Scientific method: Make observations, formulate hypothesis, follow the evidence where it leads, test hypothesis, make the conclusion, test conclusion, peer-review, publish work.
"creation science": Make the conclusion, search for the evidence to support conclusion, convolute the evidence by emphasis on gaps in knowledge, fail to support conclusion, fail peer-review, never get published, get laughed at by scientists.
Behold the reason our textbooks say nothing about creation, and never will.
Don't make any more videos. Very lame. Where ever a person stands on this issue, I think we can all agree that this video is nonsense. There is no saving grace for this one, not even the music. c
Don't make any more videos. Very lame. Where ever a person stands on this issue, I think we can all agree that this video is nonsense. There is no saving grace for this one, not even the music.
@dragoon414 He never said he did, this is simplt anecdotal evidence of intellect. He did ask for an objective definition of intelligence, he did not provide one.
we can make observations from written evidence and then use it with fossils to form a theory. You are just mad that it all fits so nicely together with the bible, arent you?
Evolutionist get their interpretations of facts based on assumptions written in books. Such as the "Origin of Species." They then use natural selection to claim molecules to man evolution. Interpretation of facts can support creation but is all on how you interpret them. Make no mistake though..."molecules to man" evolution has to be taken purely by faith. You can't reproduce it in a lab. It isn't testable and carbon dating has too many flaws and assumptions on daughter products.
@Jonathanhcook Origin of Species was written as the theory, your bible was written in the same way. The key differences are that Darwin a.) provided empirical and anecdotal evidence for his theory b.) presented it as a theory, not as fact, and c.) did not hold as a theory or a "fact" not subject to disapproval or alteration to better fit empirical evidence. In fact, Darwin himself suggested ways to disprove his theory wholesale.
@Nominator546 I'm sorry some of your statements are incorrect. The Bible is a historical account and also the word of God of instructions to people, not a theory. I would argue that the Bible has very compelling lines of evidence that you should investigate. Especially the reliability of the new testament manuscript evidence. To know how much Jesus loves you and want you to have a personal relationship with Him. I would implore you to look at the evidence. For He died for your sins and mine.
So are you saying that just because something came from "a book", that doesn't make it an observation? How would you know the book wasn't a record of observations?
I have seen creationists do like any other scientist as for evolutionist I see a pigs tooth made into a human stuff like that. I sure am glad I am no longer an atheists it was lies like this video that made me leave atheism and evolution. If we cannot trust atheist scientist to be honest how can we trust them at all.
i do notice 1 thing atheists are so damn angry all the time haha and thats not how creation scientists go about things well actually i dont know what ppl with that title do honestly but existing science is is proof of creationism it matters only how you interpret the data then the bible is applied to the existing science because there are many correlations many new facts that the bible already knew 2 thousand years ago. such as the universe is finite and begin at 1 moment in time.
@dayzmelttogether I honestly don't see how you can tell atheists are any more angry than theists just by looking at these comments alone. All I see is your pathetic attempt of ad hominem.
@dayzmelttogether Those may be true, but what moment in and time, what size, and how is it situated. For example, the thiests orginally accepted a model of the universe with the earth at it's center, the planets and sun orbiting the earth, and the starts painted upon "shells" at the limits of the universe.
@dayzmelttogether Then they observed moons around another planet, which shows that you must either imagine an incredibly complex path for these moons to follow so that they only appear to orbit the planet, or you must concede that not everything orbits the earth. From this evidence, real scientists did not conclude that every portion of the theory was wrong, but only that portion of the theory was wrong and the rest unproven.
That is a good vid, except you cannot argue that God is not intelligent because He didn't make a car or that nobody made Him an IQ test. He is suposed to have made the Universe, and man wich is more complex then any car I ever saw. If that is not proof of intelligence, I don't know what is.
LOL you have not given any proof of your god by saying that a human body is more complex than a car. That does not prove anything dumbass. Apparently you need to learn what proof actually is. Just because you say something does not mean it is true. Proof is needed for something to be a fact and you have no proof. Religion requires faith because there is no proof, and that is why they call it faith.
A good video though I do not agree with the contention that intelligence implies the context of intellectualism regarding intelligent design. This may be interpreted as the presence of sentience or even as incomprehensible intelligence by virtue of its ambiguous nature.
Perhaps I missed an important context but at 7:40 the third statement is flawed. Complex life does not suggest an intelligent designer unless you are conceding the point for the sake of argument. Perhaps that was the context...
Unwarranted "Disclaimers" page aside, a very good video. Nicely demolishes the phrase "creation science". Strange music choice, though. Why something so sad? I'd use joyous music! You're demolishing lies and clarifying truth; that's always a joyful thing. Perhaps Bach's Concerto for Oboe and Violin. Or maybe Enya's song "How Can I Keep From Singing". Sad music detracts. Still an excellent video in spite of that, though. Grade: A. Stars: 5.
Lose the "Disclaimers" page. Only liars use "disclaimers", and only when they're legally required to. Why contradict your own video like that? Personally, I'm violently anti-religious (because religion is psychotic), and strongly pro-atheist (because mental health cannot co-exist with theism). As for "blaspheming", it means "saying things contrary to religion", and yes, I do that too, and will continue to do so for as long as the insanity called "religion" exists on this planet.
Greek of whatever mythology does not say anything about nor disproved the Gospel.
From movie zeitgeist, (see refuted part 1-10) is clearly seen that the makers are very questionable. They quote people that are just making up stories and authors just making up stories
Christian faith just stands as the ONLY religion with crusified son of man.
And just because this is the ONLY story w/ the "crusified son of man"..., that makes it logical or factual???!! There's some good christian hypothosizing for you. :(
Is is hard to understand, but in the spirit world it is the only way: the God that became man in a strange unexplicable manner.
All the evil spirits knew that a form of "son of God" would come, but the demons (fallen angles of satan) did not know that it was just Gods plan that he would die in the body (creation).
So God above creation became connected with his creation.
For one, I don't live in a "spirit" world. I live in a realistic one. Second. it's really NOT that hard to understand if you'll quit letting that book scare you w/ damnation and just start honestly evaluating your life and your experiances. Good luck! And don't be afraid!!
I think you need to update some of your facts! (And, please don't go to your preacher to do it!) National Geographic has a NEW missing link fossil named Ida that is MORE proof for evolution! (As if we didn't have enough!) And if you'll check the carbon dating records.., you'll see that the dinasours prints were fossilized 10's of thousands of years before the man came along and walked near the same track and then his prints became fossiized. I hope you do some searching on your own! Go w/ TRUTH!
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny !
dont be fooled this guy is full of crap, lets get logical. so lets say no God no Intelligence. How can there be cells in ur body INTELLGENTLY WORKING together that sustain it your body from an embryo to and inphant and the forces sustained the sub atomic level of an Atom held together firmly Orderly . I rest my case
what's an inphant, a baby elephant? cells don't work intelligently they merely do CHEMICALLY what comes naturally, cells don't have brains, nor do atoms, molecules, or any other non-animal (we are after all animals) and the forces that sustain atomic orbits are natural progressions that are explainable, look, we aren't trying to disprove your God, if he exists, we'll eventually find him, just sit back while the intelligent lot do their jobs and you reap the benefits, and don't interfere. or, Die
Who gave you the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The declaration of independence? Atheists have no right. They simply deny the creator who's suppose to be giving them the right. watch?v=dOR3FQRSnVA
scientists used to be so sure that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth, all based on observation. they sure got that one right. the more we learn about molecular biology and physics, the smaller shit gets, and we find a never ending line of complexity. atoms, sub atomic particles, quarks, strings, brains, how small do we need to get before we realize, well never really know how shit REALLY works?
Science as we know it started with the work of Galileo, who started to work in astronomy in 1608. The flat earth myth ended in the late 15 century. So science can't have believed that the earth was flat because science didn't existed and it can't have believed that the sun revolved around the earth because science's father most important discovery WAS THAT THE EARTH REVOLVED AROUND THE SUN. For what concerns the rest of your post I'll only say tat you don't know what a theory is
Tut tut sonofturbo - twas the church that believed the sun revolved around the earth, and they persecuted Galileo (a scientist) for suggesting otherwise.
It's good that u all see and think that evolution is an observe fact....I respect that even though I disagree.
If u all want to be true scientist/evolutionist, can u all not disregard "ALL THE THINGS" that contradict or disproves your beliefs!!! I know it's shameful and hard to admit mistakes, but enough of the one-sided stories and when WRONG---no apologies!!!
And stop being so angry all the time...when u can't defend something, u start bad mouthing others!!!
I hope these ideas work out for you on Judgement Day. Watching videos on youtube does not make any of you scientists. The VERIFIABLE TRUTH of the matter is that THE MOST ACCOMPLISHED AND CREDENTIALED SCIENTISTS believe in intelligent design based on OBSERVATION and LOGICAL ASSUMPTION. Your high school teacher is just teaching the same bullshit he was taught. I have yet to see a single one of these videos explain something advanced- like COGNITION.
Universe is expanding faster than c. Einstein's law of relativity - you can't go BEYOND c! God expanding the universe written in the Bible, when of course at that time, nobody knew this computer graphics universe and flat earth fans are a large number in earth or even galactical stars and masses.
I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ATHEISM AND YOUR SATIRE BULLSHIT! JUST LEARN TO ACCEPT THE FACTS. GOD CREATED WORLD WHICH POSSIBLY IS 6,000 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!FUCK YOU WHIMPS!!! i HAVE THE RIGHT! I'm RIGHT!
That is a strawman. Mass can't accelerate to the speed of light, but the universe expanding is not mass moving anywhere - rather, it's an expansion of space-time. Einsteins laws are not broken, you just don't grasp cosmology.
