If you have enough time to produce a 3:22 video, then you have enough time to provide direct quotes from opposition. Why do you not give us video of a creationist, like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind, making the claims you attribute to them?
I'm on the side of science and skepticism. But by not including citations, quotes, or direct video of your detractors' claims, then you're just using the same 1-sided dogmatic argumentation techniques as a religious zealot.
I like your videos but this one did nothing for me. It was 3 minutes of extreme analogies. We get it already about the wild claims of YEC's but where was the substance for this video
uhggg. I can't stand the arrogance. Lava flows 200 years old were dated at 200,000,000 years old using radiometric dating. Now do some arrogant film about that instead. What is that margin of error? Radioactive decay is NOT constant - this is proven. Anyone can have a hypothesis about something until it is proven wrong. Both old earth and young earth has been proven wrong with choice evidence by both sides. The science and evidence is not there yet to prove either one as correct.
@490er I see what your saying, but, lava cannot be dated using radio active decay - but unmelted rock can. The melting rocks will combine all of the radioactive isotopes which means that there is no longer a bench mark. Also it has been found that in the presence of heat, a radioactive isotope will change it's rate of decay. :)
The rate of radioactive decay for a given isotope IS constant.
Mistakes made with radiometric dating is usually due to (1) contamination of samples or (2) the starting level of radioactivity being different from that supposed. I'm guessing that the case you are talking about here is an example of (2).
But for the sake of argument - if you really do believe that the earth is 6000 or so years old, then how do you explain that we have ice core dating going back more than 100.000 years.
@itsjustameme I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old. :) I'm just tiered of arrogant people talking like all of these scientific conclusions are indeed fact. Which in reality they are not. Science bases its conclusions on evidences and when the evidence points to a different conclusion, then scientists must change their minds. h t t p : / / w w w .forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/
@EhdrianEhI have now read your link. And while it does not mention the names of the physicists who made the discovery, I found a link suggesting the name Peter Sturrock as the man behind it all. But his own institute does not link the article it seems. It would appear he hasn't seen fit to publish his findings? Or perhaps he couldn't get them peer reviewed? Either way - until he does I consider it to be hearsay. A google search shows that he has an interest in UFO's of all things.
@EhdrianEh Your link seems to not be functioning, but I can tell you for a fact that the decay rates have not changed. The rate of decay is based upon the strong and weak nuclear forces, which make up two of the four fundamental forces in the universe that govern all physical interactions. If these were to change, EVERYTHING would change. And if this happened in the past 6000 years, it would either wipe out our civilization, or it would be one of the most recorded events in history.
@EhdrianEh I did that before and it didn't work. Not really important though, as Forbes isn't a reliable source of scientific information. Find me an article from a peer reviewed journal and then you might have something. I highly doubt you will find one though, because if the strong and weak nuclear forces aren't constant, then it would wreak havoc for the entire universe, and we don't see that happening, nor have we found any indication (which would be major) that it has ever happened.
@Aralith1 Hmmm not too sure what is going on, but here is a quote similar to yours: "Or, at least, that’s what we thought. But if physicists at Stanford and Purdue are correct in their findings, the whole theory of constant radioactive decay rates could be thrown out the door." Feel free to contact the institutions conducting the research.
The battle is won long ago. There will always be ignorance, as there will be mentally inferior people. I try to avoid discussing with religious ones, because they usually refuse evidence, because they are idiots.. You cannot put an elephant in a fridge... You cannot teach a snail to sing...
@buschmann69 Lol, translation: The more evidence you have the more wrong you are, there is shit loads of evidence for evolution therefore it didnt happen, there is no evidence for god therefore he exists
@mehico33 all that bullshit "proof" for evolution is one lie after another !!! but then again, it takes human beings to check that one, and not tree-swinging monkeys !!! ;-)
@buschmann69 It takes religious crazyness to actually look at the evidence and still not see the truth it obviously happened. 100 percent, there is no other explanation that comes close.
Your monkey comment just highlights how little you understand, im not gonna say "god doesnt exist" but if he does hes evil, no question
@mehico33 Thats where you are wrong !!! That what is said to be proof, is NO proof, but assumptions !! No scientist can PROVE evolution, and thats the bottom line !!! And God must be thinking and laughing at the idiotic human assumptions !!!
@buschmann69 Lol, good one. How do you know god exists?
What youre saying is basicly "Nah ah!", im guessing youre a christian, that would mean you believe the story of noahs ark. Do you honestly believe that all of the worlds creatures spread to their current locations after disembarking an ark on the top of a mountain in the middle east? The poor Kiwis wouldnt have stood a chance of getting all the way to New Zealand.
I honestly dont know what to say to someone that ignores the obvious... bye
@mehico33 hi, well, I am not your conventional Christian.... BUT I do believe in God !! And I also do believe that EVERYBODY will enter His kingdom !! We are all fucked-up here on earth, and He knows that better than anybody else, and therefor will "fetch" EVERYBODY to Him.NO soul will get lost, as we ALL belong to Him... He will have it His way, and I believe His love is neverending and conditionless ! The day you peg, you will understand all that happens here on earth !! Does that make sense ?
@buschmann69 You certainly make a lot more sense than most christians, one thing i find particularly offensive is the "God is love" sentiment, as if any thinking, feeling being that has ever experienced "love" could even stomache the idea of eternal suffering, let alone condemn your own children to it. The common christian interpretation of god is the most absurd paradox
In 1997 a girl called lauren was walikng in a forest and then a she just dissapeared no one ever found her untill 2000 when a yoing girl called Mary found her body and markings on her chest saying: I wasnt pretty enough" and now you have read this she will appear in your mirror saying your not pretty enough and kill you. by the way the girl called mary died shortly after. To be saved paste this to 5 other videos. THIS TRUEim posting this cuz i dont play with my life
@Laylow4now Like a tummy ache can be solved with a tums, the fear of that can be solved by self initiated research. Look it up, take an unbias look at your religion, think about your God and what makes sense, effectively asses your belief, and then write a comment.
I gave you a thumbs down. Not because I'm a YEC. But because you're video has value only to those of third grade mentality. Yet it's supposed to make some one think!? I was expecting and looking for some new monumental evidence that would be a slam dunk, for an old Earth. Not a sign post pointing to arguments they have already answered.
@RosettaStonedX yeah he didnt really point out much in the way of evidence but the video did make a good point. if you can be that wrong about the age of the earth then theres not much of a leap to believing even more silly things.
unfortunately many religious crazies forget that the Bible was not originally written in English and via its translation, lost all meaning over millennia!
The only real way to read the books is to learn the ancient language and find the oldest copy of the book possible
Therefore you cannot argue with the creationists as they don't even know what their own argument is!
it's funny because the very argument you make is wrong, as the argument you are debating is also wrong.
The hebrew for "day" is much debated, as most people now-a-days are stupid, they forget that the bible was in fact... not originally written in English lol
do some real homework and you'll discover that the Hebrew for "Day" is actually the same as "time" or "period" (as a day is a period of the suns rotation). This tells us that the bible actually says "The Earth was created in 6 stages"
Believing in evolution is like believing that you can take a bucket of legos...shake them up and create a lego tower.
Beliving in evolution is like throwing a bucket of paint on a canvas and painting a mona lisa.
Believing in evolution is like believing someone can throw a bunch of random ingredients together without taking them out of the packaging or preping them and creating perfect cake.
Nah. If you believe Evolution is about randomness, and that the most eminent scientists in the world think life poped up in a single act of chance, you've demonstrated that you're the idiot.
And this video was not about Evolution. Again, you're the idiot.
@jOWNZin22 Evolution by natural selection is not random chance. Genetic mutations are random, the environment then filters out useless mutations and keeps useful ones (ones which enable the organism to survive long enough to reproduce such as bacteria having resistance to penicillin). Over many generations, useful traits spread through the species until it becomes common to the species. It is not, by any definition of the word, random.
@jOWNZin22 What a wonderful twist of definition. Random mutation in a single organisms DNA, which helps it to survive longer, and thus breed more effectively. Mutation passes onto offspring which helps them survive, breed more and so on for generations until the majority of a species has this new trait, thus improving the species. What does this have to do with using the media to spread a political viewpoint?
not wrong at all. He who laughs last laughs best. So laugh while you can. you are so deep into propaganda, your 2 miles below the surface of the earth right now.
You believe more propaganda then there is porn on the internet.
You know less truth then the size of your penis. (2 inches)
I used to be stupid like you, believing politically correct "science". The deception runs far deeper than anyone could imagine. How did the Bible know there was fire and brimstone at the Earth`s core? How did it even know the Earth was spherical for that matter?
The bible says the earth is circular, not spherical. Even if it did say spherical, it'd be slightly off as the earth is slightly squatted due to centrifugal forces and also slightly pear shaped.
@Quintinohthree Actually there are 6 definitions of evolution, Cosmic evolution, Chemical evolution, Stellar & planetary evolution, Organic evolution, Macro evolution, and Micro evolution.The first 5 are purely religious, and there is no evidence to support them.The last one has been observed, and is a fact.(Animals do change within their own kinds, but we've never seen a dog produce a non-dog.)What specific evidence does evolution procure concerning the age of the earth?
No, evolution is just biology. Every other theory that contradicts creationism is not evolution.
Also none of it's a religion. Just take the definition of a religion.
Finally what exactly is the difference between macro- and micro-evolution apart from some orders of magnitude? And no, dogs don't give birth to non-dogs. If that would happen evolution would be disproven. Do you seriously believe in things only once they are disproven?
@Quintinohthree Religion-"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects."
You have to believe in the big bang as there is no evidence for it, and we've never observed it or repeated it.
Macro evo. is change from species to another species (reptile to bird) micro evo is variations within species (general dog to both great dane, and chihuahua.) watch this video please. youtube.com/watch?v=hx7xfhOt0LQ
@Quintinohthree You have to put "h t t p : / / w w w ." in front of it.Youtube wouldn't let me post it if it recongnized it was a link.Yes you must believe micro-evolution because we've seen it happen (finches with different types of beaks for example.They are still finches, but different variations.)Yes it is an order of magnitude.Is your argument in point 3- since the definition of species is relative, then we can't tell the difference between macro and micro?
Nope the video doesn't work. I get redirected to the homepage. Could you just put the part after watch? and before & on here?
