# Wisdom



## jms_gears1 (Jul 24, 2009)

I Wanna know WTF wisdom teeth are for i mean **** they hurt so freaking bad after they rip open your jaw and take them out then they just send you on your way with a freaking strip of gauze in your mouth and dont tell you when you can take it out and it freaking hurts i want to punch someone.... gah jasdlfgkjasdklfrewgf[i freak

ok im done sorry but i just got mine taken out and it hurts and vicodine isnt working yet


----------



## beingforitself (Jul 24, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> I Wanna know WTF wisdom teeth are for i mean **** they hurt so freaking bad after they rip open your jaw and take them out then they just send you on your way with a freaking strip of gauze in your mouth and dont tell you when you can take it out and it freaking hurts i want to punch someone.... gah jasdlfgkjasdklfrewgf[i freak
> 
> ok im done sorry but i just got mine taken out and it hurts and vicodine isnt working yet



They are vestigial structures (probably meant for grinding plant tissue) from 6000 years ago, when the Lord our God created the world and decided to place in it overwhelming empirical evidence of evolution in order to test our faith.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Jul 24, 2009)

the wisdom teeth belong to our human-like ancestors whose large jaws could accommodating for extra molars mainly used to grind food more. now, most people have relatively small jaws that cannot hold anymore teeth however there are still several groups of people that have a large jaw that can hold wisdom teeth.

so if you're pissed off at your teeth blame the evolutionary process. (scientifically speaking)

if you're religious, then it's just your god's way to laugh at you


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 24, 2009)

beingforitself said:


> They are vestigial structures (probably meant for grinding plant tissue) from 6000 years ago, when the Lord our God created the world and decided to place in it overwhelming empirical evidence of evolution in order to test our faith.



Nicely done .


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 24, 2009)

lol this wasnt supposed to be a religious debate just a rant about my mouth hurting really bad right now and vicodine not working on one of my sockets.

and God it hurts its the only one but it does, they had me on nitrous oxide local and iv sedation and i still felt it...


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 24, 2009)

Why can't we bring religion into this?


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 24, 2009)

you can if you feel like it im just saying thats not the intent however if you want feel free idc. 

and beingforitself are you serious or sarcastic its hard to tell with text
(we need a sarcasm tag)


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 24, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> you can if you feel like it im just saying thats not the intent however if you want feel free idc.
> 
> and beingforitself are you serious or sarcastic its hard to tell with text
> *(we need a sarcasm tag)*



True dat.


----------



## Rama (Jul 24, 2009)

beingforitself said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > I Wanna know WTF wisdom teeth are for i mean **** they hurt so freaking bad after they rip open your jaw and take them out then they just send you on your way with a freaking strip of gauze in your mouth and dont tell you when you can take it out and it freaking hurts i want to punch someone.... gah jasdlfgkjasdklfrewgf[i freak
> ...



*Ahem... with a Mickey Goldmill voice: Put the dices down Johnny!
*Normal voice again: Sting please?.... http://instantrimshot.com/


----------



## miniGOINGS (Jul 24, 2009)

beingforitself said:


> They are vestigial structures (probably meant for grinding plant tissue) from 6000 years ago, when the Lord our God created the world and decided to place in it overwhelming empirical evidence of evolution in order to test our faith.



I thought it was more like 7,000 to 10,000 years, but 6,000 works for me.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 25, 2009)

*This post was chalk full of errors read my next one


----------



## DcF1337 (Jul 25, 2009)

And where are you getting this information from? What makes you think the growth rate is constant?


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jul 25, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> i personally believe that evolution is a load of crap, Especially since the earth could not have existed more than roughly 112 million years ago
> The sun is approximately870,000 miles in diameter, and shrinks about five feet per hour.
> 
> therefor its growth rate is five feet an hour going back in time
> ...



First, how does this have to do with evolution?

Second, the 5 feet per hour would not be consistent over the entire life of the star, from the creation of the solar system, to now. 

Besides, how would you explain the many materials found that date back to pre-112 million years ago, all pointing to the fact that earth was doing just fine back then?

Although my astronomy knowledge is weak, it doesn't take much to realize this.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 25, 2009)

so i was actually wrong in my calculations and closer the first time its 20 million years...

The solar radius changes at 2.5 feet per hour, half the 5 feet per hour change of the solar diameter. The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet in one mile. Assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to

t = (93,000,000 miles) (5,280 ft/mile) 
(2.5 ft/hr) (24 hr/da) (365 day/yr) 

or approximately 20 million B.C. However, the time scales required for organic evolution range from 500 million years to 2,000 million years.3 It is amazing that all of this evolutionary development, except the last 20 million years, took place on a planet that was inside the sun. By 20 million B.C., all of evolution had occurred except the final stage, the evolution of the primate into man.

One must remember that the 20 million year B.C. date is the extreme limit on the time scale for the earth's existence. The time at which the earth first emerged from the shrinking sun is 20 million B.C. A more reasonable limit is the 100 thousand year B.C. limit set by the time at which the size of the sun should have been double its present size.