Anyone who don't believe in God is without excuse-
Through creation, God revealed His divine nature to mankind. Men should have received this revelation and responded by worshiping Him. Instead, man exchanged the truth of God for a lie and chose to worship the creation rather than the Creator. Because of this, mankind is guilty before God and deserving of divine wrath. This is the essence of Romans 1:18-32.
Stop freaking saying that bullshit word, "Imaginary Friend!" I never met Jesus in person he's not my friend and He exists! God exists! It's just philosophically impossible claiming there is no God! Science IS compatible with the Bible. Evolution ain't fact it's a theory! It's not what happened! Big Bang is not fact it's a theory! It's not what happened! Stop this bullshit!
well, unless you can provide evidence of god then he is your imaginary friend.. and that's in two words mind you ;)
Science is not compatabilitable since science relies on strictness in observations, data, precision, and discarding of useless conjecture via contradictory means. The bible is a book full of fairy-tales, a lot of it about a copy-cat of the ancient egyptian god Ra polished by a roman emperor with a blown-up ego... for crying out loud, just listen to yourself swearing like that!
Nope! He isn't my friend so why as well be imaginary. I can prove God! I take Bible as a fact not faith. So, many scientists and people thousands of times smarter than you take the literal interpretation of the Bible as a fact or WHAT REALLY REALLY HAPPENED. Some are PHD graduate in medicine a high degree holder in that. How can you explain these! That explains why I'm not uneducated! Again Evolution is not asserted as fact Bible is. Big Bang ain't also so why as well suck a dick on it. fag fool
as a biologist at the imperial college london i can tell you that no respected, mainstream, peer reviewed scientist takes the bible as fact. the bible was writted by people, not god, so why even christians do is beyond me... the only facts in the world are mathematical. evolution theory is as fact as science can be. as fact as relativity, gravity, and any of these other 'theories', unfortunately my well meaning friend, you have proven how uneducated you are... it has been proven beyond doubt
this is not an argument, theory in this case means - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. calling it a theory does not make it false, you have succeeded in showing everyone how uneducated and foolish you actually are, or perhaps merely ignorant, read some science books and then join the debate (not refering to the bible to prove the bible)
You're the type of douchebag that doesn't know the meaning of the word "theory" in science. Evolution itself is an observable fact while the theory of evolution then tries to explain these observed facts.
The whole structure is not fact. Deception comes from using facts and then putting unnecessary hypothesis. Why can't science say, "Yes this is what happened." Creation is supernatural. For one I'm gonna go ahead and say Big Bang is a dead theory whom have been failed to revive at the large hardon collider. No such thing as infinite in nature. Even evolutionists snap when they hear the word big bang. Laws of physics = nature can't create itself.
Intelligent design is not a joke. It's basic only thing in the universe that has information. It's fact and it's what brought us here to these technology it's not science that brought us here. Instructions in your genes has intelligent informations. Take a look at what ancient man had already built without the means of text books, schools, and adding evolution or the big bang if they ever have a "science"text books! It's MASSIVE engineering and advanced technical know how which evo thinks alien
"4.6 bio. years." You're right it's just 4.6 years not Billions of years!
"I change outdated books"
Big Bang is rusty old fairy tale. Let's see.. It says, "BOOM!" ROFL! Now that gives YOU the answer over everything! Bible is a historic record of the 6,000 years old earth which is canonized and confirmed by the authority, the one true religion called Roman Catholic Church has given to bound and loose over heaven and earth.APOSTOLIC. Jesus exist in the host literally body, blood soul and divinity.
Evolution don't tell anything. Education is based on the real science. Real science confirms the Bible. Where does real science ordained 13 billion years old universe? Real science doesn't assert and they held it falsifiable.
6K was till taught in schools today until recently because it was basically the absolute data since after the 6 days creation. You're deluding reality! Evolution is just branching of species it clearly states that every species did NOT evolve from it's current form to some other form and the Big bang says it took place 13 Billion years ago (which is strange thing to do an experimentation)8.5 billion years after the big bang the earth suddenly appeared. Your faith is in science which not answer.
American schools teach that garbage? I'm glad to be danish and far away from the fundie belt, then.
Please explain how we can observe galaxies several million light years away, with a constant speed of light, IF your bronzeage crap holds any credence.
Give me a source of this 6000 year old earth. Which dating methods shows this?
That is not garbage. That is sadly what happened! I honestly think that the Bible uses metaphor but when you look at the genesis, It clearly says that it is sin that brought us to death not death that brought us to life! We are immortals back then and we die because of our original sin! So THAT IS LITERAL! The Bible says it! You are skeptic Everybody believes the Bible!
Luckily not all American schools teach that shit. In fact, I think most don't but there are still a few states that want to still live in the dark ages for some reason.
"Darwin would never imagine modern genetic research and genetic engineering." Imagine? He did not create anything! The DNA technology emerge from the scientific data and people have already previous technology that will create that another technology. Let's look at the computer. If you see yes they would imagine things but it's not based on theories and wishful thinking. It's based on the ideas of what they could do. And they create large vacuum computers that fits a building.
You have absolutely no idea of what a scientific theory is. I tried explaining it to you once. You ignored my explanation. I'll try again.
A scientific theory is an explanation of how a natural process works that is consistent with and supported by ALL the known evidence, and inconsistent with none.
The way you test a theory is through scientific research, experiments, observation, anything that can collect facts and produce results for comparison.
No that is not what theory is. It's speculation and they test it because it came from imagination. The way science works is base on the previous data and what man could already do in it's constant intelligence. Our intelligence does not increase only the technology. That's just the only way to do it. Just like computers gradually being created to precious inventions. They invent new things pass it on the next generation and they have facts on the basis of how intelligent man already is.
Evolution was an important discovery for many things - it is the unifying theory of biology, geology & paleontology. If you're a dogmatic theist, we know why you don't like evolution. It "exists" nonetheless and is important to know about in order to understand f.x. the antibiotics-resistance of bacteria.
Understand antibiotics?! You don't need Evolution to understand anything! A theory is a theory because it's not FACT! It's not what happened here and extremely falsifiable! Now the creation is a complete mystery asking HOW instead of WHEN and how OLD! Knowing how the world was created has nothing to do with science and it's limitation to the physical world! As a matter of fact it is the intelligent design in the first place that brought technology the order and the information already in atoms!
Not antibiotics. The BACTERIA. Bacteria evolve when faced with selective pressure - antibiotics.
You're right, a theory is not "a fact", because facts are observations made. All theories are explanatory models. Yes, theories are falsifiable. They must be to BE theories. No, nothing has falsified evolution.
"Intelligent design" is a joke. If anything this world is an example of incompetent design. Why did the "designer" allow for some people and animals to gain genetic disorders?
Nothing had falsified evolution because it's false, it's not a fact, and it's really not what happened over the world. 6,000 years old earth is what really happened. It was based right on the historical evidence of Adam who lived a thousand years right after the fresh 6 days creation as oppose to the 13 BILLION years old universe which had been written a few decades ago.Are you kidding me?! That's a few decades ago! You can't tell me it's a Billion or two stfu! A universe could be created/sec.
"Nothing had falsified evolution because it's false, it's not a fact"
OK, then please do explain to my why humans are 98.9% genetically similar to chimpanzees, why we share Endogenous retroviruses (from past infections), why humans have tailbones, why humans are classified as primates if we're not, and why backwards mitochondrial dating shows our origins to be out of Eastafrica 7 million years ago.
BTW, we even have civilizations much older than 6000 years. Bullshit.
Comparative anatomy is another bullshit. They have completely different genes! You have to go from 0 to 319 in one shot of a single cell! First you have to get change the knees, the back bone, the HIPS to get it walk upright and 9 out of ten it's not gonna be a good chimpanzee!Give me the origin of ANYTHING! Eyes ears nose ANYTHING!!!!!!
98%? Actually, it's based on the bullshit comparative anatomy! It's not on the base of the information that's on the DNA formation. The very evidence was on the DNA! Information!Intelligent design!We didn't evolve from chimps? It just didn't happen! How dare you put up the 13 billion years old universe a few decades ago in accordance to support the time of evolution. The data is all yours! 6,000 is authentically written as exact time as Adam after the 6 days fresh creation.6,000 years old!
Do you know about Polymerase Chain Reaction DNA sequencing? That is how human/chimp DNA is analyzed and compared. You're either very ignorant or very uneducated. Neither is a valid excuse.
"you do have faith in science"
Things that cannot be studied scientifically are pure imagination and fantasy, so I've no reason to go there.
Bravo. I admire your cool and rational responses to this thread's resident troll. I even learnt a thing or two.
On the subject of DNA similarity, I hear they've completed (or are about to) the gene mapping of horses and chickens. Wonder what sukulovstravinzky will think of that . . . ?
What are theories for?It's nothing! Say "Oh the big bang created the world not creation now let's create the Air plane!" , "Oh the evolution brought us here let's invent th DNA technology!" It has nothing to do with physical inventions! Saying E=mc^2 created the atomic bomb it isn't because it's just a calculation of some physical part of the world but it ISN'T part of the physical world and base on what we create! Facts are the most important things!
Scientific models of how the universe's natural processes operate are the basis for most of the inventions you use, including the computer you used to post your message.
Yes, people take the predictions derived from the theories and use those to create inventions. That's just stating the obvious.
Science did not use theories to create inventions. They use the previous data and make hybrids out of it. Just look at the previous computers. No one needs Big bang and evolution. Give me one technology that it had created. Nothing!
Are you seriously saying that the people who built your computer did not need an understanding of the theories that explain the natural laws behind electronics?
Technology created through an understanding of the theory of and mechanics of evolution.
