there is more PROOF of the Bible being accurate than there is proof of evolution! to say every life form on earth is just a "mistake" or chance happening is like saying a tornado went through a junk yard and put a whole new line of cars/trucks/motorcycles together each with individual sound systems and paint jobs!!
the music was good but the "blinders" are on evolutionists.
check "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" at itbn. org
for real scientific data and the irreducible complexity of FLAGELLUM
« there is more PROOF of the Bible being accurate than there is proof of evolution »
On the contrary: while some of the mundane claims in the bible (eg. some of the kings and cities) are backed through archaeological evidence, none of the supernatural claims in it are supported by the available data, and indeed, many are contradicted. Compare this to evolutionary theory, of which the basic hypotheses are supported by *all* the available data, with no exceptions.
« to say every life form on earth is just a "mistake" or chance happening »
But nobody is saying that - excepted perhaps some creationists. Scientists are going out of their way to explain the natural processes behind the emergence of life and subsequent evolution of species. *NOT* random or chance: laws of physics.
@AttachableEarplugs Sir, you in fact made my day with your first sentence, congratulations. If you are not trolling then i have to say, i am kinda scared that you actually believe it.
There is no such thing as gravity. We are on the ground because of God's invisible magic glue, it's called Intelligent Stickiness. But balloons can escape this stickiness because they are the work of the Devil. That Devil, he's a scary one.
It's either that or we're being held down by invisible noodles......
The Ultimate Best Method for Meauring Stellar-Star Distances is by the "Cepheid Variable Method". This invloves measuring the Shifts in Variable Stars Light Output Changes, the Shift on the Spectrograph can thus be used of measure the amount of Red or Violet-Blue Shifts. The Parallax Method also works but is Limited to Closer Constelations unless you can find a Much Larger "Base" for your "Triangle-Parallax" than our Earths Revolution around the Sun!!!!
The Age of the "Bell Shaped Expanding UNIVERSE" is Approx. 13,254,000,000 Billion Years Old from Hubble Telescopes latest readings. Although further earlier dates where 13,700,000,000 Billion Years for Our UNIVERSE, the actual readings needs to be properly studied with both Radio-Waves,X-Ray,Gamma-Ray and Optical Radiation Telescopes and Scientific Apparatus etc.!!!!
There are SubAtomic Particles that can exceed the Velocity of Electro-Magnetic Photons. But SubAtomic Partlicle-Waves areNOT Photons,these particle-waves are Mesons,Neutrenous,Quarks,Positrons etc.What has been recently detected is that"Neutrenos SubAtomic"Particle-Waves EXCEED the Velocity of Photons measured at 2.997925 x 10^8Meters/Second.Early Switzerland Acceletron Velocities for SubAtomic"Neutrenos=near 4.6 x 10^8 Meters/Second some Quarks show highier Velocities,only Photons=Light Speed!!
@Jules7892 The tests at CERN that showed some neutrinos to go faster than the speed of light are carefully being studied as we speak. There is no definite answer as to if they can indeed go faster than light.
@pythor2 Even if they are shown to be going faster than light, the most likely thing that would mean is that the precise value of the constant c is slightly off. The could be cause by photons actually having an incredibly small mass, as c is actually the speed of a massless particle, not a photon
They didn't prove anything. They did a test and it was interesting, and they're going to retest to confirm it. NOTHING has been proven. It very well could have been a mathematical error. We wont know for sure for at least 5 years.
@Elosization riiiiight...muahahaha (dr. evil)...like all other theoryes in physics...first they notice something, then they are confirming it for a decade...but they at the end CONFIRM...you'll buy me a bear 10 years from now ... :P
i still think it's young. 13.7 billion years is a heck of a long time and all, but when you think about how long the universe is probably going to be here, it seems more likely to me that i would exist at a time when it is much farther into its life. If it last 1.5 trillion years then it's not even 1% through its life. will life be impossible for like 95%+ of time? wouldnt this be like a 10 month old going through puberty? And it will probably last Quadrillions of years! The universe is magical!
Explain how to cancel the inertia except for a force keeping the object going towards the center of the sphere that is spinning in a vacuum. It takes energy to move a rock on ground. So explain how no energy is being used to keep it on the surface if were spinning so fast.
365 days is based upon the amount of sunrises occur until the cycle observed in the sky starts over again. So how does that observation determine how old something is? So when your big bang happened there was no year because the earth hadn't even been formed yet. Look at a clock and the only reason you think time has passed is because the two hands have moved. Time has nothing to do with how old things are. The physical processes on earth occur independently of observations of movement in the s
@bridgetroll9 You're confused. A system of measurement (at least in these terms) doesn't change what it's supposed to measure. We define a year as 365.25 (or so) days.
Now imagine we were trying to measure the length of something, using a unit called the "dick." To you, one dick might be three and a half inches long. To me, it might be eight and a half. We might call it by different names, but the time since you last had sex remains constant.
Once the creationists realize that light going faster in the past makes the universe older they will immediately change their argument. Light went SLOWER in the past!! And they will PROVE it, lol.
If the earth is young, then God must be young. But if God is from eternity, He must be old, then the earth must also be old. Has anybody heard Eve being created about 7,000 years after Adam? That’s time enough for him to realize that nobody else was like him (Adam). And there was another few thousand years before they ate of the apple. That’s a foretaste of eternity until they were doomed to die on their last thousand years.
I believe that even Supernal Consciousness evolves as it creates.
And what exactly guarantees that the speed of light is a constant all over the universe? Considering that there is much evidence that our galaxy is VERY near the center of the universe it's not hard to imagine that a gravity well would cause space time distortion away from the center and cause time to pass MUCH faster at the rims of the universe. Hence you get what we see without the need for billions of years. There is no way to prove that speed of light is the same throughout the universe.
Don't even try to reason the concept of God to the monkey people, they are lower beings who do not have the cognitive ability to know God. This is only a function of higher beings! You waste your time trying to convince a monkey..."as a man thinketh so is he, says God." Let the evolutionist be monkeys, "made in the image of a monkey" and we will be the "made in the image of God" people. Hopefully God has a zoo in heaven for the monkey people. If not I hope they like hot fires & brimstone.
@dooter780 nothing travels faster than light so if god created everything 6000 years ago we wouldn't be able to see these far off galaxies yet. We would have to wait for billions of years. The only way god could have rigged it is to have the photons of light already on their way when he "created" everything.
I fail to see how universe size = old. If God created everything (supposing there is a supernatural being), then can't God create anything of any size? If I make a toy car, then make a real car next week, is the real car older because it is larger than the toy car? CDK, you have managed to prove one thing for certain: The universe is big. You have not, unfortunately, disproven anything. Cool pics though.
Study why you can see things, then you will understand why if we can use optics to measure distance to an object the amount of time (if light is a constant) that light takes to reach us will give you a figure on how old that star or galaxy is. It's basically peering into the past.
We don't even have to look into space to find ways to prove the earth is older than 6000 years, the oldest uncovered granary is 11000 years old.
@dooter780 The fact that light from stars millions of light-years away from us doesn't mean anything? Do you understand the term "light-year" it takes light a year to go that far... so how can light from a star that is over a million light-years away from us get to the earth for you or I to observe in 6000 years? Do the physics.
I love how a simple thing such as light and distance proves the universe is expanding, and the big bang could have easily come from nothing, as there were no laws to govern matter. I love how sheldon dressed up as the doppler effect.
@dony7777777 Its the oldest tree on earth because no one has chopped it down yet. If you are serious I feel very sorry for you. Hey everybody I believe in a flying spaghetti monster. Dinners on me.
There are many kinds of cheaters all over the universe. Of all cheating processes, gambling stands supreme and therefore represents God. As the Supreme, God can be more deceitful than any mere man. If God chooses to deceive a person, no one can surpass Him in His deceit. His greatness is not simply one-sided - it is all-sided.
Very intelligent! Here's the joke we all can laugh at, a new born puppy looks at a new born elephant and says that is BIG, REALLY REALLY BIIIIG, it must be 2 billion years old. The elephant looks around and says me?!! The puppy says yes. The elephant tosses the puppy into the trash can for its foolishness and enjoys the rest of its day. Now the trash can was really big, it was just installed and infact was brand new. The puppy says, this is big and lot of stuff in it, 3 billion years?
The difference between science and the puppy is that science builds our knowledge based on evidence, instead of "Wow that's really big, therefore..." style reasoning.
hhahahahahaha i pissed my pants. science beating the shit out of religion and creationists in one simple vid. hahahahaha rofl , lol , lmao etcetc hahahahaha
"the universe is very, very big... therefore it is very old"
I doubt the universe is growing at a rate 2mph. scientists even say that within a "billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second", this universe grew billions of miles wide. so, even the young universe was "very, very big". but where did it all come from (time, energy and space) if it cannot be created nor destroyed, according to your "superior scientific laws"? and you say the Bible contradicts itself. please...
@soulja4daHOLYOne That "superior scientific law" is called therodynamics , and if it we assume it was created by a who it would leave to infinite regress. No one says they know how it started they assume if we say god didn't we're obliligated to explain which is is simply not true. If you want to understand when scientist mean nothing study quantum electrodynamics. I hope you don't really believe in the young earth.
God made the universe big and varied for us.So He took His time. So what? That just means he is patient, infinitely patient with his Creation. And He made it all for us.
If at the big bang, the so called expansion was faster than light then why can't things still be moving at greater than light speed? Or did the expansion slow down to sub light because of gravity?
@baxtar1963 The expansion (more commonly known as "inflation") was not an expansion of particles faster than the speed of light (such would be forbidden by fundamental laws) It was the expansion of space-time itself faster than the speed of light, nothing material was traveling faster than the speed of light.