The definition of a species is such that two organisms are of the same species if they can create fertile offspring together. This of course doesn't apply to asexually reproducing species but that's irrelevant.The article I cited includes a paragraph dedicated to the definition of "species". You probably didn't read any of it by the looks of it.
@Quintinohthree I read the 5th paragraph of the page you directed me to. Copy and paste this into the youtube search "100 Reasons why Evolution is stupid 1-11"
@Quintinohthree I'm not trying to convince you with a fake doctorate, I'm trying to convince you with the evidence Kent procures, and so far, you have not refuted any of it.I watched thunderf00t's video and all he refuted was some random guy's ramblings in his basement.Seriously.You think it's falsehoods, because you're watching it wrong.You're going in with a preconceived bias that Evolution is true.Watch it, and weigh the evidence for yourself and filter out all of thunderf00t's ad hominems.
Then he says that nobody has seen a dog produce a non-dog which although correct is obviously completely irrelevant plus he uses the term "kind" which is undefined in science.
Then he says "evolutionists believe a dog came from a rock" which is utterly bogus. The only book that says any life was formed from minerals is the bible.
Then he asks with regard to the big bang "what exploded?". The answer is nothing, space and time expanded. Straw man.
And why are we at a standstill? I think it's because you asserted macro-evolution, defined by yourself as one species changing into another species id est speciation, has not been proven to which I replied with an article that cites actual scientific papers and referred to actual observances of speciation. You tell me though.
And if you want to beat a dead horse freethoughtdebater[dot]com/tenbiblecontradictions[dot]htm is where you will find your errors and contradictions.
@Quintinohthree The link didn't work sry.Go to wikipedia and type in macroevolution (i'm not making this up.)Wiki defines it as evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.You cited a paper that points out species can be defined by different means, but that paper didn't show evidence of macroevolution.Well I was giving you videos that say one thing, and you were giving videos that say another thing and each one tried to disprove each other.They covered so much stuff, we need to narrow it down.
And why do I care about wikipedia's definition of macro-evolution? You gave me your definition which was exactly the same as that of speciation and claimed it hasn't been proven; I showed an article that cited actual observances of speciation. And regardless, once two species have emerged two gene-pools have been created.
@Quintinohthree ok i got the link to work.A lot of these "errors" are minute translation oddities (Hebrew is a lot different from English) which skeptics love to bounce on and frolic in.A translation error or slight variance between manuscripts are different from an error in the original in Hebrew document.I don't have enough time to refute every single example of speciation that site gives.Could you pick 1 or 2 for me to research and then I'll get back to you?
Ah, the great mistranslations of the bible. Don't tell me the new testament has these too. I know some Greek and I know it isn't hard at all to translate.
And with regard to speciation: you can't refute it. Once a species has diverged the new species can't go back together and so even if by any other definition is used it does not matter. Over time even that definition of species applies.
@Quintinohthree I know some Greek as well, and have translated parts of the Bible myself.It IS very complicated.It's hard to refute I agree, because the definition of speciation has been fitted to conform to the few examples produced.I have a better way to determine if a new type of animal can be produced by way of altering previous animals.Could you show me an example of where DNA has been observed to produce entirely NEW genetic information?You can only alter or remove what's already there.
"You can only alter or remove what's already there."
You've described point mutations and deletions. A third type of mutation can also occur: duplication. In this type some bases are copied and then inserted before or after the original into the DNA or RNA. Add in some point mutations and who knows what can come out.
I don't think that knowing this I don't to provide such an observation. It would happen inevitably.
@Quintinohthree For a reptile-like animal to evolve into a bird-like animal it would have to have entirely different DNA.Duplication of DNA would not be enough for such a drastic transfer, because birds have DNA that is entirely different from reptile DNA.Could you give a real life example of a mutation or natural alteration to DNA that has resulted in a beneficial change?
You're making a straw man argument here. The lineage on which all modern reptiles are found includes no dinosaurs, from which the birds are known to have descended. The fact that modern reptiles and birds differ so greatly is explained by the fact that it's been well over 251 million years since their common ancestor lived.
And if you want to see some beneficial changes, please just look at HIV or nylon eating bacteria. You're getting desperate it seems.
I may have missed one of your points. Duplications alone do not account for the difference between bird- and reptile-DNA but together with deletions and point mutations there is no problem.
@Quintinohthree Evolutionists believe that birds and reptiles have a common ancestor, and that argument was made in the context of genetic evolution which is applicable to the discussion at hand.Saying that it took more time does not help the theory as the chances for just one strand of DNA to come about by chance is 1 in 10^89190th power (well over statistical zero which is 1 in 10^50th.)If the chances for something is at statistical zero or below, then it is impossible to occur.
If it would have had to have happened just like that, then yes. However birds could just as well not have evolved, or differently and the same goes for modern reptiles. The chances don't really matter.
Having though about statistical impossibility I have come up with the following: the string of heads and tails of 166 consecutive coin tosses is statistically possible but one more and the string becomes statistically impossible. Why is this unimpressive? Because you need the chance to be one of few too to make it have any impact. If all chances are equally probable to occur and a result is inevitable the probability is irrelevant to the result.
@Quintinohthree I see where you're going, but I think you've missed the point how small the chances are for EVERYTHING to occur by evolution.The probability 10^89190th is just for ONE strand of human DNA.Evolution claims so much more came into being by blind chance than just one strand of human DNA.
But evolution is not even just blind chance. The most important mechanism is selection, not mutation.
I'll explain it again: if we were to take one single specific strand of DNA and we'd make nucleotide randomly fall in line to replicate it the chances are incredibly small that we'd get the desired strand but evolution doesn't work like that, it doesn't create already existing genetic material that is pre-desired, it creates new material and selects for or against. Read again
@Quintinohthree How many examples have been found that exhibit evolution producing new, beneficial material?If it does not produce something beneficial, then it doesn't matter what you choose, because the desired result is not an option.
Haven't we gone over this? New genetic material is inevitable and some of it, however little, is beneficial and selected for while all detrimental genetic material, even though it's much more likely to occur than beneficial material, is selected against giving it a very slight chance of being inherited if it isn't already lethal.
@guardianewjedijoel When I seee your discussion here with Quin, what really saddens me is I know that you are going to once again ignore the fact that your tired old "argument" if you could even call it such, that evolution is "random chance" is simply wrong. The fact that you are absolutely wrong in that claim will never matter to you.
I'm sorry but in school you should have learned that if you never make a correction, you will always be wrong. You're only repeating the same mistakes.
@sonic8005 Asserting that it's not random chance is different from giving evidence to support that it's not. My question is the same: how many examples have been found that exhibit evolution producing new, beneficial material?If it does not produce something beneficial, then it doesn't matter what you choose, because the desired result is not an option.
It would be nice if you'd actually continue our discussion instead of going against somebody who is simply pointing out what you are doing wrong.
As for evidence that evolution is not random: I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I suggest you watch some of the videos on this channel like "how evolution really works" and "why Intelligent Design is WRONG".
Sure there's a lot random about evolution, but natural selection certainly is not.
Don't you understand that youtube & my computer are too complex to have been created spontaneously from some so-called "computer person" & from plastic & metal. Only God could have made something so beautiful & perfect and then stamped the name "DELL" on it. The 2nd law of thermodynamics shows computers are impossible, and so-called "intermediary" computers are either tricks of Satan or planted by God to test our faith. PREPARE FOR THE END TIMES! Repent and purge yourself of APPLE products! amen
Prophecy the book of Daniel Egypt and Libya overthrown present happenings from a book believe unsealed for your eyes. akjv daniel 11:41-45 In respect to stretching of the heavens akjv job 9:8 hubbles law all points the center, etc...right? Also the bible not being inerrant in all things prophetic, etc....right?
No Its about Christians not judging but when the LORD judgments come your painting only one side of the picture and as always its about evil in these other religions. etc...take muslims killing christians beheading then the tusami in Indonesia, etc...right?
****JUST to let everyone know what kind of person MRBJPH is, he thinks that the people in Japan, Haiti, and other countries that suffered, and died in horrific storms, deserved to die, because they were not Christian! This person, (and I use this term loosely), has a black heart, and has no compassion for another human being, unless of course the other person is Christian. What is the world coming to ? This is truly a sad human being!****
Who were the people that helped folk in disasters its interestingly always the christian and that is due the love of Jesus is within their heart but were in the last days and nations are being judged due Japanese are enemies of the Lord. CbandMaster has no compassion due his hatred of the Christian folk like myself that he mocks showing his heart is not talking about Gods love but the love of the world, etc..right? akjv psalm 109:1-5 etc..right?
WARNING !!! mrbjph is a closed minded Christian fanatic, and talking to him is about anything other than god being DARK ENERGY, LOL, you will be waiting your time, and you should move on!!
@CbandMaster WARNING !!! mrbjph is a closed minded Christian fanatic, and talking to him is about anything other than god being DARK ENERGY, LOL, you will be waiting your time, and you should move on!!
What funny is how evolutionists are off by a factor of millions of years is due the evolutionists simply do not understand time like hubbles law is accelertated time supporting its the evolutionists that are off by a factor of millions, Hubble said all points center to universe. etc...right?
@mrbjph "Hubble said all points center to universe"
I could give a flying shit what Hubble said, which incidentally he is talking out of his ass!
The fact that you have no demonstrable evidence at all that god exist is what I care about. Its funny how you religious fanatics will grasp the idea of a invisible deity, and have absolutely no idea why ! If I told you I had a Unicorn , would you believe me?
@CbandMaste rcould give a flying shit what Hubble said, which incidentally he is talking out of his ass!
This statement shows your lack of grasping real science which is what hubbles law is about that it agree's with the biblical postion. Seriously are you a high school student due you seem to not grasp scientific concepts, etc...right?
@mrbjph "This statement shows your lack of grasping real science"
Actually, I know quite a bit about science. But , you came out with the statement "God is dark matter" early on in this debate and I refuse to go down the science path of this debate. Your statements through this whole debate shows your inability to use rational thinking. And the fact that you get all your facts through youtube videos alone shows me you are very narrow minded, and cannot read real facts, RIGHT?