Genetic engineering of crops.
Biomedical development of various medicines.
Understanding of the growth and adaptation of genetic and other diseases.
Theories are speculations made OUTSIDE of science. It's not part of it. As you can see it is separated on the text book. understanding a theory is completely different from the scientific method used to survive. The evolutionist cannot deny and say the ancient civilization came from alien life because of their evolutionary belief that ancient man was primitive. This is not true! Bible would indicate facts otherwise: Man created by the image and likeness of God had already been intelligent.
I've done too much damage to your pride already. you are not a competant evolutionist. But then, none are. I have no desire to continue educating you. Good luck discovering the truth. Here's one last truth from me, and then I am gone for good, I promise.
God loves you but hates your denial of Him. He knows that you cannot escape knowledge of him in your heart or mind. He wants a relationship with you, to bless you beyond your wildest dreams. But only you can make the choice. Good luck to you.
Don't you find it remarkable that everything that comes out of your mouth is garbage and i have debunked every ridiculous thing you've said? I could do so endlessly.
If this alone does not make you question what you believe, then you:
1) are not concerned with what's true and argue your worldview because you feel compelled to because the alternative is creation and this you hate, or
2) You've just incapable of seeing that there is a dire need for you to learn more.
Given that you have produced no evidence of any kind, it's pretty hard to say you debunked anything.
It's not a question of what I believe. It is a question of having the evidence to back up my claims. You make a lot of claims, but with absolutely no evidence.
There is a plethora of scintists and other intelligent people who provide such a mountain of evidence against evolutionism, one can study it for years and not learn put some of it.
Evenso, if you wish to continue believing in evolutionism, you must believe a black hole can explode.
I will not spend days here with you taking you by the hand through a mountain of evidence in science. I wish you good luck, IF you're interested in the truth. If you are not, no amount of luck will help you. CYA
"Evenso, if you wish to continue believing in evolutionism, you must believe a black hole can explode."
Umm, by the way, the study of black holes is COSMOLOGY, which has nothing to do with evolution.
Neph, for someone who did your famous "2 years of research", you should at LEAST know the difference between astronomical phenomenon and the process by which life diversifies.
1 : a celestial object that has a gravitational field so strong that light cannot escape it and that is believed to be created especially in the collapse of a very massive star
The univers squeezed into a singularity by the gravity of the matter in the universe would be:
1 a celestial object
2 an object of such gravity light could not excape it.
You can't even get your own denialism right. For the last time, CYA.
Except that there was NO MATTER initially. There was only ENERGY. No matter = No gravity.
I've told you this several times already. Please pay attention.
The big bang ALSO says that the fundamental forces of nature, including gravity, didn't exist at the time of the big bang.
Finally, the universe is EXPANDING not EXPLODING. Think of it this way. If it WAS a singularity, then WE ARE STILL IN THE SINGULARITY. It's just that the singularity is expanding.
You're also silly. Balck holes can't explode. The idea of the singularity does not match what you say either. Not even evolutionists believe the singularity still exists. Ofcourse, there never was a singularity, because black holed can't explode.
The information in this site should, if you are interested in knowing if what you've been told is actually the truth, if mankind is thousands of years old or hundreds of thousands, if life evolved or was created, if the timeline of the world is as evolutionists claim or not, you could start here:
There is a whole world of evidence out there that discredits evolutionism. If you were truly interested in the truth, instead of being truly interested in denial of it, what little I have provided would pique your interest enough that you'd begin a personal investigation for the truth which includes sources outside of the evolutionist camp. This is how I became a creationist. I was an evolutionists until about 3 years ago. I did what you will not do.
Interesting. I keep asking you for evidence, and everything you throw at me is easily discredited. Where is this overwhelming evidence you talk of?
I am interested in what can be verified by the observable evidence. So far you have shown me nothing that conforms to the observable evidence.
I do give you credit for increasing my knowledge of biology, physics, astronomy, etc. while researching your claims. Unfortunately for you, what I learned debunked your claims.
Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize Association medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.
Regarding helium 4, your assumption is that helium cannot escape the atmosphere. That assumption is wrong. Processes exist that eliminate about the same amount of Helium 4 as is captured.
Banks, P.M and T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind" in Journal of Geophysical Research 74 pp. 6317-6332
Not supported by science? Umm, that bit at the end with the page numbers and title, that is a journal article that contains the paper that provides the scientific evidence for the claim I made.
Do you even LOOK at the references people provide?
Also Melvin Cook was a chemist, not a physicist. He won a "Nitro Nobel Gold Medal" in 1968 which is NOT the Nobel Prize awarded by the Nobel foundation.
Either you are a REALLY BAD researcher, or intentionally deceptive.
Melvin Cook worked for years as a phyicist. His field is physical chemistry.
A man who works professionaly as a truck driver is a truck driver, even if his specialty is truck repair. So too a scientist who works as a physicist is a physicist, even if his specialtyh is a specialty within physics, such as physical chamistry.
Melvin Cook was in physical chemistry I agree. That is not the same field as chemical physics.
Yes, he may have used the principles of physics (as does all science) in his work. His most notable work was in the development of shaped charges and slurry explosives. None of which deals with understanding the physics of chemistry or physics in general.
Also, it still doesn't change the fact that you lied about him being a Nobel prize winner, not that argument from authority would have mattered.
Man-made artifacts, such aa a hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.
Such artifacts as these, and others, such as a bell found inside coal, prove that the evolutionist timescale for the earth is off by powers. The earth is clearly young, and dating methods are clearly wrong.
Please state the actual references for your hammer in cretaceous rock, sandle prints with trilobites in cambrian rock, etc. Again you make claims without providing the evidence to support those claims.
I cannot comment on the validity of these "discoveries" if you don't provide the details.
A quick look at talkorigins found your claims and the truth about them.
Sandal with trilobites is a spall pattern (talkorigins claim CC102)
Hammer in cretaceous rocks is claim CC130. The hammer itself is in calcium carbonate. The fossils were in nearby rocks unrelated to the encrusting on the hammer.
I didn't find the bell in coal but the cup in coal story (claim CC131) exists. This was in processed coal, not in situ. This is known to react with rainwater to produce sediments. No mystery.
Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic "field" (flux) has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousands of years.
About earth's magnetic field evidence in the rocks show that it has varied with intensity and switched polarity many times. You are taking a temporary phenomenon and extrapolating that to absurd levels without any evidence to back you up (and in fact counter evidence against you).
Its like saying you were growing at an exponential rate as a child, so now you should be 300 feet tall.
A reduction in the magnetic flux does not qualify as a reversal. There is no evidence of reversal. The claim is based upon an arbitrary line drawn in a graph used to show changes in intensity, and whatever drops below it is claimed to be a reversal. That's bad science at best, and certainly not evidence of reversal.
Please provide me with a reference to this graph you are referring to and the article that describes the so-called artificial line.
World-wide we see core samples from the middle of continents to the ocean floors. They not only show reversal of polarity in the rocks, but these are consistent world wide. How do YOU explain the same rock layers world wide with minerals alternating polarity?
Everything about the BB theory has been devised with the intention of attempting to squirrel around the obvious creation, by conjuring impossibilities to replace the hand of God. God is eternal, thus the evolutionist must find an eternal creator, and since matter cannot be created or destroyed, an eternally bouncing universe is the excuse to try to get around the eternal character of God and fact that all mater time and space fame from literally nothing..
Neph says "matter cannot be created or destroyed, "
Umm, have you ever heard of a little equation e=mc^2?
Do you know how an atom bomb works? You know, where some matter is destroyed in order to create a huge amount of energy according to the above formula?
Have you not heard of particle accelerators that convert kinetic energy of colliding electrons and positrons to create new particles?
OF COURSE matter can be created and destroyed. High school kids know that.
"The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system will remain constant over time, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles"
wiki / Conservation_of_mass
Light behaves like both energy and matter. Shoulda stayed in high school.
Read the second paragraph of that reference. The one that says this is true only in the classical sense without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics.
@wysiwyg666 - it's a most interesting, and telling, point, i think, that your replies, ever cool and rational, are the final word to each of NephilimFree's imaginative assertions. I felt like replying to a lot of his comments too, but I'm glad somebody with a lot more (correct) scientific knowledge got there first. And I learnt a few things. Cheers.
As for the Big Bang, it never happened. Black holes cannot explode. The contrivance of a "singularity" is an attempt to get around the creation by claiming the universe eternally explodes and collapses.
As for the big bang, it is not an attempt to "get around the creation". If anything, it is an attempt to explain how the mechanics of the creation happened.
Again, only young earth creationists find a problem with God setting in motion the natural processes we've observed.
Lots of quote mines, but no actual SOURCES so I can see WHERE they said these things and in what CONTEXT they said these things. Typical Creationist tactic. But in any event, this doesn't really matter. People's opinions ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
You also didn't cite a source for your figures on the variances. But all of those are 1 in 1000 or maybe 1 in 10,000, not the "billions upon billions" you ramble on about.
Finally, OF COURSE we are fine tuned to our environment. Evolution works that way.
Neph says the life we see around us is tied closely to the environmental conditions of the universe in which we reside. Change the starting conditions and we couldn't exist.
I agree 100%. But that doesn't mean the universe was "created" for us.
Natural Selection says that evolution is driven by organisms ADAPTING TO FIT THEIR ENVIRONMENT. We adapted to the Universe.
However Neph has shown no evidence that would prevent different starting conditions from creating different life.
Before Neph jumps all over it. When I said "creating different life" I meant created by the process of natural selection, not some mystic intelligence.
We already see this. Life on earth has many different forms. Life based on consuming carbon dioxide and sunlight (plants). Life based on consuming oxygen and other lifeforms (animals). Life based on sulphur instead of oxygen like sulphur bacteria.