Two huge problems with your argument: Light waves do not always travel in a straight line because they are affected by gravity. Hence, using the red shift of CBR and other phenomena to measure the size of the universe *assumes* that electromagnetic waves are traveling in a straight line. Thus gravity can create the appearance that an object is farther away than it is. Also, Calculating distance from Cepheid variables relies on *assuming* its true brightness ("Knowing how bright it should be").
A creationist website actually said that proof that earth is not old because there isn't enough history. He said that it was ridiculous to assume that humans had lived for 100,000 years only to discover writing and agriculture 10,000 years ago.
Geez, if thats not amazing PROOF of a young Earth, i don't know what is. The rational mind that God blessed me with can't even find a single flaw in that logic.
@BadgerCat10 you have a flaw in your understanding. modern man has not been around that long. and even if we were, why is it hard to believe that we fairly recently got literate? i mean, monkeys have been around just as long, and havent figured it out yet. fact is- it had to have happened SOMETIME, ya know?
@guineapiggyman You missed again you idiot, that entire comment was sarcastic. Read it AGAIN and you will see emphasis on this point with words like "ACTUALLY" and "PROOF" Since you are too focused on trying to argue to read properly, my point was that writing is not a metric measurement of evolution, and that cultures aren't guaranteed to develop writing
your assuming young Earth = young Universe, this is wrong. Time doesn't start till God started work on the Planet. (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Gen1:1) in the bible the "earth is lower case meaning dirt or materials, heavens also lower case meaning stars and light.
my point, the Universe is indeed older than the Earth. also light and gravity are still two mysteries in science.
Why do athiests always feel the need to attack anyone who believes in God? We do our thing and you do yours, correct? So why do the atheists always feel the need to make it clear that they believe there isnt a God? Its not like it will convince anyone if you really think about it, bashing on it, cmon, would you agree with someone talking down on you?
@UknownNephilim to be honest, I'm atheist, and a lot of christians tell me almost on the daily that I'm either GOING to go to hell if i don't have a change of heart....Or that they worry that I may end up in hell because I choose not to believe something that seems quite silly to me personally.....But always I remain silent, keep a smile on my face and always wish them the best. Those of us lucky enough to realize that some people just need something to believe in(or not) to function. t.e.t.o.
@SUPERIORzombie I get you, what they do is wrong, and by a true christian belief is if anyone wants to not believe, thats fine, the christian way just says let them be in peace if they dont want to. thats just abusing it. But even so saying that christians or anyone else that 'needs' to believe or not to believe in God to function, is just too broad to say, opinionated statement. Atheist who dont believe in anything, believe in everything.
@saxabass They dont, if you look at my response to SUPERIORzombie I also said that a real christian should not attack anyone for their beliefs, yes they'll stand up for it if they feel someone attacking them but what the christian belief is you dont bash on anyone, you let them do their thing and if they want no part then leave them alone. So christians do not attack people who dont believe in God. and you must understand, a christian lives without those sorts of needs, they only bring you down
Not knowing all the answers proves nothing. Newtonian mechanics was once believed to be the whole picture, but we kept looking and saw more.
The fact is since the speed of light is finite we have only interacted with a small portion of the universe. We have only observed the universe for a tiny fraction of its apparent age.
We have been observing the universe for the equivalent of a micro second. Its a little early to make a video explaining its secrets.
Total BS. Explain how the Universe could expland to a radius of 13.0+ billion light years across in as little as a few days?! And what force could cause the ultimate black hole to explode?! If you cannot answer either of these questions then your video is like playing with marbels while you ignore the big picture.
@Egrebal76 Who said it happened in a few days? Quite obvious it happened in 13.7 billion years, since he already said "c" (light speed) is a constant in a vacuum, you may notice it's still expanding as well just like time is still going. Who mentioned anything about a black hole? Are you sure you're on the right video here?
@UknownNephilim probably, but thats the difference between realists and dreamers. Realists don't pretend to know all the answers and don't need to invent ridiculous fairytales to try and justify their existence.
7:19 For all you Christians who believe this frame, let me ask you: isn't one of your Commandments to never lie? Follow-up: wouldn't placing all those photons there to lead us to erroneously believe they are stars would be deceiving us, i.e. lying to us? You Christians really have problems with consistency.
@IloveYOUviruses WOW! Now creationists reject TRIGONOMETRY AND MATHEMATIC.... You are trying too find problems on things you don't even understand and then saying nonsense, that is why people laugh at you. But for me that's not even funny anymore... Before arguing a subject you need to understand it. Hell a simple google search would have answer your question. Your ingnorance on a subject doesn't make it untrue.
So please if you dont "believe" in math throw your computer in the trash...
@IloveYOUviruses I have issues with the fact that some organization is pushing a mass denial of science and making vulnerable people (childrens) buying in that crap and actually lying and disrespecting all the scientists out there. I have christians friends and they dont deny science. And my tone was inspire by your wording "Oh I can see the assumptions and circularity comming" as if the scientists were liars. I think you should respect there work a bit more, science have improve our knowledge.
@IloveYOUviruses What "assumptions"? I said that you clearly didn't try to understand the method before critisizing it! You "assume" that the parallax method is flawed because of religious bias and justifying it by the fact you don't know how to actually use the method!
So tell me, how the "creation science" mesures the distances of stars? Futhermore, parallax is a form of triangulation and geometry wich is a subset of math. tan(a) = opposite / adjacent is it that evil ? Goodbye GPS I suppose.
@KillingCells It's amazing the lack of critical skills that you have, it's almost as if you don't understand the method.
Look, in the example given by cdk, the measurement of the angle in arcs depends on the distance of the books behind; remember, we don't SEE the arc, we use the ilussion of movement to calculate the angle at the star's vertex, ergo my question:
"Don't you require the distance of the "very distant stars" to safely apply parallax?"
@IloveYOUviruses First of all if you applyied critically thinking you would have at the minium search your question FIRST and try to understand the method before posting your question. With that said the movement illusion is a geometric property easy to understand. Instrument like Hipparcos scientist measure the angle with that movement to a precision of 0.002 arcseconds.Then the only thing left is doing the triangulation. Because of the geometric nature of the technic it is a direct measurement
@KillingCells I would add that it took 200 years to make that technic pratical. Don't expect to grasp that technic by watching a 10sec video on YT. Have some respect to all of the hard work of our ancestors that lead to our truly extrodinnary technology. I hope someday you would see the world as it is and admire the beauty of it. the fact that all life is related in one planet in a universe inemaginably huge and old. /watch?v=6QPKIqDuIFQ&feature=relmfu
@KillingCells It's extremely funny how you avoid the question over and over using futile chatter hehehe
this is far better than circular reasoning. So, since Hipparcos uses the Parallax method, then there's no assumptions in the meassurements, lol I'm very impressed by your 'critical skills'.
Here kiddo, evade it again:
"Doesn't Hipparcos require the distance of the "very distant stars" to safely apply parallax?"
@IloveYOUviruses Damn with all the explanation I gave you you should have understood that NO it doesn't need the distance of the very distant stars.... Has I said grab a book and find out how it work before saying its BS and funny enough that would make you the brightest creationnists, until you realise your position is incorrect and become like everybody else...
@KillingCells Already told you that we don't SEE the arcs, rather, we use the ilussion of movement to calculate the angle at the star's vertex.
Now that you've revealed your poor critical skills and atheopathy, I'll save us both the pain: we DO NEED the distance of the stellar background cuz that can change the illusion of mevoment, however, we assume their distance as being inf. since they are apparently very far. As I said, its a safe assumption, thanks for the fun ^-^
"Doesn't Hipparcos require the distance of the "very distant stars" to safely apply parallax?"
Of course not. You can use the stars in your direction of motion as a fixed reference. The parallax of an observed star is then its deviation from a right angle with the reference stars.
Hey the bumper on my 1956 Chevy Belair was just carbon dated to be 4 million years old!!! Just like the earth itself, the substance that makes up the earth is millions of years old however life on earth is young!!! Atheism is anti-logic! Think about it!
All the scientists meet with Satan in a torchlit cavern deep in the bowels of earth every ten years to receive instructions from the devil on what new lies to tell us. It's all very spooky and evil.
Just a thought: If "all" of the distant stars burnt-out 7000 years ago, then would we be aware of any of this? The night sky could turn to complete darkness and we'd be experiencing (seeing the unfolding of) events from 1000's of years ago.
Earth is young - This dont prove crap - The world dont have to be old because of light - LOL - God created LIGHT - it was already moving and working - it didn't begin at some evolutions pea of amino acids - so your wrong, again, thank you , and have a great week in your world of monkey men
@czhelpteam you clearly didn't listen to a thing in the video did you? light travels at constant rate (provided no friction in whatever space the light is in changes), and the universe has a size that could be measured (as all can) using the equation distance=time x speed. time=distance/speed, and this shows the age of the universe. using this method, the universe has been found to be older than 6000 years.
The article says, “it's not the size nor the age of the cluster that amazes the team of researchers… Rather, it's the surprisingly MODERN appearance of CLG J02182-05102 that has them baffled.” Dr. Casey Papovich said, “‘It's like we dug an archaeological site in Rome and found pieces of modern Rome amongst the ruins.’”
Isn't this discovery a time problem for the big bang?
Speaking of the size and age of the universe, please explain the Horizon Problem along with the fact that 60 fully formed galaxies 10 billion lightyears away have been discovered.
See: "Ancient City of 'Modern' Galaxies: May Be Most Distant Galaxy Cluster Ever Detected” (ScienceDaily, May 10, 2010)
@AA32m7io1 " Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe. "
Now the Quesion is which Hypotosis do you think is most plausible? if the answer is none. Then can you propose a Hypothosis that you have may have researched that can be tested or observed under scientific conditions.
