Christians will never take to real science and evidence to confirm the veracity of the Bible. They're much too lazy and dishonest to do that. It's much easier to jump up and down, barking out the same lies at us over and over again. The masses are only human. They'll believe anything if they hear it often enough. That's how marketing works.
Religion can't possibly meet science on it's own terms. There's just too much proof contradicting it. Ignorance is the only field of battle upon witch religion can win on, and that's their preferred location. This is why education is so important and why religion dislikes it so much.
@FrankLightheart im a christian and i love education. its even in the Bible that we should seek knowledge. Proverbs 18:15"The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge" 1 samuel 2:3"Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed" Proverbs 17:27 He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit."
I was wondering if you could clarify this for me. Say we take Potassium(K) 40 which has a half life of 1.26 billion years. Now lets say we are trying to date igneous rock(not newly formed igneous). If we take a chunk of this igneous rock back to the lab to date it, will the ratio of K40 to Argon be altered based on where we draw our sample, our should we only expect discrepancies on the nano scale(or a very negligible amount) level. I'm no creationist but I would like this clarified.
@rjlode What we'd do is take multiple samples of the rock and plot the isotope ratios on an isochron diagram. We know if all our samples are from something of the same age (even if the parent/daughter ratios are very different) if they all fall on the same straight line, with the slope of the line revealing the overall age of the rock. Where we draw our samples from doesn't have much of an effect - if it falls on the same line, we know we're dating the same formation.
If you forget what you were spoonfed and just observe nature. Its impossible to have an earth millions of years old. Erosion would've flattened all the mountains, turned all the rocks to dust.
@TheExpertCritique "Erosion would've flattened all the mountains, turned all the rocks to dust." Mt Everest is getting ever higher. The Indian sub-continent is moving into the Eurasian continent. Do you not see how the two are linked, and how your assertion is immediately flattened by the conclusion?
@Misterb0z your sample is so small. What's a hundred years if the world is millions of years old? Its ridiculous to make any million year conclusion from it.
Christians can believe the world is 6000 years old because we have protection of the holy spirit from the spiritual aspect of brainwashing.
This protection of the holy spirit is the motivation behind a godless evolutionary origin of life. They need to part us from our spiritual protection so we are vulnerable to their occult hocus pocus
@TheExpertCritique "your sample is so small. What's a hundred years if the world is millions of years old? Its ridiculous to make any million year conclusion from it." Are you suggesting that the phenomenon of tectonic shift is a recent one? We know earthquakes occurred thousands of years ago. It's no stab in the dark to suggest that these processes are a recent phenomenon. It's not a fully understood process, but tectonic shift is supported by all kinds of (eg) fossil evidence.
@TheExpertCritique "Christians can believe the world is 6000 years old because we have protection of the holy spirit from the spiritual aspect of brainwashing." And do the majority of Christians who accept the reality described by science not have protection against this brain-washing? I'm afraid when you start talking about magical influences the conversation quickly becomes meaningless.
@TheExpertCritique No, it's meaningless because using the same logic I can conjure out of thin air another magical power that mislead you into believing in your beliefs. The conversation descends into an argument by proxy, we might as well be back in kindergarten arguing over whose dad could beat whose dad.
The lie that 'evolution' disproves any god is the biggest lie of all. I suggest you watch AronRa's video on the same topic: /watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
@TheExpertCritique "I already know the truth, I gain little from this" Well, I have to thank you for a civil discussion. It's a rare thing these days. But I would ask you what, if any evidence, would change your belief? You don't have to answer here, but I hope you'll answer for yourself. For my part, an observed creation event, or the famous fossilised rabbit in the cambrian era strata would go a long way.
this is absolute casuistry. carbon dating has "proved" a living snail's shell is millions of years old.
If it is correct in dating a lower level older than a higher level, how is this logically proving the age of any level independantly? All it means is one level is older than another at best. It doesn't mean the exact age of your calibrating age is correct, Logical nonsense!
@TheExpertCritique We know the decay rates of different radioactive isotopes with some considerable degree of accuracy. The fact that different dating techniques all point to the same age convinces us that our data are reliable.
For your '12 million year old living snail' claim, look at the video called 'Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked' in the list of suggested videos. These 'problems' are all well understood, the question is why you don't know that.
@Misterb0z I know exactly what you know, I was spoonfed it too, then i lokked a little deeper. If you're honest with yourself, u'll realise you have faith in scientific authority, not logic.You trust their honesty, great, I don't. If you sent me that Sawbones tune , loved it , thanks
But if you know what I know, then you must know that the carbon sink effect explains the apparent fictitious ages for sea life and pond life. You'll also know that the fact that multiple different dating techniques all give the same result means that we can be extremely confident in our figures. So what is it that you know that I (and the specialists!) don't know?
Sure, I 'have faith' in the scientific method. Why shouldn't I?
@Misterb0z Science is centrally controlled, ruses are developed through corruption and a military tactic known as compartmentalisation. Carbon dating was infallible proof 20 years ago, today its been disproven. Scientific organisations don't love us, or love truth.There is an agenda in this world you will never see until you know history.
Break down your beliefs and step by step and you will see somewhere you have trusted someone at some point and based logical conclusions on that.
@TheExpertCritique I'm not going to patronise you. You clearly know as well as I do that half lives are a simple statistical consequence of a large number of random decays. Coins and cars have half-lives, too. How, then, can radiometric dating be flawed? Even if scientists are in on a big hoax, the results can't be faked. The same technique was used to ascertain that Kim Jong-Il had developed nuclear capabilities, not just let off a large conventional bomb.
@Misterb0z I'll break down this guys brainwashing tactics in the video one at a time. Not that I care to watch it again, 1) He names several branches of science for their perceived weight of Authority and says the word "evidence" without providing any. Brainwashing teaches us to have faith in authority rather than reason
@TheExpertCritique 2) treating the opposing view with ridicule , ad hominem attack is a key reinforcement tool of egobrainwashing. Also as "creationist" I do actually dispute the layer geological column, since fossils have been found lying verically through apparently millions of years of rock layering. Meaning the legs were fossilisied about 100 million years or so earlier than the head. Or in other words he is using a scientific concept known as bald faced lies.
@TheExpertCritique 3) there is no tree that has 5000 rings or years.Nor is there a logical provable way to age a tree by comparing it to another tree that lived and died at a seperate time.I dare say a tree in your front yard gets different light than one in your backyard meaning there is no way to compare their eras based on ring formation
@TheExpertCritique 4) Carbondating of the atmosphere itself dates the world at 14000 years old. This has been extensively tested and the conclusion scientific authority came up with was quite brilliant. Carbon dating can't date the atmosphere itself, because we know the world is older than that, but somehow its still a good tool for everything else. This is atechnique known as leaving out obvious truths that ruin your argument aka the scientific method of Bald Faced lies
@TheExpertCritique after 2 minutes 30 of lies, I'm bored. You state brainwashed evolutionists can figure the rest out on your own. Keep in mind the state doesnt love you, it may have a good reason to fool you, integrity and learning to think for yourself is your own responsibility. You have been taught to do anything but .I was also state brainwashed but the truth has set me free.
@TheExpertCritique "Carbondating of the atmosphere itself dates the world at 14000 years old." You do understand what causes the balancing of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere, don't you? N14 that is struck by energetic particles in the upper atmosphere is changed into C14. If the level of C14 is maintained by external influences, clearly radiocarbon dating cannot be used.