So its plausible that if the universal environment were different, life could still evolve.
If you're so unaware of the plethora of information from science that discredits evolutionism, why argue evolution is not assumptions, but is actually science or scientific? You're very bankrupt in information if you didn't know that science has proven the atomic forces were so perfectly balanced and that if any one of them were different by the most minute measure, the universe could not support life.
Do what so many tell you. Start studying. Nobosdy's gonna hold your hand.
How many of the scientists you quoted also believe in young earth creationism? Not many.
I have said all along that there is no conflict between religion and evolution. Many people believe a creator put in place natural processes, including evolution.
Quoting people with that viewpoint who don't believe in YEC does nothing to counter evolution OR support young-earth creationism.
All it does is expose your deceptive use of quote mining and misrepresentation of people's views.
F.Tipler (Prof. of Mathematical Physics) "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.
Hubble's Law: All of these Bible passages state God made the universe expand, which was unknown to science until the 20th century: Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Job 9:8, Job 26:7, Job 37:18, Psalms 18:9, Psalms 104:2, Psalms 144:5, 2 Samuel 22:10, Zechariah 12:1
I love it. What did you do, search your King James Bible for every place the word "stretch"appears so you could find passages that fit my balloon analogy?
Yes, God "Stretched forth the heavens". Or, the new English translation "spread out the heavens". Nothing there to say the heavens were expanding. Just that he put the heavens in place.
Those passages would apply equally well even if science determined that the universe was contracting. It would still be "stretchy".
Except that the scientific definition of expansion" and explosion" is much more precise. But don't let scientific terminology hold you back, you've never bothered with it before.
If you don't believe me about explosions check out creationwiki. Search for big bang there. It clearly says the beig bang was not an explosion in the conventional sense of the term, but an expansion of space time.
Even your fellow creationists can tell the difference.
Google "was the big bang an explosion"and read the first result: "Was the big bang an Explosion? A look at how the universe was formed".
If you want an analogy, an "expansion" is what happens when you blow into a balloon. The entire balloon stretches. If you were on any point on the balloon, it would look like every other point was moving away from you.
An EXPLOSION originates at a single point and blasts outwards from that point. Not the same thing at all.
I don't expect you to open your mind and see what real science says about anything. I know you're dedicated to denialism of God and evolutionism is your cover story. I have no interest in trying to help you further. Live in ignorance and denial or not, your choice. I have too much on my plate to waste time on someone who is incapable of changing thier heart so they can see the truth.
I am not living in denial. I am living by the observed evidence and the facts. Facts which are not consistent with your lack of evidence.
EVERYTHING you have said here is BAD SCIENCE. You have made many assertions, but have not referenced a single source for any of those assertions or given any evidence to back up those assertions.
If you fail to produce evidence, then of course I go with the results of the people who actually DO provide it.
As for the claptrap about how I am in denial and all, that is just you projecting yourself on me.
YOU are the one who starts with the CONCLUSION that every word in a 2000 year old book of myths is the literal truth. You then try to twist every branch of science to fit that conclusion.
The fact that you start with a conclusion by itself makes your arguments non-scientific and unsuitable for teaching as science in our schools. Even if what you said is 100% true, it is not science.
But unfortunately for you, most of your "science" can be seen through by anyone with an 8th grade education.
You make wild claims without sourcing those claims.
When I check into your claims myself, I find that the people you quote have done shoddy science, like comparing a flowing mountain glacier with a stable continental glacial ice sheet. Or deliberately misusing radiometric dating in a way that any scientist would tell you gives bad results. Or by proposing solutions that defy physics.
The "ice age" (there has been only one) was caused by the Noachian FLood. Glacier Girl, a WWII P-38 warplane, has by itself (other data as well) proven the layers of ice in glaciers and elsewhere are not laid down annually, but by storm or event. It was recovered from 260+ ft. of ice inside a glacier. Evolutionists claim those layers are tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of yrs old because dating methods provide these erroneous results!
The "Glacier girl" landed on an active flowing glacier, not a stable ice field. Note that the plans had been MOVED over three miles from their original landing point.
So, as usual, you are comparing apples to oranges and coming up bible.
All glaciers flow, perhaps. But the flow rate on a stable continental ice field is minuscule compared to a glacier flowing down the side of a mountain over top of buried airplanes.
This has been flagged as spam show
Scientific method: Make observations, formulate hypothesis, follow the evidence where it leads, test hypothesis, make the conclusion, test conclusion, peer-review, publish work.
"creation science": Make the conclusion, search for the evidence to support conclusion, convolute the evidence by emphasis on gaps in knowledge, fail to support conclusion, fail peer-review, never get published, get laughed at by scientists.
Behold the reason our textbooks say nothing about creation, and never will.
drgoldteef 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't make any more videos. Very lame. Where ever a person stands on this issue, I think we can all agree that this video is nonsense. There is no saving grace for this one, not even the music. c
aricdared 11 months ago
Don't make any more videos. Very lame. Where ever a person stands on this issue, I think we can all agree that this video is nonsense. There is no saving grace for this one, not even the music.
aricdared 11 months ago
its funny how you think building a car or doing math is intelligent....lol
dragoon414 1 year ago
@dragoon414 He never said he did, this is simplt anecdotal evidence of intellect. He did ask for an objective definition of intelligence, he did not provide one.
Nominator546 1 year ago
we can make observations from written evidence and then use it with fossils to form a theory. You are just mad that it all fits so nicely together with the bible, arent you?
dragoon414 1 year ago
evolution is a religion because it requires faith. Enough said.
dragoon414 1 year ago
Evolutionist get their interpretations of facts based on assumptions written in books. Such as the "Origin of Species." They then use natural selection to claim molecules to man evolution. Interpretation of facts can support creation but is all on how you interpret them. Make no mistake though..."molecules to man" evolution has to be taken purely by faith. You can't reproduce it in a lab. It isn't testable and carbon dating has too many flaws and assumptions on daughter products.
Jonathanhcook 1 year ago
@Jonathanhcook Origin of Species was written as the theory, your bible was written in the same way. The key differences are that Darwin a.) provided empirical and anecdotal evidence for his theory b.) presented it as a theory, not as fact, and c.) did not hold as a theory or a "fact" not subject to disapproval or alteration to better fit empirical evidence. In fact, Darwin himself suggested ways to disprove his theory wholesale.
Nominator546 1 year ago
@Nominator546 I'm sorry some of your statements are incorrect. The Bible is a historical account and also the word of God of instructions to people, not a theory. I would argue that the Bible has very compelling lines of evidence that you should investigate. Especially the reliability of the new testament manuscript evidence. To know how much Jesus loves you and want you to have a personal relationship with Him. I would implore you to look at the evidence. For He died for your sins and mine.
Jonathanhcook 1 year ago
So are you saying that just because something came from "a book", that doesn't make it an observation? How would you know the book wasn't a record of observations?
yourfaceisyummy 1 year ago
@yourfaceisyummy That's fine, perhaps it is, but just because it's possible doesn't mean you should assume that it is a record of observations.
Nominator546 1 year ago
I have seen creationists do like any other scientist as for evolutionist I see a pigs tooth made into a human stuff like that. I sure am glad I am no longer an atheists it was lies like this video that made me leave atheism and evolution. If we cannot trust atheist scientist to be honest how can we trust them at all.
Brian72677 1 year ago
Evolution is technical knowledge -it isn't for everyone: watch?v=xiwMdNPaxcg
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
i do notice 1 thing atheists are so damn angry all the time haha and thats not how creation scientists go about things well actually i dont know what ppl with that title do honestly but existing science is is proof of creationism it matters only how you interpret the data then the bible is applied to the existing science because there are many correlations many new facts that the bible already knew 2 thousand years ago. such as the universe is finite and begin at 1 moment in time.
dayzmelttogether 1 year ago
@dayzmelttogether I honestly don't see how you can tell atheists are any more angry than theists just by looking at these comments alone. All I see is your pathetic attempt of ad hominem.
gupsphoo 1 year ago
@dayzmelttogether Those may be true, but what moment in and time, what size, and how is it situated. For example, the thiests orginally accepted a model of the universe with the earth at it's center, the planets and sun orbiting the earth, and the starts painted upon "shells" at the limits of the universe.
Nominator546 1 year ago
@dayzmelttogether Then they observed moons around another planet, which shows that you must either imagine an incredibly complex path for these moons to follow so that they only appear to orbit the planet, or you must concede that not everything orbits the earth. From this evidence, real scientists did not conclude that every portion of the theory was wrong, but only that portion of the theory was wrong and the rest unproven.
Nominator546 1 year ago
I was gonna state the comic at the beginning, but then I saw itxD So true, so true...
george77772moons 1 year ago
That is a good vid, except you cannot argue that God is not intelligent because He didn't make a car or that nobody made Him an IQ test. He is suposed to have made the Universe, and man wich is more complex then any car I ever saw. If that is not proof of intelligence, I don't know what is.
salahhe 1 year ago
@salahhe
LOL you have not given any proof of your god by saying that a human body is more complex than a car. That does not prove anything dumbass. Apparently you need to learn what proof actually is. Just because you say something does not mean it is true. Proof is needed for something to be a fact and you have no proof. Religion requires faith because there is no proof, and that is why they call it faith.
mymojorisin 1 year ago
A good video though I do not agree with the contention that intelligence implies the context of intellectualism regarding intelligent design. This may be interpreted as the presence of sentience or even as incomprehensible intelligence by virtue of its ambiguous nature.
