Show me the quote from NASA which purportedly states this. No honest scientist claims that existence popped up out of nothing. They say the universe as we know it began at the Big Bang, that's all. The universe in this case is all of that which we can see and measure, and doesn't necessarily comprise all of existence itself.
Wikipedia science articles tend to be highly reliable, especially the ones pertaining to fields where there are many knowledgeable researchers. Most of the articles are peer reviewed on a regular basis to monitor quality, and they tend to be written by knowledgeable people since the fields of study are already highly specialized. Perhaps articles about obscure math theorems are less reliable when only a handful of people in the world understand them, but anything understandable at a beginner level like yours is going to be thoroughly reviewed and edited by the scientific community. In any case, I only use the Wikipedia links because they contain references to more advanced and authoritative sources you can always check. I learned much about these sciences at a higher level of detail, from authoritative sources in the field, and I can vouch for the articles I cite.
In your complaint about Wikipedia above, you were attempting to dismiss the cosmological evidence for the age of the universe being roughly 13 billion years. The article I cited merely scratches the surface on discussing the abundant evidence, but I recommend you actually read it if you want to be informed. I can refer you to standard university textbooks that discuss these matters in more detail, but before you could understand them properly you'd have to first attain a proper background in basic math and physics. Are you up to the challenge? I recommend you do make an effort over the next several years to learn this stuff, then you can see how little your religious "educators" actually know about science when they attempt to dismiss it.
I followed your instructions to the letter and couldn't access the topic. In any case I don't care for anecdotal evidence of miracles. There's anecdotal evidence of vampires and zombies too. I'm looking for something that could be tested in a controlled environment.
What do you mean by documented proof? Like if it's written in an old book that someone claims was divinely inspired, that makes it proof? Science doesn't need documented proof; we don't believe in electromagnetism just because Heinrich Hertz tested it 120 years ago. Everything in science is testable even today.
How would you know what's in the books? You haven't actually read any real science books. By your own admission, you don't even have the basic background you'd need in order to reach this level of discussion. There are so many things that point to continental shift, I'd rather not even prepared to discuss it with you because it's like arguing over whether there are clouds in the sky. And as for your claims about magnetic fields, doubly ridiculous. What do you know about magnetic fields? Have you ever tried to measure one? Have you ever solved a math problem involving one? Here's another perfectly valid link for you, which is easily backed up by more advanced sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal.
The history of the Earth's magnetic field is recorded in the layers of lava deposits that build up over time around the world because this lava contains large amounts of iron. In molten iron, the unpaired electrons will align their spins to match the direction of the magnetic field to which they are exposed (such as the Earth's), resulting in a magnetic field of their own. While electrons were only discovered about 120 years ago, the effect itself has been known for much longer and is used to produce the north-south magnets you see all the time. When the iron cools off and forms a permanent layer, the electron spins remain fixed in place and resistant to being shifted. So iron deposits building one on top of the other over long periods of time will record the various stages of the Earth's magnetic field.
It's well known that the Earth's magnetic field shifts around, this has been directly measured by the US navy since the 1960's. The north pole doesn't move around that much on a map at any given time, so it might seem to be in one place when you look at your compass from far away. But it definitely shifts around bit by bit, and all the evidence to date indicates that the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself back and forth on a regular basis just like a swing set. In light of these facts, don't you find it absurd that religious educators claiming to understand basic science are using a straw man argument about geomagnetism to try and prove their bogus point? Yeah, me and my stupid math that makes actual testable and verifiable predictions. Lol indeed. I guess you think the computer you're using right now was made by randomly touching wires together and getting a bunch of nerds to bang on keyboards until something legible started to come out.
You have completely dodged the question. The speed of light in vacuum is very well known, there are many different ways to measure it, and it also happens to perfectly match the predictions of electromagnetism. It takes on a single value that doesn't change, no matter what frame of reference you choose. It takes light a minimum amount of time to get from one point in the universe to another, depending on how far apart those points are. We have many different ways of measuring the distance from Earth to various stars and galaxies. Some of them are billions of light years away. That means it takes billions of years for light to get from there to here, and if light hadn't been travelling for billions of years from these points, we wouldn't be able to see them. How do you explain this fact if not by the rational conclusion that the universe is likely billions of years old?
Here is blatant proof that you are attempting to debunk something of which you don't have the slightest grasp. You want to prove that the Earth's magnetic field is always getting weaker and always has, so you refer to a completely different subject that talks about the magnetic fields produced in a certain type of denture. In other words, this link you posted has nothing to do with the Earth's magnetic field, because it's about tooth repair. I guess you tried to google something, saw a bunch of pretty graphs and flashy pictures, hoped you'd throw that at me and I'd be too overwhelmed to call your bluff. Really sad stuff kid, and it's even sadder that this is what the leading proponents of Intelligent Design also try to do. They're uneducated cave men, dressed in fine clothes made by machines they didn't invent.
Another straw man argument. Evolution does not say man came from monkeys. It says we have a common ancestor with monkeys. What you and your creationist ilk say about evolution is like me claiming that in the bible, God made Adam from his own feces.
Serial killers could use this same argument to win every trial they ever faced. Nothing is a fact for certain beyond all possible doubt and denial. But when enough evidence accumulates, a rational person accepts that the theory which best predicts and agrees with this evidence is also the theory which is most likely to be correct. No alternative theory to evolution has, to date, matched the predictive power that evolution gives us.
Precisely. Why is that so hard for so many people to comprehend? The existence of breakfast isn't even a fact, but there's still abundant evidence for it.