@Misterb0z So external influences destroy the reliability of c14 dating from the atmosphere, yet when this useless tool is absorbed into a tree it suddenly becomes calibrated,fresh, uniform and perfect. I think I've got it. And not only that it degenerates over a 30 year period in a lab so you can then extrapolate that as being its rate of decay over milllions of years. Sounds logical
@TheExpertCritique "when this useless tool is absorbed into a tree it suddenly becomes calibrated,fresh, uniform and perfect." Are trees found in the upper atmosphere? Do dead trees continue to photosynthesise? Come on, if you have any scientific knowledge at least try and use it. Can you really not see the difference?
@TheExpertCritique "And not only that it degenerates over a 30 year period in a lab so you can then extrapolate that as being its rate of decay over milllions of years"
Earlier I expressed a desire not to patronise you, but it seems you're unaware of how a random decay process in a large population leads to a half life that can reliably be ascertained. I'll try and find a video to help you with the idea.
@TheExpertCritique " Carbon dating can't date the atmosphere itself, because we know the world is older than that, but somehow its still a good tool for everything else." You do know the difference between 'radiocarbon dating' and 'radiometric dating', don't you? Your posts would rather suggest that you do not.
@TheExpertCritique "I dare say a tree in your front yard gets different light than one in your backyard" Quite right. But are they only using two trees? No. Your objections are valid, but dendrochronologists are completely aware of them. As the video says, blind testing techniques are used to demonstrate the efficacy of all dating methods. There's no way to cheat.
@TheExpertCritique " fossils have been found lying verically through apparently millions of years of rock layering. " I'm beginning to doubt your assertion that you know what I know. So-called polystrate fossils have a rational explanation in processes we can observe in action today. They do not challenge the science of stratigraphy.
@Misterb0z The most obvious logical explanation is that aging of the geologic column is absolute nonsense. But of course that possibility isn't considered because that might disprove godless evolution.
Forget the science he offers here. Read a little about the psychological tools used in brainwashing. Then you will note that he is ticking them off straight from the textbook.
If he has a valid scientific motivation why the need to follow brainwashing 101?
@TheExpertCritique "But of course that possibility isn't considered because that might disprove godless evolution" Who on earth is suggesting the existence or non-existence of any gods/godesses here? We're talking about nature and the study of nature. You can believe what you want about the origin of the universe, we're talking about nature, here.
@Misterb0z that is the motivation behind false science. If you read history you would see that science today is controlled by satanists. The knights of malta in particular. Science has always been a religious pursuit .
And no I don't know the difference between the 2 dating methods, nor do I care.
@TheExpertCritique "And no I don't know the difference between the 2 dating methods, nor do I care." Very telling. Well, I'm more that willing to accept that what I know about nature is wrong, but I'll need reliable science, I'm afraid. Knights who say 'Ni' have no influence over me.
@Misterb0z the knights who say "ni" have brainwashed you. So silly as they may seem, they're obviously smarter than you. They also founded western medicine and you may be familiar with their caduceus. Its an occult satanic symbol found everywhere in hospitals. Its real meaning takes a little scepticism and research to discover.
Once you understand what it means you will see it everywhere in varying forms in your life. And it has real spiritual power over minds,
@TheExpertCritique "Once you understand what it means you will see it everywhere in varying forms in your life. And it has real spiritual power over minds," In the same way that a rabbit's foot makes me much more likely to win the lottery? These are testable claims, Expert, and when put to the test they always fail.
@TheExpertCritique "If he has a valid scientific motivation why the need to follow brainwashing 101?" Stating facts is not brainwashing. Science is critical and self-correcting. One observation could utterly up-end all we know about the age of the earth. Funnily enough, no such evidence is forthcoming. Nobody is stopping creation scientists from providing such evidence, in fact scientists suggest ways to disprove the theory. Strangely it's creationists who fail to do so.
@TheExpertCritique "says the word "evidence" without providing any." Well then, what's that he does after 0:30? That looks like evidence to me. You can deny the fact that new layers are deposited on others, but you'll need to provide evidence that this is not true.
I am religious but i 100% agree with this guy. The red necks in the USA who claim the world is "HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD" should watch this.
The reason why cesium clocks are shielded in a vault its because they can be affected by electromagnetic radiation, by external influences. Planets in our solar system especially earth show signs of exposure to enormous energies,intense radiation. whatever that phenomena- it was within the recorded history of humanity. (Fred Jueneman, FAIC, Industrial Research &Development p.21, June 1982) Thunderbolts of the Gods, The Electric Universe.
@MrMatutum "cesium clocks are shielded in a vault its because they can be affected by electromagnetic radiation" Yes. Now try finding out how atomic clocks actually work. I'll help you. They use frequencies emitted by transitions of *electrons* to measure the passage of time. They're not using decay rates because these are next to useless as that kind of clock. If nuclear decay could be fiddled, nuclear physicists would be getting rid of all that pesky nuclear waste.
@MrMatutum We're not talking about atomic clocks here. As I pointed out in a previous post, atomic clocks work using the interaction of electrons with em radiation. Nuclear decay is a *nuclear* phenomenon. The chemical (electric), magnetic and gravitational environment has no effect on it. If it did, we could be rid of our amassed backlog of nuclear waste simply by shining a laser on the stuff. Chernobyl? Fukushima? No problem. Laser the stuff away. Sadly it doesn't work.
@Misterb0z All I am saying is that cesium clock can be affected by gravity magnetic fields humidity. Likewise radiodecay can be affected by external forces. Recent evidence show that there was accelerated decay during the flood? near earth venus course. Helium diffusion, radiohalos, isotopic discordance and 14C in coal and diamonds are evidences. Intense heat(plasma arc mode) triggered the large amounts of nuclear decay (D. Humpreys PhD et al Rate project).
@MrMatutum "radiodecay can be affected by external forces." Have you read a single word I've written to you?
"Recent evidence show that there was accelerated decay during the flood?" That's not a question. It doesn't need a question mark. More to the point, what evidence? And what flood? Will pouring water over nuclear waste wash the radioactivity away? Seriously? State your source.
"14C in coal and diamonds are evidences" This is explained in the video! Haven't you bothered to watch?!
@Misterb0z The large amount of nuclear decay points to young earth. Within mans memory. The intense heat was triggered by massive thunderbolts machining the topography, shifting the sea basins, opening underground water within minutes and triggering the universal flood. If it was not for the flood the sudden cooling would not be possible. Noah would have died. Review your cooling systems of nuclear powerplants.
@MrMatutum You haven't answered the question. What led to this massive, strangely (and conveniently!) temporary increase in the random decay rates of radioactive isotopes? I'm not interested in topography, rainfall or any of that. Just the nuclear process.
@MrMatutum We know more than Poincare did. He may have been a great man, but he knew nothing of the strong of weak nuclear forces. So again, if you're claiming that a flood can alter nuclear decay rates, produce evidence. Carry out an investigation or quote the work of someone else. Because if it were true, as I've said before, nuclear waste could be dumped in the sea with no consequences.
@Misterb0z Please connect the dots properly. It is not the flood that cause the nuclear decay rather it was the electro-magnetic radiation that cause the radio-decay. It was also the thunderbolts(massive) that cause the flood(there was a flood). The near earth collisions of the planets that cause the electro-magnetic radiations(arc mode), the shifting of the magnetic poles. It was within man's memory.
@MrMatutum "it was the electro-magnetic radiation that cause the radio-decay." I want to stick with this point because you're dancing around it instead of addressing it. So, are you saying that we are able to treat nuclear waste just by shining a light on it?