Perhaps I missed an important context but at 7:40 the third statement is flawed. Complex life does not suggest an intelligent designer unless you are conceding the point for the sake of argument. Perhaps that was the context...
mastersausagemaker 1 year ago
Unwarranted "Disclaimers" page aside, a very good video. Nicely demolishes the phrase "creation science". Strange music choice, though. Why something so sad? I'd use joyous music! You're demolishing lies and clarifying truth; that's always a joyful thing. Perhaps Bach's Concerto for Oboe and Violin. Or maybe Enya's song "How Can I Keep From Singing". Sad music detracts. Still an excellent video in spite of that, though. Grade: A. Stars: 5.
lonewolfintj 1 year ago
Lose the "Disclaimers" page. Only liars use "disclaimers", and only when they're legally required to. Why contradict your own video like that? Personally, I'm violently anti-religious (because religion is psychotic), and strongly pro-atheist (because mental health cannot co-exist with theism). As for "blaspheming", it means "saying things contrary to religion", and yes, I do that too, and will continue to do so for as long as the insanity called "religion" exists on this planet.
lonewolfintj 1 year ago
Greek of whatever mythology does not say anything about nor disproved the Gospel.
From movie zeitgeist, (see refuted part 1-10) is clearly seen that the makers are very questionable. They quote people that are just making up stories and authors just making up stories
Christian faith just stands as the ONLY religion with crusified son of man.
geilanderable 2 years ago
And just because this is the ONLY story w/ the "crusified son of man"..., that makes it logical or factual???!! There's some good christian hypothosizing for you. :(
crazy4carolyn 2 years ago
Is is hard to understand, but in the spirit world it is the only way: the God that became man in a strange unexplicable manner.
All the evil spirits knew that a form of "son of God" would come, but the demons (fallen angles of satan) did not know that it was just Gods plan that he would die in the body (creation).
So God above creation became connected with his creation.
geilanderable 2 years ago
For one, I don't live in a "spirit" world. I live in a realistic one. Second. it's really NOT that hard to understand if you'll quit letting that book scare you w/ damnation and just start honestly evaluating your life and your experiances. Good luck! And don't be afraid!!
crazy4carolyn 2 years ago
The arguments in this video do not hold:
- observation: evolutions is never observed, only concluded. In nice looking artisct impressions. From their fanaties
- imaginairy variable: evolution pressure....(how a fantasy of this lad..an imaginairy variable from fantasy land
- from observations you can conclude: there was a worldwide catastrophy. On mountains there is been found fossils of see animals.
- footprints clealy show that man lived together with dinasours.
geilanderable 2 years ago
I think you need to update some of your facts! (And, please don't go to your preacher to do it!) National Geographic has a NEW missing link fossil named Ida that is MORE proof for evolution! (As if we didn't have enough!) And if you'll check the carbon dating records.., you'll see that the dinasours prints were fossilized 10's of thousands of years before the man came along and walked near the same track and then his prints became fossiized. I hope you do some searching on your own! Go w/ TRUTH!
crazy4carolyn 2 years ago
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny !
gregrutz 2 years ago
Do not let you be fooled by his "so called" arguments
He introduced a completely IMAGINAIRY variable, " evolutional pressure"
geilanderable 2 years ago
and Dont forget it took Intelligence to put your video together and Intelligence to make theories are self aware
alatefi3 2 years ago
dont be fooled this guy is full of crap, lets get logical. so lets say no God no Intelligence. How can there be cells in ur body INTELLGENTLY WORKING together that sustain it your body from an embryo to and inphant and the forces sustained the sub atomic level of an Atom held together firmly Orderly . I rest my case
alatefi3 2 years ago
Its called emergence. I rest my case.
Psychentist 2 years ago
what's an inphant, a baby elephant? cells don't work intelligently they merely do CHEMICALLY what comes naturally, cells don't have brains, nor do atoms, molecules, or any other non-animal (we are after all animals) and the forces that sustain atomic orbits are natural progressions that are explainable, look, we aren't trying to disprove your God, if he exists, we'll eventually find him, just sit back while the intelligent lot do their jobs and you reap the benefits, and don't interfere. or, Die
aqwiz 2 years ago
Who gave you the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The declaration of independence? Atheists have no right. They simply deny the creator who's suppose to be giving them the right. watch?v=dOR3FQRSnVA
You have no right cunts! I anathematize you!
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
scientists used to be so sure that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth, all based on observation. they sure got that one right. the more we learn about molecular biology and physics, the smaller shit gets, and we find a never ending line of complexity. atoms, sub atomic particles, quarks, strings, brains, how small do we need to get before we realize, well never really know how shit REALLY works?
sonofturbo 2 years ago
Science as we know it started with the work of Galileo, who started to work in astronomy in 1608. The flat earth myth ended in the late 15 century. So science can't have believed that the earth was flat because science didn't existed and it can't have believed that the sun revolved around the earth because science's father most important discovery WAS THAT THE EARTH REVOLVED AROUND THE SUN. For what concerns the rest of your post I'll only say tat you don't know what a theory is
freakaxel 2 years ago
Tut tut sonofturbo - twas the church that believed the sun revolved around the earth, and they persecuted Galileo (a scientist) for suggesting otherwise.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
It's good that u all see and think that evolution is an observe fact....I respect that even though I disagree.
If u all want to be true scientist/evolutionist, can u all not disregard "ALL THE THINGS" that contradict or disproves your beliefs!!! I know it's shameful and hard to admit mistakes, but enough of the one-sided stories and when WRONG---no apologies!!!
And stop being so angry all the time...when u can't defend something, u start bad mouthing others!!!
mr22kingkong22 2 years ago
I'll happily subscribe to your methodology, mr22kingkong22, as long as, to be fair and equal, the same rules are applied to religious folk.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
I hope these ideas work out for you on Judgement Day. Watching videos on youtube does not make any of you scientists. The VERIFIABLE TRUTH of the matter is that THE MOST ACCOMPLISHED AND CREDENTIALED SCIENTISTS believe in intelligent design based on OBSERVATION and LOGICAL ASSUMPTION. Your high school teacher is just teaching the same bullshit he was taught. I have yet to see a single one of these videos explain something advanced- like COGNITION.
acrazybassplayer 2 years ago
Universe is expanding faster than c. Einstein's law of relativity - you can't go BEYOND c! God expanding the universe written in the Bible, when of course at that time, nobody knew this computer graphics universe and flat earth fans are a large number in earth or even galactical stars and masses.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
Sure you can go beyond c! They do it on Star Trek all the time. And in several episodes, they actually met with god and he was okay with it.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ATHEISM AND YOUR SATIRE BULLSHIT! JUST LEARN TO ACCEPT THE FACTS. GOD CREATED WORLD WHICH POSSIBLY IS 6,000 YEARS OLD!!!!!!!!!!!!FUCK YOU WHIMPS!!! i HAVE THE RIGHT! I'm RIGHT!
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
What you have is a serious need for anger management. Consider a course of therapy and see if you still feel the same way afterward.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
That is a strawman. Mass can't accelerate to the speed of light, but the universe expanding is not mass moving anywhere - rather, it's an expansion of space-time. Einsteins laws are not broken, you just don't grasp cosmology.
anglicantian 2 years ago
you know, God invented logic; don't use it against him;)
Losermountain 2 years ago
No, Descartes invented logic. God just nicked off with it when Descartes wasn't looking.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
Second, science is do not and can never assert, "Oh we KNOW what happened!" Like a useless cunt!
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
There's no such thing as a useless cunt.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
Anyone who don't believe in God is without excuse-
Through creation, God revealed His divine nature to mankind. Men should have received this revelation and responded by worshiping Him. Instead, man exchanged the truth of God for a lie and chose to worship the creation rather than the Creator. Because of this, mankind is guilty before God and deserving of divine wrath. This is the essence of Romans 1:18-32.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
prove that god created anything please..
or at least prove that your imaginary friend exists as a start..
can't do neither? well, i guess you should be considering where this god of yours actually lives and exists; in your head, and nowhere else! :)
GronTheMighty 2 years ago
Stop freaking saying that bullshit word, "Imaginary Friend!" I never met Jesus in person he's not my friend and He exists! God exists! It's just philosophically impossible claiming there is no God! Science IS compatible with the Bible. Evolution ain't fact it's a theory! It's not what happened! Big Bang is not fact it's a theory! It's not what happened! Stop this bullshit!
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
well, unless you can provide evidence of god then he is your imaginary friend.. and that's in two words mind you ;)
Science is not compatabilitable since science relies on strictness in observations, data, precision, and discarding of useless conjecture via contradictory means. The bible is a book full of fairy-tales, a lot of it about a copy-cat of the ancient egyptian god Ra polished by a roman emperor with a blown-up ego... for crying out loud, just listen to yourself swearing like that!
GronTheMighty 2 years ago
Nope! He isn't my friend so why as well be imaginary. I can prove God! I take Bible as a fact not faith. So, many scientists and people thousands of times smarter than you take the literal interpretation of the Bible as a fact or WHAT REALLY REALLY HAPPENED. Some are PHD graduate in medicine a high degree holder in that. How can you explain these! That explains why I'm not uneducated! Again Evolution is not asserted as fact Bible is. Big Bang ain't also so why as well suck a dick on it. fag fool
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
as a biologist at the imperial college london i can tell you that no respected, mainstream, peer reviewed scientist takes the bible as fact. the bible was writted by people, not god, so why even christians do is beyond me... the only facts in the world are mathematical. evolution theory is as fact as science can be. as fact as relativity, gravity, and any of these other 'theories', unfortunately my well meaning friend, you have proven how uneducated you are... it has been proven beyond doubt
andrekeepitreal 2 years ago
this is not an argument, theory in this case means - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena. calling it a theory does not make it false, you have succeeded in showing everyone how uneducated and foolish you actually are, or perhaps merely ignorant, read some science books and then join the debate (not refering to the bible to prove the bible)
andrekeepitreal 2 years ago
You're the type of douchebag that doesn't know the meaning of the word "theory" in science. Evolution itself is an observable fact while the theory of evolution then tries to explain these observed facts.
