Did it occur to them that Sirius B existed before they started observing way back around 2000 BC, ie the star was around 99.998.999 years old when you started looking at it genius, as such it turned to a white dwarf sometime in our very recent past.
How can this guy seriously be this stupid, you think the star just started existing when they started observing it ?
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
The Genesis version of how the universe was made including the earth has been contradicted by modern physics and cosmology. Now this doesn't mean that god didn't set it all in motion but it does mean that the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.
@sweatytoothmadman The very same modern cosmology that requires the entire universe is filled with an overabundance of dark matter in order to explain their model, which is very poorly understood and based on a lack of evidence (not enough matter in the universe) rather than evidence?
So Genesis was wrong on ever point but modern cosmology is still trying to detect or understand why there lacks so much dark matter. . . I think your standards are slightly off.
@sweatytoothmadman Ah, but I never conceded that Genesis was wrong on every account; I simply followed along with your evidence on how it was, and demonstrated that there are key foundational errors with the scientific concept you supplied to show how horrendously flawed Genesis was. It generally works best when what you supply as a counter-argument to a claim has no inherent flaws that cast doubt on its reliability because it then loses effectiveness as such.
@sweatytoothmadman Not 1 thing in this verse or in the entire Bible (Gods living word) has ever been proven wrong nor can it ever be proven wrong. You cant prove the truth wrong. It can be proven right though and it has been, go watch the videos on my Channel for some more Real science.
"has ever been proven wrong nor can it ever be proven wrong"
Go look up the prophesy of Tyre in Ezekiel for a failed revelation from your god if you want to see something wrong. Prediction is thought that you will rationalize it away using double standards, fallacies and special pleading.
@sweatytoothmadman I dont feel like loking up one of your bible hate sites that lie. If you have somthing bring it to the table or admit you are lying.
@leviMichealathan Problem might be you don't understand what was being said. I'm not sure what prophesy you are refering too. You must mean Tyrus, not Tyre. Tyrus the prince and the king talked of in Ez. The Prince I believe was the living man, the king I believe was the power behind Tyrus as in Satan. Because if you read he says he was in the garden of Eden etc, he describes satan in some detail. You have to realize what was talked about went from literal Tyrus to Satan's kingdom on earth.
The "sudden" change of Sirius B is a mistery for every model for how such change occurs? but facts are facts and it certainly doesn't fit with the evolutionary dogma
First let me say i believe in God almighty ok that said. Human beings will argue over this till they die and here is why. There are two kinda humans on this planet those that want the truth and those that want what makes them comfortable . But they both have one thing in common they both will die some day. That being said i for one do not wish to gamble with my soul. if you get it wrong you cant come back and change it. Did i mention that humans make mistakes all the time. God bless.
@349mikval I would agree with the majority of what you say and at least show you respect towards that which I don't. Evidence, exploration and the scientific method are wonderful tools for those who seek "truth", regardless of what that truth might be. There are no preconceived favored outcomes and perhaps there isn't much comfort to be found in that stark reality, but there is some satisfaction in at least living a life born of reality and not wishful thinking. Peace be with :)
@Lynchpinn101 some things you just don't need proof you just know within yourself. Until science can prove with a absolute fact that evolution is more than a theory, To me it's the same as walking across a frozen lake with cracks in the ice. If i am wrong then i am just dead but if i am right about what i believe then my whole life has been worth it all. All the of the laughs and being made fun of ect... Thanks for your input and God bless you.
@349mikval Just a couple points here respectfully submitted. First off concerning theory and fact...a "scientific theory" is very different than what people commonly refer to as a theory in everyday life. It is based on a collection of facts and as far as evolution is concerned it is considered "fact". Second, to accept evolution doesn't mean that you automatically reject god or even christianity for that matter, they are not mutually exclusive unless you subscribe to a literal interpretation.
@349mikval ..cont.. the notion of a literal bible is demonstrably wrong and even more so...it is logically inconsistent. I won't go into all the reasons why here, but would encourage you to read some books that explore the subject, nothing wrong with educating yourself or thinking critically. I myself was a christian for most of my life, however after looking at the assertions the bible made and the inability to reconcile those things with what I saw around me I studied. I wish you the best :)
"Until science can prove with a absolute fact that evolution is more than a theory, "
I want you to apply that logic to medicine, until they have proven their methods to be 100 percent right 100 percent of the time then you will not allow treatment. Science is about preponderance of evidence. If you pair evolution along side of creation you can see by the claims each makes that creation fails almost on every level. Science doesn't need faith but your god oddly enough does.
@Lynchpinn101 "No preconceived favored outcomes." That's pretty wishful thinking on the part of scientists. I think the work of Stephen Hawking, that has only gotten more and more anti-God essentially really doesn't demonstrate an openness to truth; his claims are based on several assumptions that aren't well-founded or cohesive with his logic. And that stark reality would be that there is no God I assume?
@Sickopath333 Please don't confuse the term "favored outcomes" with hypothesis...they are not the same thing. Scientists attempt to understand how things work and why the universe does what it does. We are at a wonderful time in human history to have the ability to look at the very big and the unimaginably small, the discoveries are just beginning. You mention S. Hawking being "anti-god", perhaps a better way of looking at it is "anti-magical"...science does not speak to supernatural claims....
@Lynchpinn101 I never mentioned the word hypothesis, I know they're not the same thing. A hypothesis is simply the starting point of the scientific method; it has no voice on the personal biases a scientist has, other than what they choose to express in their hypothesis. We are at a wonderful time in some senses (though we can think of many modern dilemmas as well), but we have not escaped the issue of thinking, okay science has improved vastly, therefore we've got to be right this time.
@Sickopath333 ..cont..You I would ask what claims he makes that are inconsistent with his logic? I wouldn't begin to think I fully understand the Math necessary to grasp his theories, but those who do find them solid enough. Are you well versed in astrophysics or quantum mechanics? I don't ask to be adversarial...I am honestly curious if you have enough education to second guess his work and his theories. Science is about the natural world and not a philosophical one, different school. Peace
@Lynchpinn101 I recently watched an hour long Discovery special that dealt with his newest claim that science has removed not just the need for God, but in his viewpoint even the possibility for God. His essential point is that BBT requires three things: matter, space, and time. He theoretically showed how all 3 could spontaneously exist from nothing. There were several problems with his logic though. 1. Quantum particles are sometimes seen to spontaneously appear. Now how is that flawed?
@Lynchpinn101 The reason it's flawed is for two main reasons. A. We live in a vast universe, how are we at all certain that those particles are coming from nowhere? He speaks about wormholes and how they could allow for time travel; couldn't those particles come from a wormhole, and make at least a bit more sense than saying, it came from nowhere? That idea breaks the law of causality. B. Those particles contain trace amounts of matter and energy, very different from the BBT singularity.
@Lynchpinn101 I took several key points down as I was watching his program and I could point out a few other problems with his idea, but it'd take several more comments in order to express them with any form of sensibility. I do not claim to have the same level of theoretical quantum physics knowledge he or the experts have, but it's not too hard to apply a bit of critical thinking to his ideas and see that they don't really add up as neatly as he believes.
(USING WORDS "evolve" / "evolution", EVOLUTIONISTS SAY CAN ONLY BE USED WITH ALBIOGENES) actually, "evolutionists" have been trying to tell you assholes that evolution is not abiogenesis and stars forming is not evolution and the big bang is not evolution but you wont listen, or better yet, you lie about it because you have no real arguments
@tzephon evolve simply means to change, so yes, in the simplest terms, we would have evolved from the early molecules, we would have also evolved from our parents, and from child to adult but the biological evolution which you want to equate with abiogenesis is NOT the same, biological evolution is change in organisms that are already existing.
@wearestarstuffsagan C. Sagan tied "molecular evolution" with biological evolution, so your position on the subject is not in complete agreement with his. And your definition of biological evolution is lacking: such a broad definition would include gaining/loosing weight, growing older, etc; and that is clearly not the intent of the idea of "evolution"
Did it occur to them that Sirius B existed before they started observing way back around 2000 BC, ie the star was around 99.998.999 years old when you started looking at it genius, as such it turned to a white dwarf sometime in our very recent past.
How can this guy seriously be this stupid, you think the star just started existing when they started observing it ?
Wow.......
TheArcaneSanctum 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Evolutionary astronomy"?
Idiots....
odinata 5 months ago
Very interesting !
krisv001 6 months ago
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
coolvideo28 6 months ago
@coolvideo28
And ever bit of tha verse has been disproven.
sweatytoothmadman 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman And how has it been disproven that God made Earth?
Sickopath333 6 months ago
The Genesis version of how the universe was made including the earth has been contradicted by modern physics and cosmology. Now this doesn't mean that god didn't set it all in motion but it does mean that the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.
sweatytoothmadman 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman The very same modern cosmology that requires the entire universe is filled with an overabundance of dark matter in order to explain their model, which is very poorly understood and based on a lack of evidence (not enough matter in the universe) rather than evidence?
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@Sickopath333
So Genesis was wrong on ever point but modern cosmology is still trying to detect or understand why there lacks so much dark matter. . . I think your standards are slightly off.
sweatytoothmadman 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Ah, but I never conceded that Genesis was wrong on every account; I simply followed along with your evidence on how it was, and demonstrated that there are key foundational errors with the scientific concept you supplied to show how horrendously flawed Genesis was. It generally works best when what you supply as a counter-argument to a claim has no inherent flaws that cast doubt on its reliability because it then loses effectiveness as such.
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Not 1 thing in this verse or in the entire Bible (Gods living word) has ever been proven wrong nor can it ever be proven wrong. You cant prove the truth wrong. It can be proven right though and it has been, go watch the videos on my Channel for some more Real science.
coolvideo28 6 months ago
@coolvideo28
"has ever been proven wrong nor can it ever be proven wrong"
Go look up the prophesy of Tyre in Ezekiel for a failed revelation from your god if you want to see something wrong. Prediction is thought that you will rationalize it away using double standards, fallacies and special pleading.
sweatytoothmadman 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman I dont feel like loking up one of your bible hate sites that lie. If you have somthing bring it to the table or admit you are lying.
coolvideo28 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman "Go look up the prophesy of Tyre in Ezekiel for a failed revelation from your god if you want to see something wrong."
really??? are you saying that the phoenician mainland city was rebuilt?
leviMichealathan 6 months ago
@leviMichealathan Problem might be you don't understand what was being said. I'm not sure what prophesy you are refering too. You must mean Tyrus, not Tyre. Tyrus the prince and the king talked of in Ez. The Prince I believe was the living man, the king I believe was the power behind Tyrus as in Satan. Because if you read he says he was in the garden of Eden etc, he describes satan in some detail. You have to realize what was talked about went from literal Tyrus to Satan's kingdom on earth.
MegaDude1969 6 months ago
The "sudden" change of Sirius B is a mistery for every model for how such change occurs? but facts are facts and it certainly doesn't fit with the evolutionary dogma
IloveYOUviruses 6 months ago
Brilliant. I would love to send this to my evolutionist friends. Trouble is, you keep using the same narrative at the end.
sally123lilac 6 months ago
You even completely refute yourself in your own description.
Sirius is a binary system, that means two stars.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago
First let me say i believe in God almighty ok that said. Human beings will argue over this till they die and here is why. There are two kinda humans on this planet those that want the truth and those that want what makes them comfortable . But they both have one thing in common they both will die some day. That being said i for one do not wish to gamble with my soul. if you get it wrong you cant come back and change it. Did i mention that humans make mistakes all the time. God bless.
349mikval 6 months ago
@349mikval I would agree with the majority of what you say and at least show you respect towards that which I don't. Evidence, exploration and the scientific method are wonderful tools for those who seek "truth", regardless of what that truth might be. There are no preconceived favored outcomes and perhaps there isn't much comfort to be found in that stark reality, but there is some satisfaction in at least living a life born of reality and not wishful thinking. Peace be with :)
Lynchpinn101 6 months ago
@Lynchpinn101 some things you just don't need proof you just know within yourself. Until science can prove with a absolute fact that evolution is more than a theory, To me it's the same as walking across a frozen lake with cracks in the ice. If i am wrong then i am just dead but if i am right about what i believe then my whole life has been worth it all. All the of the laughs and being made fun of ect... Thanks for your input and God bless you.
349mikval 6 months ago
@349mikval Just a couple points here respectfully submitted. First off concerning theory and fact...a "scientific theory" is very different than what people commonly refer to as a theory in everyday life. It is based on a collection of facts and as far as evolution is concerned it is considered "fact". Second, to accept evolution doesn't mean that you automatically reject god or even christianity for that matter, they are not mutually exclusive unless you subscribe to a literal interpretation.
Lynchpinn101 6 months ago
@349mikval ..cont.. the notion of a literal bible is demonstrably wrong and even more so...it is logically inconsistent. I won't go into all the reasons why here, but would encourage you to read some books that explore the subject, nothing wrong with educating yourself or thinking critically. I myself was a christian for most of my life, however after looking at the assertions the bible made and the inability to reconcile those things with what I saw around me I studied. I wish you the best :)
Lynchpinn101 6 months ago
"Until science can prove with a absolute fact that evolution is more than a theory, "
I want you to apply that logic to medicine, until they have proven their methods to be 100 percent right 100 percent of the time then you will not allow treatment. Science is about preponderance of evidence. If you pair evolution along side of creation you can see by the claims each makes that creation fails almost on every level. Science doesn't need faith but your god oddly enough does.
sweatytoothmadman 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman Evolution is not a theory. It is a religious belief.
thechessstick 6 months ago
@thechessstick i guess germ theory is also a religious belief
wearestarstuffsagan 6 months ago
@thechessstick
You can say that all you want but the fact is that it has given us insight into the biological diversity of life on this planet.
sweatytoothmadman 6 months ago
@sweatytoothmadman LOL @ that.
thechessstick 6 months ago
@Lynchpinn101 "No preconceived favored outcomes." That's pretty wishful thinking on the part of scientists. I think the work of Stephen Hawking, that has only gotten more and more anti-God essentially really doesn't demonstrate an openness to truth; his claims are based on several assumptions that aren't well-founded or cohesive with his logic. And that stark reality would be that there is no God I assume?
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@Sickopath333 Please don't confuse the term "favored outcomes" with hypothesis...they are not the same thing. Scientists attempt to understand how things work and why the universe does what it does. We are at a wonderful time in human history to have the ability to look at the very big and the unimaginably small, the discoveries are just beginning. You mention S. Hawking being "anti-god", perhaps a better way of looking at it is "anti-magical"...science does not speak to supernatural claims....
Lynchpinn101 6 months ago
@Lynchpinn101 I never mentioned the word hypothesis, I know they're not the same thing. A hypothesis is simply the starting point of the scientific method; it has no voice on the personal biases a scientist has, other than what they choose to express in their hypothesis. We are at a wonderful time in some senses (though we can think of many modern dilemmas as well), but we have not escaped the issue of thinking, okay science has improved vastly, therefore we've got to be right this time.
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@Sickopath333 ..cont..You I would ask what claims he makes that are inconsistent with his logic? I wouldn't begin to think I fully understand the Math necessary to grasp his theories, but those who do find them solid enough. Are you well versed in astrophysics or quantum mechanics? I don't ask to be adversarial...I am honestly curious if you have enough education to second guess his work and his theories. Science is about the natural world and not a philosophical one, different school. Peace
Lynchpinn101 6 months ago
@Lynchpinn101 I recently watched an hour long Discovery special that dealt with his newest claim that science has removed not just the need for God, but in his viewpoint even the possibility for God. His essential point is that BBT requires three things: matter, space, and time. He theoretically showed how all 3 could spontaneously exist from nothing. There were several problems with his logic though. 1. Quantum particles are sometimes seen to spontaneously appear. Now how is that flawed?
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@Lynchpinn101 The reason it's flawed is for two main reasons. A. We live in a vast universe, how are we at all certain that those particles are coming from nowhere? He speaks about wormholes and how they could allow for time travel; couldn't those particles come from a wormhole, and make at least a bit more sense than saying, it came from nowhere? That idea breaks the law of causality. B. Those particles contain trace amounts of matter and energy, very different from the BBT singularity.
Sickopath333 6 months ago
@Lynchpinn101 I took several key points down as I was watching his program and I could point out a few other problems with his idea, but it'd take several more comments in order to express them with any form of sensibility. I do not claim to have the same level of theoretical quantum physics knowledge he or the experts have, but it's not too hard to apply a bit of critical thinking to his ideas and see that they don't really add up as neatly as he believes.
Sickopath333 6 months ago
(USING WORDS "evolve" / "evolution", EVOLUTIONISTS SAY CAN ONLY BE USED WITH ALBIOGENES) actually, "evolutionists" have been trying to tell you assholes that evolution is not abiogenesis and stars forming is not evolution and the big bang is not evolution but you wont listen, or better yet, you lie about it because you have no real arguments
wearestarstuffsagan 6 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan Carl Sagan thought we evolved from the "molecules of the early oceans..." Who are you to disagree with Carl Sagan?
tzephon 6 months ago
@tzephon evolve simply means to change, so yes, in the simplest terms, we would have evolved from the early molecules, we would have also evolved from our parents, and from child to adult but the biological evolution which you want to equate with abiogenesis is NOT the same, biological evolution is change in organisms that are already existing.
wearestarstuffsagan 6 months ago
@wearestarstuffsagan C. Sagan tied "molecular evolution" with biological evolution, so your position on the subject is not in complete agreement with his. And your definition of biological evolution is lacking: such a broad definition would include gaining/loosing weight, growing older, etc; and that is clearly not the intent of the idea of "evolution"
tzephon 6 months ago
Place value discrepencies are insignificant in the evolutionary worldview.
Texasvet1 6 months ago
@Texasvet1 Creationists not being able to understand the very material they post poses no problem on the part of evolution.
TheScienceFoundation 6 months ago