@MrMatutum Hehe, rural America middle eastern deserts and the philipines, that's where you find the really scientifically illiterate, it seems! Every science named in a dictionary can prove there never was and never could be a global flood. YOu see, you need 4-5 times more water than Earth has or ever have had in it's 4.5 billion year long history, and it would leave traces so massive that scientists in every science would be finding tons of proof every day. But of course there is nothing. Nada!
@winterstellar But this is like "debating the shade of red on Santas's red-nosed reindeer or someting and SO uninteresting and SO below me that I'm out of here! How the fuck did I get here anyway? "The Flood"? Hahaaaa! : )
@winterstellar The earth is 71% water If you could melt all the water.....the water would rise to an altitude of 2.7km(Fraser Cain). It is a medieval thinking that global flooding is not possible The recorder said it rained 40 days and 40 nights. The electric universe paradigm provided a force that can sustain water evaporation, shifting of ocean basins. The ingredients are all there. Science is awesome- they found water in our sun ! Flooding is a 100%possibility. All paths of glory all lead but
@MrMatutum 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered with water, you ignorant, it doesn't consist of 71 percent, hehe. BUt anyway, to cover the whole Earth with the mountains, you'd need 4 to 5 times more water than there is or have ever been anyway. REtarded bronze-age flat-earthers who invented such fairy-tales(or stole them, that was the preferred method for the bible"authors"),would of course know nothing about such matters, real physics, the real world.So they're excused, but you're not!
@MrMatutum And you f&%king idiot, if you melted all the ice on both Greenland and Antarctica, the sealevel still wouldn't rise more than 70 meters. Are you on shrooms or are an escaped mental pasient or something, by the way?
Well, no, but okay - let's suppose for a moment that if we total the amounts of water on Earth's surface, in its atmosphere *and* in its mantle (yes, there is water dissolved in the semi-liquid rock that forms Earth's mantle), then we get enough water to top off the Earth's highest mountains. You're still left with a number of fundamental problems:
1. Mechanism. What mechanism is there to transform the water required to liquid state and have it flood the Earth? What mechanism to make it go away afterward?
2. Energy. Where'd the energy come from? Where did it go?
3. Evidence. Where's the evidence that this happened during the last, say, 20.000 years?
That's of course not including the numerous reasons why Noah's ark itself would have been an impossibility.
@winterstellar nada ? hehe spanish speaker like me :) , yo siempre digo que estos videos deberian ser traducidos con subtitulos al español , como los debates de harris , dawkins y hitchens. saludos.
Its disturbing that evolutionist atheist per se is ingrained with obsessive bordering delusional thoughts that they have exclusive rights to science. The truth of the matter is that science just debunking science. Geologic column also called stratigraphical column most likely results from a catastrophic events It is not based on experiments but on field observations. Radiodecay rates are not constant. Atomic clocks are reset during global disasters.
@MrMatutum "Atomic clocks are reset during global disasters." How? Nuclear decay rates are, as the name suggests, nuclear phenomenon. The forces we consider huge to us are mere tinkerings with the electron clouds surrounding nuclei. They are feeble chemical interactions. So are you claiming this 'resetting' is magic? Or is there evidence to suggest that the chemical environment can influence decay rates? If so, we proponents of nuclear power would be delighted to know!
@Misterb0z Do you think our sky is the same sky the ancient civilization were looking,observing and recording 6000-10000 yrs ago? We brand their(ancient) narrative/poetic style of writing as mythical and yet the flood is a worldwide story. They have no idea of fictional writing. Honesty is the best policy or else death for lying. Life is of little value in the ancient world.Pls read my other response. thanks
@Misterb0z The alien sky was an interplay of 3 planets, Venus cometary display for a 1000 years. Intense electromagnetic radiation, thunderbolts changing the topography of the earth,grand canyon was carved,ocean basin shifted, mountains raised, people,plants animals obliterated blink of an eye. Fossils formed within minutes, universal flooding. Gradualism to base radiodmetric dating of rocks in geology is altered-percentage formulae age of sample is unreliable.(S. smith) The alien sky( Talbot)
@MrMatutum "The alien sky was an interplay of 3 planets, Venus cometary display for a 1000 years"
So the negligible gravitational attraction of a few planets and a few comets somehow affected nuclei in a way that we are utterly unable to reproduce in laboratory conditions. Right. By the way, I have some magic beans. Give me your cow.
@winterstellar If you are one of those scientist who believes in gravity warping space, relativity, blackholes, bigbang, darkmatter, neutron stars,nuclear sun to describe our universe then you need overhaul of your, concensus ignorance, delusional brain. The electric universe paradigm has more substance in predicting and experimentation, more conclusive in explaining our universe, the topography of earth, mars venus ecth.
For every dating method that seems to show the earth is old, there 10 more than indicate it is very young - too young for evolution to have happened and consistent with the biblical chronology. That is a fact evolutionists must deal with but refuse to.
@stringtheory9991 You're not seriously going to make an ad hominem attack against the website without examining the evidence are you? That would be closed-minded and irrational and we wouldn't (cough) expect that of an atheist. All the information comes from the peer-reviewed literature. Of course the conclusions are biased. So is everyone. So are you. Richard Dawkins is the most biased person on the face of the planet. What matters is the evidence. Read it and weep.
@bestvalue O.K that is a reasonable rebuttal. Here are some statements I found posted on the website.(that are absurd)
1. Even when heavily permineralized (‘fossilized’), this does not need to require more than a few weeks. 2.It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousand years old.
@stringtheory9991 Would you agree that no one has watched something fossilize over millions of years? Of course not. According to the traditional timescale, humans haven't existed that long. Have we seen things fossilize in a few weeks or years? Yes. Same with canyons. No one has seen them form over millions of years. Yet there are at least 3 canyons in the U.S. that formed in a few days in the past 100 years. So which is more scientific and reasonable to believe - what we've seen or imagined?
@bestvalue More lies from creationists. There are no cases of things fossilized in a few weeks. There have been misinterpretations of things being fossilized, but that was by people who did not understand the process of fossilization. And I would be very interested in learning about a new canyon forming in the last 100 years. By the way, a stream slightly changing its channel does not count as forming a canyon. I just thought I would save you some extra work.
@stringtheory9991 Why is your second point absurd? The evidence fits better with the idea that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. I'm not asking you to go on blind faith. I'm saying follow the evidence where it leads.
@bestvalue You never answered the question.I cannot find any creation science that predicts a future event (event that was stated before it happened). Is there any observation which was predicted by creation science? You just started spuing babble about fossils and dinosaures living with man. That is a very legitimate question for "religious-science".
P.S i think it's cute you flagged my other posts as spam so nobody else could read them.
@stringtheory9991 I did not flag your posts and I would never do that. I don't know who is doing that but I was unflagging them so I could answer them. And I did answer your question. Whoever is flagging stringtheory's posts, please stop it. If you think you are helping me, you are not. And string, why do you keep removing your posts. You're a smart guy with some good questions. Give me an opportunity to answer them.
@bestvalue So I have done some research and I have noticed that Creation Science seems to only have answers for passed events. I cannot find any creation science that predicts a future event (event that was stated before it happened). Is there any observation which was predicted by creation science? If this can be shown this It would be a wonderful argument against Science as we know.
@stringtheory9991 Excellent question. Yes, for a theory to be scientific it must make predictions. Here are 5 off the top of my head: 1. a huge amount of fossils buried in rock strata with little or no change between major kinds. (That's what we find.) 2. the universe had a beginning. (The big bang.) 3. Non-existence of "junk" DNA. 4. Many things that are claimed to be old will turn our to be quite young (eg coal, oil diamonds) 5. mutations will only lose genetic information, not gain it.
@bestvalue "1. a huge amount of fossils buried in rock strata with little or no change between major kinds. (That's what we find.)" Fine. So where are the fossil mammals in the Cambrian period?
"2. the universe had a beginning. (The big bang.) " Yep. That's what the evidence suggests. 14 billion years ago.
" 3. Non-existence of "junk" DNA." You mean the genes we share with each of our common ancestors in turn, just as the ToE predicts?
@Misterb0z 1. My theory would not predict mammals in the Cambrian. But we do find fossils out of order - a prediction of my model but not of evolution.
2. I could live with 13.72 billion years but there is so much other evidence against it and a better explanation with more explanatory power.
3. No, I mean the areas of the genome evolutionists claimed was junk because of their presuppositions which held back biology for 30 years. They were wrong. I.D.ers were right.
@bestvalue "2. I could live with 13.72 billion years but there is so much other evidence against it and a better explanation with more explanatory power." Really? Then what is it?
"3. No, I mean the areas of the genome evolutionists claimed was junk because of their presuppositions which held back biology for 30 years." Yes. You're talking about genes that no longer are used to make proteins. Inactive genes. As we've learnt more, the amount we consider 'junk' has decreased.
@Misterb0z Also notice your presupposition in the use of the word "share" in number 3 above. You're already assuming common ancestry which is begging the question. Every English book in the library shares the same 26 letters. Does that they prove they evolved from one another? No, that's the code to write in English. And the 4-letter genetic code is the code to program living things.
@bestvalue@bestvalue I did remove some posts just because I considered after posting them that they were not getting my point across. Good answer for the pope argument. I think however your misunderstanding how an atheist views religion. Put it this way, you are an atheist to every single religion but the one you believe in. An atheist views all those religions that you don't believe in the same way you do, except they include yours as well.
@stringtheory9991 Okay, I'm glad it wasn't something I said. I do understand the "I just go one god further" argument. But my intention is to show that it is irrational in light of the evidence. You know the SETI program, right? I don't believe in life on other planets. So if we started getting a signal from space with the prime and you thought it was an obvious sign of intelligent life and I said, "Nah, it's just a co-incidence" would that be rational? The DNA code is infinitely more complex.
@bestvalue Also your last post stating that atheists "they don't want to live by God's rules so it's easier for them to pretend he doesn't exist." thats like saying atheists have no morals that is just not the case and our views on morality are probably quite similar for the most part.
@stringtheory9991 No, I believe atheist DO have morals. (The Bible says as much.) But hey have no foundation for ethics. Atheists often tell me that Hitler murdering 6 million Jews and torturing babies for fun is not wrong. And in their worldview, I would agree with them. They are being consistent. Yes, I totally agree that our morals are likely similar. You'd say that's proof that our morals evolved and I'd day it's evidence of God. I would never imply that you are immoral, by the way.
@bestvalue "notice your presupposition in the use of the word "share"
Yes. Fine. It's a presupposition. But it's no more unwarranted a supposition than supposing gravity to make things fall when explaining how the sun shines.
It's possible to conceive of an alternate reality where people like you feel the need to lie, withhold and contort the truth in order to deny gravity because it conflicts with some cultural monstrosity. Their tactics would be the same as yours.
@Misterb0z We can observe gravity. It is a fact. We cannot observe common ancestry because no one was there. This debate is never over the facts. It is always over the conclusions drawn from the facts.
I was just pointing out that by using "share" you are assuming common ancestry. It's like if I kept saying something like the human eye was "designed" I'd be begging the question because design vs non-design is what we are attempting to prove.
@bestvalue "design vs non-design is what we are attempting to prove." If you're attempting to prove something then you're not doing science. If observations tomorrow showed a magical being creating living things ex-nihilo tomorrow we would have to concede that magical design describes reality. We don't have any such evidence. A scientist won't deny any possibility, only file ideas like ID into the 'no evidence to suggest this' category.
@Misterb0z Damn! You caught me on the "prove" thing. I'm the one who always corrects people and says science doesn't provide proof. I used the word against my better judgement, in haste, and you caught me. Totally agree.
We might not have evidence of "magical" design but evidence for "intelligent" design is overwhelming. Of course scientist deny possibilities. Science is restricted to the natural world. That doesn't mean the supernatural does not exist.
@bestvalue Supernatural by definition is outside of nature. Anything supernatural is, therefore, utterly irrelevant. That is unless it influences our reality, in which case it must no longer be supernatural, and science can describe it.
Intelligent design fails to explain anything, because of course the intelligent designer's origins then need to be explained.
@bestvalue "Please not the "who made God ?" fallacy or I'm going to have to start screaming." The 'who made god' fallacy? What? You mean objecting to your special pleading is somehow an insult to your intelligence? Come off it. The definition of your god (and you automatically assume it's yours!) has been arrived at via dialectics over the ages. What apparently used to appear as a burning bush has been shovelled off into 'outside of space and time'. Speaks volumes.
@Misterb0z Oh God, not the special pleading argument too. Atheist for centuries claimed the universe was eternal. It was not special pleading then and it is not special pleading now. If I said "your universe cannot be eternal but my God can," that's special pleading. I'd be happy to accept an eternal universe and become an atheist. But the universe is not eternal. The atheists were wrong and the Bible was right.
Who says they did? Just because modern scientists class them otherwise does not make them right. I think God knows what he's talking about since he created them. Also, that's a strange argument for an evolutionist to make. When did birds cease to be dinosaurs?
There are many alleged contradictions in the Bible but every one I've ever seen has a satisfying answer. But I prefer to stick to science.
"When did birds cease to be dinosaurs?" Birds are dinosaurs. Just as you and I are eucaryotes, vertebrates, mammals, monkeys and apes. You don't outgrow your past.
@Misterb0z Do you not even realize what you are doing? Birds are dinosaurs. Why? Because that's how paleontologists classify them. Why do they classify them that way? Because birds are dinosaurs. It's circular reasoning. Maybe to God, bats are birds. Just because idiot human beings classify them differently doesn't make it so. Apparently some of us did not out grow our past. (Just kidding. ;^D)
@bestvalue "Birds are dinosaurs. Why? Because that's how paleontologists classify them." Pah! Those experts, eh? Why trust a word they say? And it's not just palaeontologists, any taxonomist will be able to point out to you how we know that birds are descended from one group of dinosaurs.
"Maybe to God, bats are birds." And maybe it's possible for 942,000 angels to dance on the head of a pin.
@bestvalue "Atheist for centuries claimed the universe was eternal." Did they? So? What's the relevance of this particular inanity of yours? The point is, positing a creator answers nothing. It may be true that there is a creator, but if it's supernatural then it has nothing to do with our universe as we observe it.
@Misterb0z It refutes your special pleading nonsense.
"positing a creator answers nothing" Okay, so if they find a city on Mars and you believe it is a sign of intelligent life and I say it just evolved there through natural processes, I'll give you the same argument and see how rational you think it is.
@bestvalue " so if they find a city on Mars and you believe it is a sign of intelligent life and I say it just evolved there through natural processes..." Stop talking crap. Cities are not living things. They don't evolve.
@Misterb0z The big bang is, by definition, a supernatural event because it does not (and cannot) have a natural explanation. It must therefore have a supernatural one. The intelligent designer, by definition, does not have an origin.
@bestvalue "The intelligent designer, by definition, does not have an origin." Special pleading. No different to the claim "The universe, by definition, does not have an origin".
@Misterb0z Have you heard of the big bang? The universe DID have an origin. I know you'd like to run away from that just like Einstein and others did at first because it implies God. At least Einstein was honest enough to admit it was the "biggest blunder" of his life.
@bestvalue "Have you heard of the big bang?" No. No I haven't. You patronising arse, of course I have, but unlike you I understand what is meant by it. Physics doesn't tell us that physical laws didn't exist at the moment of expansion, simply that our current laws *in the form that they are now* were the result. Space and time are properties of the universe, so it's meaningless to talk about 'before' or 'outside' the universe. Speculate and believe all you want, just don't assert.
@bestvalue "At least Einstein was honest enough to admit it was the "biggest blunder" of his life" Einstein was referring to his insertion of a 'cosmological constant' that kept his equation in line with contemporary understanding. Einstein wasn't an atheist, more like a pantheist. Either way he was human, and made mistakes. So?
@Misterb0z I know what Einstein was talking about and I know he wasn't an atheist (or a theist for that matter). Do you know why he added the cosmological constant? Because he was trying to avoid a beginning to the universe. Many others refused to accept it as well because of the theological implications. Since they lost that battle they now must invoke multiple universes to avoid God. It's truly amazing how far they will go to avoid the evidence that is staring them right in the face.
@bestvalue "Do you know why he added the cosmological constant? Because he was trying to avoid a beginning to the universe." No. He was fitting his model of universe to fit the prevailing view of the form the universe took.
Nobody's unhappy with the idea of the universe having been incredibly dense 14 billion years ago, and it's only the 14 billion that you're objecting to. Had it been measured to be 6 thousand you'd be loopy with glee.
@Misterb0z No, I don't have a problem with the 14 (actually 13.72 but who's counting?) billion years. It's the absolute beginning that were talking about. The time is a different issue. It has nothing to do with evolution either (in case you were thinking that) because there is still not enough time for evolution to have happened even in 14 (13.72 but who's counting?) billion years.
@bestvalue "The universe DID have an origin... (and) it implies God"
I'll concede for the sake of argument that the origin of the universe conclusively proves a creator. First of all, what now? Is that going to change nature? Certainly not. This assumption changes nothing about what we observe. Science still holds true. The data we collect still describe nature. Everything in this video, therefore holds true. So you're wasting everyone's time.
(cont). Why Yahweh? Why not any of the more reasonable deities or mystical forces that have been proposed? Why not any one (or any group, or category) of the infinite set of possible creators? What arrogance is it to suppose that our feeble species on our insignificant rock in one corner of a very ordinary galaxy amongst billions is of any special interest to it? This is the kind of thing that makes me an atheist. Not science. Just the sheer absurdity of your claims.
@Misterb0z I would ask why not Yahweh? Why are you biased against him? Name a "more reasonable" deity or mystical force. Why are they more reasonable in your opinion?
"This is the kind of thing that makes me an atheist."
Thank you for that admission. It is NEVER science that makes one an atheist. It is always for emotional reasons. One can believe in God for purely rational reasons (as I do). But one cannot reject him for rational reasons. Atheism is ultimately an irrational position.
@bestvalue "It is NEVER science that makes one an atheist. It is always for emotional reasons. " Is failing to be convinced by a story an emotional response? If you say at the end of a ghost story that you're not scared because there's no evidence to support the existence of ghosts, who's being emotional? You or the little kiddies clinging to their blankets in fear? Fear and tall stories are a tool of religion, and the emotional response is yours.
@Misterb0z "because there's no evidence to support the existence of"
I see what you're saying and I don't believe in ghosts either. But there is plenty of evidence for the existence God. The emotional part comes in when atheists refuse to consider the evidence. They do so because the Christian God makes them feel bad about themselves because he says they are a sinner. It's more comforting to just pretend he doesn't exist and make up your own rules.
@bestvalue "I would ask why not Yahweh? Why are you biased against him?" Because there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it exists. Stories, yes, but stories suggest the existence of Godzilla.
"Name a "more reasonable" deity or mystical force." One that wouldn't command an insignificant little tribe to slaughter its enemies. That didn't care how pigeons were sacrificed. That didn't rely on our swooning obeisance. Come on, give me a challenge, this is too easy.
@bestvalue "I would ask why not Yahweh? Why are you biased against him?" I would ask why not the loch ness monster? Why are you biassed against him? Why not Odin? Why are you biassed against him? You've played your argument from majority card, so now let me play the argument from authority card. Better educated people are far less likely to be theists. And many atheists, including me, were raised as christians. I *have* examined the claims of other religions. Have you?
@Misterb0z "I *have* examined the claims of other religions. Have you?" Yes, and I've found the majority of them to be self-refuting. I find it strange that many of my atheist friends seem to be attracted to Buddhism when I find it to be very unscientific.
@bestvalue "I've found the majority of (religions) to be self-refuting" And yet you don't examine your own with the same level of scrutiny. Go on, read the bible. Cover to cover. I dare you.
The fact is, we all have loony beliefs, myself included. We just have to recognise that we need to alter our beliefs when they're at odds with reality, not deny the evidence to keep our beliefs intact as you're doing.
@Misterb0z It means miracles are possible. God created the laws so he can contravene them once in a while. (Like to raise someone from the dead.) And if you start studying who that God might be, you discover that other religions and worldviews are self-refuting and the Bible and Christianity are supported by the evidence. That realization that God exists will change your life in a personal way. It has eternal consequences. But forget theology. I prefer science.
@bestvalue "But forget theology. I prefer science." So then why are you going to all these lengths to attempt to refute science just because it's not what's written in your primitive book?
@Misterb0z I am not attempting to refute science - just the conclusions of some (albeit most) scientists. There is a mountain of evidence they must ignore because it does not fit into their evolutionary paradigm. But if we look at the whole picture, we discover that the Bible had it right all along - strong evidence that it is inspired by someone. God perhaps?
@bestvalue ""The universe DID have an origin... (and) it implies God" The bewildering thing is how you make the leap from "there is a creator" to "the creator is Yahweh who chose one obscure tribe to support in their petty battles and advise on their diet on this one obscure planet out of the billions out there, then made himself human to die so that he himself could forgive this tribe for something he himself caused, and expect people to believe this in the age before mass media".
@Misterb0z I don't make the leap to Yahweh. Further study and deduction must be made as I pointed out above. Christianity is the only worldview that is falsifiable, can account for the laws of logic and is not self-refuting like others that make the TRUTH claim that there is no such thing as TRUTH.
Lots of things sound absurd when you put them like that. Quantum mechanics is absurd on the face of it too. (cont.)
@Misterb0z "and expect people to believe this in the age before mass media"
Christianity is the most successful religion in history with currently over 33% in a world of 7 billion. They still believe in an age AFTER mass media. Of course, that's not a valid reason to believe but just an argument from authority. But it means you might consider that it's possible they know something you don't. How will you know which god it is unless you try to find out? Saying it's all nonsense is a cop-out.
@bestvalue "The big bang is, by definition, a supernatural event because it does not (and cannot) have a natural explanation"
Your predecessors said the same about the sun. Its magic powers, they thought, would be forever beyond human understanding. Science progresses. Religion has to adapt or it dies.
@Misterb0z You missed my point. The big bang cannot have a natural explanation because all of the natural physical laws came into existence at that moment. This is the situation you are faced with: deny that the universe had a beginning and you must deny the big bang. Or deny that the big bang required a cause and you must deny the law of causality, the foundational principle of all of science. Atheism will ultimately destroy science. True science leads straight to the Creator.
@bestvalue We don't have to be there. The evidence for common ancestry is huge. And the "you weren't there" claim is a double edged sword that theists should learn to avoid. You weren't there when your god supposedly made the Earth. All you have is an old book. There is no outside evidence for your claims. Why do you believe your old book and not the old books of other religions? There is just as much evidence for all of them, none.
@bestvalue "There is no evidence for common ancestry." Go to your local university and say that. I'm no biologist. I could explain to you in laborious detail my understanding of endogenous retroviruses, but you have no interested in an understanding. You deny the beauty of the work of your creator and deny its very nature in preference for the written word of primitive man.
@bestvalue Pull the other one, its got bells on. Again you are arguing from ignorance. Our DNA is almost identical. And worse yet for creationists is the discovery of ERV's. I suggest that you do a Google search on them. You are in for a nasty surprise.
@bestvalue "Every English book in the library shares the same 26 letters. Does that they prove they evolved from one another?"
No. Certainly not. But then books aren't living things. It doesn't work as an analogy, merely as a mantra to convince yourself that you're not speaking nonsense.
@Misterb0z But you do believe non-living chemicals came to life, don't you? I realize abiogenesis is not apart of evolution so I'm not trying to move the goal posts here. But life coming for non-life is very much part of the argument for atheism. So unless you're willing to concede that God may have gotten the process started then the analogy is valid. I don't know who's flagging your posts as spam but it's not me.
@bestvalue "But you do believe non-living chemicals came to life, don't you?" If I were to take you apart, atom by atom, I would end up with a big pile of atoms, none of which had ever been alive, and yet through the electromagnetic force had been joined up to make you, a life. You are 100% chemicals and 0% magic. For some reason you find that fact degrading and insulting. Why should you? If you want to believe that nature is due to a deity, that's up to you, but we describe nature, not God.
@Misterb0z I don't find that "fact" degrading. I find it false. A dead body has all the same chemicals it had before it died but it is no longer alive.
Christians will never take to real science and evidence to confirm the veracity of the Bible. They're much too lazy and dishonest to do that. It's much easier to jump up and down, barking out the same lies at us over and over again. The masses are only human. They'll believe anything if they hear it often enough. That's how marketing works.
ChipArgyle 6 days ago
Religion can't possibly meet science on it's own terms. There's just too much proof contradicting it. Ignorance is the only field of battle upon witch religion can win on, and that's their preferred location. This is why education is so important and why religion dislikes it so much.
FrankLightheart 1 week ago
@FrankLightheart im a christian and i love education. its even in the Bible that we should seek knowledge. Proverbs 18:15"The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge" 1 samuel 2:3"Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed" Proverbs 17:27 He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit."
Richard1979hush 1 week ago
@Richard1979hush Well good for you. I don't mind what religion a person has, so long as they don't try to hinder the scientific pursuit of knowledge.
FrankLightheart 1 week ago
Science, bitches. It works.
chazmeistro 2 weeks ago
The basic premise is wrong...
There can be more than one tree ring per year, depending the amount of rain
and lack of rain during the same year..
The same problem exists for measuring time using layers of ice..
a problem discovered when comparing the depth in the ice of a known downed plane
with the ice core. the ice core measurement was way off. caused by the melting
and refreezing of the ice during a given year.
gerry37g 2 weeks ago
I was wondering if you could clarify this for me. Say we take Potassium(K) 40 which has a half life of 1.26 billion years. Now lets say we are trying to date igneous rock(not newly formed igneous). If we take a chunk of this igneous rock back to the lab to date it, will the ratio of K40 to Argon be altered based on where we draw our sample, our should we only expect discrepancies on the nano scale(or a very negligible amount) level. I'm no creationist but I would like this clarified.
rjlode 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
FactThis 2 weeks ago
@rjlode What we'd do is take multiple samples of the rock and plot the isotope ratios on an isochron diagram. We know if all our samples are from something of the same age (even if the parent/daughter ratios are very different) if they all fall on the same straight line, with the slope of the line revealing the overall age of the rock. Where we draw our samples from doesn't have much of an effect - if it falls on the same line, we know we're dating the same formation.
FactThis 2 weeks ago
4:39 - The silhouette of a cute little puppy! :D
NoughNeaux 3 weeks ago
@NoughNeaux
A fat puppy!
7DragonTech7 2 weeks ago
@NoughNeaux
That's right :)
Bastro3000 1 week ago
If you forget what you were spoonfed and just observe nature. Its impossible to have an earth millions of years old. Erosion would've flattened all the mountains, turned all the rocks to dust.
6000 years is ancient. It is a really long time.
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique "Erosion would've flattened all the mountains, turned all the rocks to dust." Mt Everest is getting ever higher. The Indian sub-continent is moving into the Eurasian continent. Do you not see how the two are linked, and how your assertion is immediately flattened by the conclusion?
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@Misterb0z your sample is so small. What's a hundred years if the world is millions of years old? Its ridiculous to make any million year conclusion from it.
Christians can believe the world is 6000 years old because we have protection of the holy spirit from the spiritual aspect of brainwashing.
This protection of the holy spirit is the motivation behind a godless evolutionary origin of life. They need to part us from our spiritual protection so we are vulnerable to their occult hocus pocus
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheExpertCritique "your sample is so small. What's a hundred years if the world is millions of years old? Its ridiculous to make any million year conclusion from it." Are you suggesting that the phenomenon of tectonic shift is a recent one? We know earthquakes occurred thousands of years ago. It's no stab in the dark to suggest that these processes are a recent phenomenon. It's not a fully understood process, but tectonic shift is supported by all kinds of (eg) fossil evidence.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique "Christians can believe the world is 6000 years old because we have protection of the holy spirit from the spiritual aspect of brainwashing." And do the majority of Christians who accept the reality described by science not have protection against this brain-washing? I'm afraid when you start talking about magical influences the conversation quickly becomes meaningless.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@Misterb0z meaningless to you maybe, but its the true motivation behind scientific lies. And its doesn't require faith, just research
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique No, it's meaningless because using the same logic I can conjure out of thin air another magical power that mislead you into believing in your beliefs. The conversation descends into an argument by proxy, we might as well be back in kindergarten arguing over whose dad could beat whose dad.
The lie that 'evolution' disproves any god is the biggest lie of all. I suggest you watch AronRa's video on the same topic: /watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@Misterb0z I told you the who , the how and the why. We are taught to be spoonfed information with our hand held all the way, for a very good reason.
You may follow it up or you may decide its too much like hard work.
I already know the truth, I gain little from this
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique "I already know the truth, I gain little from this" Well, I have to thank you for a civil discussion. It's a rare thing these days. But I would ask you what, if any evidence, would change your belief? You don't have to answer here, but I hope you'll answer for yourself. For my part, an observed creation event, or the famous fossilised rabbit in the cambrian era strata would go a long way.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
Don't waste your time with creationists and teach us some good science.
anticorncob6 4 weeks ago
this is absolute casuistry. carbon dating has "proved" a living snail's shell is millions of years old.
If it is correct in dating a lower level older than a higher level, how is this logically proving the age of any level independantly? All it means is one level is older than another at best. It doesn't mean the exact age of your calibrating age is correct, Logical nonsense!
TheExpertCritique 1 month ago
@TheExpertCritique We know the decay rates of different radioactive isotopes with some considerable degree of accuracy. The fact that different dating techniques all point to the same age convinces us that our data are reliable.
For your '12 million year old living snail' claim, look at the video called 'Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked' in the list of suggested videos. These 'problems' are all well understood, the question is why you don't know that.
Misterb0z 1 month ago
@Misterb0z I know exactly what you know, I was spoonfed it too, then i lokked a little deeper. If you're honest with yourself, u'll realise you have faith in scientific authority, not logic.You trust their honesty, great, I don't. If you sent me that Sawbones tune , loved it , thanks
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique Hey, no worries :)
But if you know what I know, then you must know that the carbon sink effect explains the apparent fictitious ages for sea life and pond life. You'll also know that the fact that multiple different dating techniques all give the same result means that we can be extremely confident in our figures. So what is it that you know that I (and the specialists!) don't know?
Sure, I 'have faith' in the scientific method. Why shouldn't I?
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@Misterb0z Science is centrally controlled, ruses are developed through corruption and a military tactic known as compartmentalisation. Carbon dating was infallible proof 20 years ago, today its been disproven. Scientific organisations don't love us, or love truth.There is an agenda in this world you will never see until you know history.
Break down your beliefs and step by step and you will see somewhere you have trusted someone at some point and based logical conclusions on that.
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique I'm not going to patronise you. You clearly know as well as I do that half lives are a simple statistical consequence of a large number of random decays. Coins and cars have half-lives, too. How, then, can radiometric dating be flawed? Even if scientists are in on a big hoax, the results can't be faked. The same technique was used to ascertain that Kim Jong-Il had developed nuclear capabilities, not just let off a large conventional bomb.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@Misterb0z I'll break down this guys brainwashing tactics in the video one at a time. Not that I care to watch it again, 1) He names several branches of science for their perceived weight of Authority and says the word "evidence" without providing any. Brainwashing teaches us to have faith in authority rather than reason
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique 2) treating the opposing view with ridicule , ad hominem attack is a key reinforcement tool of egobrainwashing. Also as "creationist" I do actually dispute the layer geological column, since fossils have been found lying verically through apparently millions of years of rock layering. Meaning the legs were fossilisied about 100 million years or so earlier than the head. Or in other words he is using a scientific concept known as bald faced lies.
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique 3) there is no tree that has 5000 rings or years.Nor is there a logical provable way to age a tree by comparing it to another tree that lived and died at a seperate time.I dare say a tree in your front yard gets different light than one in your backyard meaning there is no way to compare their eras based on ring formation
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique 4) Carbondating of the atmosphere itself dates the world at 14000 years old. This has been extensively tested and the conclusion scientific authority came up with was quite brilliant. Carbon dating can't date the atmosphere itself, because we know the world is older than that, but somehow its still a good tool for everything else. This is atechnique known as leaving out obvious truths that ruin your argument aka the scientific method of Bald Faced lies
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique after 2 minutes 30 of lies, I'm bored. You state brainwashed evolutionists can figure the rest out on your own. Keep in mind the state doesnt love you, it may have a good reason to fool you, integrity and learning to think for yourself is your own responsibility. You have been taught to do anything but .I was also state brainwashed but the truth has set me free.
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique "Carbondating of the atmosphere itself dates the world at 14000 years old." You do understand what causes the balancing of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere, don't you? N14 that is struck by energetic particles in the upper atmosphere is changed into C14. If the level of C14 is maintained by external influences, clearly radiocarbon dating cannot be used.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@Misterb0z So external influences destroy the reliability of c14 dating from the atmosphere, yet when this useless tool is absorbed into a tree it suddenly becomes calibrated,fresh, uniform and perfect. I think I've got it. And not only that it degenerates over a 30 year period in a lab so you can then extrapolate that as being its rate of decay over milllions of years. Sounds logical
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique "when this useless tool is absorbed into a tree it suddenly becomes calibrated,fresh, uniform and perfect." Are trees found in the upper atmosphere? Do dead trees continue to photosynthesise? Come on, if you have any scientific knowledge at least try and use it. Can you really not see the difference?
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@Misterb0z Here, this looks fairly good, at least the first minute or so: watch?v=9REPnibO4IQ
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheExpertCritique "And not only that it degenerates over a 30 year period in a lab so you can then extrapolate that as being its rate of decay over milllions of years"
Earlier I expressed a desire not to patronise you, but it seems you're unaware of how a random decay process in a large population leads to a half life that can reliably be ascertained. I'll try and find a video to help you with the idea.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique " Carbon dating can't date the atmosphere itself, because we know the world is older than that, but somehow its still a good tool for everything else." You do know the difference between 'radiocarbon dating' and 'radiometric dating', don't you? Your posts would rather suggest that you do not.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheExpertCritique "I dare say a tree in your front yard gets different light than one in your backyard" Quite right. But are they only using two trees? No. Your objections are valid, but dendrochronologists are completely aware of them. As the video says, blind testing techniques are used to demonstrate the efficacy of all dating methods. There's no way to cheat.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique " fossils have been found lying verically through apparently millions of years of rock layering. " I'm beginning to doubt your assertion that you know what I know. So-called polystrate fossils have a rational explanation in processes we can observe in action today. They do not challenge the science of stratigraphy.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@Misterb0z The most obvious logical explanation is that aging of the geologic column is absolute nonsense. But of course that possibility isn't considered because that might disprove godless evolution.
Forget the science he offers here. Read a little about the psychological tools used in brainwashing. Then you will note that he is ticking them off straight from the textbook.
If he has a valid scientific motivation why the need to follow brainwashing 101?
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique "But of course that possibility isn't considered because that might disprove godless evolution" Who on earth is suggesting the existence or non-existence of any gods/godesses here? We're talking about nature and the study of nature. You can believe what you want about the origin of the universe, we're talking about nature, here.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@Misterb0z that is the motivation behind false science. If you read history you would see that science today is controlled by satanists. The knights of malta in particular. Science has always been a religious pursuit .
And no I don't know the difference between the 2 dating methods, nor do I care.
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique "And no I don't know the difference between the 2 dating methods, nor do I care." Very telling. Well, I'm more that willing to accept that what I know about nature is wrong, but I'll need reliable science, I'm afraid. Knights who say 'Ni' have no influence over me.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@Misterb0z the knights who say "ni" have brainwashed you. So silly as they may seem, they're obviously smarter than you. They also founded western medicine and you may be familiar with their caduceus. Its an occult satanic symbol found everywhere in hospitals. Its real meaning takes a little scepticism and research to discover.
Once you understand what it means you will see it everywhere in varying forms in your life. And it has real spiritual power over minds,
TheExpertCritique 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheExpertCritique "Once you understand what it means you will see it everywhere in varying forms in your life. And it has real spiritual power over minds," In the same way that a rabbit's foot makes me much more likely to win the lottery? These are testable claims, Expert, and when put to the test they always fail.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique "If he has a valid scientific motivation why the need to follow brainwashing 101?" Stating facts is not brainwashing. Science is critical and self-correcting. One observation could utterly up-end all we know about the age of the earth. Funnily enough, no such evidence is forthcoming. Nobody is stopping creation scientists from providing such evidence, in fact scientists suggest ways to disprove the theory. Strangely it's creationists who fail to do so.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
@TheExpertCritique "says the word "evidence" without providing any." Well then, what's that he does after 0:30? That looks like evidence to me. You can deny the fact that new layers are deposited on others, but you'll need to provide evidence that this is not true.
Misterb0z 4 weeks ago
I am religious but i 100% agree with this guy. The red necks in the USA who claim the world is "HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD" should watch this.
mrmemanme 1 month ago
very educational video , lets see the coments of the trolls :)
EdyMar77 1 month ago
Very good clips!! just continue so maybe som religios fanatiks can learn something of it!