ElBeefcake 2 years ago
The whole structure is not fact. Deception comes from using facts and then putting unnecessary hypothesis. Why can't science say, "Yes this is what happened." Creation is supernatural. For one I'm gonna go ahead and say Big Bang is a dead theory whom have been failed to revive at the large hardon collider. No such thing as infinite in nature. Even evolutionists snap when they hear the word big bang. Laws of physics = nature can't create itself.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
@sukulovstravinzky - it's a shame the language barrier is getting in the way here. It makes most of your comments sound like complete gibberish.
P.S. Biological evolution has nothing to do with cosmology (big bang).
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
Which is here till the end of time which is 2060's by Isaac Newton's religious experiment.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
Intelligent design is not a joke. It's basic only thing in the universe that has information. It's fact and it's what brought us here to these technology it's not science that brought us here. Instructions in your genes has intelligent informations. Take a look at what ancient man had already built without the means of text books, schools, and adding evolution or the big bang if they ever have a "science"text books! It's MASSIVE engineering and advanced technical know how which evo thinks alien
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
"scientists held the 6K old earth true which is data."
Oh my, no.
They use these dating-methods:
argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lutetium-hafnium, rhenium-osmium,
uranium-lead-helium, uranium-uranium.
All of them INDEPENDENTLY give us the chronology of 4.6 bio. years.
"Everything is in books."
I change outdated books. The bible is a dusty useless fable.
anglicantian 2 years ago
"4.6 bio. years." You're right it's just 4.6 years not Billions of years!
"I change outdated books"
Big Bang is rusty old fairy tale. Let's see.. It says, "BOOM!" ROFL! Now that gives YOU the answer over everything! Bible is a historic record of the 6,000 years old earth which is canonized and confirmed by the authority, the one true religion called Roman Catholic Church has given to bound and loose over heaven and earth.APOSTOLIC. Jesus exist in the host literally body, blood soul and divinity.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
"4.6 bio. years." You're right it's just 4.6 years not Billions of years!"
Now what are you talking about. Give me a peer-reviewed source of your bollocks or take a hike.
Science has disproven the bibles' ludicrous claims long ago. It 's about time you opened a science book or, even better, got an education.
anglicantian 2 years ago
Evolution don't tell anything. Education is based on the real science. Real science confirms the Bible. Where does real science ordained 13 billion years old universe? Real science doesn't assert and they held it falsifiable.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
Evolution occurs all the time. Ignorance is no excuse.
Videos by potholer54 (a science correspondent, he knows what he's talking about.)
/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok
/watch?v=KMQk6MveZOE
universetoday. com/ 2004/ 05/04/ astronomers-peer-into-our-universes-dark-age/
If the universe was 6000 years old, clearly there must be thousands of peer-reviewed articles on this. Where are they? Where are your sources?
anglicantian 2 years ago
6K was till taught in schools today until recently because it was basically the absolute data since after the 6 days creation. You're deluding reality! Evolution is just branching of species it clearly states that every species did NOT evolve from it's current form to some other form and the Big bang says it took place 13 Billion years ago (which is strange thing to do an experimentation)8.5 billion years after the big bang the earth suddenly appeared. Your faith is in science which not answer.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
American schools teach that garbage? I'm glad to be danish and far away from the fundie belt, then.
Please explain how we can observe galaxies several million light years away, with a constant speed of light, IF your bronzeage crap holds any credence.
Give me a source of this 6000 year old earth. Which dating methods shows this?
anglicantian 2 years ago
That is not garbage. That is sadly what happened! I honestly think that the Bible uses metaphor but when you look at the genesis, It clearly says that it is sin that brought us to death not death that brought us to life! We are immortals back then and we die because of our original sin! So THAT IS LITERAL! The Bible says it! You are skeptic Everybody believes the Bible!
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
Luckily not all American schools teach that shit. In fact, I think most don't but there are still a few states that want to still live in the dark ages for some reason.
buscarGnosis 2 years ago
"Darwin would never imagine modern genetic research and genetic engineering." Imagine? He did not create anything! The DNA technology emerge from the scientific data and people have already previous technology that will create that another technology. Let's look at the computer. If you see yes they would imagine things but it's not based on theories and wishful thinking. It's based on the ideas of what they could do. And they create large vacuum computers that fits a building.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
You have absolutely no idea of what a scientific theory is. I tried explaining it to you once. You ignored my explanation. I'll try again.
A scientific theory is an explanation of how a natural process works that is consistent with and supported by ALL the known evidence, and inconsistent with none.
The way you test a theory is through scientific research, experiments, observation, anything that can collect facts and produce results for comparison.
Definitely not "outside" of science.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
No that is not what theory is. It's speculation and they test it because it came from imagination. The way science works is base on the previous data and what man could already do in it's constant intelligence. Our intelligence does not increase only the technology. That's just the only way to do it. Just like computers gradually being created to precious inventions. They invent new things pass it on the next generation and they have facts on the basis of how intelligent man already is.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
Evolution was an important discovery for many things - it is the unifying theory of biology, geology & paleontology. If you're a dogmatic theist, we know why you don't like evolution. It "exists" nonetheless and is important to know about in order to understand f.x. the antibiotics-resistance of bacteria.
anglicantian 2 years ago
Understand antibiotics?! You don't need Evolution to understand anything! A theory is a theory because it's not FACT! It's not what happened here and extremely falsifiable! Now the creation is a complete mystery asking HOW instead of WHEN and how OLD! Knowing how the world was created has nothing to do with science and it's limitation to the physical world! As a matter of fact it is the intelligent design in the first place that brought technology the order and the information already in atoms!
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
Not antibiotics. The BACTERIA. Bacteria evolve when faced with selective pressure - antibiotics.
You're right, a theory is not "a fact", because facts are observations made. All theories are explanatory models. Yes, theories are falsifiable. They must be to BE theories. No, nothing has falsified evolution.
"Intelligent design" is a joke. If anything this world is an example of incompetent design. Why did the "designer" allow for some people and animals to gain genetic disorders?
anglicantian 2 years ago
Nothing had falsified evolution because it's false, it's not a fact, and it's really not what happened over the world. 6,000 years old earth is what really happened. It was based right on the historical evidence of Adam who lived a thousand years right after the fresh 6 days creation as oppose to the 13 BILLION years old universe which had been written a few decades ago.Are you kidding me?! That's a few decades ago! You can't tell me it's a Billion or two stfu! A universe could be created/sec.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
"Nothing had falsified evolution because it's false, it's not a fact"
OK, then please do explain to my why humans are 98.9% genetically similar to chimpanzees, why we share Endogenous retroviruses (from past infections), why humans have tailbones, why humans are classified as primates if we're not, and why backwards mitochondrial dating shows our origins to be out of Eastafrica 7 million years ago.
BTW, we even have civilizations much older than 6000 years. Bullshit.
anglicantian 2 years ago
Comparative anatomy is another bullshit. They have completely different genes! You have to go from 0 to 319 in one shot of a single cell! First you have to get change the knees, the back bone, the HIPS to get it walk upright and 9 out of ten it's not gonna be a good chimpanzee!Give me the origin of ANYTHING! Eyes ears nose ANYTHING!!!!!!
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
"Comparative anatomy is another bullshit. They have completely different genes!"
Humans and chimps have 98.9% IDENTICAL genes. We have all the same genes, the differences are in a few aminoacids in a few of the coded proteins.
"You have to go from 0 to 319 in one shot of a single cell!"
Whatdoes that even mean?
"HIPS to get it walk upright and 9 out of ten it's not gonna be a good chimpanzee!"
We didn't evolve from chimps, we have a common ancestor. We've evolved in different directions.
anglicantian 2 years ago
98%? Actually, it's based on the bullshit comparative anatomy! It's not on the base of the information that's on the DNA formation. The very evidence was on the DNA! Information!Intelligent design!We didn't evolve from chimps? It just didn't happen! How dare you put up the 13 billion years old universe a few decades ago in accordance to support the time of evolution. The data is all yours! 6,000 is authentically written as exact time as Adam after the 6 days fresh creation.6,000 years old!
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
NO, it's 98% after the similarity in the basepairs in the exons of the DNA.
"We didn't evolve from chimps? It just didn't happen!"
Right. We have a common ancestor, evolution works by branching.
"How dare you put up the 13 billion years old universe a few decades ago"
Because the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
"6,000 is authentically written as exact time as Adam after the 6 days fresh creation.6,0"
The evidence says 4.6 bio. year old. I don't care what your bullshit book says.
anglicantian 2 years ago
"it's 98% after the similarity in the basepairs in the exons"
It's based on looking on the external anatomy.
"Because the universe is 13.7 billion years old."
Great explanation and you do have faith which is in science which basically doesn't give you all the answers.
"The evidence says 4.6 bio. year old"
The fossil record was studied and scientists said they could pick up any time frame they want and they held the 6K old earth true which is data.
"bullshit book."
Everything is in books.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
"It's based on looking on the external anatomy."
Do you know about Polymerase Chain Reaction DNA sequencing? That is how human/chimp DNA is analyzed and compared. You're either very ignorant or very uneducated. Neither is a valid excuse.
"you do have faith in science"
Things that cannot be studied scientifically are pure imagination and fantasy, so I've no reason to go there.
anglicantian 2 years ago
Bravo. I admire your cool and rational responses to this thread's resident troll. I even learnt a thing or two.