@CbandMaster NASA gave us the word dark energy not that its dark but an energy of mysterous properties but its the bible that said thousands of years before hubble law that it was God alone stretching the heavens. I know hubbles law is your evidence of the supernatural but like the resurrection even if one rose from the dead you would not believe, etc...right?
@mrbjph "even if one rose from the dead you would not believe"
Thats where your wrong.. If I personally (with my own eyes) saw a man die, and in three days he rose again, I would believe it. Do you know why I would believe it? Because I saw it myself. Can you say the same thing ? Did you see the resurrection with your own eyes? Somehow I doubt. And don't say that there was eye witness accounts, because in todays courts, you would have to show evidence. Do you have That evidence? NOT !
@mrbjph Do you have any evidence at all that would suggest dark energy is a sentient being with the ability to create the universe and everything in it as well as interact with human souls? Any evidence at all? No? Just baseless claims at odds with reality? Interesting tactic for discovering truth.
Prophecy the book of Daniel Egypt and Libya overthrown present happenings from a book believe unsealed for your eyes. akjv daniel 11:41-45 In respect to stretching of the heavens akjv job 9:8 hubbles law all points the center, etc...right? Also never heard of the bible not being inerrant in all things prophetic, etc....right?
See no data nor facts that the earth universe are you not mistaken and this wrong just believing it so is not science but thats whats wrong with you folk that are dislusional. If you read the bible so your not ignorant of the sciences as mike huckabee said a day but how long was the day. Its only been 6,000 oribits around the sun since the creation of time and hubbles law agrees with the bible of the stretching of the heavens since the beginning. Joshua day 48 hrs. etc..right?
@sukruoosten The byubull isnt accurate on many levels. There was no flood, there is evolution, the earth isnt 6000 years old or flat, moses crossed through a marshy area, and so on. Science disproves the fables. I wouldnt call that going wrong. Isnt the truth important to you?
@sukruoosten There are great videos on this if you want to view them. Yes there are those things you just said. May I ask you, what country are you in where you havent heard of this ??
@sukruoosten funny thing seen no evidence to support an old earth universe is it not due they have none. They just say the earth is old but the 4,5 billion years is based on nonsense due they were not there when the elements were created and nothing winds up on the earth but C-14 but thats only in the upper atmosphere. gold vaporizes in space so its being bombarded by cosmic rays but the evolutionists are nut baggers to say the earth is 4.5 billion years creationists have science evolutionists 0
you can be religious and not follow the strange belief in young earth theory. the terms used in hebrew in the original are vague, not precise terms for measuring time. a day could be sunrise-sunset, 24 hrs. or a billion years. the dating of the age of the earth got started by some preacher a couple of hundred years ago, with no knowledge of science, just using their own interpretation of these vague terms and wording. hard to believe that otherwise intelligent people accept this as reality.
Ask yourself, "Why was this video made? What and whose purpose does it serve?" If a video of this nature is here on youtube, it is NOT here to educate you, but to deceive you - BEWARE - do not believe this lie. Every word of this video can be said back to the speaker substituting his name in place of Creationists. Trust Jesus Christ your Savior and in NO OTHER. This could be someones very last chance. Time is shorter than you think. Come out from among them - they don't care about you.
Ask yourself, "Why was christianity made? What and whose purpose does it serve?" If a religionof this nature is here on earth, it is NOT here to educate you, but to deceive you - BEWARE - do not believe this lie. Every word of this comment can be said back to the OP substituting his name in place of CDK007. Trust objective reality. This could be someones very last chance. Time is shorter than you think. Come out from among them - they don't care about you.
Since the moon’s recession rate is 3.8 cm/yr (1.5 inches/yr), “The evolution of the lunar semimajor axis presents the WELL-KNOWN time scale PROBLEM; the lunar orbit COLLAPSES only a little over a billion years ago.” Touma & Wisdom, “Evolution of the Earth-Moon System” (The Astronomical Journal, November 1994)
In other words, just over a billion years ago non-creationists admit the moon would have been too close to escape earth's gravitational pull! Talk about factors of a million - LOL!
@AA32m7io1 You are aware that the rate of the moons recession is not constant? It is accelerating, due to the current shape of the continents combined with the tides. And you are aware of plate tectonic?
But even IF all the very well known physics somehow should be completely wrong and you are right and that the earth could not be older than one billion years it would mean that the current estimation of the age of the earth is wrong by a factor of five. Not one million.
"But even IF all the very well known physics somehow should be completely wrong and you are right ..."
Speaking of which, are you aware that quasars don't show time dilation? See: “Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers” (PhyOrg, April 9, 2010). One possible conclusion may be:
“There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.”
@AA32m7io1 I love how you admired to have quote mined the article about lunar regression. And after that jump to a completely unrelated topic, but make the exact same mathematical error as with the lunar regression. The uplift you mention is as you say the fastest rate, not a constant. The rate of erosion increases with the hight. You really must stop assuming that momentary speed is equivalent of constant speed.
If you manage to disprove the big bang does not change the age of the earth.
Speaking of the age of the earth, did you see this article: “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements” (Stanford University News, Aug. 23, 2010)?
It seems to suggest (not prove) that radioactive decay may not be constant due to an unknown particle emitted from the sun. One scientist says, “What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."
I am not educated in stellar relation and will not try to refute what I don't know anything about. But as far as I know those quasars are in the Milky way or our neighbor cluster and are therefore not supposed to accelerate away from us.
If you try to convince me that there is no errotion of mountain I would have to call you willfull ignorant. Every single river is full of the debree in form of sand and clay that is slowly making its way into lakes and the oceans.
Before the Big Bang theory the common notion was that the universe was eternal, even if the Earth was not. When the Big Bang theory was proposed it was accually saluted by theists as a proof of God. I find it intresting that so many theists object to it now.
Simply not knowing an answer is no excuse to put in your favorit myth in to it. I might as well say "we dont know everything about gravity, therefor the Flying Spagetti Monster hold us down". Quite silly.
“I find it intresting that so many theists object to it now.”
Because science is using the theory in an attempt to prove that nothing exploded into everything without a Creator. I do not accept this, but more and more “Christians” are. For example, the Catholics have fully embraced this position. (Say, weren’t they wrong about Galileo?)
There are other very significant problems with the theory such as Baryon Asymmetry and the Horizon Problem.
I absolutely love how you in one place claim that the world is 6 000 years old, only to later acknowledge that light have traveled billions of years to reach us. As I told you I am not educated in stellar time deletion, and I have not been able to find the article you are referring to. But I can clearly see that you time and time again takes things that are unknown to jump to "therefor Genesis". You should know that almost all creation myths have a beginning.
If you think that the Big Bang theory states that "noting exploded into everything" you got a grave misunderstanding of what the theory actually states.
The debris from the erosion of mountain is carried away by rivers out into lakes and the oceans and are layered down on the bottom. A lot of it gather to form river deltas. Sand and clay was once part of larger rocks or mountains that have eroded. Your ignorance of the subject is not proof that it does not happen.
RE erosion, “Your ignorance of the subject is not proof that it does not happen.”
Now you are just being obtuse because (for the THIRD time) I NEVER once said that erosion does not happen!
Now even if we assume the mountain grew at a VERY conservative rate of 1 mm per year for just 1 billion years, it would be 3,280,840 feet tall!! That’s 621 MILES!! The problem is the current rate of growth is TEN TIMES that at 10 - 20 mm per year!!
@AA32m7io1 Why the heck do you think that mountains grow constant for billions of years? Once again you seam to think that a momentary velocity equals a constant velocity. That is rarely the case. And you still refuses to acknowledge the erosion factor in your model. The higher the mountain, the faster it erodes.
You have now given two mutual exclusive summaries of the big bang. You must know that one of them are wrong.
Can you please stop the shotgun approach and stick to the subject?
"And you still refuses to acknowledge the erosion factor in your model."
FOR THE FOURTH TIME, I DO NOT DISCOUNT EROSION!!!! What I am trying to get you to understand is that with a growth rate of 10 – 20 mm per year, the amount of debris from that range alone would REACH INTO SPACE!
So please either show me evidence that the rate of growth was stagnate for eons and eons; or show me where all the debris is because there should be LOTS by now!
Were any geologists there when the Himalayans were formed to measure the initial rate of growth? Nope. Do we have any measurements from even 100 million years ago? Nope. So based on what uniformitarianism teaches, we MUST ASSUME that the range has been growing at a constant rate of 10 – 20 mm per year because that is all that has ever been observed!
(The same goes for moon recession since it “[applies] everywhere in the universe”!)
"You have now given two mutual exclusive summaries of the big bang."
Please tell me how you believe the big bang occurred. And don’t forget to indicate whether or not energy and matter are eternal... and what the catalyst was to initiate the explosion.
"Can you please stop the shotgun approach and stick to the subject?"
Speaking of which, did you have a chance to read the PhysOrg article about quasars?
“Why the heck do you think that mountains grow constant for billions of years?”
Because that’s what uniformitarianism teaches!! Wiki says it “ASSUMES that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe NOW, have ALWAYS operated in the universe in the PAST and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as ‘the present is the key to the past,’ because it holds that ALL THINGS CONTINUE as they were from the beginning of the world.”
@AA32m7io1 Your assumptions that a momentary speed equal constant speed is factual wrong, both for the growth of mountains and for the regression of the moon. And both relates to plate tectonics. For example Himalayas have only grown for the last 50 million years, not the billions you claim. Make a simple experiment where you show two soft materials (cloth, clay or similar) together and you can see for yourself that the lift is NOT constant.
You have a gravely misunderstanding of what uniformitarianism says. It says that the law of nature are the same everywhere and at all times. Not that a speed measured now always have been the same. Especially not when we know what causes the speed and we know those forces not to be constant. For example when I see a car move fast I can not simply assume that it has always moved in that speed.
“when I see a car move fast I can not simply assume that it has always moved in that speed.”
Perhaps a better question would be: Why do we all presume that the laws of nature will work in the future as they have in the past?
Now before you say, “Because they have been constant in the past, so I expect them to be constant in the future,” please be aware that such a response is a vicious circle.
@AA32m7io1 No sense in continue as you have clearly shown a complete incapability of grasping the essence of major physical and mathematical principles and still pretends to know geology and cosmology better than scientists.
I said I was unimpressed. That does not mean I dismiss the facts of the article. I stated that as you grasped a scientific curiosity that have yet to be given a full explanation to mean that all of science therefore is wrong and the bible (of all mythologies) are right.
