this is what happens when u force urself to make the facts match the conclusion u have already come up with and are to biased to leave. see real scientists follow the evidence without bias. they let it take them where ever it leads even if they HATE the results. einstein ruined the end of his cereer because he failed to see this fact and couldnt accept that some things werent 100% sure. creation astronomy doesnt exist. its just a stupid as saying virgin birth.....oww wait errr shit im sorry :(
So we have another conspiracy theory--this time it's the "dogmatic" astronomical community conspiring to hide "facts". But Bible quotations--that's not dogma, right?
Science is the opposite of dogma. Scientists will accept facts. We have no business expecting any honest person to accept as facts the writings of the pre-scientific, Bronze Age Jews--yet, from this video, this is exactly what is demanded.
This video consists of cheap shots and hair-splitting. This kind of argument is doomed.
Much of what the video claims ranges from dubious to flatly wrong. It also neglects some clear empirical evidence that the universe and solar system cannot be only thousands of years old, including some that any layman can grasp and appreciate. One line of evidence concerns start light; another concerns meteorite impacts. Google: kuban meteorite bombardment
wow... people think this? great how people base their lives around a book written by a bunch of men around a table drinking too much thinking of ways to control and scare simple minded people =) SAVE ME JEBUS!!!
I know, right shaun? It's like they make claims without any wide supported evidence involved. More and more, they're saying 'Just have faith!' Hmm...scientist must be angered how these creationists just piss on their entire life's work.
tingtangs, "All about us is the world of nature, and over our heads at night is a universe of stars. We can ignore or ridicule what is there or say it all made itself, but our scoffing does not change the reality of the situation. A leading atheistic scientist of our time, *Fred Hoyle, wrote that, although it was not difficult to disprove Darwinism, what Paley had to say appeared likely to be unanswerable (*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981, p. 96).
No one is ridiculing what is there. No one is claiming that it 'made itself' either.
As for Fred Hoyle, he was an ASTRONOMIST, not a biologist. And he talked about how the first life came to be, not how it evolved. Evolution deals with how life evolved once it was here. Thus, Hoyle is irrelevant to evolution.
If you fail to see the continuous efforts to forge the Big Bang into evolution theory, then I'm afraid your "lost in space". Evolution theory is about the growth of mankind and it argues that man is getting "better and better". ( There is obviously no biological proof of this, and the evidence points to the contrary...)
Theory of evolution does not claim to produce "better" or even more complex organisms. It only states that species change / evolve in response to environmental stimuli as conditions vary. As for proof, you're surrounded by it. The theory explains the variation and similarities you observe in the species inhabiting different or similar environments.
@VAUS82 You are mixing micro and macro evolution. You state that evolution doesn't produce more complex organisms. And then you point that what we see around us is the result. But you also believe we come from the first very simple organism, right?. That means one of your statements is wrong. Either you must agree that evolution produces more comples organisms or you must agree that the world started with many fully developed species. You can't have a mix of those two theories.
How also would you explain the well known behavior of bacteria species to evolve in response to antibiotics into a new resistant strain? Is this not evolution? Why can't this same behavior occur in larger species such as humans?
People laughed at Galileo and Newton among many great others. Professor tintang, why don't you focus your argument on refuting theirs instead of attacking their credibility. That is a useless waste of time and will gain you no merit.
Indeed, Hoyle's 'tornado in a junkyard' nonsense, which is invalid and long since debunked, is also laughable, and it is interesting how you must resort to lies, factual errors, pseudo-science and quoting morons way out of their fields to find support.
@BereanBeacon Evolutionist don't even care about Magnetic Field Reversal. Geologists used it in the 1950s to prove sea floor spreading in the Atlantic ocean, proving plate tectonic and the world is millions of years old.
There is no need for me to repeat all the clear refutations of every single argument put forth by dishonest creationist liars. You can search the web if you want to find them and educate yourself.