@AA32m7io1 I have come across lots of folks who think that since thier opinion is dear to them that gives them permission to force thier personal views on folks who do not share thier belief.
“As for Atheists each individual has his/her provide thier own answer to this question.”
They may, but Wiki says, “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.”
I see you have a quote from Darwin on your page, and since he held to the belief there is no God (and your subscriptions are to atheist profiles), I assume you also deny the existence of God.
"You do realize that millions of christians accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and the Big Bang dont you?"
Yep, but I don't agree with them. They allegorize the first 11 chapters of Genesis which begs the question: How do they know the rest of the Bible they believe is accurate? If their standard is science, then they lack true faith as science clearly cannot account for any of the miracles Jesus performed... or how He raised Himself from the dead!
@AA32m7io1 Since you like to read and do research I will recommend a couple of books that you may find intresting. " When Jesus became God" by Richard Rubenstien. and " Misquoting Jesus " by Bart Ehrman.
finally " Truth in Translation " I forgot the Authors name but that is a good read if you are intrested on how some English translations render a word from Greek. These are not Christian bashing books if that is what you are thinking just some history and background on the religon.
@AA32m7io1 Why the run around? By the way miracles cannot be tested by science because when a miracle is performed the Natural laws are supposdly suspended. One other I noticed you quote a lot of bits from diffrent sources do you evan check the orginal article to make sure that the information you provided is within context of what the original article was trying to explian?
@AA32m7io1 " Yep, but I don't agree with them. They allegorize the first 11 chapters of Genesis which begs the question: How do they know the rest of the Bible they believe is accurate? "
Because the bible is not accurate and the Churchs know this that why when science began answering the questions of how life diversified on Earth how the Universe was made and the evidence is so overwhelming they had no choice buy to concede that bible cannot be interpreted literally.
Now I never said you were, I simply stated that I have a lot of atheists tell me there is no God.
But before that, I asked this question: Why do origins matter?
You completely ignored that part and instead focused on the term "atheist." So please answer why you believe learning about origins matters. If non-existence is our eternal destiny, who care where we came from, right?
@AA32m7io1 It would be nice to answer all questions posed to someone woudnt it? And yes there is NO god there never was one. Learning the origin of life s very important for those who are intrested in this matter. It will clearly show that once that Life did arise Naturally without the aid of a creator. Now let me ask you a question. If you think you are going to Heaven to be with your god why did he/she not put you there in the first place? makes sense right why come to Earth...cont
@AA32m7io1 " Ancient City of 'Modern' Galaxies: May Be Most Distant Galaxy Cluster Ever Detected” (ScienceDaily, May 10, 2010 " " They found evidence suggesting that most of the galaxies in the cluster were not forming stars, but were composed of stars that were already about one billion years old. This makes the cluster a mature object, similar in mass to the Virgo Cluster, the nearest rich galaxy cluster to the Milky Way. " .....Cont
@AA32m7io1 Cont...." Further evidence that this is a mature cluster comes from observations of X-rays coming from CL J1449+0856 made with ESA's XMM-Newton space observatory The cluster is giving off X-rays that must be coming from a very hot cloud of tenuous gas filling the space between the galaxies and concentrated towards the centre of the cluster....Cont
@AA32m7io1 Cont..." This is another sign of a mature galaxy cluster, held firmly together by its own gravity, as very young clusters have not had time to trap hot gas in this way. "
Now it is my understanding that this may be a very rare occurance now it was also stated that if many other Clusters are found with similar features then the how the early Universe began may have to be revised which is the Nature of the Science.
“If you think you are going to Heaven to be with your god why did he/she not put you there in the first place?”
I believe He created us to worship, glorify and testify of Him. James 4:14 says, “For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away.” In the entire scheme of eternity (forever), would you agree that living for 60 - 90 years is not very long?
What empirical evidence do you have indicating there is no afterlife?
I am protestant and currently attend a Baptist church.
RE Afterlife: "What evidence is there that there is one?"
I interpret your response to mean that you have zero empirical evidence to support your claim there is no afterlife. Ironically, it appears that we both rely on FAITH. I have faith (from the Bible) that God and an afterlife exists, and you have faith they don't exist.
@AA32m7io1 When some Christians are asked if they accept Evolution by Natural selection and they say yes does that mean that ALL Christians accept the Fact? I would assume no. Also quoting scripture adds no weight to the argument it. What Christian church do you attend if I may ask?
“Learning the origin of life... will clearly show that once that Life did arise Naturally without the aid of a creator.”
So the ultimate outcome of the research is to prove there is no God? But since the search is still ongoing, as evident by your remark, “It will clearly show,” how can you claim “there is NO god there never was one”?
Even Dawkins says, “There's PROBABLY no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Probably? Why are you more confident than Dawkins?
@AA32m7io1 In an earlier comment you said you asked many Atheists why search for the origin of life. I gave my opinion but another Atheist will answer diffrently.Scientists who are religous but accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural selection will give you another answer. Since ' Atheism ' has no doctrine it will be reasnable to think my comment will not be applied broadly to all Atheists response to that question?
@czhelpteam do you not even know the equation t=x/v? also, the rest of your comment didn't make sense and kind of shows you're a scientific illiterate
"This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement."
If Hubble "law" is a law, then it happens that YES, WE ARE AT THE PRINCESS IN THE BALL!
@IloveYOUviruses Of course we are at the centre of the observable Universe, everywhere you observe the universe from is the centre. It is common sense, time and space are expanding, everywhere started of in the centre at the "Big Bang" so why would you expect it to be anywhere but the centre now?
@TheTomtompiper dude, most redshifts are near some prefered values, it's called redshift quantization, if redshift means distance (as this video tries to show) then we are surrounded by several shells of galaxies and superclusters.
@IloveYOUviruses Of course we are, because we are at the centre of the observable universe. Also the video rightly says that most galaxy's are moving away, not all, but most galaxy's at the same distance will be moving at the same speed, its not rocket science.
It seems to me like this guy is applying the Big bang to God. If God created...He didn't create everything compact then explode it. He put things where He wanted, and created physics, etc, right along with it.The gravitational pull of an object is relative to the mass of the object toward which it is being pulled, right? Is it illogical to assume that stars, or gallexies,are moving away from the nearest most massive star (or gallexy)?The father they are away from it, the faster they keep moving?
"he put things where he wanted"? tough luck... uncertainty principle and chaos theory (supported by empirical observations) clearly show that such claim you made is physically impossible.
"created physics" = fairy tale. why not Odin? or Venus?
@freehenrietta If you believe God put things where he wanted and created physics then how could ANYTHING appear illogical to you?
If galaxies or stars are moving away from any massive object then why can't you just assume God made it that way instead of calling it illogical? Just how hard would it be for God to compact the whole universe then 'explode' it?
Sounds to me like you have doubts about your God.
I suggest that you should stop thinking altogether before you're cursed with boils.
@olmecbones I said "IS it illogical", not "it is". I do think God made it that way and used the things we call "physics" to keep it moving and in order. It wouldn't be hard for God to make it compact and explode it. But that's not what the Bible says happened. There's no point to believing in "God" if you don't believe the Bible- u'd just be making stuff up and it's not really God. Your misinterpretation led u to inadvertantly argue FOR God. lol
@freehenrietta I know exactly what you said, I know what a question mark means, and that's why I said "If galaxies and stars..."IF", as in I agree with your assumption, get it? *Try English*
I'm saying that NO it is not illogical for stars or galaxies to move away from more massive objects because the Universe is expanding regardless of gravity either by natural means or by God.
Either way, the fact that it IS expanding is not illogical and my question IS why can't YOU just assume God did it?
@olmecbones If you look at my post, it clearly says, "I *DO* think God made it that way..." I'm beginning to think you're just trying to cause trouble...
@freehenrietta No I'm not trying to cause trouble and I see where when I said "instead of calling it illogical", I meant to say "logical or illogical".
My whole point is, we don't sacrifice lambs in the name of God anymore, so why continue believing the literal interpretation of Genesis? It's obviously not in accordance to what we observe.
None of this science should shake anyone's faith in God because it's the FAITH in God that should matter the most.
@olmecbones "We" don't sacrifice lambs anymore because the Lamb has been sacrificed.
It is in accordance with what we observe. But because scientists refuse to believe it, they try to find other explanations. Every explanation is based on the previous (wrong) explanation in Evolution. If scientists would do what they're supposed to do and take a (creationist) hypothesis and try to prove it wrong (without all these stupid methods like c14, etc) they wouldn't be able to.
@freehenrietta The creationist hypothesis needs to 'proven' right, as in proven to be a plausible theory with evidence to back it up before anyone can begin to try and prove it wrong.
@olmecbones What? No...you make a hypothesis then do the experiments. What creationist, scientific hypothesis has been "proven" wrong by experimentation?
@freehenrietta Hypothesis (creationism) and theory (evolution) are different things. Hypothesis is more like an idea, a theory is backed up by consistent experiments and observations, basically.
The Theory of Evolution is the accepted scientific biological notion. If creationist have a counter notion, then it's up to creationist to turn their hypothesis into a theory supported by scientific evidence.
It not up to anyone else to prove them wrong, it's up to them to prove themselves right.
@olmecbones They are all scientists and are supposed to be trying to accomplish the same things. For evolutionists, when something is falsified, they throw that one away and continue as if it wasn't. In a court case,could you say "Bob did it" then have 10 witnesses and a video that prove he didn't and continue with your case saying, "well, I don't care what the evidence says. There's no evidence saying anyone ELSE did it so....BOB did it!" That'd be dumb.