On the subject of DNA similarity, I hear they've completed (or are about to) the gene mapping of horses and chickens. Wonder what sukulovstravinzky will think of that . . . ?
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
Why, thank you! About the gene mapping, sounds exciting. I bet you can find something about the research on pubmed home or Sciencedaily.
I don't think sukulov cares about scientific research and progression, though :)
anglicantian 2 years ago
What are theories for?It's nothing! Say "Oh the big bang created the world not creation now let's create the Air plane!" , "Oh the evolution brought us here let's invent th DNA technology!" It has nothing to do with physical inventions! Saying E=mc^2 created the atomic bomb it isn't because it's just a calculation of some physical part of the world but it ISN'T part of the physical world and base on what we create! Facts are the most important things!
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
Scientific models of how the universe's natural processes operate are the basis for most of the inventions you use, including the computer you used to post your message.
Yes, people take the predictions derived from the theories and use those to create inventions. That's just stating the obvious.
So I fail to see your point.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Science did not use theories to create inventions. They use the previous data and make hybrids out of it. Just look at the previous computers. No one needs Big bang and evolution. Give me one technology that it had created. Nothing!
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
Are you seriously saying that the people who built your computer did not need an understanding of the theories that explain the natural laws behind electronics?
Technology created through an understanding of the theory of and mechanics of evolution.
Genetic engineering of crops.
Biomedical development of various medicines.
Understanding of the growth and adaptation of genetic and other diseases.
Vaccine development for the H1N1 virus.
and thousands more.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Knowledge that leads to understanding of how things work is always valuable.
People playing with electricity in the 1800s would never guess it would lead to the modern computer age.
Darwin would never imagine modern genetic research and genetic engineering.
Chemists in the 1700s would never imagine the chemistry in the rockets that put men on the moon.
You are like the people in the 1800s that said "This electricity thing is useful, all it is good for is parlor tricks.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Theories are speculations made OUTSIDE of science. It's not part of it. As you can see it is separated on the text book. understanding a theory is completely different from the scientific method used to survive. The evolutionist cannot deny and say the ancient civilization came from alien life because of their evolutionary belief that ancient man was primitive. This is not true! Bible would indicate facts otherwise: Man created by the image and likeness of God had already been intelligent.
sukulovstravinzky 2 years ago
I've done too much damage to your pride already. you are not a competant evolutionist. But then, none are. I have no desire to continue educating you. Good luck discovering the truth. Here's one last truth from me, and then I am gone for good, I promise.
God loves you but hates your denial of Him. He knows that you cannot escape knowledge of him in your heart or mind. He wants a relationship with you, to bless you beyond your wildest dreams. But only you can make the choice. Good luck to you.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Damage my pride? Really? Funny, I hadn't noticed.
I guess your expertise on human psychology matches your expertise in other scientific endeavors.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
"Here's one last truth from me, and then I am gone for good, I promise."
Like I said. The one who runs from the debate is the one who is losing it and in denial.
I'm perfectly happy to continue our discussions. Why are you running away?
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Don't you find it remarkable that everything that comes out of your mouth is garbage and i have debunked every ridiculous thing you've said? I could do so endlessly.
If this alone does not make you question what you believe, then you:
1) are not concerned with what's true and argue your worldview because you feel compelled to because the alternative is creation and this you hate, or
2) You've just incapable of seeing that there is a dire need for you to learn more.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Debunked everything I said? Really?
Given that you have produced no evidence of any kind, it's pretty hard to say you debunked anything.
It's not a question of what I believe. It is a question of having the evidence to back up my claims. You make a lot of claims, but with absolutely no evidence.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
There is a plethora of scintists and other intelligent people who provide such a mountain of evidence against evolutionism, one can study it for years and not learn put some of it.
Evenso, if you wish to continue believing in evolutionism, you must believe a black hole can explode.
I will not spend days here with you taking you by the hand through a mountain of evidence in science. I wish you good luck, IF you're interested in the truth. If you are not, no amount of luck will help you. CYA
NephilimFree 2 years ago
A plethora of scientists, yet you cannot produce one shred of evidence here that isn't easily discredited.
You would think that if evidence was that plentiful, you would be able to come up with some incontrovertible evidence that even I couldn't oppose.
Again, the big bang did not start with a black hole. That is your strawman argument that shows you haven't a clue about the big bang.
Let me see, is this the fourth or fifth time you said "CYA" :-)
The denialist is the one who runs away.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
"Evenso, if you wish to continue believing in evolutionism, you must believe a black hole can explode."
Umm, by the way, the study of black holes is COSMOLOGY, which has nothing to do with evolution.
Neph, for someone who did your famous "2 years of research", you should at LEAST know the difference between astronomical phenomenon and the process by which life diversifies.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Websters: Black Hole
1 : a celestial object that has a gravitational field so strong that light cannot escape it and that is believed to be created especially in the collapse of a very massive star
The univers squeezed into a singularity by the gravity of the matter in the universe would be:
1 a celestial object
2 an object of such gravity light could not excape it.
You can't even get your own denialism right. For the last time, CYA.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Except that there was NO MATTER initially. There was only ENERGY. No matter = No gravity.
I've told you this several times already. Please pay attention.
The big bang ALSO says that the fundamental forces of nature, including gravity, didn't exist at the time of the big bang.
Finally, the universe is EXPANDING not EXPLODING. Think of it this way. If it WAS a singularity, then WE ARE STILL IN THE SINGULARITY. It's just that the singularity is expanding.
Please, at least read wikipedia.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
"WE ARE STILL IN THE SINGULARITY"
You're also silly. Balck holes can't explode. The idea of the singularity does not match what you say either. Not even evolutionists believe the singularity still exists. Ofcourse, there never was a singularity, because black holed can't explode.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
And again, you are confusing black holes with the big bang and explosion with expansion. PURE ENERGY = NO GRAVITY SO NO BLACK HOLE.
Also, you quote mined me. What I actually said was "Think of it this way. If it WAS a singularity, then WE ARE STILL IN THE SINGULARITY."
I did NOT say it was a singularity. I was using your analogy. The Universe is expanding from the big bang. We are still in the universe.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
"You can't even get your own denialism right. For the last time, CYA. "
As I implied before, the denialist is the one who runs away when he hears things that conflict with his world view.
I can sit here poking holes in your ridiculous claims all day because the EVIDENCE is on my side.
You want to end the discussion because so far I've had an answer that is scientifically valid which debunks every one of your "points".
This is also why you censor people on your site. The truth scares you.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
The information in this site should, if you are interested in knowing if what you've been told is actually the truth, if mankind is thousands of years old or hundreds of thousands, if life evolved or was created, if the timeline of the world is as evolutionists claim or not, you could start here:
h t t p : / / s8int . c o m /
NephilimFree 2 years ago
I looked at s8int but again, all I see are a lot of claims with absolutely no evidence to back up any of those claims.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Neph sent me to look at
h t t p : / / s8int . c o m /
I just noticed something funny.
Did you notice if you actually sound out the letters in this URL, it actually says.
S eight in T" or in other words satan-T
Thought it was funny for a cretinist web site to be promoting Satan like that. What kind of tea does he drink I wonder 8-)
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
There is a whole world of evidence out there that discredits evolutionism. If you were truly interested in the truth, instead of being truly interested in denial of it, what little I have provided would pique your interest enough that you'd begin a personal investigation for the truth which includes sources outside of the evolutionist camp. This is how I became a creationist. I was an evolutionists until about 3 years ago. I did what you will not do.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
A whole world of evidence?
Interesting. I keep asking you for evidence, and everything you throw at me is easily discredited. Where is this overwhelming evidence you talk of?
I am interested in what can be verified by the observable evidence. So far you have shown me nothing that conforms to the observable evidence.
I do give you credit for increasing my knowledge of biology, physics, astronomy, etc. while researching your claims. Unfortunately for you, what I learned debunked your claims.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize Association medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Regarding helium 4, your assumption is that helium cannot escape the atmosphere. That assumption is wrong. Processes exist that eliminate about the same amount of Helium 4 as is captured.
Banks, P.M and T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind" in Journal of Geophysical Research 74 pp. 6317-6332
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
I assume nothing. You assume helium can escape the earth's gravity, which is not supported by science.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Not supported by science? Umm, that bit at the end with the page numbers and title, that is a journal article that contains the paper that provides the scientific evidence for the claim I made.
Do you even LOOK at the references people provide?
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Also Melvin Cook was a chemist, not a physicist. He won a "Nitro Nobel Gold Medal" in 1968 which is NOT the Nobel Prize awarded by the Nobel foundation.
Either you are a REALLY BAD researcher, or intentionally deceptive.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Melvin Cook worked for years as a phyicist. His field is physical chemistry.
A man who works professionaly as a truck driver is a truck driver, even if his specialty is truck repair. So too a scientist who works as a physicist is a physicist, even if his specialtyh is a specialty within physics, such as physical chamistry.
You do not understand these matter.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Melvin Cook was in physical chemistry I agree. That is not the same field as chemical physics.
Yes, he may have used the principles of physics (as does all science) in his work. His most notable work was in the development of shaped charges and slurry explosives. None of which deals with understanding the physics of chemistry or physics in general.
Also, it still doesn't change the fact that you lied about him being a Nobel prize winner, not that argument from authority would have mattered.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Man-made artifacts, such aa a hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.
Such artifacts as these, and others, such as a bell found inside coal, prove that the evolutionist timescale for the earth is off by powers. The earth is clearly young, and dating methods are clearly wrong.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Please state the actual references for your hammer in cretaceous rock, sandle prints with trilobites in cambrian rock, etc. Again you make claims without providing the evidence to support those claims.