Mutations have never been documented as adding NEW information to DNA strands. Yes, DUPLICATE cells occasionally form by a faulty mononucleosis process that as seen in Down's Syndrome, but no NEW information is added. One can clearly see the devastating results of this mutation and the complications it brings (inability to reproduce, intellectual/ biological retardation, etc.) Some plants are naturally equipped with a predisposition of variance in the genome information, but no mammals.
Google 'mutations adding information' and look it up at talkorigins dot org.
New 'information' can easily be added. Only someone who is completely clueless about these things would claim otherwise.
So basically, you just proved my point. Creationists are dishonest liars who keep repeating the same old refuted arguments over and over again. Thanks! :D
The calculation on star births at around 14:00 is quite bogus. He's calculating the number of stars in the known universe, and implying we can actually observe and track every star as it is born. The most extensive star catalogue I could find contains about 15 million stars. Let's calculate the time between *observable* star births.
(1.5 x 10e7 stars) / (2 x 10e10 years)
= 1 star / 1333 years
Chris, you're off by a factor more than 1,000,000,000,000,000. Some might call that misleading.
BereanBeacon, you posted this video. Why don't you take responsibility for the gross distortions you are spreading? If you think about it, you should realize that such outlandish rubish does not advance your claims; rather you damage the reputation of your own religion. Think for yourself.
what madness. boss man wikipedia says 7x10e22 and the European space agency says bet. 10e22 to 10e24 stars. that makes it 3.5x10e12 stars per year on average.
whoa buddy i was not talking about the guy in the vid some bright guy made a comment saying the universe has 15 million stars which is wrong. i was actually supporting the vid cause the more stars the more the guy's claims in the vid are valid. not sure if ur for or against the vid but from ur previous comments u seem to be for it so am i. i also said European Space Agency not just wiki..
"quantized red shifts" have long since been discounted once they mapped them out. Galaxies are arranged in clusters. super clusters and voids, not shells.
Some red shifts for some galaxies thus are close and have gaps.
The "quantized red shifts" have been proposed when the data was scarce. More data revealed that this hypothesis is false.
God is deceptive. He creates galaxies with their light emitted ahead of time, to test our faith in Genesis.
He is also very nice to women.
"If you see a pretty woman among your captives and would like her for a wife, then bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can simply "let her go." (Deuteronomy 21:11-14)
Why don't the OEC/evolutionists give an exact date for the evolution starting point for the universe,it would be illogical if you didn't have an exact scientific date if you're so sure it's 15,325,854,124 days old or whatever.
The rocks don't lie,what date did they give you,I really want to know?
Are you referring to evolution (biology), cosmological dating (astronomy) or radiometric dating (geology)? Since there is no such thing as an "evolutionists" you must be referring to a specific field. Cosmologists have successfully the age of the universe at 13.7 gya. Geologists have determined the age of the earth at 4.5 gya. Biologists is not in the dating game.
Not entirely true: biologists are able to accurately date the point of separation between two genetic lines by comparing them to eachother and related samples.
After writing that entry, some weeks ago, I remembered an example linking a period in our DNA record where the human population became relatively small (some thousands of people) to the eruption of Toba in Indonesia, 75,000 years ago. So I suppose it is now possible to trace the DNA record.
What does this have to do with evolution? When are you going to learn that evolution is a BIOLOGICAL explanation and Cosmology is an INDEPENDENT field of study that lives and dies on its own.
lawilson200, both require your god of time and neither can be proven. How can you seperate them when without the evolving of the comos at the start there can be no biological evolution.
They can be easily seperated. You are showing your ignorance by saying that silly old statement. That is like saying that without the discovery of the wheel we can have no cars, But are they the same. Or without the discovery of electricity, we can have no electric toasters.
Show me where Darwin wrote that his theory is dependent on the age of the universe or the age of the earth itself. You will find that he said nothing on the subjects. The only problem with time are from YECers who cannot accept ages beyond 6,000 years. And on that score, the YECer arguments are just plain silly.
cant watch this.. the av is crap
djla1 2 years ago
why does this Idiot featured on this video not get his work peer reviewed ?
I hate these people with a passion ,they spread Ignorance and consequently are holding back humanity ,so annoying .