@freehenrietta There's 150+ years of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. SOME of it may be wrong, but MORE of it still supports the theory and MORE of it is being discovered faster than SOME of it is being disproved.
On the other hand, there is ZERO evidence supporting creationism.
If creationist spent more time building a case for their own hypothesis and less time trying to disprove evolution, then evolution would naturally die. But they don't because they know, there's no evidence
@olmecbones I disagree. There are so many things within each respective theory that can't possbly be proved. In evolution, the non-provable assumptions are the basis for a lot of "evidence". IF (and that's a big "IF") the assumptions were true, the rest of the stuff MIGHT be feasable. Same with creationism. BUT, the things in science that are actual, provable facts/evidence, DO support the creationist theory. If you disagree with that, tell me what provable evidence does not support Creation.
@free Biology 101 in the YT comments? No. I've already stated that I don't need to disprove creationism, it needs to prove itself, and it doesn't prove anything by asking to be disproved which is apparently all a creationist CAN do.
That's the scientific methodology that the vast majority of the scientists in the world accept, they don't need to disprove it, creationist need to prove it. That's just how it is
A true scientist is just trying to understand his subject, he's not out to destroy God.
@olmecbones If you don't want to discuss it that's fine but you are the one that said there is NO evidence within creationism. You must know what creationism claims then...? If u do, u should be able to tell me which things creationism claims ur talking about. If u say "all" of them, that's ridiculous because creationism and evolution actually claim a lot of the same things.
@freehenrietta I AM able to tell you which claims are not supported by evidence and I have no problem saying "all". But I'm not obligated to debate any of it. You called creationism a 'hypothesis' in one comment and a 'theory' in another, that says you're not educated and I'm not debated ALL of biology on YT
Regardless, my overall point is, creationism does not follow the accepted scientific methodology
And as long as they ignore that methodology, EVERYTHING they say is FALSE
@freehenrietta First you said, "...take a (creationist) hypothesis and try to prove it wrong", then you said "...within each respective theory"
But I'm not just going by this when I say I you're not educated. Just the fact that you continue to disregard the creationist flaw in their 'scientific' methodology tells me that you're not educated. The scientific methodology is basic and inclusive in science and if you don't even know that then I can't debate with you on any particularities of biology
@olmecbones You're really sounding dumb. I put "creationist" into parentheses to show that I was making the distinction-I was referring to a creationist's hypothesis rather than an evolutionist's hypothesis.
You STILL have failed to back up your claim with evidence (typical evolutionist). I'll ask again: What is an example of where the creationists (or their "methodology") are scientifically "wrong"? I guarantee you can't find any.
@freehenrietta Sorry, I'm not going to be drawn into a basic sciences argument. I've said this already and I'll say it one more time >>> They need to prove themselves right.
@olmecbones Like I said, intelligent conversation is welcomed. You don't seem to have anything intelligent to say which is obviously why you don't participate. You're saying a bunch of stuff but not backing it up with evidence. ALL of the hypotheses that Creationists HAVE published ARE supported by evidence. Pick one and I'll show you the evidence. Basically you believe what you believe because you believe it- you apparently think others should do the same.
@freehenrietta "ALL of the hypotheses that Creationists HAVE published ARE supported by evidence." And now you're back to calling creationism a hypothesis. Hypothesis aren't supported by evidence, theories are, look it up. This is why I won't debate with you, I'd have to keep correcting you on these basic things.
Learn some basic science and I'll debate with you.
@olmecbones What??? I think you're a little loopy...drugs, perhaps?
That's how it works in peer review. Someone has a question; they form a hypothesis; the develop a procedure by which to test their hypothesis; predictions are made; the hypothesis is either falsified or supported; the data is submitted for peer review and the experiment is repeated; if it's still supported, it's published and considered valid evidence, if it's falsified, it may be published as unsupported.
Creationism is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis within Creationism might be "God created...as documented in Genesis 1". There wer/are many hypotheses in science. The difference is that creationism is a compilation of all the supported ones and the theory of evolution includes a bunch of assumptions that have been unsupported but are considered "good enough".
@olmecbones Are you even out of grade school yet? Grow up. If you would like to have an intelligent conversation that's fine but you haven't said one intelligent thing yet.
Look at what I said then look at what you said. You said "Hypothesis within a hypothesis does not make a hypothesis a theory". You do realize that YOU are the one who keeps calling creationism a hypothesis right? "Having" a hypothesis and "being" a hypothesis are 2 different things.
there is more PROOF of the Bible being accurate than there is proof of evolution! to say every life form on earth is just a "mistake" or chance happening is like saying a tornado went through a junk yard and put a whole new line of cars/trucks/motorcycles together each with individual sound systems and paint jobs!!
the music was good but the "blinders" are on evolutionists.
check "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" at itbn. org
for real scientific data and the irreducible complexity of FLAGELLUM
AttachableEarplugs 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AttachableEarplugs
« there is more PROOF of the Bible being accurate than there is proof of evolution »
On the contrary: while some of the mundane claims in the bible (eg. some of the kings and cities) are backed through archaeological evidence, none of the supernatural claims in it are supported by the available data, and indeed, many are contradicted. Compare this to evolutionary theory, of which the basic hypotheses are supported by *all* the available data, with no exceptions.
XGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AttachableEarplugs
« to say every life form on earth is just a "mistake" or chance happening »
But nobody is saying that - excepted perhaps some creationists. Scientists are going out of their way to explain the natural processes behind the emergence of life and subsequent evolution of species. *NOT* random or chance: laws of physics.
MrGralgrathor 2 weeks ago
@AttachableEarplugs your an idiot
its not assembling a car
its assembling the most basic forms of life
crazymuffin147 2 weeks ago
@AttachableEarplugs Sir, you in fact made my day with your first sentence, congratulations. If you are not trolling then i have to say, i am kinda scared that you actually believe it.
Boasziekelijk 2 weeks ago
@AttachableEarplugs evolution or natural selection, is exactly the opposite of what you just said,
man you dont even understand evolution and try to debate it,
do you also beleive the earth is 6000 years old and flat?
lapmarty 5 days ago
@AttachableEarplugs that was the hardest my jaw has ever hit the floor over uninformed misguided bullshit.
325982668 20 hours ago in playlist More videos from cdk007
There is no such thing as gravity. We are on the ground because of God's invisible magic glue, it's called Intelligent Stickiness. But balloons can escape this stickiness because they are the work of the Devil. That Devil, he's a scary one.
It's either that or we're being held down by invisible noodles......
XxI3ioHazardxX 2 weeks ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
The Ultimate Best Method for Meauring Stellar-Star Distances is by the "Cepheid Variable Method". This invloves measuring the Shifts in Variable Stars Light Output Changes, the Shift on the Spectrograph can thus be used of measure the amount of Red or Violet-Blue Shifts. The Parallax Method also works but is Limited to Closer Constelations unless you can find a Much Larger "Base" for your "Triangle-Parallax" than our Earths Revolution around the Sun!!!!
Jules7892 1 month ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
The Age of the "Bell Shaped Expanding UNIVERSE" is Approx. 13,254,000,000 Billion Years Old from Hubble Telescopes latest readings. Although further earlier dates where 13,700,000,000 Billion Years for Our UNIVERSE, the actual readings needs to be properly studied with both Radio-Waves,X-Ray,Gamma-Ray and Optical Radiation Telescopes and Scientific Apparatus etc.!!!!
Jules7892 1 month ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
There are SubAtomic Particles that can exceed the Velocity of Electro-Magnetic Photons. But SubAtomic Partlicle-Waves areNOT Photons,these particle-waves are Mesons,Neutrenous,Quarks,Positrons etc.What has been recently detected is that"Neutrenos SubAtomic"Particle-Waves EXCEED the Velocity of Photons measured at 2.997925 x 10^8Meters/Second.Early Switzerland Acceletron Velocities for SubAtomic"Neutrenos=near 4.6 x 10^8 Meters/Second some Quarks show highier Velocities,only Photons=Light Speed!!
Jules7892 1 month ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
@Jules7892 The tests at CERN that showed some neutrinos to go faster than the speed of light are carefully being studied as we speak. There is no definite answer as to if they can indeed go faster than light.
pythor2 3 weeks ago
@pythor2 Even if they are shown to be going faster than light, the most likely thing that would mean is that the precise value of the constant c is slightly off. The could be cause by photons actually having an incredibly small mass, as c is actually the speed of a massless particle, not a photon
Squiffy633 2 weeks ago
@Squiffy633 We have a pretty precise value for c. That is unless, of course, you were talking about the value used in the calculations
pythor2 2 weeks ago
Have you even heard of astronomical phenomena called 'red shift anomalies '
p1lawso 1 month ago
HOW DID I GET HERE
conordougy 1 month ago in playlist latest bunch to view
Potholer54 brought me here.
MadHatter34784 1 month ago
in order to believe in god you have to replace scientific facts with conspiracy theories
squizill 1 month ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
@pijanecX Tesla proved it 1900. Unless they give patents for things that don't work, Albert Einstein is nothing but a quack.
bridgetroll9 1 month ago
@googlymoogly64 Show me time exists as a physical part of the universe? So far I only have evidence that it exists in your mind.
bridgetroll9 1 month ago
cdk007 you should update this video cause there is speed faster than light...LHC proved it :)
pijanecX 1 month ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
@pijanecX
Are you retarded?
They didn't prove anything. They did a test and it was interesting, and they're going to retest to confirm it. NOTHING has been proven. It very well could have been a mathematical error. We wont know for sure for at least 5 years.