A further word of explanation is needed about the assumption that the rate of shrinkage of the sun is constant over 100 thousand years or over 20 million years. The shrinkage rate centuries ago would be determined by the balance of solar forces. Since the potential energy of a homogeneous spherical sun varies inversely with the solar radius, the rate of shrinkage would have been greater in the past than it is now. The time at which the sun was twice its present size is less than 100 thousand B.C. The time at which the surface of the sun would touch the earth is much less than 20 million B.C. Therefore, the assumption of a constant shrinkage rate is a conservative assumption.

Source

an interesting read and lists all of its sources


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 25, 2009)

PatrickJameson said:


> First, how does this have to do with evolution?
> 
> Second, the 5 feet per hour would not be consistent over the entire life of the star, from the creation of the solar system, to now.
> 
> ...



Evolutionists claim the earth existed 4.6 (or somewhere close to this number) billion years ago which could not be case.

and Second it very could because the shrinking rate has been the same for the past thousand or so years.

the materials that are thought to existed pre 112 mil years ago cant actually be dated that far back, explain to me how you can date rocks back millions of years


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jul 25, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> Source
> 
> an interesting read and lists all of its sources



Because that website wouldn't be bias in any way.

EDIT: 


jms_gears1 said:


> and Second it very could because the shrinking rate has been the same for the past thousand or so years.


So you're just guessing.



jms_gears1 said:


> the materials that are thought to existed pre 112 mil years ago cant actually be dated that far back, explain to me how you can date rocks back millions of years


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 25, 2009)

PatrickJameson said:


> jms_gears1 said:
> 
> 
> > Source
> ...



it states its sources, just because its a christian website doesnt mean its unfactual

yea basically but it also follows logically that there is a good chance of constancy

radiometric dating for accuracy is at best a crapshoot, and nukes mess with the radiometric dating system tremendously(sp)


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jul 25, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> it states its sources, just because its a christian website doesnt mean its unfactual


Just because it lists it's sources doesn't mean it's factual.



jms_gears1 said:


> yea basically but it also follows logically that there is a good chance of constancy


Please provide your source for the consistency over one thousand years. 



jms_gears1 said:


> radiometric dating for accuracy is at best a crapshoot, and nukes mess with the radiometric dating system tremendously(sp)


lol.


----------



## Escher (Jul 25, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> Evolutionists claim the earth existed 4.6 (or somewhere close to this number) billion years ago which could not be case.
> 
> and Second it very could because the shrinking rate has been the same for the past thousand or so years.
> 
> the materials that are thought to existed pre 112 mil years ago cant actually be dated that far back, explain to me how you can date rocks back millions of years





jms_gears1 said:


> so i was actually wrong in my calculations and closer the first time its 20 million years...
> 
> The solar radius changes at 2.5 feet per hour, half the 5 feet per hour change of the solar diameter. The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet in one mile. Assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to
> 
> ...





jms_gears1 said:


> i personally believe that evolution is a load of crap, Especially since the earth could not have existed more than roughly 112 million years ago
> The sun is approximately870,000 miles in diameter, and shrinks about five feet per hour.
> 
> therefor its growth rate is five feet an hour going back in time
> ...



epicfail (too short)


----------



## brunson (Jul 27, 2009)

Everyone in the know realizes that the universe and everything in it, including all the geological and astronomical data that leads people to believe in evolution, was in fact created last Thursday.


----------



## jms_gears1 (Jul 27, 2009)

how about we just drop this thread then? its turning into a religious debate when really all i wanted was to rant about my teeth.. which still hurt...

and while i used to have the proof of my statement worked out with a friend somewhere on my computer i have no clue where it went and thus my argument came across retarded, unfounded, and honestly poorly thought out.


----------



## beingforitself (Jul 27, 2009)

jms_gears1 said:


> and while i used to have the proof of my statement worked out with a friend somewhere on my computer i have no clue where it went *and thus* my argument came across retarded, unfounded, and honestly poorly thought out.



There may be an issue with correlation and causation here.


----------



## shelley (Jul 27, 2009)

I find it funny that this thread contains the exact opposite of what one would expect on reading the title.


----------



## imaghost (Jul 27, 2009)

I, who do a lot of study in astronomy, and want it to be my main study, and major in college, know that the Earth has been around for at least 4 billion years. Just because the sun is shrinking does not mean that the Earth was the same distance from the core of the sun. If it was, then it would not have an atmosphere because the sun would have been too close and too hot, just like Mercury. Not only that, it would be much smaller because of how much the sun would have melted it away, again just like Mercury. Also, with the centripetal force it would have, it would just crash into the sun and burn and we wouldn't exist. Mercury has a fast revolution around the sun, while Pluto does not.

Just because the Sun is shrinking does not mean that it was huge before.


----------



## beingforitself (Jul 27, 2009)

shelley said:


> I find it funny that this thread contains the exact opposite of what one would expect on reading the title.



in soviet smerbia ignorance is knowledge


----------



## spdcbr (Jul 27, 2009)

If Rama is still reading this, could you get your part done on the OH solving on erik's site? I want to read it.


----------