I'm 42yrs old now and I've finally come to the opinion that most people are Ignorant Idiots with their heads stuck in the sand , so depressing .
sausage4mash 2 years ago
this is what happens when u force urself to make the facts match the conclusion u have already come up with and are to biased to leave. see real scientists follow the evidence without bias. they let it take them where ever it leads even if they HATE the results. einstein ruined the end of his cereer because he failed to see this fact and couldnt accept that some things werent 100% sure. creation astronomy doesnt exist. its just a stupid as saying virgin birth.....oww wait errr shit im sorry :(
keggerous 2 years ago
/user/AndromedasWake
thats all you need to know in regards to creationist astronomy.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
So we have another conspiracy theory--this time it's the "dogmatic" astronomical community conspiring to hide "facts". But Bible quotations--that's not dogma, right?
Science is the opposite of dogma. Scientists will accept facts. We have no business expecting any honest person to accept as facts the writings of the pre-scientific, Bronze Age Jews--yet, from this video, this is exactly what is demanded.
This video consists of cheap shots and hair-splitting. This kind of argument is doomed.
NevilleRhysBarnes 2 years ago
look, preach all you want, just don't call it science, ok? you diminish the work of real scientists by professing to be one.
sonex413 2 years ago
It has been proved that some planets and stars that have red shifts have been seen at different times with blue shifts.
CBALLEN 3 years ago
Much of what the video claims ranges from dubious to flatly wrong. It also neglects some clear empirical evidence that the universe and solar system cannot be only thousands of years old, including some that any layman can grasp and appreciate. One line of evidence concerns start light; another concerns meteorite impacts. Google: kuban meteorite bombardment
nabuk3 3 years ago
wow... people think this? great how people base their lives around a book written by a bunch of men around a table drinking too much thinking of ways to control and scare simple minded people =) SAVE ME JEBUS!!!
ShaunBonJovi 3 years ago
I know, right shaun? It's like they make claims without any wide supported evidence involved. More and more, they're saying 'Just have faith!' Hmm...scientist must be angered how these creationists just piss on their entire life's work.
aquatix 3 years ago
Thia guy gives me the notion that he has very little knowledge of what he is talking about . . .
jimsartor 4 years ago
He doesn't have the grand imagination of the fantasy world of evolution.
pilgrimsjourneyhome 4 years ago
Wow, a video by a creationist which is filled with lies, factual errors and pseudo-science. How 'surprising'.
tingtangs 4 years ago
tingtangs, "All about us is the world of nature, and over our heads at night is a universe of stars. We can ignore or ridicule what is there or say it all made itself, but our scoffing does not change the reality of the situation. A leading atheistic scientist of our time, *Fred Hoyle, wrote that, although it was not difficult to disprove Darwinism, what Paley had to say appeared likely to be unanswerable (*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981, p. 96).
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
No one is ridiculing what is there. No one is claiming that it 'made itself' either.
As for Fred Hoyle, he was an ASTRONOMIST, not a biologist. And he talked about how the first life came to be, not how it evolved. Evolution deals with how life evolved once it was here. Thus, Hoyle is irrelevant to evolution.
tingtangs 4 years ago
Yes, by deduction you ARE claiming that stars form themselves according to the known laws of the universe.
Albert Einstein was a theorist, not a mathematician. Should that denounce his mathematic formulas?
ThisIDig 4 years ago
Are you retarded, ThisIDig? Evolution is about BIOLOGY. How stars form are completely separate from that.
tingtangs 4 years ago
If you fail to see the continuous efforts to forge the Big Bang into evolution theory, then I'm afraid your "lost in space". Evolution theory is about the growth of mankind and it argues that man is getting "better and better". ( There is obviously no biological proof of this, and the evidence points to the contrary...)
ThisIDig 4 years ago
Are you retarded?
You must be.
The Big Bang has got nothing what so ever to do with evolution. The scientific theory of evolution is about how life on earth evolved.
Man is getting better and better? At what?
tingtangs 4 years ago
Theory of evolution does not claim to produce "better" or even more complex organisms. It only states that species change / evolve in response to environmental stimuli as conditions vary. As for proof, you're surrounded by it. The theory explains the variation and similarities you observe in the species inhabiting different or similar environments.