Elosization 1 month ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
@Elosization riiiiight...muahahaha (dr. evil)...like all other theoryes in physics...first they notice something, then they are confirming it for a decade...but they at the end CONFIRM...you'll buy me a bear 10 years from now ... :P
pijanecX 1 month ago
0:32 ahahaaha not so sure anymore about that after Opera lolol, bastards couldn't at least wait until my physics mid term was over!
djangoprodegy 1 month ago
i still think it's young. 13.7 billion years is a heck of a long time and all, but when you think about how long the universe is probably going to be here, it seems more likely to me that i would exist at a time when it is much farther into its life. If it last 1.5 trillion years then it's not even 1% through its life. will life be impossible for like 95%+ of time? wouldnt this be like a 10 month old going through puberty? And it will probably last Quadrillions of years! The universe is magical!
metalhanded 1 month ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
watch?v=2Fa9_VsM5Bk
csmcmillion 2 months ago
Explain how to cancel the inertia except for a force keeping the object going towards the center of the sphere that is spinning in a vacuum. It takes energy to move a rock on ground. So explain how no energy is being used to keep it on the surface if were spinning so fast.
bridgetroll9 2 months ago
365 days is based upon the amount of sunrises occur until the cycle observed in the sky starts over again. So how does that observation determine how old something is? So when your big bang happened there was no year because the earth hadn't even been formed yet. Look at a clock and the only reason you think time has passed is because the two hands have moved. Time has nothing to do with how old things are. The physical processes on earth occur independently of observations of movement in the s
bridgetroll9 2 months ago
@bridgetroll9 You're confused. A system of measurement (at least in these terms) doesn't change what it's supposed to measure. We define a year as 365.25 (or so) days.
Now imagine we were trying to measure the length of something, using a unit called the "dick." To you, one dick might be three and a half inches long. To me, it might be eight and a half. We might call it by different names, but the time since you last had sex remains constant.
googlymoogly64 2 months ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
wouldn't the argument in this way not require that we can cap expansion speed at a maximum value and use that max speed to calculate the minimum age?
nublered 3 months ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
Once the creationists realize that light going faster in the past makes the universe older they will immediately change their argument. Light went SLOWER in the past!! And they will PROVE it, lol.
8698gil 3 months ago
Creationists lose every time, but most aren't smart enough to realize it.
ndrthrdr1 3 months ago
If the earth is young, then God must be young. But if God is from eternity, He must be old, then the earth must also be old. Has anybody heard Eve being created about 7,000 years after Adam? That’s time enough for him to realize that nobody else was like him (Adam). And there was another few thousand years before they ate of the apple. That’s a foretaste of eternity until they were doomed to die on their last thousand years.
I believe that even Supernal Consciousness evolves as it creates.
ZubenGanubi 3 months ago
And what exactly guarantees that the speed of light is a constant all over the universe? Considering that there is much evidence that our galaxy is VERY near the center of the universe it's not hard to imagine that a gravity well would cause space time distortion away from the center and cause time to pass MUCH faster at the rims of the universe. Hence you get what we see without the need for billions of years. There is no way to prove that speed of light is the same throughout the universe.
mrdokma 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't even try to reason the concept of God to the monkey people, they are lower beings who do not have the cognitive ability to know God. This is only a function of higher beings! You waste your time trying to convince a monkey..."as a man thinketh so is he, says God." Let the evolutionist be monkeys, "made in the image of a monkey" and we will be the "made in the image of God" people. Hopefully God has a zoo in heaven for the monkey people. If not I hope they like hot fires & brimstone.
tot792 4 months ago
@dooter780 nothing travels faster than light so if god created everything 6000 years ago we wouldn't be able to see these far off galaxies yet. We would have to wait for billions of years. The only way god could have rigged it is to have the photons of light already on their way when he "created" everything.
gcb1000 5 months ago
I fail to see how universe size = old. If God created everything (supposing there is a supernatural being), then can't God create anything of any size? If I make a toy car, then make a real car next week, is the real car older because it is larger than the toy car? CDK, you have managed to prove one thing for certain: The universe is big. You have not, unfortunately, disproven anything. Cool pics though.
dooter780 5 months ago
@dooter780
Study why you can see things, then you will understand why if we can use optics to measure distance to an object the amount of time (if light is a constant) that light takes to reach us will give you a figure on how old that star or galaxy is. It's basically peering into the past.
We don't even have to look into space to find ways to prove the earth is older than 6000 years, the oldest uncovered granary is 11000 years old.
Chinomareno 5 months ago
@dooter780 The fact that light from stars millions of light-years away from us doesn't mean anything? Do you understand the term "light-year" it takes light a year to go that far... so how can light from a star that is over a million light-years away from us get to the earth for you or I to observe in 6000 years? Do the physics.
SamLynn121 4 months ago
@SamLynn121, hahaha! Theory of relativity - Do the physics. ;-)
mikrandr 4 months ago
@mikrandr That's physics for you, always throwing something new into the mix ;)
SamLynn121 4 months ago
@dony7777777 poe
ThePuppyTurtle 5 months ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
I love how a simple thing such as light and distance proves the universe is expanding, and the big bang could have easily come from nothing, as there were no laws to govern matter. I love how sheldon dressed up as the doppler effect.
retrogamerist 5 months ago
@dony7777777 well that makes perfect sense why dont you go back to fairyland where if one thing gets smaller oh everything gets smaller
potsticker11 5 months ago
Haven't they gotten light to travel significantly faster through certain bose-einstein condensates?
Completely off topic, that's not a vacuum at all, I just think it's cool :P
Ryakki 5 months ago
@dony7777777 ahhhh i get it so when we can't explain something its ok because we already know that god did it,it makes perfect sense!!
Flash13Magic 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dony7777777 i hope you are joking.
Flash13Magic 5 months ago
@dony7777777 Its the oldest tree on earth because no one has chopped it down yet. If you are serious I feel very sorry for you. Hey everybody I believe in a flying spaghetti monster. Dinners on me.
timoteoman13 5 months ago
There are many kinds of cheaters all over the universe. Of all cheating processes, gambling stands supreme and therefore represents God. As the Supreme, God can be more deceitful than any mere man. If God chooses to deceive a person, no one can surpass Him in His deceit. His greatness is not simply one-sided - it is all-sided.
OrionBadSheep 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi, write "logical evidences for Islam" and watch it
Why is there One Creator?
Why is there a religion?
Why Islam is the true religion?
shncsr 6 months ago
Very intelligent! Here's the joke we all can laugh at, a new born puppy looks at a new born elephant and says that is BIG, REALLY REALLY BIIIIG, it must be 2 billion years old. The elephant looks around and says me?!! The puppy says yes. The elephant tosses the puppy into the trash can for its foolishness and enjoys the rest of its day. Now the trash can was really big, it was just installed and infact was brand new. The puppy says, this is big and lot of stuff in it, 3 billion years?
jjwasa 6 months ago
@jjwasa
The difference between science and the puppy is that science builds our knowledge based on evidence, instead of "Wow that's really big, therefore..." style reasoning.
Boy75402 5 months ago
hhahahahahaha i pissed my pants. science beating the shit out of religion and creationists in one simple vid. hahahahaha rofl , lol , lmao etcetc hahahahaha
dogsofwarclan 6 months ago
"the universe is very, very big... therefore it is very old"
I doubt the universe is growing at a rate 2mph. scientists even say that within a "billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second", this universe grew billions of miles wide. so, even the young universe was "very, very big". but where did it all come from (time, energy and space) if it cannot be created nor destroyed, according to your "superior scientific laws"? and you say the Bible contradicts itself. please...
soulja4daHOLYOne 6 months ago
@soulja4daHOLYOne That "superior scientific law" is called therodynamics , and if it we assume it was created by a who it would leave to infinite regress. No one says they know how it started they assume if we say god didn't we're obliligated to explain which is is simply not true. If you want to understand when scientist mean nothing study quantum electrodynamics. I hope you don't really believe in the young earth.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
God made the universe big and varied for us.So He took His time. So what? That just means he is patient, infinitely patient with his Creation. And He made it all for us.
He also gave us a great view of it all.
linbouf 6 months ago
@linbouf you are delusional, you are not important enough for a god to make everything for you.
ExcaliburClan 5 months ago
If at the big bang, the so called expansion was faster than light then why can't things still be moving at greater than light speed? Or did the expansion slow down to sub light because of gravity?
baxtar1963 6 months ago
@baxtar1963 The expansion (more commonly known as "inflation") was not an expansion of particles faster than the speed of light (such would be forbidden by fundamental laws) It was the expansion of space-time itself faster than the speed of light, nothing material was traveling faster than the speed of light.
libalchris 6 months ago
Two huge problems with your argument: Light waves do not always travel in a straight line because they are affected by gravity. Hence, using the red shift of CBR and other phenomena to measure the size of the universe *assumes* that electromagnetic waves are traveling in a straight line. Thus gravity can create the appearance that an object is farther away than it is. Also, Calculating distance from Cepheid variables relies on *assuming* its true brightness ("Knowing how bright it should be").
benpipercom 6 months ago
ur estimates are way off light = 670,455,000 mph
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
A creationist website actually said that proof that earth is not old because there isn't enough history. He said that it was ridiculous to assume that humans had lived for 100,000 years only to discover writing and agriculture 10,000 years ago.
Geez, if thats not amazing PROOF of a young Earth, i don't know what is. The rational mind that God blessed me with can't even find a single flaw in that logic.
BadgerCat10 6 months ago
@BadgerCat10 you have a flaw in your understanding. modern man has not been around that long. and even if we were, why is it hard to believe that we fairly recently got literate? i mean, monkeys have been around just as long, and havent figured it out yet. fact is- it had to have happened SOMETIME, ya know?