I have enjoyed the discussion the last few days and trust there are no hard feelings. This is a passionate issue to which if there is no afterlife (as Dawkins, Provine, et.al claim) then what we believe in this life ultimately doesn't matter since we will just cease to exist. However, if God does exist, and His word is true...
Somehow I am not surprised that you dismiss observed evidence (over the last 28 years) in favor of unproven, theoretical explanations of the big bang... which, BTW, I am waiting for your explanation of how events unfolded.
“You have a gravely misunderstanding of what uniformitarianism says.”
Really? Then why does the principle of geological actualism states that ALL PAST geological action was like ALL PRESENT geological action?
But you, on the other hand, don’t believe in faith which requires empirical evidence to support all your claims.
Perhaps you should read Paul Davies’ article: “Taking Science on Faith” (NYT, Nov 2007) in which he writes, “Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith… But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.”
“I absolutely love how you in one place claim that the world is 6 000 years old, only to later acknowledge that light have traveled billions of years to reach us.”
Yep, distant starlight is a problem for “us," just like the Horizon Problem is a major time-scale problem for “you.” But then again, I have faith that Jesus raised Lazarus and Himself from the dead (without a shred of scientific evidence), so while distant starlight is interesting, it doesn’t really bother me.
Furthermore, Wiki says, “According to the Big Bang model, the universe, originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly, has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state, and continues to expand today.”
Well, the recent quasar measurements serious challenge the fact it is expanding. But aside from that. if the universe was initially “extremely hot” how did the temperature of CMB become so uniform by now (i.e., Horizon Problem)?
“I have not been able to find the article you are referring to.”
See: "Discovery that quasars DON'T show time dilation mystifies astronomers" (PhysOrg, April 9, 2010)
“If you think that the Big Bang theory states that ‘noting exploded into everything’…”
Is energy and matter eternal? If not, were did they come from before being condensed into the singularity? Explanations I see just start with the singularity and explosion - with no mention of a catalyst, either.
“When the Big Bang theory was proposed it was accually saluted by theists as a proof of God."
That’s because it was finally realized that the universe HAD to have a beginning. If it had always existed, then the Bible was simply wrong. But since it actually had a beginning, this supports Genesis 1:1.
BTW, how would the authors of the Bible have known it had a beginning long before science was able to prove it?
“If you try to convince me that there is no errotion of mountain I would have to call you willfull ignorant.”
LOL! Clearly there is erosion! But given uniformitarian rates of the Himalayas (10 mm/year at Nanga Parbat), the erosion rate over such long periods of time would be extraordinary!! So where’s all the debris?
“and are therefore not supposed to accelerate away from us”
If that were true, shouldn’t Hawkins, an established astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, know something so elementary?
Yet he speculates “that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong” (2010), and “Apart from the overwhelming support for the big bang theory [expansion], the direct measurements of time dilation quoted above strongly argue against this” (2001).
“But as far as I know those quasars are in the Milky way…
Actually, Hawkins’ study “Time Dilation and Quasar Variability” (2001) mentions nothing about the fact that he only studied quasars in the Milky Way.
Furthermore, the Milky Way is only 100,000 light-years in diameter and 1,000 light years think, and according to PhysOrg, the quasars he studied were 6 and 10 BILLION light years away. Those would be way, way outside the Milky Way!
Yep. See Dr. John Baumgardner's TERRA modeling software which is used by NASA. Specifically, Insight Magazine said, “Worldwide, TERRA got things right. For instance, plate sinking under the Pacific matched seismological data” (“Rebuilding the World”).
BTW, he based his model on the flood, and it works perfectly!
But this isn't only a problem for the moon, it’s also a problem for the Himalayas. Wiki says "the highest rate of uplift (nearly 10 mm/year at Nanga Parbat). Essentially they are growing at 1 - 2 cm per year which implies 10 - 20 km (or 33,000-66,000 feet) uplift per million years!
According to Charles Lyell's "Uniformity of degree," geological circumstances have remained the same over time. If true, why is Everest only 29,029 feet tall?
“You are aware that the rate of the moons recession is not constant?”
And are you aware that Touma and Wisdom wrote in the very next sentence, “PRESUMABLY, the tidal constants have changed as the continents have drifted.” (“Evolution of the Earth-Moon System,” The Astronomical Journal, Nov. 1994).
Presumably? That doesn’t sound like it’s based on observable data, but merely just guesswork to make the models of moon recession work.
I guess its time to claim victory for the young earth creationists due dawkins admitted you folk had no evidence for origin. Now that you understand the metric intrinsic expansion of spacetime doesn't include the galaxies due its only an inner expansion not a big bang. I've explained the joshua day explains the young earthers position that an eternity in 24 hours is possible due God alone is driving the expansion of spacetime. Your his witness due hubbles law, etc...right?
good work here
SuperDogbrown 1 month ago
If you have enough time to produce a 3:22 video, then you have enough time to provide direct quotes from opposition. Why do you not give us video of a creationist, like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind, making the claims you attribute to them?
I'm on the side of science and skepticism. But by not including citations, quotes, or direct video of your detractors' claims, then you're just using the same 1-sided dogmatic argumentation techniques as a religious zealot.
ShawnsterVideos 1 month ago
I like your videos but this one did nothing for me. It was 3 minutes of extreme analogies. We get it already about the wild claims of YEC's but where was the substance for this video
thybigballs 2 months ago
I would like to see a creation scientist get ripped apart by a chimpanzee!
multisnootylives1 2 months ago
uhggg. I can't stand the arrogance. Lava flows 200 years old were dated at 200,000,000 years old using radiometric dating. Now do some arrogant film about that instead. What is that margin of error? Radioactive decay is NOT constant - this is proven. Anyone can have a hypothesis about something until it is proven wrong. Both old earth and young earth has been proven wrong with choice evidence by both sides. The science and evidence is not there yet to prove either one as correct.
EhdrianEh 5 months ago
@EhdrianEh umm no offence but radioactive decay is to find when the object was created
lava is melted rock not a brand new creation
if every rock started over once it was melted back into radioactive decay the world would be a lava planet
this is due to the fact that every rock on the planet would put out so much radioactive energy
490er 5 months ago
@490er I see what your saying, but, lava cannot be dated using radio active decay - but unmelted rock can. The melting rocks will combine all of the radioactive isotopes which means that there is no longer a bench mark. Also it has been found that in the presence of heat, a radioactive isotope will change it's rate of decay. :)
EhdrianEh 5 months ago
@EhdrianEh well yea that's half true
usally the heat is the heat produced from the radio active isotope breaking down and releasing neutrons
so in turn the more neutrons put out the faster the isotope breaks down
490er 5 months ago
@EhdrianEh
The rate of radioactive decay for a given isotope IS constant.
Mistakes made with radiometric dating is usually due to (1) contamination of samples or (2) the starting level of radioactivity being different from that supposed. I'm guessing that the case you are talking about here is an example of (2).
But for the sake of argument - if you really do believe that the earth is 6000 or so years old, then how do you explain that we have ice core dating going back more than 100.000 years.
itsjustameme 4 months ago
@itsjustameme I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old. :) I'm just tiered of arrogant people talking like all of these scientific conclusions are indeed fact. Which in reality they are not. Science bases its conclusions on evidences and when the evidence points to a different conclusion, then scientists must change their minds. h t t p : / / w w w .forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/05/03/radioactive-decay-rates-may-not-be-constant-after-all/
EhdrianEh 4 months ago
Comment removed
itsjustameme 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EhdrianEhI have now read your link. And while it does not mention the names of the physicists who made the discovery, I found a link suggesting the name Peter Sturrock as the man behind it all. But his own institute does not link the article it seems. It would appear he hasn't seen fit to publish his findings? Or perhaps he couldn't get them peer reviewed? Either way - until he does I consider it to be hearsay. A google search shows that he has an interest in UFO's of all things.
itsjustameme 4 months ago
@EhdrianEh Your link seems to not be functioning, but I can tell you for a fact that the decay rates have not changed. The rate of decay is based upon the strong and weak nuclear forces, which make up two of the four fundamental forces in the universe that govern all physical interactions. If these were to change, EVERYTHING would change. And if this happened in the past 6000 years, it would either wipe out our civilization, or it would be one of the most recorded events in history.
Aralith1 4 months ago
@Aralith1 Take the spaces out of the url prefix.
EhdrianEh 4 months ago
@EhdrianEh I did that before and it didn't work. Not really important though, as Forbes isn't a reliable source of scientific information. Find me an article from a peer reviewed journal and then you might have something. I highly doubt you will find one though, because if the strong and weak nuclear forces aren't constant, then it would wreak havoc for the entire universe, and we don't see that happening, nor have we found any indication (which would be major) that it has ever happened.
Aralith1 4 months ago
@Aralith1 Hmmm not too sure what is going on, but here is a quote similar to yours: "Or, at least, that’s what we thought. But if physicists at Stanford and Purdue are correct in their findings, the whole theory of constant radioactive decay rates could be thrown out the door." Feel free to contact the institutions conducting the research.
EhdrianEh 4 months ago
The battle is won long ago. There will always be ignorance, as there will be mentally inferior people. I try to avoid discussing with religious ones, because they usually refuse evidence, because they are idiots.. You cannot put an elephant in a fridge... You cannot teach a snail to sing...
ketanovas 5 months ago
But the sun is smaller than my hand. I can cover the whole thing with my finger if I hold it in the right place!
NapoleanXV 6 months ago
Do you have ANY brains ???? There is NO truth in the evolution bullshit fairytale !!
buschmann69 7 months ago
@buschmann69 Lol, translation: The more evidence you have the more wrong you are, there is shit loads of evidence for evolution therefore it didnt happen, there is no evidence for god therefore he exists
mehico33 7 months ago
@mehico33 all that bullshit "proof" for evolution is one lie after another !!! but then again, it takes human beings to check that one, and not tree-swinging monkeys !!! ;-)
buschmann69 7 months ago
@buschmann69 It takes religious crazyness to actually look at the evidence and still not see the truth it obviously happened. 100 percent, there is no other explanation that comes close.