VAUS82 3 years ago 2
@VAUS82 You are mixing micro and macro evolution. You state that evolution doesn't produce more complex organisms. And then you point that what we see around us is the result. But you also believe we come from the first very simple organism, right?. That means one of your statements is wrong. Either you must agree that evolution produces more comples organisms or you must agree that the world started with many fully developed species. You can't have a mix of those two theories.
tokintmash 1 year ago
How also would you explain the well known behavior of bacteria species to evolve in response to antibiotics into a new resistant strain? Is this not evolution? Why can't this same behavior occur in larger species such as humans?
VAUS82 3 years ago 2
@VAUS82 /watch?v=0ym1RaUnuL0
tokintmash 1 year ago
Oh yeah, and did you get how Fred Hoyle was an ASTRONOMER, and how biology is far outside his area of expertise?
Wickra is also not a BIOLOGIST, but an ASTRONOMER and MATHEMATICIAN.
They both play around with stuff they haven't a clue about, hence their confused outbursts that have made them a laughing stock of science.
tingtangs 4 years ago
tingtangs - In the Beginning... Soup? - w w w dot warneveryone dot com/soup dot htm
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
People laughed at Galileo and Newton among many great others. Professor tintang, why don't you focus your argument on refuting theirs instead of attacking their credibility. That is a useless waste of time and will gain you no merit.
ThisIDig 4 years ago
They have no valid arguments, and all attempts at arguments have been refuted ages ago.
tingtangs 4 years ago
Indeed, Hoyle's 'tornado in a junkyard' nonsense, which is invalid and long since debunked, is also laughable, and it is interesting how you must resort to lies, factual errors, pseudo-science and quoting morons way out of their fields to find support.
LOL.
tingtangs 4 years ago
tingtangs, Evolutionists Find Rapid Magnetic Field Reversal (15 Days)! - h t t p://w w w dot youtube dot com/watch?v=fn6pfzjbGHc .
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
What on earth is that video supposed to show, BereanBeacon?
tingtangs 4 years ago
@BereanBeacon Evolutionist don't even care about Magnetic Field Reversal. Geologists used it in the 1950s to prove sea floor spreading in the Atlantic ocean, proving plate tectonic and the world is millions of years old.
gregrutz 10 months ago
Again, I only see baseless critique with no refutable evidence. Show your peers that you have ideas of your own.
ThisIDig 4 years ago
There is no need for me to repeat all the clear refutations of every single argument put forth by dishonest creationist liars. You can search the web if you want to find them and educate yourself.
tingtangs 4 years ago
I don't agree with everyone on either side myself, but how about the honest and intelligent arguments put forth by creationists?
ThisIDig 4 years ago 2
Name one. Name one single honest an intelligent argument by a creationist.
I want just one single argument, so that I can actually look into its validity.
So don't try flooding me with lots of nonsensical arguments to make it a lot of work to really check the validity.
tingtangs 4 years ago
Mutations have never been documented as adding NEW information to DNA strands. Yes, DUPLICATE cells occasionally form by a faulty mononucleosis process that as seen in Down's Syndrome, but no NEW information is added. One can clearly see the devastating results of this mutation and the complications it brings (inability to reproduce, intellectual/ biological retardation, etc.) Some plants are naturally equipped with a predisposition of variance in the genome information, but no mammals.
ThisIDig 4 years ago
You are wrong.
Google 'mutations adding information' and look it up at talkorigins dot org.
New 'information' can easily be added. Only someone who is completely clueless about these things would claim otherwise.
So basically, you just proved my point. Creationists are dishonest liars who keep repeating the same old refuted arguments over and over again. Thanks! :D
tingtangs 4 years ago 2
Thisldig is 100% correct,matter has never been observed creating NEW INFORMATION,SO WHY GIVE HIM THUMBS DOWN?
CBALLEN 3 years ago
The calculation on star births at around 14:00 is quite bogus. He's calculating the number of stars in the known universe, and implying we can actually observe and track every star as it is born. The most extensive star catalogue I could find contains about 15 million stars. Let's calculate the time between *observable* star births.