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
@guineapiggyman You might want to reread my post, you jumped the gun in your interpretation of what i was getting at
BadgerCat10 6 months ago
@BadgerCat10 uhh, your saying you have proof. u dont bye
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
@guineapiggyman You missed again you idiot, that entire comment was sarcastic. Read it AGAIN and you will see emphasis on this point with words like "ACTUALLY" and "PROOF" Since you are too focused on trying to argue to read properly, my point was that writing is not a metric measurement of evolution, and that cultures aren't guaranteed to develop writing
BadgerCat10 6 months ago
your assuming young Earth = young Universe, this is wrong. Time doesn't start till God started work on the Planet. (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Gen1:1) in the bible the "earth is lower case meaning dirt or materials, heavens also lower case meaning stars and light.
my point, the Universe is indeed older than the Earth. also light and gravity are still two mysteries in science.
DJWalton314 6 months ago
@DJWalton314 you are VERY mistaken in your logic
guineapiggyman 6 months ago
Why do athiests always feel the need to attack anyone who believes in God? We do our thing and you do yours, correct? So why do the atheists always feel the need to make it clear that they believe there isnt a God? Its not like it will convince anyone if you really think about it, bashing on it, cmon, would you agree with someone talking down on you?
UknownNephilim 6 months ago
@UknownNephilim to be honest, I'm atheist, and a lot of christians tell me almost on the daily that I'm either GOING to go to hell if i don't have a change of heart....Or that they worry that I may end up in hell because I choose not to believe something that seems quite silly to me personally.....But always I remain silent, keep a smile on my face and always wish them the best. Those of us lucky enough to realize that some people just need something to believe in(or not) to function. t.e.t.o.
SUPERIORzombie 6 months ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
@SUPERIORzombie I get you, what they do is wrong, and by a true christian belief is if anyone wants to not believe, thats fine, the christian way just says let them be in peace if they dont want to. thats just abusing it. But even so saying that christians or anyone else that 'needs' to believe or not to believe in God to function, is just too broad to say, opinionated statement. Atheist who dont believe in anything, believe in everything.
UknownNephilim 6 months ago
@UknownNephilim Why do christians feel the need to attack anyone who doesn't believe in God? Why do christians always feel the need to evangelize?
saxabass 6 months ago
@saxabass They dont, if you look at my response to SUPERIORzombie I also said that a real christian should not attack anyone for their beliefs, yes they'll stand up for it if they feel someone attacking them but what the christian belief is you dont bash on anyone, you let them do their thing and if they want no part then leave them alone. So christians do not attack people who dont believe in God. and you must understand, a christian lives without those sorts of needs, they only bring you down
UknownNephilim 6 months ago
Not knowing all the answers proves nothing. Newtonian mechanics was once believed to be the whole picture, but we kept looking and saw more.
The fact is since the speed of light is finite we have only interacted with a small portion of the universe. We have only observed the universe for a tiny fraction of its apparent age.
We have been observing the universe for the equivalent of a micro second. Its a little early to make a video explaining its secrets.
wjestick 7 months ago
Total BS. Explain how the Universe could expland to a radius of 13.0+ billion light years across in as little as a few days?! And what force could cause the ultimate black hole to explode?! If you cannot answer either of these questions then your video is like playing with marbels while you ignore the big picture.
Egrebal76 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Egrebal76 "Explain how the Universe could expland to a radius of 13.0+ billion light years across in as little as a few days?!"
Who ever claimed that to begin with?
byteresistor 7 months ago
@Egrebal76 Who said it happened in a few days? Quite obvious it happened in 13.7 billion years, since he already said "c" (light speed) is a constant in a vacuum, you may notice it's still expanding as well just like time is still going. Who mentioned anything about a black hole? Are you sure you're on the right video here?
Crysis2isOnline 6 months ago
apparently this universe just started somewhere and out nowhere. right>?
UknownNephilim 7 months ago
@UknownNephilim probably
shaosokaos 7 months ago
@UknownNephilim probably, but thats the difference between realists and dreamers. Realists don't pretend to know all the answers and don't need to invent ridiculous fairytales to try and justify their existence.
uknowispeaksense 6 months ago
7:19 For all you Christians who believe this frame, let me ask you: isn't one of your Commandments to never lie? Follow-up: wouldn't placing all those photons there to lead us to erroneously believe they are stars would be deceiving us, i.e. lying to us? You Christians really have problems with consistency.
SpaceTime4D 7 months ago
Don't you require the distance of the "very distant stars" to correctly apply parallax? Oh I can see the assumptions and circularity comming ^.^
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses WOW! Now creationists reject TRIGONOMETRY AND MATHEMATIC.... You are trying too find problems on things you don't even understand and then saying nonsense, that is why people laugh at you. But for me that's not even funny anymore... Before arguing a subject you need to understand it. Hell a simple google search would have answer your question. Your ingnorance on a subject doesn't make it untrue.
So please if you dont "believe" in math throw your computer in the trash...
KillingCells 7 months ago
@KillingCells Do you think that the distance of the "very distant stars" isn't required in the equation?
Btw, do you have personal issues? cuz your attitude towards one simple question is not normal, are you one of those amoral atheists?
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses I have issues with the fact that some organization is pushing a mass denial of science and making vulnerable people (childrens) buying in that crap and actually lying and disrespecting all the scientists out there. I have christians friends and they dont deny science. And my tone was inspire by your wording "Oh I can see the assumptions and circularity comming" as if the scientists were liars. I think you should respect there work a bit more, science have improve our knowledge.
KillingCells 7 months ago
@KillingCells So you are fine with using assumptions to determine the distance of the "very distant stars", right?
ps: they may be safe assumptions but that's not enough to build a cosmological model.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses What "assumptions"? I said that you clearly didn't try to understand the method before critisizing it! You "assume" that the parallax method is flawed because of religious bias and justifying it by the fact you don't know how to actually use the method!
So tell me, how the "creation science" mesures the distances of stars? Futhermore, parallax is a form of triangulation and geometry wich is a subset of math. tan(a) = opposite / adjacent is it that evil ? Goodbye GPS I suppose.
KillingCells 7 months ago
@KillingCells It's amazing the lack of critical skills that you have, it's almost as if you don't understand the method.
Look, in the example given by cdk, the measurement of the angle in arcs depends on the distance of the books behind; remember, we don't SEE the arc, we use the ilussion of movement to calculate the angle at the star's vertex, ergo my question:
"Don't you require the distance of the "very distant stars" to safely apply parallax?"
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses First of all if you applyied critically thinking you would have at the minium search your question FIRST and try to understand the method before posting your question. With that said the movement illusion is a geometric property easy to understand. Instrument like Hipparcos scientist measure the angle with that movement to a precision of 0.002 arcseconds.Then the only thing left is doing the triangulation. Because of the geometric nature of the technic it is a direct measurement
KillingCells 7 months ago
@KillingCells I would add that it took 200 years to make that technic pratical. Don't expect to grasp that technic by watching a 10sec video on YT. Have some respect to all of the hard work of our ancestors that lead to our truly extrodinnary technology. I hope someday you would see the world as it is and admire the beauty of it. the fact that all life is related in one planet in a universe inemaginably huge and old. /watch?v=6QPKIqDuIFQ&feature=relmfu
KillingCells 7 months ago
@KillingCells It's extremely funny how you avoid the question over and over using futile chatter hehehe
this is far better than circular reasoning. So, since Hipparcos uses the Parallax method, then there's no assumptions in the meassurements, lol I'm very impressed by your 'critical skills'.
Here kiddo, evade it again:
"Doesn't Hipparcos require the distance of the "very distant stars" to safely apply parallax?"
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Damn with all the explanation I gave you you should have understood that NO it doesn't need the distance of the very distant stars.... Has I said grab a book and find out how it work before saying its BS and funny enough that would make you the brightest creationnists, until you realise your position is incorrect and become like everybody else...
KillingCells 7 months ago
@KillingCells Already told you that we don't SEE the arcs, rather, we use the ilussion of movement to calculate the angle at the star's vertex.
Now that you've revealed your poor critical skills and atheopathy, I'll save us both the pain: we DO NEED the distance of the stellar background cuz that can change the illusion of mevoment, however, we assume their distance as being inf. since they are apparently very far. As I said, its a safe assumption, thanks for the fun ^-^
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses
"Doesn't Hipparcos require the distance of the "very distant stars" to safely apply parallax?"
Of course not. You can use the stars in your direction of motion as a fixed reference. The parallax of an observed star is then its deviation from a right angle with the reference stars.
Pulsar89 7 months ago
@Pulsar89 hmmm thanks, sounds reasonable, but then... why does it need the background stars? Or did I missunderstand you?
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses
Background stars aren't necessary, they are simply stars that are so distant that their parallax is too small to measure.
Pulsar89 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses
No, just the distance to the nearer stars. Applying parallax is used to find the distance to the "very distant stars."
June28July 7 months ago
Is AiG still quoting Setterfield? That was comprehensively refuted in 1981 as fake.
Even one of the members of the ICR saids it was iffy and Wieland / Snelling fibbed about the Russian observatory said to have confimed it.
Just shows to go you, once creationists invent a lie, then never stop quoting it.
Palifiox 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey the bumper on my 1956 Chevy Belair was just carbon dated to be 4 million years old!!! Just like the earth itself, the substance that makes up the earth is millions of years old however life on earth is young!!! Atheism is anti-logic! Think about it!
Virtue0sity 8 months ago
All the scientists meet with Satan in a torchlit cavern deep in the bowels of earth every ten years to receive instructions from the devil on what new lies to tell us. It's all very spooky and evil.
webgrunt 8 months ago
Just a thought: If "all" of the distant stars burnt-out 7000 years ago, then would we be aware of any of this? The night sky could turn to complete darkness and we'd be experiencing (seeing the unfolding of) events from 1000's of years ago.
RAMPAR8TY 8 months ago
ONE SMART POTATOE.
1009541074brb 8 months ago
this lie and deception has gone on way too long
itssaab 8 months ago
@itssaab
what lie
AlexanderRaccoon 8 months ago
Earth is young - This dont prove crap - The world dont have to be old because of light - LOL - God created LIGHT - it was already moving and working - it didn't begin at some evolutions pea of amino acids - so your wrong, again, thank you , and have a great week in your world of monkey men
czhelpteam 9 months ago
@czhelpteam you clearly didn't listen to a thing in the video did you? light travels at constant rate (provided no friction in whatever space the light is in changes), and the universe has a size that could be measured (as all can) using the equation distance=time x speed. time=distance/speed, and this shows the age of the universe. using this method, the universe has been found to be older than 6000 years.
Mr12345EGGNOG 9 months ago
@Mr12345EGGNOG 2 of 2
The article says, “it's not the size nor the age of the cluster that amazes the team of researchers… Rather, it's the surprisingly MODERN appearance of CLG J02182-05102 that has them baffled.” Dr. Casey Papovich said, “‘It's like we dug an archaeological site in Rome and found pieces of modern Rome amongst the ruins.’”
Isn't this discovery a time problem for the big bang?
AA32m7io1 8 months ago
@Mr12345EGGNOG 1 of 2
Speaking of the size and age of the universe, please explain the Horizon Problem along with the fact that 60 fully formed galaxies 10 billion lightyears away have been discovered.
See: "Ancient City of 'Modern' Galaxies: May Be Most Distant Galaxy Cluster Ever Detected” (ScienceDaily, May 10, 2010)
AA32m7io1 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 " Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe. "
Now the Quesion is which Hypotosis do you think is most plausible? if the answer is none. Then can you propose a Hypothosis that you have may have researched that can be tested or observed under scientific conditions.
wowamonn 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 I have come across lots of folks who think that since thier opinion is dear to them that gives them permission to force thier personal views on folks who do not share thier belief.
wowamonn 8 months ago
@wowamonn 3 of 3
“As for Atheists each individual has his/her provide thier own answer to this question.”
They may, but Wiki says, “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.”
I see you have a quote from Darwin on your page, and since he held to the belief there is no God (and your subscriptions are to atheist profiles), I assume you also deny the existence of God.
AA32m7io1 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 I do not believe ANY god exist.
wowamonn 8 months ago
@wowamonn 2 of 3
"You do realize that millions of christians accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and the Big Bang dont you?"
Yep, but I don't agree with them. They allegorize the first 11 chapters of Genesis which begs the question: How do they know the rest of the Bible they believe is accurate? If their standard is science, then they lack true faith as science clearly cannot account for any of the miracles Jesus performed... or how He raised Himself from the dead!
AA32m7io1 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 Since you like to read and do research I will recommend a couple of books that you may find intresting. " When Jesus became God" by Richard Rubenstien. and " Misquoting Jesus " by Bart Ehrman.
finally " Truth in Translation " I forgot the Authors name but that is a good read if you are intrested on how some English translations render a word from Greek. These are not Christian bashing books if that is what you are thinking just some history and background on the religon.
wowamonn 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 Why the run around? By the way miracles cannot be tested by science because when a miracle is performed the Natural laws are supposdly suspended. One other I noticed you quote a lot of bits from diffrent sources do you evan check the orginal article to make sure that the information you provided is within context of what the original article was trying to explian?
wowamonn 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 " Yep, but I don't agree with them. They allegorize the first 11 chapters of Genesis which begs the question: How do they know the rest of the Bible they believe is accurate? "
Because the bible is not accurate and the Churchs know this that why when science began answering the questions of how life diversified on Earth how the Universe was made and the evidence is so overwhelming they had no choice buy to concede that bible cannot be interpreted literally.
wowamonn 8 months ago
@wowamonn 1 of 3
"What makes you think I am an Athiest?"
Your profile page is rather revealing.
Now I never said you were, I simply stated that I have a lot of atheists tell me there is no God.
But before that, I asked this question: Why do origins matter?
You completely ignored that part and instead focused on the term "atheist." So please answer why you believe learning about origins matters. If non-existence is our eternal destiny, who care where we came from, right?
AA32m7io1 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 It would be nice to answer all questions posed to someone woudnt it? And yes there is NO god there never was one. Learning the origin of life s very important for those who are intrested in this matter. It will clearly show that once that Life did arise Naturally without the aid of a creator. Now let me ask you a question. If you think you are going to Heaven to be with your god why did he/she not put you there in the first place? makes sense right why come to Earth...cont
wowamonn 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 " Ancient City of 'Modern' Galaxies: May Be Most Distant Galaxy Cluster Ever Detected” (ScienceDaily, May 10, 2010 " " They found evidence suggesting that most of the galaxies in the cluster were not forming stars, but were composed of stars that were already about one billion years old. This makes the cluster a mature object, similar in mass to the Virgo Cluster, the nearest rich galaxy cluster to the Milky Way. " .....Cont
wowamonn 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 Cont...." Further evidence that this is a mature cluster comes from observations of X-rays coming from CL J1449+0856 made with ESA's XMM-Newton space observatory The cluster is giving off X-rays that must be coming from a very hot cloud of tenuous gas filling the space between the galaxies and concentrated towards the centre of the cluster....Cont
wowamonn 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 Cont..." This is another sign of a mature galaxy cluster, held firmly together by its own gravity, as very young clusters have not had time to trap hot gas in this way. "
Now it is my understanding that this may be a very rare occurance now it was also stated that if many other Clusters are found with similar features then the how the early Universe began may have to be revised which is the Nature of the Science.
wowamonn 8 months ago
@wowamonn 2 of 2
“If you think you are going to Heaven to be with your god why did he/she not put you there in the first place?”
I believe He created us to worship, glorify and testify of Him. James 4:14 says, “For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away.” In the entire scheme of eternity (forever), would you agree that living for 60 - 90 years is not very long?
What empirical evidence do you have indicating there is no afterlife?
AA32m7io1 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 What evidence is there that there is one?
wowamonn 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wowamonn
"What Christian church do you attend..."
I am protestant and currently attend a Baptist church.
RE Afterlife: "What evidence is there that there is one?"
I interpret your response to mean that you have zero empirical evidence to support your claim there is no afterlife. Ironically, it appears that we both rely on FAITH. I have faith (from the Bible) that God and an afterlife exists, and you have faith they don't exist.
Again, why are you more confident than Dawkins?
AA32m7io1 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 When some Christians are asked if they accept Evolution by Natural selection and they say yes does that mean that ALL Christians accept the Fact? I would assume no. Also quoting scripture adds no weight to the argument it. What Christian church do you attend if I may ask?
wowamonn 8 months ago
@wowamonn 1 of 2
“Learning the origin of life... will clearly show that once that Life did arise Naturally without the aid of a creator.”
So the ultimate outcome of the research is to prove there is no God? But since the search is still ongoing, as evident by your remark, “It will clearly show,” how can you claim “there is NO god there never was one”?
Even Dawkins says, “There's PROBABLY no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Probably? Why are you more confident than Dawkins?
AA32m7io1 8 months ago
@AA32m7io1 In an earlier comment you said you asked many Atheists why search for the origin of life. I gave my opinion but another Atheist will answer diffrently.Scientists who are religous but accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural selection will give you another answer. Since ' Atheism ' has no doctrine it will be reasnable to think my comment will not be applied broadly to all Atheists response to that question?
wowamonn 8 months ago
@czhelpteam do you not even know the equation t=x/v? also, the rest of your comment didn't make sense and kind of shows you're a scientific illiterate
Mr12345EGGNOG 9 months ago
@czhelpteam You have no understanding of how science works do you?
wowamonn 8 months ago
"This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement."
If Hubble "law" is a law, then it happens that YES, WE ARE AT THE PRINCESS IN THE BALL!
IloveYOUviruses 9 months ago
"inherent redshift z values of quasars seem to be quantized! Unusually tight groupings of those calculated values occur centered around values of
z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96..." -Halton Arp
According to your demonstration of Hubble's law, WE ARE NEAR THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE
YOU ARE CRAZY!
IloveYOUviruses 9 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Of course we are at the centre of the observable Universe, everywhere you observe the universe from is the centre. It is common sense, time and space are expanding, everywhere started of in the centre at the "Big Bang" so why would you expect it to be anywhere but the centre now?
TheTomtompiper 9 months ago
@TheTomtompiper dude, most redshifts are near some prefered values, it's called redshift quantization, if redshift means distance (as this video tries to show) then we are surrounded by several shells of galaxies and superclusters.
IloveYOUviruses 9 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses Of course we are, because we are at the centre of the observable universe. Also the video rightly says that most galaxy's are moving away, not all, but most galaxy's at the same distance will be moving at the same speed, its not rocket science.
TheTomtompiper 9 months ago
Hilarious---this kid's whole life is a lie. How sad.
This guy is going to be awfully mad when hes in hell with slimy demons probing him.
jOWNZin22 9 months ago
@jOWNZin22 One could say the same about you, minus the hell part.
Evnyofdeath 9 months ago
this is probably your best series so far cdk007! keep up the good work :)
Mr12345EGGNOG 9 months ago
It seems to me like this guy is applying the Big bang to God. If God created...He didn't create everything compact then explode it. He put things where He wanted, and created physics, etc, right along with it.The gravitational pull of an object is relative to the mass of the object toward which it is being pulled, right? Is it illogical to assume that stars, or gallexies,are moving away from the nearest most massive star (or gallexy)?The father they are away from it, the faster they keep moving?
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta
"he put things where he wanted"? tough luck... uncertainty principle and chaos theory (supported by empirical observations) clearly show that such claim you made is physically impossible.
"created physics" = fairy tale. why not Odin? or Venus?
transtlantic 10 months ago
@freehenrietta If you believe God put things where he wanted and created physics then how could ANYTHING appear illogical to you?
If galaxies or stars are moving away from any massive object then why can't you just assume God made it that way instead of calling it illogical? Just how hard would it be for God to compact the whole universe then 'explode' it?
Sounds to me like you have doubts about your God.
I suggest that you should stop thinking altogether before you're cursed with boils.
olmecbones 10 months ago
@olmecbones I said "IS it illogical", not "it is". I do think God made it that way and used the things we call "physics" to keep it moving and in order. It wouldn't be hard for God to make it compact and explode it. But that's not what the Bible says happened. There's no point to believing in "God" if you don't believe the Bible- u'd just be making stuff up and it's not really God. Your misinterpretation led u to inadvertantly argue FOR God. lol
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta I know exactly what you said, I know what a question mark means, and that's why I said "If galaxies and stars..."IF", as in I agree with your assumption, get it? *Try English*
I'm saying that NO it is not illogical for stars or galaxies to move away from more massive objects because the Universe is expanding regardless of gravity either by natural means or by God.
Either way, the fact that it IS expanding is not illogical and my question IS why can't YOU just assume God did it?
olmecbones 10 months ago
@freehenrietta First you said,
"He put things where HE wanted, and created physics, etc, right along with it"
Then you said,
"I do not think God made it that way and used the things we call 'physics' to keep it moving in that order."
I starting to think that you do not have a strong grasp of English grammar.
olmecbones 10 months ago
@olmecbones If you look at my post, it clearly says, "I *DO* think God made it that way..." I'm beginning to think you're just trying to cause trouble...
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta No I'm not trying to cause trouble and I see where when I said "instead of calling it illogical", I meant to say "logical or illogical".
My whole point is, we don't sacrifice lambs in the name of God anymore, so why continue believing the literal interpretation of Genesis? It's obviously not in accordance to what we observe.
None of this science should shake anyone's faith in God because it's the FAITH in God that should matter the most.
olmecbones 10 months ago
@olmecbones "We" don't sacrifice lambs anymore because the Lamb has been sacrificed.
It is in accordance with what we observe. But because scientists refuse to believe it, they try to find other explanations. Every explanation is based on the previous (wrong) explanation in Evolution. If scientists would do what they're supposed to do and take a (creationist) hypothesis and try to prove it wrong (without all these stupid methods like c14, etc) they wouldn't be able to.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta The creationist hypothesis needs to 'proven' right, as in proven to be a plausible theory with evidence to back it up before anyone can begin to try and prove it wrong.
olmecbones 10 months ago
@olmecbones What? No...you make a hypothesis then do the experiments. What creationist, scientific hypothesis has been "proven" wrong by experimentation?
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta Hypothesis (creationism) and theory (evolution) are different things. Hypothesis is more like an idea, a theory is backed up by consistent experiments and observations, basically.
The Theory of Evolution is the accepted scientific biological notion. If creationist have a counter notion, then it's up to creationist to turn their hypothesis into a theory supported by scientific evidence.
It not up to anyone else to prove them wrong, it's up to them to prove themselves right.
olmecbones 10 months ago
@olmecbones They are all scientists and are supposed to be trying to accomplish the same things. For evolutionists, when something is falsified, they throw that one away and continue as if it wasn't. In a court case,could you say "Bob did it" then have 10 witnesses and a video that prove he didn't and continue with your case saying, "well, I don't care what the evidence says. There's no evidence saying anyone ELSE did it so....BOB did it!" That'd be dumb.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta There's 150+ years of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. SOME of it may be wrong, but MORE of it still supports the theory and MORE of it is being discovered faster than SOME of it is being disproved.
On the other hand, there is ZERO evidence supporting creationism.
If creationist spent more time building a case for their own hypothesis and less time trying to disprove evolution, then evolution would naturally die. But they don't because they know, there's no evidence
olmecbones 10 months ago
@olmecbones I disagree. There are so many things within each respective theory that can't possbly be proved. In evolution, the non-provable assumptions are the basis for a lot of "evidence". IF (and that's a big "IF") the assumptions were true, the rest of the stuff MIGHT be feasable. Same with creationism. BUT, the things in science that are actual, provable facts/evidence, DO support the creationist theory. If you disagree with that, tell me what provable evidence does not support Creation.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@free Biology 101 in the YT comments? No. I've already stated that I don't need to disprove creationism, it needs to prove itself, and it doesn't prove anything by asking to be disproved which is apparently all a creationist CAN do.
That's the scientific methodology that the vast majority of the scientists in the world accept, they don't need to disprove it, creationist need to prove it. That's just how it is
A true scientist is just trying to understand his subject, he's not out to destroy God.
olmecbones 10 months ago
@olmecbones If you don't want to discuss it that's fine but you are the one that said there is NO evidence within creationism. You must know what creationism claims then...? If u do, u should be able to tell me which things creationism claims ur talking about. If u say "all" of them, that's ridiculous because creationism and evolution actually claim a lot of the same things.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta I AM able to tell you which claims are not supported by evidence and I have no problem saying "all". But I'm not obligated to debate any of it. You called creationism a 'hypothesis' in one comment and a 'theory' in another, that says you're not educated and I'm not debated ALL of biology on YT
Regardless, my overall point is, creationism does not follow the accepted scientific methodology
And as long as they ignore that methodology, EVERYTHING they say is FALSE
It is that simple
olmecbones 10 months ago
@olmecbones
A) YOU called creationism a hypothesis- I called it a theory;
B) You're the one who gets facts mixed up (see A)- I pointed out the truth;
C) I am willing to prove that what I am saying is correct- you have no proof of what you're saying...
How does that make ME uneducated?
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta First you said, "...take a (creationist) hypothesis and try to prove it wrong", then you said "...within each respective theory"
But I'm not just going by this when I say I you're not educated. Just the fact that you continue to disregard the creationist flaw in their 'scientific' methodology tells me that you're not educated. The scientific methodology is basic and inclusive in science and if you don't even know that then I can't debate with you on any particularities of biology
olmecbones 10 months ago
@olmecbones You're really sounding dumb. I put "creationist" into parentheses to show that I was making the distinction-I was referring to a creationist's hypothesis rather than an evolutionist's hypothesis.
You STILL have failed to back up your claim with evidence (typical evolutionist). I'll ask again: What is an example of where the creationists (or their "methodology") are scientifically "wrong"? I guarantee you can't find any.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
@freehenrietta Sorry, I'm not going to be drawn into a basic sciences argument. I've said this already and I'll say it one more time >>> They need to prove themselves right.
olmecbones 10 months ago
@olmecbones Like I said, intelligent conversation is welcomed. You don't seem to have anything intelligent to say which is obviously why you don't participate. You're saying a bunch of stuff but not backing it up with evidence. ALL of the hypotheses that Creationists HAVE published ARE supported by evidence. Pick one and I'll show you the evidence. Basically you believe what you believe because you believe it- you apparently think others should do the same.
freehenrietta 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freehenrietta "ALL of the hypotheses that Creationists HAVE published ARE supported by evidence." And now you're back to calling creationism a hypothesis. Hypothesis aren't supported by evidence, theories are, look it up. This is why I won't debate with you, I'd have to keep correcting you on these basic things.
Learn some basic science and I'll debate with you.
olmecbones 10 months ago
@freehenrietta "ALL of the hypotheses that Creationists HAVE published ARE supported by evidence." So you're calling creationism a hypothesis again?
Hypothesis are not supported by evidence, that's why they're hypothesis. No evidence to debate, like I've already said.
olmecbones 10 months ago
@olmecbones What??? I think you're a little loopy...drugs, perhaps?
That's how it works in peer review. Someone has a question; they form a hypothesis; the develop a procedure by which to test their hypothesis; predictions are made; the hypothesis is either falsified or supported; the data is submitted for peer review and the experiment is repeated; if it's still supported, it's published and considered valid evidence, if it's falsified, it may be published as unsupported.
What's the prob?
freehenrietta 9 months ago
@freehenrietta Again, you're calling "creationism" a hypothesis after you were so adamant about calling it a "theory"?
olmecbones 9 months ago
@olmecbones Yep...drugs.
Creationism is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis within Creationism might be "God created...as documented in Genesis 1". There wer/are many hypotheses in science. The difference is that creationism is a compilation of all the supported ones and the theory of evolution includes a bunch of assumptions that have been unsupported but are considered "good enough".
freehenrietta 9 months ago
@freehenrietta "...I called it a theory..."
"...ALL of the hypotheses that Creationists HAVE published..."
"...Creationism is not a hypothesis..."
"...hypothesis within Creationism..." <<< Hypothesis within a hypothesis does not make a hypothesis a theory.
I'll just keep posting your conflicting definitions until you actually try consulting a dictionary. Lol.
olmecbones 9 months ago
@olmecbones Are you even out of grade school yet? Grow up. If you would like to have an intelligent conversation that's fine but you haven't said one intelligent thing yet.
Look at what I said then look at what you said. You said "Hypothesis within a hypothesis does not make a hypothesis a theory". You do realize that YOU are the one who keeps calling creationism a hypothesis right? "Having" a hypothesis and "being" a hypothesis are 2 different things.
freehenrietta 9 months ago