I cannot comment on the validity of these "discoveries" if you don't provide the details.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
A quick look at talkorigins found your claims and the truth about them.
Sandal with trilobites is a spall pattern (talkorigins claim CC102)
Hammer in cretaceous rocks is claim CC130. The hammer itself is in calcium carbonate. The fossils were in nearby rocks unrelated to the encrusting on the hammer.
I didn't find the bell in coal but the cup in coal story (claim CC131) exists. This was in processed coal, not in situ. This is known to react with rainwater to produce sediments. No mystery.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic "field" (flux) has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousands of years.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
About earth's magnetic field evidence in the rocks show that it has varied with intensity and switched polarity many times. You are taking a temporary phenomenon and extrapolating that to absurd levels without any evidence to back you up (and in fact counter evidence against you).
Its like saying you were growing at an exponential rate as a child, so now you should be 300 feet tall.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
A reduction in the magnetic flux does not qualify as a reversal. There is no evidence of reversal. The claim is based upon an arbitrary line drawn in a graph used to show changes in intensity, and whatever drops below it is claimed to be a reversal. That's bad science at best, and certainly not evidence of reversal.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
"arbitrary line drawn on a graph".
Please provide me with a reference to this graph you are referring to and the article that describes the so-called artificial line.
World-wide we see core samples from the middle of continents to the ocean floors. They not only show reversal of polarity in the rocks, but these are consistent world wide. How do YOU explain the same rock layers world wide with minerals alternating polarity?
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Everything about the BB theory has been devised with the intention of attempting to squirrel around the obvious creation, by conjuring impossibilities to replace the hand of God. God is eternal, thus the evolutionist must find an eternal creator, and since matter cannot be created or destroyed, an eternally bouncing universe is the excuse to try to get around the eternal character of God and fact that all mater time and space fame from literally nothing..
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Neph says "matter cannot be created or destroyed, "
Umm, have you ever heard of a little equation e=mc^2?
Do you know how an atom bomb works? You know, where some matter is destroyed in order to create a huge amount of energy according to the above formula?
Have you not heard of particle accelerators that convert kinetic energy of colliding electrons and positrons to create new particles?
OF COURSE matter can be created and destroyed. High school kids know that.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
"The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system will remain constant over time, regardless of the processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles"
wiki / Conservation_of_mass
Light behaves like both energy and matter. Shoulda stayed in high school.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Read the second paragraph of that reference. The one that says this is true only in the classical sense without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics.
Again, learn to research.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
@wysiwyg666 - it's a most interesting, and telling, point, i think, that your replies, ever cool and rational, are the final word to each of NephilimFree's imaginative assertions. I felt like replying to a lot of his comments too, but I'm glad somebody with a lot more (correct) scientific knowledge got there first. And I learnt a few things. Cheers.
genericmeatunit 2 years ago
As for the Big Bang, it never happened. Black holes cannot explode. The contrivance of a "singularity" is an attempt to get around the creation by claiming the universe eternally explodes and collapses.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
As for the big bang, it is not an attempt to "get around the creation". If anything, it is an attempt to explain how the mechanics of the creation happened.
Again, only young earth creationists find a problem with God setting in motion the natural processes we've observed.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Lots of quote mines, but no actual SOURCES so I can see WHERE they said these things and in what CONTEXT they said these things. Typical Creationist tactic. But in any event, this doesn't really matter. People's opinions ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
You also didn't cite a source for your figures on the variances. But all of those are 1 in 1000 or maybe 1 in 10,000, not the "billions upon billions" you ramble on about.
Finally, OF COURSE we are fine tuned to our environment. Evolution works that way.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Neph says the life we see around us is tied closely to the environmental conditions of the universe in which we reside. Change the starting conditions and we couldn't exist.
I agree 100%. But that doesn't mean the universe was "created" for us.
Natural Selection says that evolution is driven by organisms ADAPTING TO FIT THEIR ENVIRONMENT. We adapted to the Universe.
However Neph has shown no evidence that would prevent different starting conditions from creating different life.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Before Neph jumps all over it. When I said "creating different life" I meant created by the process of natural selection, not some mystic intelligence.
We already see this. Life on earth has many different forms. Life based on consuming carbon dioxide and sunlight (plants). Life based on consuming oxygen and other lifeforms (animals). Life based on sulphur instead of oxygen like sulphur bacteria.
So its plausible that if the universal environment were different, life could still evolve.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
If you're so unaware of the plethora of information from science that discredits evolutionism, why argue evolution is not assumptions, but is actually science or scientific? You're very bankrupt in information if you didn't know that science has proven the atomic forces were so perfectly balanced and that if any one of them were different by the most minute measure, the universe could not support life.
Do what so many tell you. Start studying. Nobosdy's gonna hold your hand.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Neph keeps saying there is a "plethora of information... that discredits evolutionism". However, he has yet to produce any.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
There are many more.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
How many of the scientists you quoted also believe in young earth creationism? Not many.
I have said all along that there is no conflict between religion and evolution. Many people believe a creator put in place natural processes, including evolution.
Quoting people with that viewpoint who don't believe in YEC does nothing to counter evolution OR support young-earth creationism.
All it does is expose your deceptive use of quote mining and misrepresentation of people's views.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
F.Tipler (Prof. of Mathematical Physics) "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
NephilimFree 2 years ago
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
NephilimFree 2 years ago
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned natures numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
NephilimFree 2 years ago
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Websters Dictionary, EXPLOSION
2 : a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth
"rapid EXPANSION"
0o Go back to grade school. Bye.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Hubble's Law: All of these Bible passages state God made the universe expand, which was unknown to science until the 20th century: Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Job 9:8, Job 26:7, Job 37:18, Psalms 18:9, Psalms 104:2, Psalms 144:5, 2 Samuel 22:10, Zechariah 12:1
NephilimFree 2 years ago
I love it. What did you do, search your King James Bible for every place the word "stretch"appears so you could find passages that fit my balloon analogy?
Yes, God "Stretched forth the heavens". Or, the new English translation "spread out the heavens". Nothing there to say the heavens were expanding. Just that he put the heavens in place.
Those passages would apply equally well even if science determined that the universe was contracting. It would still be "stretchy".
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
The Bible knew it first because it is the Word of God Himself. Adios.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
So let me get this straight.
God had quotes in the bible that proves he knows that the Universe is expanding.
In other words, you just found proof in the bible that the Big Bang actually occurred, because God said it did.
So all your arguments saying the Big Bang could never happen is contradicting what you just said the bible is actually saying.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Except that the scientific definition of expansion" and explosion" is much more precise. But don't let scientific terminology hold you back, you've never bothered with it before.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
If you don't believe me about explosions check out creationwiki. Search for big bang there. It clearly says the beig bang was not an explosion in the conventional sense of the term, but an expansion of space time.
Even your fellow creationists can tell the difference.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Websters Dictionary, EXPLOSION
2 : a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth
Read that carefully. Now you know why you're really not worth anyone's time. Educationg someone at the 5th grade level is not my bag. CYA
NephilimFree 2 years ago
So, in your world, every time you breathe in your lungs explode.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
Google "was the big bang an explosion"and read the first result: "Was the big bang an Explosion? A look at how the universe was formed".
If you want an analogy, an "expansion" is what happens when you blow into a balloon. The entire balloon stretches. If you were on any point on the balloon, it would look like every other point was moving away from you.
An EXPLOSION originates at a single point and blasts outwards from that point. Not the same thing at all.
The universe is EXPANDING.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
I don't expect you to open your mind and see what real science says about anything. I know you're dedicated to denialism of God and evolutionism is your cover story. I have no interest in trying to help you further. Live in ignorance and denial or not, your choice. I have too much on my plate to waste time on someone who is incapable of changing thier heart so they can see the truth.
CYA.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Wow, how many times are you going to say "CYA"?
I am not living in denial. I am living by the observed evidence and the facts. Facts which are not consistent with your lack of evidence.
EVERYTHING you have said here is BAD SCIENCE. You have made many assertions, but have not referenced a single source for any of those assertions or given any evidence to back up those assertions.
If you fail to produce evidence, then of course I go with the results of the people who actually DO provide it.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
As for the claptrap about how I am in denial and all, that is just you projecting yourself on me.
YOU are the one who starts with the CONCLUSION that every word in a 2000 year old book of myths is the literal truth. You then try to twist every branch of science to fit that conclusion.
The fact that you start with a conclusion by itself makes your arguments non-scientific and unsuitable for teaching as science in our schools. Even if what you said is 100% true, it is not science.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
But unfortunately for you, most of your "science" can be seen through by anyone with an 8th grade education.
You make wild claims without sourcing those claims.
When I check into your claims myself, I find that the people you quote have done shoddy science, like comparing a flowing mountain glacier with a stable continental glacial ice sheet. Or deliberately misusing radiometric dating in a way that any scientist would tell you gives bad results. Or by proposing solutions that defy physics.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
The "ice age" (there has been only one) was caused by the Noachian FLood. Glacier Girl, a WWII P-38 warplane, has by itself (other data as well) proven the layers of ice in glaciers and elsewhere are not laid down annually, but by storm or event. It was recovered from 260+ ft. of ice inside a glacier. Evolutionists claim those layers are tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of yrs old because dating methods provide these erroneous results!
Investigate.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
The "Glacier girl" landed on an active flowing glacier, not a stable ice field. Note that the plans had been MOVED over three miles from their original landing point.
So, as usual, you are comparing apples to oranges and coming up bible.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago
All glaciers are flowing.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
All glaciers flow, perhaps. But the flow rate on a stable continental ice field is minuscule compared to a glacier flowing down the side of a mountain over top of buried airplanes.
wysiwyg666 2 years ago