(1.5 x 10e7 stars) / (2 x 10e10 years)
= 1 star / 1333 years
Chris, you're off by a factor more than 1,000,000,000,000,000. Some might call that misleading.
VictorLaszloLives 4 years ago 2
VictorLaszloLives, why not contact him and tell about your concerns?
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
BereanBeacon, you posted this video. Why don't you take responsibility for the gross distortions you are spreading? If you think about it, you should realize that such outlandish rubish does not advance your claims; rather you damage the reputation of your own religion. Think for yourself.
VictorLaszloLives 4 years ago
what madness. boss man wikipedia says 7x10e22 and the European space agency says bet. 10e22 to 10e24 stars. that makes it 3.5x10e12 stars per year on average.
Metadeth7 4 years ago
Wikipedia... Thank goodness we finally have a credible source for the origin of life!
ThisIDig 4 years ago
whoa buddy i was not talking about the guy in the vid some bright guy made a comment saying the universe has 15 million stars which is wrong. i was actually supporting the vid cause the more stars the more the guy's claims in the vid are valid. not sure if ur for or against the vid but from ur previous comments u seem to be for it so am i. i also said European Space Agency not just wiki..
Metadeth7 4 years ago
What this guy is not telling you, is that
"quantized red shifts" have long since been discounted once they mapped them out. Galaxies are arranged in clusters. super clusters and voids, not shells.
Some red shifts for some galaxies thus are close and have gaps.
The "quantized red shifts" have been proposed when the data was scarce. More data revealed that this hypothesis is false.
vdizhoor 4 years ago 2
God is deceptive. He creates galaxies with their light emitted ahead of time, to test our faith in Genesis.
He is also very nice to women.
"If you see a pretty woman among your captives and would like her for a wife, then bring her home and "go in unto her." Later, if you decide you don't like her, you can simply "let her go." (Deuteronomy 21:11-14)
Isn't he wonderful?
vdizhoor 4 years ago 2
Why don't the OEC/evolutionists give an exact date for the evolution starting point for the universe,it would be illogical if you didn't have an exact scientific date if you're so sure it's 15,325,854,124 days old or whatever.
The rocks don't lie,what date did they give you,I really want to know?
dingorex 4 years ago
Are you referring to evolution (biology), cosmological dating (astronomy) or radiometric dating (geology)? Since there is no such thing as an "evolutionists" you must be referring to a specific field. Cosmologists have successfully the age of the universe at 13.7 gya. Geologists have determined the age of the earth at 4.5 gya. Biologists is not in the dating game.
lawilson200 4 years ago
Not entirely true: biologists are able to accurately date the point of separation between two genetic lines by comparing them to eachother and related samples.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
After writing that entry, some weeks ago, I remembered an example linking a period in our DNA record where the human population became relatively small (some thousands of people) to the eruption of Toba in Indonesia, 75,000 years ago. So I suppose it is now possible to trace the DNA record.
lawilson200 4 years ago
What does this have to do with evolution? When are you going to learn that evolution is a BIOLOGICAL explanation and Cosmology is an INDEPENDENT field of study that lives and dies on its own.
lawilson200 4 years ago
lawilson200, both require your god of time and neither can be proven. How can you seperate them when without the evolving of the comos at the start there can be no biological evolution.
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
They can be easily seperated. You are showing your ignorance by saying that silly old statement. That is like saying that without the discovery of the wheel we can have no cars, But are they the same. Or without the discovery of electricity, we can have no electric toasters.
quedorf 4 years ago
Show me where Darwin wrote that his theory is dependent on the age of the universe or the age of the earth itself. You will find that he said nothing on the subjects. The only problem with time are from YECers who cannot accept ages beyond 6,000 years. And on that score, the YECer arguments are just plain silly.
lawilson200 4 years ago
Shht. They already know. Why do you think every single claim (except the one where the Bible is literal truth) comes in the form of denial?
It's because they're still *in* denial. Give them time.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago