it. Scientifically impossible events are credited to the time-god. Evolutionists keep their time-god close at hand where they can watch their god's hands move around slowly, slowly, slowly trying to evolve new species but never succeeding.
Seriously now, is it really that difficult to comprehend the fact that some people just don't worship anything? And why time? Why not say "evolutionists" worship a god of chance and are required to carry around a penny, a quarter, and a pair of 6-sided dice at all times? Or the god of sexual reproduction, since that's how genetic variation is passed on and all, and we have weekly orgies?
If you would put just a little more thought into things when producing your nonsensical ramblings, I'm sure people would really appreciate it.
3/28/2009 12:33:05 AM
The Amazing Liarbird
Oh shit, I just found his dietary guidelines and health manuals.
Hey, Rieke, be sure to eat your red meats and saturated fats every single day, ok? And if you start getting chest pains, well that's just normal; all us healthy people get them, it's just that we're not a bunch of complaining little pussy-men who mention it to their doctors.
3/28/2009 12:44:00 AM
Oh please, if you're going to argue based on physical constants, can't you choose alpha or something?
3/28/2009 2:39:52 AM
Is this guy related to the Time Cube guy? This is eerily similar to the format of the Time Cube website...
3/28/2009 3:23:40 AM
decay in the speed of light theory
Doesn´t sound like a theory to me. A theory (in ascientific sense) has evidence that supports it. I doubt you have this evidence for a decay in the theory of light.
I think calling it the "unproven assertion about a decay in the speed of light" would be more correct
3/28/2009 4:59:51 AM
"The ocean in times past was lower than we find it today."
Ice age, dumbass!
"The "decay in the speed of light theory" shows that the universe is not as old as modern scientists claim."
The decay in the speed of light bullshit shows that fundies know nothing of science.
3/28/2009 5:29:56 AM
See this is where I have to explain the difference between hypothesis and theory. Hypothesis is what you have. Theory is what we have. Theories are backed up by facts. Hypothesis is not. For a hypothesis to become a theory you need to do some research and show proof.
Decay in Speed of light just amuses me due to Futurama. (I thought you could not go faster than the speed of light? You can't, so we just increased the speed of light...)
3/28/2009 7:05:47 AM
He says "The "decay in the speed of light theory" shows that the universe is not as old as modern scientists claim." like the Decay in the Speed of Light Theory is a law.
3/28/2009 8:27:13 AM
Why is it always "modern scientists?" Is this as opposed to "Amish scientists?"
3/28/2009 9:26:57 AM
Kent R Rieske is a complete moron who likes to put B.Sc. after his name. There appears to be no factual science in the quote at all. So he's a liar and spin doctor for Jesus.
3/28/2009 9:56:08 AM
This is called The Grand Theory of Light as Rubber Band. This theory also states that with all the stretching and contracting, when light breaks (as it must), you get darkness.
This is true because bible.
3/28/2009 11:46:10 AM
And Fred Einstein, of course.
3/28/2009 11:48:39 AM
The guy is a freaking gold mine!
3/28/2009 11:51:19 AM
@Eden: "I think calling it the "unproven assertion about a decay in the speed of light" would be more correct"
Actually, Eden, that would be the disproven assertion about a decay in the speed of light.
E = mc^2, so if the speed of light was higher in the past nothing you could measure about a star a billion light years away would correspond with one a million, thousand, hundred or ten light years away. Observation of the universe right out to the microwave background prove that a great number of physical constants have not detectably changed.
3/28/2009 12:33:30 PM
Good point, David B.
I guess Kent didn't learn that while studying for his fake degree.
3/28/2009 8:14:59 PM
I don't understand a word you're saying.
3/28/2009 10:56:59 PM
I only sense a huge steaming pile of BS.
3/29/2009 10:43:31 PM
This guy's site is a real hoot.
3/30/2009 11:47:13 AM
Does 'B.Sc.,' i this case mean BullShit Collective?
5/2/2009 6:57:22 AM
You've got to love this shit.
"Humans have a big mental fault. They are not able to admit they were wrong. Therefore, they are trapped in their previous decision to reject God."
Egotistical delusion ?
Complete and absolute incapability to question their own opinion/beliefs despite them claiming it is important ?
Why, Check !!!
3/25/2010 6:24:27 AM
Most of you are just calling him stupid with no evidence why. One of you even said, "this article made me stupider." Really? You can't even write correctly, so why would I believe what you have to say? Those refuting him are also not citing evidence, and when something disagrees with your thoughts you simply say, "that is a ridiculous thought, moving on." Nice one. Evolution is a lie. Get over it.
1/14/2013 7:47:25 AM
Some of you are claiming that he can't question his own beliefs and what not are stupid. Who knows how many generations of children have grown up only knowing the theory of evolution. Evolutionists are the ones doing the brainwashing.
1/14/2013 7:50:53 AM
1/28/2013 2:20:09 PM
That's Hudson Canyon. It shows that sea levels were lower, as in water was frozen in polar ice caps. There are undersea canyons and fans around the mouths of many of the world's great rivers, like the Amazon, the Ganges, and the Mississippi. Georges Bank, east of Cape Cod, got there the same way. When sea levels were lower, that part of the sea floor was dry land, and the glacier could dump all that sand there.
1/28/2013 6:16:34 PM
Please explain how a flood would lower water levels.
1/28/2013 7:27:16 PM
1 2 3