One Young-Earth Creationist says to another "Which is closer - the Moon or Mexico"? The other points at the Moon and replies "The Moon - Duh! You can't see Mexico from here".
@kaderoder It depends what Transperant Medium to send Light throw. The Scientific Method gives you the Speed/Velocity of Light through a VACUUM and Air. Through Different Glasses and Transperant Gems, the Velocities will differ slightly!!!!
@rampart8ty Are you really that stupid? The LMC is 168,000 light years away - so if all the stars went super nova 7000 years ago we would be due to detect the event in 161,000 years time. No questions of faith here. Just questions about your level of education and inbreeding.
@Iloveyouviruses lets assume what you just said is true - that C increases in areas with low concentrations of dark matter. This taken into account the universe is still billions and billions of years old. Why? We have measured C on earth which is in a low density halo of dark matter - which according to what you just said would mean that our observed value of C is at the upper bounds of its potential value. The universe is almost 14 billion years old and the bible is a fairy tale.
If the light from all the stars in the LMC burnt out 7000 years ago, we still would not observe this for 13,699,993,000 years (13.7 billion minus 0.000007 billion) so we are now observing the (ancient past) light of the LMC. Will people in 13.699993 billion years believe that we humans once saw the LMC? It's a question of faith. We, today, question observed events from 300 years ago.
@userunknown10 according to the bible god created everything in six days.if this is true the age of the earth and the age of the universe are only a few days apart at the most.............so yeah...read your bible again
@flyinj1000 But its logical to think that the bible means our solar system at least in 6 days because of the fact that god already excisted and had cast lucifer out (from somewhere) before that...
@flyinj1000 an in Ezekiel 28:13-15 it says Lucifer was created perfect(obviously before earth was created) and cast from heaven. also theres references in the bible of other planets with life and in 2 Cor 12 you find other intresting stuff
@userunknown10 "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1 that is the beginning. Unless in Genesis 1:0 it says "Before the beginning (like 13.7 billion years ago) god created everything".
@flyinj1000 Speaking of Genesis, if we all came from Adam and Eve... how did the children of Adam and Eve reproduce? If they reproduced with no direct relatives, there would be a fallacy in the Bible story that we all came from Adam and Eve. Or did some inbreeding take place?
Also, it is funny that the Bible mentions the sun and stars seperately, as the sun is just another star. In the dark ages people were convicted for not agreeing with the Church's story that the sun turned around the Earth.
Nope! All I see are little white dots, I've only got your word for it about all these 'galaxies' and stuff. All you astronomers might be making it all up. Unless I look through a really good telescope, I'll never know..
@hockeater Well, I don't really understand what's going on. How can Hubble see roughly 13.5 billion lightyears in every direction, and then, everything they see is near the very beginning of the Universe? Surely that would make the Earth the centre of the Universe? (As GFOD created it?) I don't buy the expanding balloon allegory.
@pineapplepenumbra What it means is that we can see in which direction all of these stars are moving in relation to us. We then notice that they're all moving away from the same place and so are we. Therefore by simple reversal of this known constant we can tell where it all used to be in the form of a singularity.
@hockeater Pah! You and your science. So where's the point we're all moving away from, how near is it to the Earth? Why's there no image of a face on the edge of the Universe, looking in? (I think there is and all you astronomer types are keeping quiet about it).
@pineapplepenumbra And that's where it gets tricky. Space as we know it it is uniformly expanding at a speed theoretically faster than light. This is possible as it is space itself expanding and not an object moving through space. We are also moving with it in a complex series of orbits, drifting, and movement, The reason your question can't be answered is because those same known constants are of star systems thousands if not millions of light years away. you literally see the past in the sky.
@hockeater I'm really sorry; I can't keep this stupidness up and I can't waste your time anymore, it's not fair. Thanks for your patience.
But I still think that newer and better telescopes will see the wide mouth and bulgy eyes of the Gargantuan Frog of Despair, peering into our Universe. For the first 4 verses of the Gospel of the Frog, click on my moniker.
Sooooo, because the universe is really really REALLY BIG, that means God didn't make it so???... Hmm, you ever get the feeling that maybe God, The Almighty Spirit, Who caused energy to exists is faster then the speed of light?... You people do know that the Spirit of God is every where right?...
You know, you people really need to repent, because this does not disprove God's existence at all, nor were you there when the universe was made.
@wisefreethinker242- Are you retarded? Where did the video say that god doesn't exist because the universe is huge? It only disproves the idea of young Earth creationism. Every other god out there that doesn't require a belief in a 6000 year old universe, including the one supported by most Catholics is rather untouched by this video.
"because this does not disprove God's existence at all"
It's not meant to. Again, it this video is only meant to disprove a 6000 year old universe.
(cont'd)- "You know, you people really need to repent"
For what? For not lying about what we can clearly see and measure?
"nor were you there when the universe was made."
The old "Were you there?" argument. Try using that in court to defend yourself and prepare to get laughed at. We solve crimes all the time using forensic evidence even if there were no witnesses, in fact, the forensic evidence trumps witness testimony. Same goes for science, we use evidence to figure out past events.
I had evolution and big bang shoved down my throat in college. I dare any atheist to take one year of theology and see how that feels. Did you ever think if there is a creator the way atheists believe in "chance" then a creator that can do anything could create a universe that looks however it would want it to. Now why would a creator do such a thing? If a creator does exist would we be able to understand its logic? I know that's cryptic but really think about that.
I'm telling you dude, Gravity is so 17th Century. Get with the 21st Century, check out "Remembering the End of the World", "The Electric Universe," and "Symbols of an Alien Sky." Get with the program and learn about the new Plasma Cosmology.
@EltonJThe There's nothing new about Plasma Cosmology. Proponents of Plasma cosmology haven't made any progress and they keep spewing the same things. Implications of Plasma cosmology have been debunked by the Big Bang theory. Plasma cosmology (PP) models do not provide predictions and have not explained many cosmological observations. PC has never had much support, and very little research is done.
@EltonJThe The Electric Universe (EU) has nothing to do with Plasma Cosmology. EU proponents deceptively try to associate themselves with Plasma cosmology, which was based on legitimate science. Many EU website like Thunderbotls and Holoscience are based on books like 'Electric Universe' and 'Thunderbolts of the Gods'. The authors (Talbott and Thornhill) aren't scientists at all. The Electric Sun was debunked here: tim-thompson(dot)com/electric-sun(dot)html
sorry to be so annoying but just because an object was measured to be 2.4 million light years away does not mean it took light that long to travel. I still completely agree with you on the age of he universe but because the universe is expanding it that means the space through which the light traveled expanded too. Also interesting to note is the objects observed are now currently even farther away.
What's important to understand is that if we see light from an object that appears 2.4 million light years away, then we're only seeing the distance BEFORE the 2.4 million years of expansion, so yes, light has taken that long to reach us (and the object has since moved considerably further away, though not observably, thanks to the delay).
Even if we were moving towards an object, the light would still take that long to reach us (and the object would have shifted color)
@firemonkey16 Did you know that when you look at the sun, you look 8 minuts in the past ? We are 150 millions km from the sun, it takes 8 minuts to the light to come to us.
When you look at the moon, you look more than 1 second in the past.
When you look your feet, you look 0,0000000053 second in the past.
Watching far away in space = watching far away in time !!
However, the universe could be smaller than we think if it curves back on itself. I don't know much about this, but I was skimming a book in my library (university engineering library, non fiction) and someone was proposing a model of the universe where it is a 4 dimensional torus, and when we see objects that are far away, we are simply looping around the torus a few times, and seeing an object.
You're right, it's not. The speed of light changes depending on the medium it's propagating through such as air, glass or water. That's why we get refraction.
However, the speed of light in a vacuum remains constant.
@The Homeless Cripple No , I meant that it's slowing down. I don't think this is known definitively but there is some evidence that this may be the case. If true however, it would mean some serious revisions need to be made in a few fundamental scientific equations.
I'm sorry but your understanding of light is lacking. there is absolutely no mechanism that would allow for C to degrade. There have been dozens of experiments done based on the "ether theory" of light, all of which proved null. Einstein's work both disproved the "ether theory" and the concept of a decreasing C value.
It may be cool & all living in the 1940's, but you should really try joining us in 2010.
@The Homeless Cripple Don't blame me when this is confirmed and you feel a little silly. i don't know by what mechanism C degrades but why should light be any different to any other natural process, everything is subject to entropy and degradation.
it's just the way of the world, even back here in the 40s.
Basically for C-Decay to be right either light has to be gaining mass (because it's slowing down), which it isn't cause photons have no mass. OR there would be a radical increase in it's frequency with a decreasing velocity. Light doesn't work that way at all though. As the velocity of light decreases, so does its frequency.
Neither such phenomena has ever been observed as light moves in a vacuum.
@The Homeless Cripple Ok, if photons have absolutely no mass, then how is it possible that light cannot escape even the enormous gravity of a black hole?
Because of escape velocity. This is the velocity required for an object to escape another's gravitational pull. Because black holes are so massive there gets a point in the gravitational field where the pull is so strong, the required escape velocity surpasses the speed of light. since nothing can move faster than light, it is impossible for light to escape past this specific point.
I suggest you stop now before you look completely uneducated.
"Ok, if photons have absolutely no mass, then how is it possible that light cannot escape even the enormous gravity of a black hole? "
Thinks of space as a water-stream and you are in your boat rowing against it. The black hole would be a waterfall where the water (space) moves faster than you can row ever.
I get the visible stars and galaxies part of the video but what does that have to do with gravity. I see the correlation between the distance and the effects of gravity but why can't they be mutually exclusive. I think it's like saying that because everything seems to be laid out perfectly it implies a designer. I think it odd that creationism cannot be infallible in there theories but evolutionist can. Both have been shown right and wrong in different theories regarding their worldview.
I'm not sure i've understood your question (tell me if i haven't).
The video says :
If light has been of constant velocity
and if universe is 6000 YO (or 10.000 if you want), then the distant galaxies we see, like LMC, cannot be farther than 6000 light years (otherwise we could'nt see them).
If they were so near (instead of 2'000'000 times more as scientists think), then the estimed gravity of all these stars makes us fall in them in **less than a year** !
1) Evolution can and is fallible. As all scientific theories. For instance, Newton's theory is known to be wrong. But scientists rely strongly on it when launching satellites or probes. because it's a quite good approximation of reality. Einstein's theory is better. But it's surely not perfect and not infallible.
Evolution is like that.
no scientific method leads to young-earth creationism. not a good approximation of reality at all.
If I were a Creationist, I'd have an alternative explanation.
Simply, that stars are NOT distant suns, and that our "ball of hot gas sustaining nucelar fusion at its core" is wrong. Instead, stars are very very small, which explains how the LMC could be less than a light-year away without frying us or throwing the planets out of the Solar system.
You would be correct IF light travelled at the same rate but what if light was faster in the past and has since slowed down (for which there has been some evidence I'm told). Just like a vehicle can travel at different speeds so too can light.
Just like a vehicle? Hmmmm... Well IF light had traveled faster in the past and was just now reaching us then you are correct those galaxies would be closer than they appear. Now we have to figure out if light slowed down all at once or if it has slowed gradually and how much it slowed down. Does it slow down in response to anything? What can affect the speed of light? This has far reaching applications. From electronic laser devices to laser surgery. I see a noble prize for you in the future.
I don't have the info in front of me to respond to your comment but what does gravity have to do with the speed of light since you probably believe in its constancy? Perhaps I will get back to you on that...
Is this a response to my post? I'm not sure how to respond if it is. If you are stating that there are people who "believe" the speed of light is constant perhaps I suppose I can respond to that. We don't have to believe that the speed of light is constant anymore than we have to "believe" the weight of an electron or the mass of a star. We don;t have to "believe" because someone has done the research and we can check their numbers and accept their findings once they are supported by evidence.
You may wish to check out a book by D. Russell Humphreys who has PhD. in Physics and he shows theories on how light travels, how gravity affects the passage of time (by distorting time) in conjunction with such phenomenons as black holes, white holes, event horizons, etc. His book was published by Master Books whose address in 1994 was P.O. Box 727, Green Forest, AR 72638, U.S.A. although you may want to check online if this is their current address.
But with God ALL things are possible even with the speed of light. With such things as black holes, for instance, the law of physics seem to break down which may just affect light properties. Albert Einstein surmised that if a person could travel near the current speed of light he might age slower than those back on earth.
1) You cannot use God as a reason AND a conclusion. Pick on or your argument becomes ridiculous.
After all, my invisible unicorn exists because ALL things are possible with my invisible unicorn.
2) light NEVER changes speed. It can be bent. It can be twisted, it can even rip holes in space time if channeled correctly. But it cannot and will not every go faster than the current speed of light in a vacuum.
EVER
and yes, as you become faster time effects you less. your point?
As I said the law of physics which includes the speed of light, etc., so...not all is at it seems. So far as God is concerned you seem not believe in his existence although you cannot prove that he does NOT exist. On the other hand many believe in macro-evolution ,for instance, although it cannot be decisively proven but accepted on faith or trust just as one has faith in God. - or not. (I've known a few former atheists who did come to believe in Him.)
I remember a few occasions when I believe God did save me from danger, especially in driving situations, or saw me through pretty difficult economic circumstances. Sometimes we don't see the big picture and think that God isn't there but he is. (My wife and I were never able to have children so we've had our disappointments, but then raising children isn't easy either, so perhaps God saved us from some unforseen grief.)
Your argument sounds a bit gargled but I do believe in conservation of energy, I do believe in the law of gravity, and I do believe in math which has to do with numbers. All created by God.
Furthermore, can you give me ANY evidence AT ALL to say God exists. 'I can feel him' and I can feel my sides splitting. 'I know cause the bible says' Holy shit! If books are true then Frodo needs our help! "What else could of made us" See SCIENCE... and all other religions "Morals" biology and chemistry "miracles" none have been documented. "It is a test of faith" For you to deny God's creation for a book written by man, you call god flawed. All religion contradicts itself. "GOD!" Atheismo!
I suppose you'll have to accept it by faith. However, Jesus did have a skeptic as one of his disciples who needed to SEE before he believed. He did tell doubting Thomas that we are indeed blessed if believe without seeing.
Same thing happened with my invisible flying unicorn from the future. I had a bunch of people who believed in him and gave me money, but one wanted proof, so he got to ride the unicorn, and afterwards the unicorn stabbed him.
Moral? Don't doubt the invisible impossible creature, just worship it and give me money.
ALL the parables and accounts, every single one of them, is a brainwashing device.
I don't think you're taking this discussion too seriously so I may as well end it right here and now my friend. I trust in time you will have your eyes opened to the realistic truth before its too late.
The bible is based on eye witness testimony by many people of that time just as any historical account is based upon people who witnessed the events of the time. There were for instance 500 people who saw Jesus after his ressurrection and one of his disciples, Thomas, a skeptic, then believed that Jesus was alive again! Some people also deny the Holocaust but evidence shows that it did occur and we have to trust that the witnesses were not lieing. How much more evidence do you need?
You may be interested in viewing a video which includes a former atheist (Calvin Smith) as a co-host. The title is "Creation Magazine Live - Episode 1" on You Tube.
P.S. My name is spelt WIERDsma - a dutch surname, although I live in Canada.
How difficult would it have been for biblical eyewitnesses to have fabricated what they saw. There would have been howls of protest and Christianity might not have survived had it been exposed as a fraud based upon the reality of the ressurrection.
Actually there were secular authors living in that era who witnesses these events of this "pernicious sect" founded by one Jesus Christus. I'll have to look up the names of these persons since I don't have it with me at this public internet site.
P.S. Speaking of photographic evidence they don't seem to have any of those evolutionary processes photographically documented that are said to have occurred many millions of years ago. Too bad they didn't have cameras yet!
You sound like doubting Thomas. Anyway here are some of those secular sources; Flavius Josephus secular author when the apostle Paul was alive who wrote about that person named Jesus Christus, worshipped by his followers. Cornelius Tacitus, Governor of Asia, is quoted as saying the following: "Christus (Christ) the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition repressed for a time broke out again, not only
through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (Annals XV 44)
Pliny the Younger talked about Christians meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light singing to Christ as a god. Seutonius the roman historian referred to Christians causing disturbances in Rome which led to their being banished from the city, and that the "sect" as being derived from the "instigation of Chrestus" (His spelling).
Thallus: Who talks about a miraculous darkness covering the face of the earth at the Passover in A.D. 32 although he explained it away as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably as it seemed to him. There are also some other documents of 2000+ years ago which in seem way of the Messiah, as well as old testament personalities such as the Dea Sea Scrolls, The "Son of God" 4Q246 Scroll, and so forth. So you see there were/are some other than bibilical sources for Christ's existence.
Some of those mentioned did live before his death but I see your prejudice is not unlike many liberal theologians who refuse to accept any reliable evidence because it goes against their preconceived superstitions. P.S. For most of history we have to take people's word for it of those times since there were no cameras and only hand written documents.
Very few people totally deny his existence but simply redefine who he was. Muslims define him as the Son of Mary but not the Son of Allah. Other religions have him as one of their many gods. It is highly unlikely Christianity would be existing if he did not exist. Most world religions usually have a historical figure e.g. Muhmamad that was the founder of their particular belief system.
The point was that although I don't beleve in the other religions they do believe in the existence of God. However, it's the person of Jesus Christ they have a different view on. We say he is the divine Son of God while they say he is not the divine Son of God. In that sense there are only "two" beliefs in the world, those that support the pro position and those that are on the con side.
The other religions deny that Jesus is the Messiah for ALL people but not all people accept him be it Islam or some other belief system. I would then be serving some other "master". (And we all do be it religion or "science".)
You atheist cannot make up your mind...first you say the bible cannot be trusted because its been translated over and over and over and until we find the discovery of the dead sea scrolls and match it with our bible today they seem to be flawless in translation and when we tell you there are documents that Jesus existed you tell us to prove it and we do but its not good enough for you because you want documents before his death which we do provide. Geee!!!! What do you want??!!!!!
serve evolution, abiogenesis and cosmogenesis the same method and you'll find that there is far more evidence for the scientific theories than for any religious text.
FAR more evidence.
Atheists can make up their mind, we don't believe anything, we only make WELL-EDUCATED guesses, and then the scientists make hypothesis, and then peer reviewing and the scientific method produce theories.
THEORIES are the CLOSEST thing to fact a scientist can say.
Why Christianity? Because Christianity is the truth. God's 6 day creation is the truth. The bible even tells us that our universe is expanding or stretching...which i commented on the first video. Atheist wanna attack the bible because you assume it claims the earth to be flat because it says 4 corners? R u kidding me...when other verses in the bible speaks of the earth being a spherical shape. The bible talks about God taking the water from the sea and pouring it out on the earth(hydrologic
@shakinbakeful . Dude, while I believe in god, I don't believe the universe is 6000years old. Because scientists have measured stars and galaxies being on the orders of billions of lightyears away.
Which means that the light has been traveling for billions of years away from those galaxies to go into thier telescopes.
6 billion years is like a million times more than 6000 years. I still belive in god, and i think it is our duty to understand god's massive universe.
That depends whether this is from liberal or conservative scholars. Thallus actually believed this phenomenon to be an eclipse of the sun-unreasonably as it seemed to be to to a later North African Christian teacher since a solar eclipse could not occur at the same time as a full moon and it was the season of the Pachal full moon that Christ died.
The high priest carefully calculated the position of the full moon to the smallest degree becasue their whole Jewish calendar, especially Passover, depended on following the lunar position exactly.
Seutonius, Roman Historian, referred to Christians "causing disturbances in Rome which led them being banished from the city. He identfies the "sect" of Christians as being derived from the "instigation of Chrestus" (His spelling). Thallus, who talked about a "miraculous darkness covering the face of the earth at the Passover in A.D. There are also some other documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, The "Son of God 4Q246" Scroll and others which talk about the Messiah.
P.S. Actually creationists do support what is referred to as MICROevolution which refers to variations within a kind. So far as dating is concerned results can be wildly variable and is based upon assumptions about its age. You can find out more by logging on to Creation Magazine- assuming your mind is open.
Micro evolution refers to variations within a kind of animal, for instance, such as various breeds of dogs, while macro evolution refers to one kind of species e.g. primate changes into a human being over supposedly millions of years. The former is supported by creationists while the latter is rejected.
c) published and peer reviewed using the scientific method
d) been accepted by the scientific community.
You cannot deny macro evolution, you just plain can't. While you're at it, deny gravity, deny that stars are composed primarily of hydrogen, deny that scientific method works, deny that the internet exists.
"Kind" refers to different families with a parallel history such as dogs. cats, horses, fish, human beings, etc. each being a separate creation and then breeding off into various kinds/races of dogs, cats, horses, fish, human beings, etc. while evolutionists seem to suggest it all evolved from a single source some long ages after the so-called Big Bang. Is this parallel history really so "unscientific" in your mind?
I'm no fish expert but interbreeding sometimes has led to new breeds at least in the animal world. Now technology can do amazing things although whether or not the results are desirable is another matter!
@wierdsmabob So I take it you don't hold apes and humans to belong in the same kind... Tell you what. There is an australian spider whose poison is deadly ONLY TO PRIMATES. If it bit you... would you drink the anti-poison??
Only if the doctor said I should. Would an evolutionist hold to the idea of interbreeding say between dogs and cats, horses and humans (and end up with a mythical Disney character if that were possible!) Perhaps an evolutionist would believe that you really could have a frog changing into a handsome prince given millions of years!
You obviously have little education on current taxonomic theory.
The current evolutionary tree of life model was formulated 150 years ago and is universally accepted by every biologist.
It is a BRANCHING model of the history of life, unlike chain of life model. A branch can only fork, not be transplanted onto another branch. Likewise, organisms can't simply change genus because that's NOT HOW BIOLOGY WORKS.
Even creationists believe in various branches or "kinds" and then variations can occur within that branch. However there can be no crossover from one branch to another one, according to biologists I have read from.
That's a bit vague isn't it? By that definition, anything from mosquitos to living things could be considered a "kind". Do you have a more specific definition, one that mentions what SEPARATES kinds?
That's right, they can't... but they can certainly create ne branches. As a previous writer suggests, you are not up to date on current taxonomy. Fishes are no longer considered a correct group ( clade ), because you can't give a definition of them without including another group ( amphians ). For example, try to give a definition of fish that encompasses ONLY fish. Its not possible. There are fish with lungs that cant live without air, fish that live mostly on land, fish that climb trees (cont)
( cont ) , etc. Current classifications (not in hierarchical order ) include chordates, gnatostomes ( jawed animals ), tetrapods, amniotes ( animals with amniotic liquid - reptiles, mammals and birds ), sauropsids, ratites, mammals, monotremes, primates, etc.
I want this video on my X310 unit.
elijahunderw25 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your video went viral on Sanaa
thadgiles513 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One Young-Earth Creationist says to another "Which is closer - the Moon or Mexico"? The other points at the Moon and replies "The Moon - Duh! You can't see Mexico from here".
csmcmillion 2 months ago
Some people will just never learn.
3744012 2 months ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
It's not the size of your universe. It's how you study it.
m96c40 7 months ago
Satan get out of my harddrive ;)
tcheneyhg 7 months ago
The speed of light is decreasing. Its now down to 298000 km ps. It was first measured just over 300000. No source.
kaderoder 7 months ago
@kaderoder It depends what Transperant Medium to send Light throw. The Scientific Method gives you the Speed/Velocity of Light through a VACUUM and Air. Through Different Glasses and Transperant Gems, the Velocities will differ slightly!!!!
Jules7892 2 months ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
@Jules7892 No my friend, please google it. The speed of light is decreasing.
kaderoder 2 months ago
@kaderoder What transperant Medium is the Velocity of Light or Speed of Light decreasing????I will google.com it,return you with a better descision!!
Jules7892 2 months ago
@rampart8ty Are you really that stupid? The LMC is 168,000 light years away - so if all the stars went super nova 7000 years ago we would be due to detect the event in 161,000 years time. No questions of faith here. Just questions about your level of education and inbreeding.
TheAriBerkowitz 7 months ago
@Iloveyouviruses lets assume what you just said is true - that C increases in areas with low concentrations of dark matter. This taken into account the universe is still billions and billions of years old. Why? We have measured C on earth which is in a low density halo of dark matter - which according to what you just said would mean that our observed value of C is at the upper bounds of its potential value. The universe is almost 14 billion years old and the bible is a fairy tale.
TheAriBerkowitz 7 months ago
If the speed of light is much much higher in areas with low concentration of dark matter, then there's no problem with an universe big and young.
It's funny what you can do with all the fudge-factors invented for the big-bang dogma n_n
IloveYOUviruses 9 months ago
If the light from all the stars in the LMC burnt out 7000 years ago, we still would not observe this for 13,699,993,000 years (13.7 billion minus 0.000007 billion) so we are now observing the (ancient past) light of the LMC. Will people in 13.699993 billion years believe that we humans once saw the LMC? It's a question of faith. We, today, question observed events from 300 years ago.
RAMPAR8TY 10 months ago
I dig the usage of the demon heads on the trig graphic
colerichards6969 10 months ago
actually creationalist say the earth is 6000 years old not the universe............. so yeah... do your math again
userunknown10 10 months ago
@userunknown10 according to the bible god created everything in six days.if this is true the age of the earth and the age of the universe are only a few days apart at the most.............so yeah...read your bible again
flyinj1000 10 months ago
@flyinj1000 But its logical to think that the bible means our solar system at least in 6 days because of the fact that god already excisted and had cast lucifer out (from somewhere) before that...
userunknown10 10 months ago
@userunknown10 according to genesis 1:16 god created the sun,moon,and STARS on the fourth day
flyinj1000 10 months ago
@flyinj1000 and in Ezekiel 28:13-15 it says lucifer was created (obviously before earth was created) and cast away from heaven
userunknown10 10 months ago
Comment removed
flyinj1000 10 months ago
@flyinj1000 an in Ezekiel 28:13-15 it says Lucifer was created perfect(obviously before earth was created) and cast from heaven. also theres references in the bible of other planets with life and in 2 Cor 12 you find other intresting stuff
userunknown10 10 months ago
Comment removed
flyinj1000 10 months ago
@userunknown10 "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1 that is the beginning. Unless in Genesis 1:0 it says "Before the beginning (like 13.7 billion years ago) god created everything".
gimmepassword 10 months ago
@flyinj1000 Speaking of Genesis, if we all came from Adam and Eve... how did the children of Adam and Eve reproduce? If they reproduced with no direct relatives, there would be a fallacy in the Bible story that we all came from Adam and Eve. Or did some inbreeding take place?
Also, it is funny that the Bible mentions the sun and stars seperately, as the sun is just another star. In the dark ages people were convicted for not agreeing with the Church's story that the sun turned around the Earth.
OhReallyNoWai 8 months ago
@userunknown10 oh!!! facepalm!!!
razrX 10 months ago
nice simulation..thats lmc sure is a party killer.
hyams1 11 months ago
Nope! All I see are little white dots, I've only got your word for it about all these 'galaxies' and stuff. All you astronomers might be making it all up. Unless I look through a really good telescope, I'll never know..
pineapplepenumbra 1 year ago
@pineapplepenumbra I hope for your sake that you're joking...
hockeater 1 year ago
@hockeater Well, I don't really understand what's going on. How can Hubble see roughly 13.5 billion lightyears in every direction, and then, everything they see is near the very beginning of the Universe? Surely that would make the Earth the centre of the Universe? (As GFOD created it?) I don't buy the expanding balloon allegory.
pineapplepenumbra 1 year ago
@pineapplepenumbra What it means is that we can see in which direction all of these stars are moving in relation to us. We then notice that they're all moving away from the same place and so are we. Therefore by simple reversal of this known constant we can tell where it all used to be in the form of a singularity.
hockeater 1 year ago
@hockeater Pah! You and your science. So where's the point we're all moving away from, how near is it to the Earth? Why's there no image of a face on the edge of the Universe, looking in? (I think there is and all you astronomer types are keeping quiet about it).
pineapplepenumbra 1 year ago
@pineapplepenumbra And that's where it gets tricky. Space as we know it it is uniformly expanding at a speed theoretically faster than light. This is possible as it is space itself expanding and not an object moving through space. We are also moving with it in a complex series of orbits, drifting, and movement, The reason your question can't be answered is because those same known constants are of star systems thousands if not millions of light years away. you literally see the past in the sky.
hockeater 1 year ago
@hockeater I'm really sorry; I can't keep this stupidness up and I can't waste your time anymore, it's not fair. Thanks for your patience.
But I still think that newer and better telescopes will see the wide mouth and bulgy eyes of the Gargantuan Frog of Despair, peering into our Universe. For the first 4 verses of the Gospel of the Frog, click on my moniker.
pineapplepenumbra 1 year ago
@pineapplepenumbra Wow... That was... different. Well bye.
hockeater 1 year ago
Comment removed
pineapplepenumbra 1 year ago
@hockeater Well, you did say in your first post that you hoped I was joking!
Religious nutters say I'm making the Frog up, but they can't prove that it isn't real.
pineapplepenumbra 1 year ago
@pineapplepenumbra Geocentric nut jobs on YouTube? Now I've seen everything.
inswoon 1 year ago
@inswoon Hang on, now are you being serious? Am I being played at my own stupid game here? What do you think my views actually are?
pineapplepenumbra 1 year ago
@pineapplepenumbra Willies
inswoon 1 year ago
@inswoon Rofl!
pineapplepenumbra 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Place your classify we offer you naughty women benaughtyman.info
kasunikaanjana 1 year ago
Sooooo, because the universe is really really REALLY BIG, that means God didn't make it so???... Hmm, you ever get the feeling that maybe God, The Almighty Spirit, Who caused energy to exists is faster then the speed of light?... You people do know that the Spirit of God is every where right?...
You know, you people really need to repent, because this does not disprove God's existence at all, nor were you there when the universe was made.
wisefreethinker242 1 year ago
@wisefreethinker242- Are you retarded? Where did the video say that god doesn't exist because the universe is huge? It only disproves the idea of young Earth creationism. Every other god out there that doesn't require a belief in a 6000 year old universe, including the one supported by most Catholics is rather untouched by this video.
"because this does not disprove God's existence at all"
It's not meant to. Again, it this video is only meant to disprove a 6000 year old universe.
califoniania 1 year ago
(cont'd)- "You know, you people really need to repent"
For what? For not lying about what we can clearly see and measure?
"nor were you there when the universe was made."
The old "Were you there?" argument. Try using that in court to defend yourself and prepare to get laughed at. We solve crimes all the time using forensic evidence even if there were no witnesses, in fact, the forensic evidence trumps witness testimony. Same goes for science, we use evidence to figure out past events.
califoniania 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is your lucky day with naughty hot chicks mworld5.info
LisesiHeath 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
World s no 1 Russian women dating site here gettop5.info
RileyDarlem 1 year ago
The speed of Chuck Norris.
ILIYYILI 1 year ago
good music
abarbar06 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I had evolution and big bang shoved down my throat in college. I dare any atheist to take one year of theology and see how that feels. Did you ever think if there is a creator the way atheists believe in "chance" then a creator that can do anything could create a universe that looks however it would want it to. Now why would a creator do such a thing? If a creator does exist would we be able to understand its logic? I know that's cryptic but really think about that.
serty1730 1 year ago
Comment removed
serty1730 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online Be Naughty women benaughtyman.info
haritadilani 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Naughty women in the lane benaughtyman.info
yasodagangani 1 year ago
I'm telling you dude, Gravity is so 17th Century. Get with the 21st Century, check out "Remembering the End of the World", "The Electric Universe," and "Symbols of an Alien Sky." Get with the program and learn about the new Plasma Cosmology.
EltonJThe 1 year ago
@EltonJThe There's nothing new about Plasma Cosmology. Proponents of Plasma cosmology haven't made any progress and they keep spewing the same things. Implications of Plasma cosmology have been debunked by the Big Bang theory. Plasma cosmology (PP) models do not provide predictions and have not explained many cosmological observations. PC has never had much support, and very little research is done.
TheLegendarySkeptic 1 year ago
@EltonJThe The Electric Universe (EU) has nothing to do with Plasma Cosmology. EU proponents deceptively try to associate themselves with Plasma cosmology, which was based on legitimate science. Many EU website like Thunderbotls and Holoscience are based on books like 'Electric Universe' and 'Thunderbolts of the Gods'. The authors (Talbott and Thornhill) aren't scientists at all. The Electric Sun was debunked here: tim-thompson(dot)com/electric-sun(dot)html
TheLegendarySkeptic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kind Russian girls for marriage gettop5.info
IsabjCobhy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Marginal value naughty ladies here ***mworld5.info***
ValeriaWenda 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meet Sexy Girls in Your Area busizz4me.info
bolgendolki 1 year ago
lol, I like the Satan heads swapped in for Theta in the Trigonomic functions
KittyRokher 1 year ago
sorry to be so annoying but just because an object was measured to be 2.4 million light years away does not mean it took light that long to travel. I still completely agree with you on the age of he universe but because the universe is expanding it that means the space through which the light traveled expanded too. Also interesting to note is the objects observed are now currently even farther away.
firemonkey16 1 year ago
@firemonkey16
What's important to understand is that if we see light from an object that appears 2.4 million light years away, then we're only seeing the distance BEFORE the 2.4 million years of expansion, so yes, light has taken that long to reach us (and the object has since moved considerably further away, though not observably, thanks to the delay).
Even if we were moving towards an object, the light would still take that long to reach us (and the object would have shifted color)
Catamount1412 1 year ago
@firemonkey16
The definition of a light year is the distance light traveled in one year.
So 2.4 million light years means light traveled 2.4 million years.
DarkLordVivec 1 year ago
@firemonkey16 Did you know that when you look at the sun, you look 8 minuts in the past ? We are 150 millions km from the sun, it takes 8 minuts to the light to come to us.
When you look at the moon, you look more than 1 second in the past.
When you look your feet, you look 0,0000000053 second in the past.
Watching far away in space = watching far away in time !!
mugwortt 1 year ago
The Tangent of the devil is the opposite over adjacent side is the devil over the devil!
AllOtherNamesTaken2 1 year ago
Haha, Oh fuck the LMC just took out pluto, run for your life.
blarginatorisback 1 year ago
I couldn't stop laughing when the LMC started creeping into our solar system! xD
secular555 1 year ago
ROFL, tan devil heads
flywiththisboy 1 year ago
Fantastic
paulurban2 1 year ago
evil triangles XD
Absolutely lovely and comprehensible and entertaining. I wished my physics class had been this interesting. Great job. 5*
roecla 1 year ago
Very informative video.
However, the universe could be smaller than we think if it curves back on itself. I don't know much about this, but I was skimming a book in my library (university engineering library, non fiction) and someone was proposing a model of the universe where it is a 4 dimensional torus, and when we see objects that are far away, we are simply looping around the torus a few times, and seeing an object.
just something to think about.
jackminardi 1 year ago
The speed of light is not constant.
mutabrev 1 year ago
@mutabrev
You're right, it's not. The speed of light changes depending on the medium it's propagating through such as air, glass or water. That's why we get refraction.
However, the speed of light in a vacuum remains constant.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@The Homeless Cripple No , I meant that it's slowing down. I don't think this is known definitively but there is some evidence that this may be the case. If true however, it would mean some serious revisions need to be made in a few fundamental scientific equations.
mutabrev 1 year ago
@mutabrev
I'm sorry but your understanding of light is lacking. there is absolutely no mechanism that would allow for C to degrade. There have been dozens of experiments done based on the "ether theory" of light, all of which proved null. Einstein's work both disproved the "ether theory" and the concept of a decreasing C value.
It may be cool & all living in the 1940's, but you should really try joining us in 2010.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
@The Homeless Cripple Don't blame me when this is confirmed and you feel a little silly. i don't know by what mechanism C degrades but why should light be any different to any other natural process, everything is subject to entropy and degradation.
it's just the way of the world, even back here in the 40s.
mutabrev 1 year ago
@mutabrev
You ever hear of conservation of energy?
Basically for C-Decay to be right either light has to be gaining mass (because it's slowing down), which it isn't cause photons have no mass. OR there would be a radical increase in it's frequency with a decreasing velocity. Light doesn't work that way at all though. As the velocity of light decreases, so does its frequency.
Neither such phenomena has ever been observed as light moves in a vacuum.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Comment removed
mutabrev 1 year ago
@The Homeless Cripple Ok, if photons have absolutely no mass, then how is it possible that light cannot escape even the enormous gravity of a black hole?
mutabrev 1 year ago
@mutabrev
Because of escape velocity. This is the velocity required for an object to escape another's gravitational pull. Because black holes are so massive there gets a point in the gravitational field where the pull is so strong, the required escape velocity surpasses the speed of light. since nothing can move faster than light, it is impossible for light to escape past this specific point.
I suggest you stop now before you look completely uneducated.
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mutabrev
"Ok, if photons have absolutely no mass, then how is it possible that light cannot escape even the enormous gravity of a black hole? "
Thinks of space as a water-stream and you are in your boat rowing against it. The black hole would be a waterfall where the water (space) moves faster than you can row ever.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@mutabrev Because the space is warped back upon itself. Light does not have mass, but is affected by warped space-time [gravity]
gregrutz 1 year ago
I get the visible stars and galaxies part of the video but what does that have to do with gravity. I see the correlation between the distance and the effects of gravity but why can't they be mutually exclusive. I think it's like saying that because everything seems to be laid out perfectly it implies a designer. I think it odd that creationism cannot be infallible in there theories but evolutionist can. Both have been shown right and wrong in different theories regarding their worldview.
brewercap 1 year ago
@brewercap
I'm not sure i've understood your question (tell me if i haven't).
The video says :
If light has been of constant velocity
and if universe is 6000 YO (or 10.000 if you want), then the distant galaxies we see, like LMC, cannot be farther than 6000 light years (otherwise we could'nt see them).
If they were so near (instead of 2'000'000 times more as scientists think), then the estimed gravity of all these stars makes us fall in them in **less than a year** !
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
@brewercap
and about your last sentences :
1) Evolution can and is fallible. As all scientific theories. For instance, Newton's theory is known to be wrong. But scientists rely strongly on it when launching satellites or probes. because it's a quite good approximation of reality. Einstein's theory is better. But it's surely not perfect and not infallible.
Evolution is like that.
no scientific method leads to young-earth creationism. not a good approximation of reality at all.
Lioobayoyo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason Evolutionists/Naturalists attack Creationists is because it's too late to cry
Facts with NO religious spin:
(1) DNA code is language.
(2) Language originates in a mind.
(3) Information exists independent of its medium.
(4) Information and language are not matter or energy.
(5) Biological life forms are the creative and purposeful product of information and language.
There are only two known languages to man:
(1) of human mind origin (2) DNA code
Those are the scientific facts.
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
If I were a Creationist, I'd have an alternative explanation.
Simply, that stars are NOT distant suns, and that our "ball of hot gas sustaining nucelar fusion at its core" is wrong. Instead, stars are very very small, which explains how the LMC could be less than a light-year away without frying us or throwing the planets out of the Solar system.
rogermwilcox 2 years ago
the only small thing i see here is your brain!
NGC292 2 years ago
Note the "if" at the beginning of my response.
It's kind of an important word there.
rogermwilcox 2 years ago
You would be correct IF light travelled at the same rate but what if light was faster in the past and has since slowed down (for which there has been some evidence I'm told). Just like a vehicle can travel at different speeds so too can light.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Just like a vehicle? Hmmmm... Well IF light had traveled faster in the past and was just now reaching us then you are correct those galaxies would be closer than they appear. Now we have to figure out if light slowed down all at once or if it has slowed gradually and how much it slowed down. Does it slow down in response to anything? What can affect the speed of light? This has far reaching applications. From electronic laser devices to laser surgery. I see a noble prize for you in the future.
HMSBeagleDVM 2 years ago
I don't have the info in front of me to respond to your comment but what does gravity have to do with the speed of light since you probably believe in its constancy? Perhaps I will get back to you on that...
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Is this a response to my post? I'm not sure how to respond if it is. If you are stating that there are people who "believe" the speed of light is constant perhaps I suppose I can respond to that. We don't have to believe that the speed of light is constant anymore than we have to "believe" the weight of an electron or the mass of a star. We don;t have to "believe" because someone has done the research and we can check their numbers and accept their findings once they are supported by evidence.
HMSBeagleDVM 2 years ago
You may wish to check out a book by D. Russell Humphreys who has PhD. in Physics and he shows theories on how light travels, how gravity affects the passage of time (by distorting time) in conjunction with such phenomenons as black holes, white holes, event horizons, etc. His book was published by Master Books whose address in 1994 was P.O. Box 727, Green Forest, AR 72638, U.S.A. although you may want to check online if this is their current address.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
watch part 1
it explains this, and light slowing down actually INCREASES the age of the universe, not to mention it is a lie anyway.
Light cannot go faster than the speed of light, not even if you push it really hard
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
But with God ALL things are possible even with the speed of light. With such things as black holes, for instance, the law of physics seem to break down which may just affect light properties. Albert Einstein surmised that if a person could travel near the current speed of light he might age slower than those back on earth.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
1) You cannot use God as a reason AND a conclusion. Pick on or your argument becomes ridiculous.
After all, my invisible unicorn exists because ALL things are possible with my invisible unicorn.
2) light NEVER changes speed. It can be bent. It can be twisted, it can even rip holes in space time if channeled correctly. But it cannot and will not every go faster than the current speed of light in a vacuum.
EVER
and yes, as you become faster time effects you less. your point?
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
As I said the law of physics which includes the speed of light, etc., so...not all is at it seems. So far as God is concerned you seem not believe in his existence although you cannot prove that he does NOT exist. On the other hand many believe in macro-evolution ,for instance, although it cannot be decisively proven but accepted on faith or trust just as one has faith in God. - or not. (I've known a few former atheists who did come to believe in Him.)
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
-buzz- who has fed you these lies? Creationist websites? they do it all the time
1) Prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, go on, do it.
2) macro evolution has been witnessed in the evolution of the horse.
3) If God intended to break his own law of physics, why make them in the first place?
4) in part III of this video it is PROVEN using the physics that keep your feat on the floor, that light cannot go faster.
5) It is your duty to prove gods existence, and mine to prove physics.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
I'm afraid it is NOT my duty to prove God's existence to you. I'm just the messenger. You must ask God to reveal himself to you, as others have done.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
That is a ridiculous notion.
You might as well as my invisible unicorn from the future to reveal himself, you'll get the same result.
YOU NEED EVIDENCE
It's such a simple concept.
I have only ever turned to God in times of immense stress, and trust me, it doesn't work.
I'm waiting for a bus in the freezing cold and it's just not showing up, I say 'please God'
What's he gonna do? teleport the bus?
perform a miracle when a miracle has never been documented.
I say 'scratch that' and walk instead.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
I remember a few occasions when I believe God did save me from danger, especially in driving situations, or saw me through pretty difficult economic circumstances. Sometimes we don't see the big picture and think that God isn't there but he is. (My wife and I were never able to have children so we've had our disappointments, but then raising children isn't easy either, so perhaps God saved us from some unforseen grief.)
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Now.
Before you deny science, I ask that you let the world reflect your mind.
To believe God you have to not believe in the conservation of energy, so turn off all of your electricity.
You also can't have gravity, so please stand on the ceiling.
You also can't have maths, so go ahead and divide by zero to prove God.
There is much much more you cannot have,
To believe God is both irrational and childish, not to mention futile.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
Your argument sounds a bit gargled but I do believe in conservation of energy, I do believe in the law of gravity, and I do believe in math which has to do with numbers. All created by God.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
I suppose you'll have to accept it by faith. However, Jesus did have a skeptic as one of his disciples who needed to SEE before he believed. He did tell doubting Thomas that we are indeed blessed if believe without seeing.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
can't you see? That story is there for a reason.
Same thing happened with my invisible flying unicorn from the future. I had a bunch of people who believed in him and gave me money, but one wanted proof, so he got to ride the unicorn, and afterwards the unicorn stabbed him.
Moral? Don't doubt the invisible impossible creature, just worship it and give me money.
ALL the parables and accounts, every single one of them, is a brainwashing device.
To deny is to accept.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
I don't think you're taking this discussion too seriously so I may as well end it right here and now my friend. I trust in time you will have your eyes opened to the realistic truth before its too late.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Truth requires evidence.
The single most fundamental basis of truth is that.
Christians have 0 evidence. I would love to believe, but my mind tells me I need some kind of basis for my belief.
If I join christianity, why not hinduism, or Buddhism, or pastafarianism?
There is no reason.
Therefore my (God created mind) is flawed, so I must assume God didn't make it.
Therefore evolution.
Simple.
Goodbye, and weird is spelt weird, not wierd.
but truth means nothing to you.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
The bible is based on eye witness testimony by many people of that time just as any historical account is based upon people who witnessed the events of the time. There were for instance 500 people who saw Jesus after his ressurrection and one of his disciples, Thomas, a skeptic, then believed that Jesus was alive again! Some people also deny the Holocaust but evidence shows that it did occur and we have to trust that the witnesses were not lieing. How much more evidence do you need?
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
You may be interested in viewing a video which includes a former atheist (Calvin Smith) as a co-host. The title is "Creation Magazine Live - Episode 1" on You Tube.
P.S. My name is spelt WIERDsma - a dutch surname, although I live in Canada.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
How difficult would it have been for biblical eyewitnesses to have fabricated what they saw. There would have been howls of protest and Christianity might not have survived had it been exposed as a fraud based upon the reality of the ressurrection.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Eye witness accounts (Especially those which are only accounted for in one book) are incredibly unreliable.
NO other documentation reports miracles or even jesus existing.
all 500 people are ONLY mentioned in the bible.
Holocaust has video and photographic evidence. The accounts come from Nazis and victims.
There is no PHYSICAL evidence to even suggest the bible is correct.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
Actually there were secular authors living in that era who witnesses these events of this "pernicious sect" founded by one Jesus Christus. I'll have to look up the names of these persons since I don't have it with me at this public internet site.
P.S. Speaking of photographic evidence they don't seem to have any of those evolutionary processes photographically documented that are said to have occurred many millions of years ago. Too bad they didn't have cameras yet!
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Until you give me a reliable source, I'm not going to believe that. I've heard from many sources that there are no accurate, correctly dated accounts.
As for evolution:
Fossil + Radiometric dating = 3-D photograph
Physical evidence.
Not to mention in the last two centuries thousands of experiments have observed evolution in work.
But I bet your sources tell you otherwise, and that your sources are christian, right?
Do us both a favor and actually look at the evidence.
:)
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
You sound like doubting Thomas. Anyway here are some of those secular sources; Flavius Josephus secular author when the apostle Paul was alive who wrote about that person named Jesus Christus, worshipped by his followers. Cornelius Tacitus, Governor of Asia, is quoted as saying the following: "Christus (Christ) the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition repressed for a time broke out again, not only
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (Annals XV 44)
Pliny the Younger talked about Christians meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light singing to Christ as a god. Seutonius the roman historian referred to Christians causing disturbances in Rome which led to their being banished from the city, and that the "sect" as being derived from the "instigation of Chrestus" (His spelling).
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Thallus: Who talks about a miraculous darkness covering the face of the earth at the Passover in A.D. 32 although he explained it away as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably as it seemed to him. There are also some other documents of 2000+ years ago which in seem way of the Messiah, as well as old testament personalities such as the Dea Sea Scrolls, The "Son of God" 4Q246 Scroll, and so forth. So you see there were/are some other than bibilical sources for Christ's existence.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Most of your sources were written a distinct time AFTER Jesus.
What I require is a story written about jesus BEFORE his death. Thus proving he performed miracles.
But if he is made up, then no story would exist until he had already 'died'
Thallus? I've never heard of ANY other scholar claiming such an event.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
Some of those mentioned did live before his death but I see your prejudice is not unlike many liberal theologians who refuse to accept any reliable evidence because it goes against their preconceived superstitions. P.S. For most of history we have to take people's word for it of those times since there were no cameras and only hand written documents.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
No, I am simply stating that this documentation does not stand a chance against empirical evidence.
Not to mention many separate sources writing the sources after his death.
I want a document WRITTEN before his death to even consider Christ was alive.
I want documentS before I accept it.
There is no physical evidence
No official records of his existence
No record at all of him until around the time he died, despite supposedly hundreds of people just hearing about him.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
Very few people totally deny his existence but simply redefine who he was. Muslims define him as the Son of Mary but not the Son of Allah. Other religions have him as one of their many gods. It is highly unlikely Christianity would be existing if he did not exist. Most world religions usually have a historical figure e.g. Muhmamad that was the founder of their particular belief system.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
How can you use other religions as proof for your religion, when by having a religion you are calling all other religions false?
That's some of the most contradictory reasoning I have ever read.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
The point was that although I don't beleve in the other religions they do believe in the existence of God. However, it's the person of Jesus Christ they have a different view on. We say he is the divine Son of God while they say he is not the divine Son of God. In that sense there are only "two" beliefs in the world, those that support the pro position and those that are on the con side.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
if you are to believe accounts and evidence in other religions, why not join that religion?
There is no reason.
If the single story that mentions jesus is true, why would all the rest of it be a lie.
The epic of Gilgamesh contains a flood, etc
Is it not possible, or even probable, that religions are based on each other, and of folk stories.
Again, I ask you, where is the evidence for creationism.
A single shred of physical and scientifically tested evidence.
And yet, like any fable, no trace.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
The other religions deny that Jesus is the Messiah for ALL people but not all people accept him be it Islam or some other belief system. I would then be serving some other "master". (And we all do be it religion or "science".)
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
You atheist cannot make up your mind...first you say the bible cannot be trusted because its been translated over and over and over and until we find the discovery of the dead sea scrolls and match it with our bible today they seem to be flawless in translation and when we tell you there are documents that Jesus existed you tell us to prove it and we do but its not good enough for you because you want documents before his death which we do provide. Geee!!!! What do you want??!!!!!
shakinbakeful 2 years ago
Did you even?
watch?
THE VIDEO???
KaseyAkira 2 years ago
Don't be such a hypocrite
serve evolution, abiogenesis and cosmogenesis the same method and you'll find that there is far more evidence for the scientific theories than for any religious text.
FAR more evidence.
Atheists can make up their mind, we don't believe anything, we only make WELL-EDUCATED guesses, and then the scientists make hypothesis, and then peer reviewing and the scientific method produce theories.
THEORIES are the CLOSEST thing to fact a scientist can say.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
Why Christianity? Because Christianity is the truth. God's 6 day creation is the truth. The bible even tells us that our universe is expanding or stretching...which i commented on the first video. Atheist wanna attack the bible because you assume it claims the earth to be flat because it says 4 corners? R u kidding me...when other verses in the bible speaks of the earth being a spherical shape. The bible talks about God taking the water from the sea and pouring it out on the earth(hydrologic
shakinbakeful 2 years ago
@shakinbakeful . Dude, while I believe in god, I don't believe the universe is 6000years old. Because scientists have measured stars and galaxies being on the orders of billions of lightyears away.
Which means that the light has been traveling for billions of years away from those galaxies to go into thier telescopes.
6 billion years is like a million times more than 6000 years. I still belive in god, and i think it is our duty to understand god's massive universe.
multicaal2 2 years ago
While I don't entirely agree with you, you atleast understand that God and Science can live together, if only more people could be like you.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
WHY IS CHRISTIANITY TRUTH?
It offers nothing that Buddhism doesn't. Or hinduism, or Paganism.
It has NOTHING.
And atheists don't attack religion, religion attacks science.
Do us both a favor. Go to the youtube search bar and type in:
Creationism vs Science
Creationism has made:
NO medical advances, physics advances, Chemistry advances, biological advances, AT ALL.
Religious people have made such advances, but the bible says NOTHING about what we know of the world today.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
That depends whether this is from liberal or conservative scholars. Thallus actually believed this phenomenon to be an eclipse of the sun-unreasonably as it seemed to be to to a later North African Christian teacher since a solar eclipse could not occur at the same time as a full moon and it was the season of the Pachal full moon that Christ died.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
The high priest carefully calculated the position of the full moon to the smallest degree becasue their whole Jewish calendar, especially Passover, depended on following the lunar position exactly.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Seutonius, Roman Historian, referred to Christians "causing disturbances in Rome which led them being banished from the city. He identfies the "sect" of Christians as being derived from the "instigation of Chrestus" (His spelling). Thallus, who talked about a "miraculous darkness covering the face of the earth at the Passover in A.D. There are also some other documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, The "Son of God 4Q246" Scroll and others which talk about the Messiah.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
P.S. Actually creationists do support what is referred to as MICROevolution which refers to variations within a kind. So far as dating is concerned results can be wildly variable and is based upon assumptions about its age. You can find out more by logging on to Creation Magazine- assuming your mind is open.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
@wierdsmabob
unless you can define the word "kind", micro- and macro- evolution are the same.
caseyrainer 2 years ago
Micro evolution refers to variations within a kind of animal, for instance, such as various breeds of dogs, while macro evolution refers to one kind of species e.g. primate changes into a human being over supposedly millions of years. The former is supported by creationists while the latter is rejected.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
I am aware of what micro and macro are.
However, they have both been:
a) recreated in labs
b) witnessed in nature
c) published and peer reviewed using the scientific method
d) been accepted by the scientific community.
You cannot deny macro evolution, you just plain can't. While you're at it, deny gravity, deny that stars are composed primarily of hydrogen, deny that scientific method works, deny that the internet exists.
Creationists, you do make me laugh.
SamdeSquirell 2 years ago
@wierdsmabob
what part of 'define the word "kind" ' that you dont understand???
what criteria that make 2 organisms a "kind"???
as samde wrote, both macro- and micro- are the same if that is your perception of "kind".....
caseyrainer 2 years ago
"Kind" refers to different families with a parallel history such as dogs. cats, horses, fish, human beings, etc. each being a separate creation and then breeding off into various kinds/races of dogs, cats, horses, fish, human beings, etc. while evolutionists seem to suggest it all evolved from a single source some long ages after the so-called Big Bang. Is this parallel history really so "unscientific" in your mind?
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
wierdsmabob, you said "fish" was a "kind." You consider all fish to be of the same "kind"?
So you believe that, say, a freshwater trout could mate with a great white shark and the two of them would make babies?
rogermwilcox 2 years ago
I'm no fish expert but interbreeding sometimes has led to new breeds at least in the animal world. Now technology can do amazing things although whether or not the results are desirable is another matter!
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
@wierdsmabob So I take it you don't hold apes and humans to belong in the same kind... Tell you what. There is an australian spider whose poison is deadly ONLY TO PRIMATES. If it bit you... would you drink the anti-poison??
danoso0931 2 years ago
Only if the doctor said I should. Would an evolutionist hold to the idea of interbreeding say between dogs and cats, horses and humans (and end up with a mythical Disney character if that were possible!) Perhaps an evolutionist would believe that you really could have a frog changing into a handsome prince given millions of years!
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
@wierdsmabob
You obviously have little education on current taxonomic theory.
The current evolutionary tree of life model was formulated 150 years ago and is universally accepted by every biologist.
It is a BRANCHING model of the history of life, unlike chain of life model. A branch can only fork, not be transplanted onto another branch. Likewise, organisms can't simply change genus because that's NOT HOW BIOLOGY WORKS.
Ebrainiac1 2 years ago
Even creationists believe in various branches or "kinds" and then variations can occur within that branch. However there can be no crossover from one branch to another one, according to biologists I have read from.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
@wierdsmabob
That's a bit vague isn't it? By that definition, anything from mosquitos to living things could be considered a "kind". Do you have a more specific definition, one that mentions what SEPARATES kinds?
Ebrainiac1 2 years ago
Isn't it obvious?
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
@wierdsmabob
No. It isn't. Provide a definition or stop using the word. If the meaning is subjective and not objective, then it is not a scientific term.
Ebrainiac1 2 years ago
"living things" is pretty vague too isn't it ?
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
@wierdsmabob
I dont know, is it? Does it conform to the criteria of what a "kind" is?
Ebrainiac1 2 years ago
Living things could cover anything that has the breath of life in it, even the grass and the trees in order for them to grow.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
@wierdsmabob
But could "living thing" be a biological kind? If not, why? If so, why?
Ebrainiac1 2 years ago
Absolutely. Since it has the breath of life or oxygen in it.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Who is the atheist in this argument
redice1024 2 years ago
Not I. Originally God put the breath of life into Adam, the first human being.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Lol you're wrong sorry.
redice1024 2 years ago
@redice1024 You disagree. I disagree. I say God did it and you say he didn't - am I correct. Does believing in God make me an atheist? Hmmmm....
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
Yes you correct (not about the Adam and Eve part) , you're not an atheist.
redice1024 2 years ago
@redice1024 Atheist is not a derogatory term for someone.
leeroyjenks 1 year ago
That's right, they can't... but they can certainly create ne branches. As a previous writer suggests, you are not up to date on current taxonomy. Fishes are no longer considered a correct group ( clade ), because you can't give a definition of them without including another group ( amphians ). For example, try to give a definition of fish that encompasses ONLY fish. Its not possible. There are fish with lungs that cant live without air, fish that live mostly on land, fish that climb trees (cont)
danoso0931 2 years ago
For clarity I would tend to classify fish under a fish classification, amphibians under its own category and so forth.
wierdsmabob 2 years ago
( cont ) , etc. Current classifications (not in hierarchical order ) include chordates, gnatostomes ( jawed animals ), tetrapods, amniotes ( animals with amniotic liquid - reptiles, mammals and birds ), sauropsids, ratites, mammals, monotremes, primates, etc.
This is called mono-cladistic classification
danoso0931 2 years ago