Your monkey comment just highlights how little you understand, im not gonna say "god doesnt exist" but if he does hes evil, no question
mehico33 7 months ago
@mehico33 Thats where you are wrong !!! That what is said to be proof, is NO proof, but assumptions !! No scientist can PROVE evolution, and thats the bottom line !!! And God must be thinking and laughing at the idiotic human assumptions !!!
buschmann69 7 months ago
@buschmann69 Lol, good one. How do you know god exists?
What youre saying is basicly "Nah ah!", im guessing youre a christian, that would mean you believe the story of noahs ark. Do you honestly believe that all of the worlds creatures spread to their current locations after disembarking an ark on the top of a mountain in the middle east? The poor Kiwis wouldnt have stood a chance of getting all the way to New Zealand.
I honestly dont know what to say to someone that ignores the obvious... bye
mehico33 7 months ago
@mehico33 hi, well, I am not your conventional Christian.... BUT I do believe in God !! And I also do believe that EVERYBODY will enter His kingdom !! We are all fucked-up here on earth, and He knows that better than anybody else, and therefor will "fetch" EVERYBODY to Him.NO soul will get lost, as we ALL belong to Him... He will have it His way, and I believe His love is neverending and conditionless ! The day you peg, you will understand all that happens here on earth !! Does that make sense ?
buschmann69 7 months ago
@buschmann69 You certainly make a lot more sense than most christians, one thing i find particularly offensive is the "God is love" sentiment, as if any thinking, feeling being that has ever experienced "love" could even stomache the idea of eternal suffering, let alone condemn your own children to it. The common christian interpretation of god is the most absurd paradox
mehico33 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In 1997 a girl called lauren was walikng in a forest and then a she just dissapeared no one ever found her untill 2000 when a yoing girl called Mary found her body and markings on her chest saying: I wasnt pretty enough" and now you have read this she will appear in your mirror saying your not pretty enough and kill you. by the way the girl called mary died shortly after. To be saved paste this to 5 other videos. THIS TRUEim posting this cuz i dont play with my life
1009541074brb 7 months ago
@ThevanGoghBlues wtf are you talkin about, it says edited for youtube's new policy and the only thing i saw cropped was the image from the holocaust
Justen1980 8 months ago
you can't show holocaust pictures?...
Justen1980 8 months ago
It may be very discomforting to some that there is a Creator so powerful that He could speak this entire universe into existence in 6 days.
...Especially when you have spent most of your life ridiculing him.
Laylow4now 9 months ago
@Laylow4now Like a tummy ache can be solved with a tums, the fear of that can be solved by self initiated research. Look it up, take an unbias look at your religion, think about your God and what makes sense, effectively asses your belief, and then write a comment.
PatronizingBastard 8 months ago
Haha, a creationist vote bot! 315 down thumbs here. : )
winterstellar 9 months ago
Not one fact in this video. Thats what I see.
Jazzel93 9 months ago
@Jazzel93 Them watch his other videos. Or watch some of Thunderf00t's 36 videos named "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists" : )
winterstellar 9 months ago
I gave you a thumbs down. Not because I'm a YEC. But because you're video has value only to those of third grade mentality. Yet it's supposed to make some one think!? I was expecting and looking for some new monumental evidence that would be a slam dunk, for an old Earth. Not a sign post pointing to arguments they have already answered.
Howie47 9 months ago
"A small part of the mountain of evidence"
No evidence in the entire video.
RosettaStonedX 9 months ago
@RosettaStonedX yeah he didnt really point out much in the way of evidence but the video did make a good point. if you can be that wrong about the age of the earth then theres not much of a leap to believing even more silly things.
Vermin298 9 months ago in playlist unTheism
@RosettaStonedX "To see just 'A TINY BIT OF THE MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE' for why they are wrong, watch my dozens of other videos."
Quote mine much?
Argent108 9 months ago
unfortunately many religious crazies forget that the Bible was not originally written in English and via its translation, lost all meaning over millennia!
The only real way to read the books is to learn the ancient language and find the oldest copy of the book possible
Therefore you cannot argue with the creationists as they don't even know what their own argument is!
ameerrocks 9 months ago
it's funny because the very argument you make is wrong, as the argument you are debating is also wrong.
The hebrew for "day" is much debated, as most people now-a-days are stupid, they forget that the bible was in fact... not originally written in English lol
do some real homework and you'll discover that the Hebrew for "Day" is actually the same as "time" or "period" (as a day is a period of the suns rotation). This tells us that the bible actually says "The Earth was created in 6 stages"
ameerrocks 9 months ago
Believing in evolution is like believing that you can take a bucket of legos...shake them up and create a lego tower.
Beliving in evolution is like throwing a bucket of paint on a canvas and painting a mona lisa.
Believing in evolution is like believing someone can throw a bunch of random ingredients together without taking them out of the packaging or preping them and creating perfect cake.
This kid is an idiot.
jOWNZin22 10 months ago
@jOWNZin22
Nah. If you believe Evolution is about randomness, and that the most eminent scientists in the world think life poped up in a single act of chance, you've demonstrated that you're the idiot.
And this video was not about Evolution. Again, you're the idiot.
lardhat 10 months ago
@jOWNZin22 Evolution by natural selection is not random chance. Genetic mutations are random, the environment then filters out useless mutations and keeps useful ones (ones which enable the organism to survive long enough to reproduce such as bacteria having resistance to penicillin). Over many generations, useful traits spread through the species until it becomes common to the species. It is not, by any definition of the word, random.
randomface54 10 months ago
What propaganda.
That is mutation, adaptation.
jOWNZin22 10 months ago
@jOWNZin22 What a wonderful twist of definition. Random mutation in a single organisms DNA, which helps it to survive longer, and thus breed more effectively. Mutation passes onto offspring which helps them survive, breed more and so on for generations until the majority of a species has this new trait, thus improving the species. What does this have to do with using the media to spread a political viewpoint?
randomface54 10 months ago
this dude didnt give any evidence to anything. just sitting back laughing like an idiot.
Believing this video is like believing a hooker wont give you herpes.
Believing this video is like believing catholic priests dont have sex with little kids.
Believing this video is like believing britney spears can really sing and is the best singer in the world.
Believing this video is like believing Ryan Leaf really wasn't a bust.
Believing this video is like believing you are an idiot---
jOWNZin22 10 months ago
not wrong at all. He who laughs last laughs best. So laugh while you can. you are so deep into propaganda, your 2 miles below the surface of the earth right now.
You believe more propaganda then there is porn on the internet.
You know less truth then the size of your penis. (2 inches)
jOWNZin22 10 months ago
I used to be stupid like you, believing politically correct "science". The deception runs far deeper than anyone could imagine. How did the Bible know there was fire and brimstone at the Earth`s core? How did it even know the Earth was spherical for that matter?
shadowtiger18 11 months ago
@shadowtiger18
The bible says the earth is circular, not spherical. Even if it did say spherical, it'd be slightly off as the earth is slightly squatted due to centrifugal forces and also slightly pear shaped.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
Your argument went something like this.
Premise1- Evolution is true
Conclusion- Creation is false.
If you can see the error in logic, thumbs up.
guardianewjedijoel 11 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
Actually premise 1 is irrelevant as evolution is a biological theory, not a geological theory. it's all about the age of the earth.
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree Actually there are 6 definitions of evolution, Cosmic evolution, Chemical evolution, Stellar & planetary evolution, Organic evolution, Macro evolution, and Micro evolution.The first 5 are purely religious, and there is no evidence to support them.The last one has been observed, and is a fact.(Animals do change within their own kinds, but we've never seen a dog produce a non-dog.)What specific evidence does evolution procure concerning the age of the earth?
guardianewjedijoel 11 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
No, evolution is just biology. Every other theory that contradicts creationism is not evolution.
Also none of it's a religion. Just take the definition of a religion.
Finally what exactly is the difference between macro- and micro-evolution apart from some orders of magnitude? And no, dogs don't give birth to non-dogs. If that would happen evolution would be disproven. Do you seriously believe in things only once they are disproven?
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree Religion-"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects."
You have to believe in the big bang as there is no evidence for it, and we've never observed it or repeated it.
Macro evo. is change from species to another species (reptile to bird) micro evo is variations within species (general dog to both great dane, and chihuahua.) watch this video please. youtube.com/watch?v=hx7xfhOt0LQ
guardianewjedijoel 11 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
First off, your video doesn't work.
Secondly knowledge is a subset of belief. Even micro-evolution must be believed.
Thirdly the difference between macro- and micro-evolution by your definition is just an order of magnitude.
Finally speciation has been observed under laboratory conditions.
I refer to talkorigins[dot]org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
You don't have to read it all, paragraph 5 will do all right.
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree You have to put "h t t p : / / w w w ." in front of it.Youtube wouldn't let me post it if it recongnized it was a link.Yes you must believe micro-evolution because we've seen it happen (finches with different types of beaks for example.They are still finches, but different variations.)Yes it is an order of magnitude.Is your argument in point 3- since the definition of species is relative, then we can't tell the difference between macro and micro?
guardianewjedijoel 11 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
Nope the video doesn't work. I get redirected to the homepage. Could you just put the part after watch? and before & on here?
The definition of a species is such that two organisms are of the same species if they can create fertile offspring together. This of course doesn't apply to asexually reproducing species but that's irrelevant.The article I cited includes a paragraph dedicated to the definition of "species". You probably didn't read any of it by the looks of it.
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree I read the 5th paragraph of the page you directed me to. Copy and paste this into the youtube search "100 Reasons why Evolution is stupid 1-11"
guardianewjedijoel 11 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
"A Kent Hovind video? Great, some guy with a fake doctorate, like that's going to convince me."
That's what went through my mind at first. At this moment I haven't even watched the video tbh.
I see where you got your six types of evolution from again.
Ok, I've had enough of this after six minutes. He's said more falsehoods in those six minutes than a scientologist could do.
Oh, Thunderf00t dealt with that whole series in parts of "Why do people laugh at creationists?".
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree I'm not trying to convince you with a fake doctorate, I'm trying to convince you with the evidence Kent procures, and so far, you have not refuted any of it.I watched thunderf00t's video and all he refuted was some random guy's ramblings in his basement.Seriously.You think it's falsehoods, because you're watching it wrong.You're going in with a preconceived bias that Evolution is true.Watch it, and weigh the evidence for yourself and filter out all of thunderf00t's ad hominems.
guardianewjedijoel 11 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
Why would I need to refute what has already been refuted.
The Thunderf00t video you watched must have been part 1 where he deals with Venomfangx, in a later set of videos he takes on Kent Hovind.
And I'm not watching it wrong, it is just false. Whether I have any preconceived bias is of no relevance.
But as you insist:
There is just one definition of evolution and it encompasses the last two he gave. The others aren't scientific terms.
con...
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree
Then he says that nobody has seen a dog produce a non-dog which although correct is obviously completely irrelevant plus he uses the term "kind" which is undefined in science.
Then he says "evolutionists believe a dog came from a rock" which is utterly bogus. The only book that says any life was formed from minerals is the bible.
Then he asks with regard to the big bang "what exploded?". The answer is nothing, space and time expanded. Straw man.
con...
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree
He seems not to understand even the basics of big bang theory.
And with his straw man argument he basically ended the whole thing.
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree Ok we're at a standstill. New topic. Show me an error in the Bible
guardianewjedijoel 11 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
And why are we at a standstill? I think it's because you asserted macro-evolution, defined by yourself as one species changing into another species id est speciation, has not been proven to which I replied with an article that cites actual scientific papers and referred to actual observances of speciation. You tell me though.
And if you want to beat a dead horse freethoughtdebater[dot]com/tenbiblecontradictions[dot]htm is where you will find your errors and contradictions.
Quintinohthree 11 months ago
@Quintinohthree The link didn't work sry.Go to wikipedia and type in macroevolution (i'm not making this up.)Wiki defines it as evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.You cited a paper that points out species can be defined by different means, but that paper didn't show evidence of macroevolution.Well I was giving you videos that say one thing, and you were giving videos that say another thing and each one tried to disprove each other.They covered so much stuff, we need to narrow it down.
guardianewjedijoel 10 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
You've got to change the [dot]'s to .'s.
And why do I care about wikipedia's definition of macro-evolution? You gave me your definition which was exactly the same as that of speciation and claimed it hasn't been proven; I showed an article that cited actual observances of speciation. And regardless, once two species have emerged two gene-pools have been created.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
@Quintinohthree ok i got the link to work.A lot of these "errors" are minute translation oddities (Hebrew is a lot different from English) which skeptics love to bounce on and frolic in.A translation error or slight variance between manuscripts are different from an error in the original in Hebrew document.I don't have enough time to refute every single example of speciation that site gives.Could you pick 1 or 2 for me to research and then I'll get back to you?
guardianewjedijoel 10 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
Ah, the great mistranslations of the bible. Don't tell me the new testament has these too. I know some Greek and I know it isn't hard at all to translate.
And with regard to speciation: you can't refute it. Once a species has diverged the new species can't go back together and so even if by any other definition is used it does not matter. Over time even that definition of species applies.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
@Quintinohthree I know some Greek as well, and have translated parts of the Bible myself.It IS very complicated.It's hard to refute I agree, because the definition of speciation has been fitted to conform to the few examples produced.I have a better way to determine if a new type of animal can be produced by way of altering previous animals.Could you show me an example of where DNA has been observed to produce entirely NEW genetic information?You can only alter or remove what's already there.
guardianewjedijoel 10 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
"You can only alter or remove what's already there."
You've described point mutations and deletions. A third type of mutation can also occur: duplication. In this type some bases are copied and then inserted before or after the original into the DNA or RNA. Add in some point mutations and who knows what can come out.
I don't think that knowing this I don't to provide such an observation. It would happen inevitably.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
@Quintinohthree For a reptile-like animal to evolve into a bird-like animal it would have to have entirely different DNA.Duplication of DNA would not be enough for such a drastic transfer, because birds have DNA that is entirely different from reptile DNA.Could you give a real life example of a mutation or natural alteration to DNA that has resulted in a beneficial change?
guardianewjedijoel 10 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
You're making a straw man argument here. The lineage on which all modern reptiles are found includes no dinosaurs, from which the birds are known to have descended. The fact that modern reptiles and birds differ so greatly is explained by the fact that it's been well over 251 million years since their common ancestor lived.
And if you want to see some beneficial changes, please just look at HIV or nylon eating bacteria. You're getting desperate it seems.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
@Quintinohthree
I may have missed one of your points. Duplications alone do not account for the difference between bird- and reptile-DNA but together with deletions and point mutations there is no problem.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
@Quintinohthree Evolutionists believe that birds and reptiles have a common ancestor, and that argument was made in the context of genetic evolution which is applicable to the discussion at hand.Saying that it took more time does not help the theory as the chances for just one strand of DNA to come about by chance is 1 in 10^89190th power (well over statistical zero which is 1 in 10^50th.)If the chances for something is at statistical zero or below, then it is impossible to occur.
guardianewjedijoel 10 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
If it would have had to have happened just like that, then yes. However birds could just as well not have evolved, or differently and the same goes for modern reptiles. The chances don't really matter.
watch?v=cOHT_dTDQbQ
Do watch it. You'll see why.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
Having though about statistical impossibility I have come up with the following: the string of heads and tails of 166 consecutive coin tosses is statistically possible but one more and the string becomes statistically impossible. Why is this unimpressive? Because you need the chance to be one of few too to make it have any impact. If all chances are equally probable to occur and a result is inevitable the probability is irrelevant to the result.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
@Quintinohthree I see where you're going, but I think you've missed the point how small the chances are for EVERYTHING to occur by evolution.The probability 10^89190th is just for ONE strand of human DNA.Evolution claims so much more came into being by blind chance than just one strand of human DNA.
guardianewjedijoel 10 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
But evolution is not even just blind chance. The most important mechanism is selection, not mutation.
I'll explain it again: if we were to take one single specific strand of DNA and we'd make nucleotide randomly fall in line to replicate it the chances are incredibly small that we'd get the desired strand but evolution doesn't work like that, it doesn't create already existing genetic material that is pre-desired, it creates new material and selects for or against. Read again
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
@Quintinohthree How many examples have been found that exhibit evolution producing new, beneficial material?If it does not produce something beneficial, then it doesn't matter what you choose, because the desired result is not an option.
guardianewjedijoel 10 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
Haven't we gone over this? New genetic material is inevitable and some of it, however little, is beneficial and selected for while all detrimental genetic material, even though it's much more likely to occur than beneficial material, is selected against giving it a very slight chance of being inherited if it isn't already lethal.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel When I seee your discussion here with Quin, what really saddens me is I know that you are going to once again ignore the fact that your tired old "argument" if you could even call it such, that evolution is "random chance" is simply wrong. The fact that you are absolutely wrong in that claim will never matter to you.
I'm sorry but in school you should have learned that if you never make a correction, you will always be wrong. You're only repeating the same mistakes.
sonic8005 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sonic8005 Asserting that it's not random chance is different from giving evidence to support that it's not. My question is the same: how many examples have been found that exhibit evolution producing new, beneficial material?If it does not produce something beneficial, then it doesn't matter what you choose, because the desired result is not an option.
guardianewjedijoel 9 months ago
@guardianewjedijoel
It would be nice if you'd actually continue our discussion instead of going against somebody who is simply pointing out what you are doing wrong.
As for evidence that evolution is not random: I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I suggest you watch some of the videos on this channel like "how evolution really works" and "why Intelligent Design is WRONG".
Sure there's a lot random about evolution, but natural selection certainly is not.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
@sonic8005
Thanks for your support. It seems your advice hasn't been taken sadly.
Quintinohthree 9 months ago
Don't you understand that youtube & my computer are too complex to have been created spontaneously from some so-called "computer person" & from plastic & metal. Only God could have made something so beautiful & perfect and then stamped the name "DELL" on it. The 2nd law of thermodynamics shows computers are impossible, and so-called "intermediary" computers are either tricks of Satan or planted by God to test our faith. PREPARE FOR THE END TIMES! Repent and purge yourself of APPLE products! amen
donfishmaster 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shldflght Any evidence at all?
Prophecy the book of Daniel Egypt and Libya overthrown present happenings from a book believe unsealed for your eyes. akjv daniel 11:41-45 In respect to stretching of the heavens akjv job 9:8 hubbles law all points the center, etc...right? Also the bible not being inerrant in all things prophetic, etc....right?
mrbjph 11 months ago
SO many great videos, so little time. Another sub, it's just getting out of hand!
OldeVampyr 11 months ago
CbandMaster This is truly a sad human being!****
No Its about Christians not judging but when the LORD judgments come your painting only one side of the picture and as always its about evil in these other religions. etc...take muslims killing christians beheading then the tusami in Indonesia, etc...right?
mrbjph 11 months ago
****JUST to let everyone know what kind of person MRBJPH is, he thinks that the people in Japan, Haiti, and other countries that suffered, and died in horrific storms, deserved to die, because they were not Christian! This person, (and I use this term loosely), has a black heart, and has no compassion for another human being, unless of course the other person is Christian. What is the world coming to ? This is truly a sad human being!****
CbandMaster 11 months ago
@CbandMaster . What is the world coming to ?
Who were the people that helped folk in disasters its interestingly always the christian and that is due the love of Jesus is within their heart but were in the last days and nations are being judged due Japanese are enemies of the Lord. CbandMaster has no compassion due his hatred of the Christian folk like myself that he mocks showing his heart is not talking about Gods love but the love of the world, etc..right? akjv psalm 109:1-5 etc..right?
mrbjph 11 months ago
WARNING !!! mrbjph is a closed minded Christian fanatic, and talking to him is about anything other than god being DARK ENERGY, LOL, you will be waiting your time, and you should move on!!
CbandMaster 11 months ago
@CbandMaster WARNING !!! mrbjph is a closed minded Christian fanatic, and talking to him is about anything other than god being DARK ENERGY, LOL, you will be waiting your time, and you should move on!!
What funny is how evolutionists are off by a factor of millions of years is due the evolutionists simply do not understand time like hubbles law is accelertated time supporting its the evolutionists that are off by a factor of millions, Hubble said all points center to universe. etc...right?
mrbjph 11 months ago
@mrbjph "Hubble said all points center to universe"
I could give a flying shit what Hubble said, which incidentally he is talking out of his ass!
The fact that you have no demonstrable evidence at all that god exist is what I care about. Its funny how you religious fanatics will grasp the idea of a invisible deity, and have absolutely no idea why ! If I told you I had a Unicorn , would you believe me?
CbandMaster 11 months ago
@CbandMaste rcould give a flying shit what Hubble said, which incidentally he is talking out of his ass!
This statement shows your lack of grasping real science which is what hubbles law is about that it agree's with the biblical postion. Seriously are you a high school student due you seem to not grasp scientific concepts, etc...right?
mrbjph 11 months ago
@mrbjph "This statement shows your lack of grasping real science"
Actually, I know quite a bit about science. But , you came out with the statement "God is dark matter" early on in this debate and I refuse to go down the science path of this debate. Your statements through this whole debate shows your inability to use rational thinking. And the fact that you get all your facts through youtube videos alone shows me you are very narrow minded, and cannot read real facts, RIGHT?
CbandMaster 11 months ago
@CbandMaster NASA gave us the word dark energy not that its dark but an energy of mysterous properties but its the bible that said thousands of years before hubble law that it was God alone stretching the heavens. I know hubbles law is your evidence of the supernatural but like the resurrection even if one rose from the dead you would not believe, etc...right?
mrbjph 11 months ago
@mrbjph "even if one rose from the dead you would not believe"
Thats where your wrong.. If I personally (with my own eyes) saw a man die, and in three days he rose again, I would believe it. Do you know why I would believe it? Because I saw it myself. Can you say the same thing ? Did you see the resurrection with your own eyes? Somehow I doubt. And don't say that there was eye witness accounts, because in todays courts, you would have to show evidence. Do you have That evidence? NOT !
CbandMaster 11 months ago
@CbandMaster And don't say that there was eye witness accounts, because in todays courts, you would have to show evidence.
You tube video the resurrection on trial by Hal Lindsey. enjoy!
mrbjph 11 months ago
@mrbjph Do you have any evidence at all that would suggest dark energy is a sentient being with the ability to create the universe and everything in it as well as interact with human souls? Any evidence at all? No? Just baseless claims at odds with reality? Interesting tactic for discovering truth.
shldflght 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shldflght Any evidence at all?
Prophecy the book of Daniel Egypt and Libya overthrown present happenings from a book believe unsealed for your eyes. akjv daniel 11:41-45 In respect to stretching of the heavens akjv job 9:8 hubbles law all points the center, etc...right? Also never heard of the bible not being inerrant in all things prophetic, etc....right?
mrbjph 11 months ago
See no data nor facts that the earth universe are you not mistaken and this wrong just believing it so is not science but thats whats wrong with you folk that are dislusional. If you read the bible so your not ignorant of the sciences as mike huckabee said a day but how long was the day. Its only been 6,000 oribits around the sun since the creation of time and hubbles law agrees with the bible of the stretching of the heavens since the beginning. Joshua day 48 hrs. etc..right?
mrbjph 11 months ago
uh?
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
no thank you i hope god will fight en annahilate as HE is gonna do
en destroy all unbelievers en let them torture for the rest of there misserable lived
from the scik to childeren no difference
thou salt fear en worshipp HIM how made thou
its very obvious to mee that a worthless en spineless en soulless atheist
made a stupid video like this
well the bible is right hell outweighs heaven BY FAR
sukruoosten 11 months ago
@sukruoosten was third grade the hardest six years of your life.
MrJohnnyrace 11 months ago
@MrJohnnyrace funny guy hahhahaah
thanks for the point
hey lets make a deal here if i were to go for another full year to the third grade
are you willing to read the bible then for a compleet full year en give it a try
what do you say ????
sukruoosten 11 months ago
@sukruoosten I am a former christian till I read the Buy Bull. Its just too stupid for a scientific person to accept. I like your sense of humor.
MrJohnnyrace 11 months ago
@MrJohnnyrace but why what did go wrong here
did you really have trusted faith in the lord en you give it upp for ???
end friend manny en i really mean manny scientists have faith !!!!!
why cant you ??? at least not anymore thats really A SHAME
sukruoosten 11 months ago
@sukruoosten The byubull isnt accurate on many levels. There was no flood, there is evolution, the earth isnt 6000 years old or flat, moses crossed through a marshy area, and so on. Science disproves the fables. I wouldnt call that going wrong. Isnt the truth important to you?
MrJohnnyrace 11 months ago
@MrJohnnyrace sad but here is when we come to oure differences
mine points of vieuws of evolution is not acceptabel en i dotn believe it
but ok i get the idea its yust damn i really got a shot here
cause specially when i hear people how loose faith cause of evo.
but what can i do only to try en warn en give some tips
sukruoosten 11 months ago
@sukruoosten I trust science. Not a book written by unscientific not aware humans.
MrJohnnyrace 11 months ago
@MrJohnnyrace well i dont know if you got hit in the head
ore have brain problems but scientists olso made books
en they cant bee wrong ????
so you believe non-living materials can create life
wauw takes FAITH to believe that point
sukruoosten 11 months ago
@sukruoosten There are great videos on this if you want to view them. Yes there are those things you just said. May I ask you, what country are you in where you havent heard of this ??
MrJohnnyrace 11 months ago
@sukruoosten funny thing seen no evidence to support an old earth universe is it not due they have none. They just say the earth is old but the 4,5 billion years is based on nonsense due they were not there when the elements were created and nothing winds up on the earth but C-14 but thats only in the upper atmosphere. gold vaporizes in space so its being bombarded by cosmic rays but the evolutionists are nut baggers to say the earth is 4.5 billion years creationists have science evolutionists 0
mrbjph 11 months ago
read up on radiometric dating. no, don't just read what some creationist website writes about it; *really* study it.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@mrbjph my friend even if we had solid 100% evidence (not includint the bible)
still they would denie god because HE makes the rules en not we
so they try everything to counter it
cause the only option here is without evo. then it could bee creating en NOT THAT !!!!!
jezus as you know said when they argue en denie wipe of youre shoes en let them bee
in the end days they cant escape they are blind en stupid
only a fool denies god psalm 53
sukruoosten 11 months ago
Fur Elise is my ringer:D Grea†!
buktomsin 1 year ago
you can be religious and not follow the strange belief in young earth theory. the terms used in hebrew in the original are vague, not precise terms for measuring time. a day could be sunrise-sunset, 24 hrs. or a billion years. the dating of the age of the earth got started by some preacher a couple of hundred years ago, with no knowledge of science, just using their own interpretation of these vague terms and wording. hard to believe that otherwise intelligent people accept this as reality.
nomadnametab 1 year ago
Ask yourself, "Why was this video made? What and whose purpose does it serve?" If a video of this nature is here on youtube, it is NOT here to educate you, but to deceive you - BEWARE - do not believe this lie. Every word of this video can be said back to the speaker substituting his name in place of Creationists. Trust Jesus Christ your Savior and in NO OTHER. This could be someones very last chance. Time is shorter than you think. Come out from among them - they don't care about you.
4GodSoLoves 1 year ago
@4GodSoLoves
Ask yourself, "Why was christianity made? What and whose purpose does it serve?" If a religionof this nature is here on earth, it is NOT here to educate you, but to deceive you - BEWARE - do not believe this lie. Every word of this comment can be said back to the OP substituting his name in place of CDK007. Trust objective reality. This could be someones very last chance. Time is shorter than you think. Come out from among them - they don't care about you.
musli4brekkies 1 year ago
@musli4brekkies What happens next? Am I supposed to poke you so you can yell, "Stop touching me".
4GodSoLoves 1 year ago
@4GodSoLoves
Just pointing out your hipocracy. :)
musli4brekkies 1 year ago
Since the moon’s recession rate is 3.8 cm/yr (1.5 inches/yr), “The evolution of the lunar semimajor axis presents the WELL-KNOWN time scale PROBLEM; the lunar orbit COLLAPSES only a little over a billion years ago.” Touma & Wisdom, “Evolution of the Earth-Moon System” (The Astronomical Journal, November 1994)
In other words, just over a billion years ago non-creationists admit the moon would have been too close to escape earth's gravitational pull! Talk about factors of a million - LOL!
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 You are aware that the rate of the moons recession is not constant? It is accelerating, due to the current shape of the continents combined with the tides. And you are aware of plate tectonic?
But even IF all the very well known physics somehow should be completely wrong and you are right and that the earth could not be older than one billion years it would mean that the current estimation of the age of the earth is wrong by a factor of five. Not one million.
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 4 of 4
"But even IF all the very well known physics somehow should be completely wrong and you are right ..."
Speaking of which, are you aware that quasars don't show time dilation? See: “Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers” (PhyOrg, April 9, 2010). One possible conclusion may be:
“There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.”
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 I love how you admired to have quote mined the article about lunar regression. And after that jump to a completely unrelated topic, but make the exact same mathematical error as with the lunar regression. The uplift you mention is as you say the fastest rate, not a constant. The rate of erosion increases with the hight. You really must stop assuming that momentary speed is equivalent of constant speed.
If you manage to disprove the big bang does not change the age of the earth.
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 B of B
Speaking of the age of the earth, did you see this article: “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements” (Stanford University News, Aug. 23, 2010)?
It seems to suggest (not prove) that radioactive decay may not be constant due to an unknown particle emitted from the sun. One scientist says, “What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."
This could make things interesting!
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 A of B
"The rate of erosion increases with the hight."
Then where is all the debris? At those rates, it should cover the mountain by now!
"If you manage to disprove the big bang does not change the age of the earth."
I take it you are having problems rebutting the observed evidence that 900 quasars over a period of 28-years do not show time dilation.
Now even if the earth is old, if the big bang is wrong, how did everything originate?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 1 of 2
I am not educated in stellar relation and will not try to refute what I don't know anything about. But as far as I know those quasars are in the Milky way or our neighbor cluster and are therefore not supposed to accelerate away from us.
If you try to convince me that there is no errotion of mountain I would have to call you willfull ignorant. Every single river is full of the debree in form of sand and clay that is slowly making its way into lakes and the oceans.
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 2 of 2
Before the Big Bang theory the common notion was that the universe was eternal, even if the Earth was not. When the Big Bang theory was proposed it was accually saluted by theists as a proof of God. I find it intresting that so many theists object to it now.
Simply not knowing an answer is no excuse to put in your favorit myth in to it. I might as well say "we dont know everything about gravity, therefor the Flying Spagetti Monster hold us down". Quite silly.
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 E of E
“I find it intresting that so many theists object to it now.”
Because science is using the theory in an attempt to prove that nothing exploded into everything without a Creator. I do not accept this, but more and more “Christians” are. For example, the Catholics have fully embraced this position. (Say, weren’t they wrong about Galileo?)
There are other very significant problems with the theory such as Baryon Asymmetry and the Horizon Problem.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 1 of 2
I absolutely love how you in one place claim that the world is 6 000 years old, only to later acknowledge that light have traveled billions of years to reach us. As I told you I am not educated in stellar time deletion, and I have not been able to find the article you are referring to. But I can clearly see that you time and time again takes things that are unknown to jump to "therefor Genesis". You should know that almost all creation myths have a beginning.
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 2 of 2
If you think that the Big Bang theory states that "noting exploded into everything" you got a grave misunderstanding of what the theory actually states.
The debris from the erosion of mountain is carried away by rivers out into lakes and the oceans and are layered down on the bottom. A lot of it gather to form river deltas. Sand and clay was once part of larger rocks or mountains that have eroded. Your ignorance of the subject is not proof that it does not happen.
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 E of E
RE erosion, “Your ignorance of the subject is not proof that it does not happen.”
Now you are just being obtuse because (for the THIRD time) I NEVER once said that erosion does not happen!
Now even if we assume the mountain grew at a VERY conservative rate of 1 mm per year for just 1 billion years, it would be 3,280,840 feet tall!! That’s 621 MILES!! The problem is the current rate of growth is TEN TIMES that at 10 - 20 mm per year!!
Please prove the math wrong!
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 Why the heck do you think that mountains grow constant for billions of years? Once again you seam to think that a momentary velocity equals a constant velocity. That is rarely the case. And you still refuses to acknowledge the erosion factor in your model. The higher the mountain, the faster it erodes.
You have now given two mutual exclusive summaries of the big bang. You must know that one of them are wrong.
Can you please stop the shotgun approach and stick to the subject?
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 4 of 4
"And you still refuses to acknowledge the erosion factor in your model."
FOR THE FOURTH TIME, I DO NOT DISCOUNT EROSION!!!! What I am trying to get you to understand is that with a growth rate of 10 – 20 mm per year, the amount of debris from that range alone would REACH INTO SPACE!
So please either show me evidence that the rate of growth was stagnate for eons and eons; or show me where all the debris is because there should be LOTS by now!
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 3 of 4
Uniformitarianism (cont)
Were any geologists there when the Himalayans were formed to measure the initial rate of growth? Nope. Do we have any measurements from even 100 million years ago? Nope. So based on what uniformitarianism teaches, we MUST ASSUME that the range has been growing at a constant rate of 10 – 20 mm per year because that is all that has ever been observed!
(The same goes for moon recession since it “[applies] everywhere in the universe”!)
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 1 of 4
"You have now given two mutual exclusive summaries of the big bang."
Please tell me how you believe the big bang occurred. And don’t forget to indicate whether or not energy and matter are eternal... and what the catalyst was to initiate the explosion.
"Can you please stop the shotgun approach and stick to the subject?"
Speaking of which, did you have a chance to read the PhysOrg article about quasars?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 2 of 4
“Why the heck do you think that mountains grow constant for billions of years?”
Because that’s what uniformitarianism teaches!! Wiki says it “ASSUMES that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe NOW, have ALWAYS operated in the universe in the PAST and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as ‘the present is the key to the past,’ because it holds that ALL THINGS CONTINUE as they were from the beginning of the world.”
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 Your assumptions that a momentary speed equal constant speed is factual wrong, both for the growth of mountains and for the regression of the moon. And both relates to plate tectonics. For example Himalayas have only grown for the last 50 million years, not the billions you claim. Make a simple experiment where you show two soft materials (cloth, clay or similar) together and you can see for yourself that the lift is NOT constant.
Read the article, not impressed.
(cont.)
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 (cont.)
You have a gravely misunderstanding of what uniformitarianism says. It says that the law of nature are the same everywhere and at all times. Not that a speed measured now always have been the same. Especially not when we know what causes the speed and we know those forces not to be constant. For example when I see a car move fast I can not simply assume that it has always moved in that speed.
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000 C of C
“when I see a car move fast I can not simply assume that it has always moved in that speed.”
Perhaps a better question would be: Why do we all presume that the laws of nature will work in the future as they have in the past?
Now before you say, “Because they have been constant in the past, so I expect them to be constant in the future,” please be aware that such a response is a vicious circle.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@AA32m7io1 No sense in continue as you have clearly shown a complete incapability of grasping the essence of major physical and mathematical principles and still pretends to know geology and cosmology better than scientists.
I said I was unimpressed. That does not mean I dismiss the facts of the article. I stated that as you grasped a scientific curiosity that have yet to be given a full explanation to mean that all of science therefore is wrong and the bible (of all mythologies) are right.
greyman000 1 year ago
@greyman000
I have enjoyed the discussion the last few days and trust there are no hard feelings. This is a passionate issue to which if there is no afterlife (as Dawkins, Provine, et.al claim) then what we believe in this life ultimately doesn't matter since we will just cease to exist. However, if God does exist, and His word is true...
Take care - AA32
(Romans 1:18 - 23)
AA32m7io1 11 months ago
@greyman000 B of C
“Read the article, not impressed.”
Somehow I am not surprised that you dismiss observed evidence (over the last 28 years) in favor of unproven, theoretical explanations of the big bang... which, BTW, I am waiting for your explanation of how events unfolded.
“You have a gravely misunderstanding of what uniformitarianism says.”
Really? Then why does the principle of geological actualism states that ALL PAST geological action was like ALL PRESENT geological action?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 A of C
“Himalayas have only grown for the last 50 million years, not the billions you claim.”
Even so, at 10 mm growth per year x 50 million years = 164,041 feet (31 miles)!! And it’s even worse if the rate is 20 mm per year!!
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 D of E
But you, on the other hand, don’t believe in faith which requires empirical evidence to support all your claims.
Perhaps you should read Paul Davies’ article: “Taking Science on Faith” (NYT, Nov 2007) in which he writes, “Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith… But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.”
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 C of E
“I absolutely love how you in one place claim that the world is 6 000 years old, only to later acknowledge that light have traveled billions of years to reach us.”
Yep, distant starlight is a problem for “us," just like the Horizon Problem is a major time-scale problem for “you.” But then again, I have faith that Jesus raised Lazarus and Himself from the dead (without a shred of scientific evidence), so while distant starlight is interesting, it doesn’t really bother me.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 B of E
Furthermore, Wiki says, “According to the Big Bang model, the universe, originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly, has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state, and continues to expand today.”
Well, the recent quasar measurements serious challenge the fact it is expanding. But aside from that. if the universe was initially “extremely hot” how did the temperature of CMB become so uniform by now (i.e., Horizon Problem)?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 A of E
“I have not been able to find the article you are referring to.”
See: "Discovery that quasars DON'T show time dilation mystifies astronomers" (PhysOrg, April 9, 2010)
“If you think that the Big Bang theory states that ‘noting exploded into everything’…”
Is energy and matter eternal? If not, were did they come from before being condensed into the singularity? Explanations I see just start with the singularity and explosion - with no mention of a catalyst, either.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 D of E
“When the Big Bang theory was proposed it was accually saluted by theists as a proof of God."
That’s because it was finally realized that the universe HAD to have a beginning. If it had always existed, then the Bible was simply wrong. But since it actually had a beginning, this supports Genesis 1:1.
BTW, how would the authors of the Bible have known it had a beginning long before science was able to prove it?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 C of E
“If you try to convince me that there is no errotion of mountain I would have to call you willfull ignorant.”
LOL! Clearly there is erosion! But given uniformitarian rates of the Himalayas (10 mm/year at Nanga Parbat), the erosion rate over such long periods of time would be extraordinary!! So where’s all the debris?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 B of E
“and are therefore not supposed to accelerate away from us”
If that were true, shouldn’t Hawkins, an established astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, know something so elementary?
Yet he speculates “that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong” (2010), and “Apart from the overwhelming support for the big bang theory [expansion], the direct measurements of time dilation quoted above strongly argue against this” (2001).
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 A of E
“But as far as I know those quasars are in the Milky way…
Actually, Hawkins’ study “Time Dilation and Quasar Variability” (2001) mentions nothing about the fact that he only studied quasars in the Milky Way.
Furthermore, the Milky Way is only 100,000 light-years in diameter and 1,000 light years think, and according to PhysOrg, the quasars he studied were 6 and 10 BILLION light years away. Those would be way, way outside the Milky Way!
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 3 of 4
"And you are aware of plate tectonic?"
Yep. See Dr. John Baumgardner's TERRA modeling software which is used by NASA. Specifically, Insight Magazine said, “Worldwide, TERRA got things right. For instance, plate sinking under the Pacific matched seismological data” (“Rebuilding the World”).
BTW, he based his model on the flood, and it works perfectly!
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 2 of 4
But this isn't only a problem for the moon, it’s also a problem for the Himalayas. Wiki says "the highest rate of uplift (nearly 10 mm/year at Nanga Parbat). Essentially they are growing at 1 - 2 cm per year which implies 10 - 20 km (or 33,000-66,000 feet) uplift per million years!
According to Charles Lyell's "Uniformity of degree," geological circumstances have remained the same over time. If true, why is Everest only 29,029 feet tall?
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
@greyman000 1 of 4
“You are aware that the rate of the moons recession is not constant?”
And are you aware that Touma and Wisdom wrote in the very next sentence, “PRESUMABLY, the tidal constants have changed as the continents have drifted.” (“Evolution of the Earth-Moon System,” The Astronomical Journal, Nov. 1994).
Presumably? That doesn’t sound like it’s based on observable data, but merely just guesswork to make the models of moon recession work.
AA32m7io1 1 year ago
I guess its time to claim victory for the young earth creationists due dawkins admitted you folk had no evidence for origin. Now that you understand the metric intrinsic expansion of spacetime doesn't include the galaxies due its only an inner expansion not a big bang. I've explained the joshua day explains the young earthers position that an eternity in 24 hours is possible due God alone is driving the expansion of spacetime. Your his witness due hubbles law, etc...right?
mrbjph 1 year ago