19631342 1 month ago
i already knew this.Why`s i click on it?
valkay123 1 month ago
The reason why cesium clocks are shielded in a vault its because they can be affected by electromagnetic radiation, by external influences. Planets in our solar system especially earth show signs of exposure to enormous energies,intense radiation. whatever that phenomena- it was within the recorded history of humanity. (Fred Jueneman, FAIC, Industrial Research &Development p.21, June 1982) Thunderbolts of the Gods, The Electric Universe.
MrMatutum 2 months ago
@MrMatutum "cesium clocks are shielded in a vault its because they can be affected by electromagnetic radiation" Yes. Now try finding out how atomic clocks actually work. I'll help you. They use frequencies emitted by transitions of *electrons* to measure the passage of time. They're not using decay rates because these are next to useless as that kind of clock. If nuclear decay could be fiddled, nuclear physicists would be getting rid of all that pesky nuclear waste.
Misterb0z 2 months ago
@Misterb0z They have time differences. Cesium clocks uses magnetic fields to work i think.
MrMatutum 2 months ago
@MrMatutum We're not talking about atomic clocks here. As I pointed out in a previous post, atomic clocks work using the interaction of electrons with em radiation. Nuclear decay is a *nuclear* phenomenon. The chemical (electric), magnetic and gravitational environment has no effect on it. If it did, we could be rid of our amassed backlog of nuclear waste simply by shining a laser on the stuff. Chernobyl? Fukushima? No problem. Laser the stuff away. Sadly it doesn't work.
Misterb0z 2 months ago
@Misterb0z All I am saying is that cesium clock can be affected by gravity magnetic fields humidity. Likewise radiodecay can be affected by external forces. Recent evidence show that there was accelerated decay during the flood? near earth venus course. Helium diffusion, radiohalos, isotopic discordance and 14C in coal and diamonds are evidences. Intense heat(plasma arc mode) triggered the large amounts of nuclear decay (D. Humpreys PhD et al Rate project).
MrMatutum 2 months ago
@MrMatutum "radiodecay can be affected by external forces." Have you read a single word I've written to you?
"Recent evidence show that there was accelerated decay during the flood?" That's not a question. It doesn't need a question mark. More to the point, what evidence? And what flood? Will pouring water over nuclear waste wash the radioactivity away? Seriously? State your source.
"14C in coal and diamonds are evidences" This is explained in the video! Haven't you bothered to watch?!
Misterb0z 2 months ago
@Misterb0z The large amount of nuclear decay points to young earth. Within mans memory. The intense heat was triggered by massive thunderbolts machining the topography, shifting the sea basins, opening underground water within minutes and triggering the universal flood. If it was not for the flood the sudden cooling would not be possible. Noah would have died. Review your cooling systems of nuclear powerplants.
MrMatutum 1 month ago
@MrMatutum You haven't answered the question. What led to this massive, strangely (and conveniently!) temporary increase in the random decay rates of radioactive isotopes? I'm not interested in topography, rainfall or any of that. Just the nuclear process.
Misterb0z 1 month ago
@Misterb0z Its a difficult question. But here it is. There is nothing in the universe that is not electromagnetic.(Poincare)
MrMatutum 1 month ago
@MrMatutum We know more than Poincare did. He may have been a great man, but he knew nothing of the strong of weak nuclear forces. So again, if you're claiming that a flood can alter nuclear decay rates, produce evidence. Carry out an investigation or quote the work of someone else. Because if it were true, as I've said before, nuclear waste could be dumped in the sea with no consequences.
Misterb0z 1 month ago
@Misterb0z Please connect the dots properly. It is not the flood that cause the nuclear decay rather it was the electro-magnetic radiation that cause the radio-decay. It was also the thunderbolts(massive) that cause the flood(there was a flood). The near earth collisions of the planets that cause the electro-magnetic radiations(arc mode), the shifting of the magnetic poles. It was within man's memory.
MrMatutum 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMatutum "it was the electro-magnetic radiation that cause the radio-decay." I want to stick with this point because you're dancing around it instead of addressing it. So, are you saying that we are able to treat nuclear waste just by shining a light on it?
Misterb0z 1 month ago
@MrMatutum Hehe, rural America middle eastern deserts and the philipines, that's where you find the really scientifically illiterate, it seems! Every science named in a dictionary can prove there never was and never could be a global flood. YOu see, you need 4-5 times more water than Earth has or ever have had in it's 4.5 billion year long history, and it would leave traces so massive that scientists in every science would be finding tons of proof every day. But of course there is nothing. Nada!
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar But this is like "debating the shade of red on Santas's red-nosed reindeer or someting and SO uninteresting and SO below me that I'm out of here! How the fuck did I get here anyway? "The Flood"? Hahaaaa! : )
winterstellar 1 month ago
@winterstellar The earth is 71% water If you could melt all the water.....the water would rise to an altitude of 2.7km(Fraser Cain). It is a medieval thinking that global flooding is not possible The recorder said it rained 40 days and 40 nights. The electric universe paradigm provided a force that can sustain water evaporation, shifting of ocean basins. The ingredients are all there. Science is awesome- they found water in our sun ! Flooding is a 100%possibility. All paths of glory all lead but
MrMatutum 1 month ago
@MrMatutum 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered with water, you ignorant, it doesn't consist of 71 percent, hehe. BUt anyway, to cover the whole Earth with the mountains, you'd need 4 to 5 times more water than there is or have ever been anyway. REtarded bronze-age flat-earthers who invented such fairy-tales(or stole them, that was the preferred method for the bible"authors"),would of course know nothing about such matters, real physics, the real world.So they're excused, but you're not!
winterstellar 1 month ago
@MrMatutum And you f&%king idiot, if you melted all the ice on both Greenland and Antarctica, the sealevel still wouldn't rise more than 70 meters. Are you on shrooms or are an escaped mental pasient or something, by the way?
winterstellar 1 month ago
« The earth is 71% water »
(1/2)
Well, no, but okay - let's suppose for a moment that if we total the amounts of water on Earth's surface, in its atmosphere *and* in its mantle (yes, there is water dissolved in the semi-liquid rock that forms Earth's mantle), then we get enough water to top off the Earth's highest mountains. You're still left with a number of fundamental problems:
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
« The earth is 71% water »
(2/2)
1. Mechanism. What mechanism is there to transform the water required to liquid state and have it flood the Earth? What mechanism to make it go away afterward?
2. Energy. Where'd the energy come from? Where did it go?
3. Evidence. Where's the evidence that this happened during the last, say, 20.000 years?
That's of course not including the numerous reasons why Noah's ark itself would have been an impossibility.
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
@winterstellar nada ? hehe spanish speaker like me :) , yo siempre digo que estos videos deberian ser traducidos con subtitulos al español , como los debates de harris , dawkins y hitchens. saludos.
EdyMar77 1 month ago
« The large amount of nuclear decay points to young earth »
What "large amount of nuclear decay"?
XGralgrathor 1 month ago
Its disturbing that evolutionist atheist per se is ingrained with obsessive bordering delusional thoughts that they have exclusive rights to science. The truth of the matter is that science just debunking science. Geologic column also called stratigraphical column most likely results from a catastrophic events It is not based on experiments but on field observations. Radiodecay rates are not constant. Atomic clocks are reset during global disasters.
MrMatutum 2 months ago
@MrMatutum "Atomic clocks are reset during global disasters." How? Nuclear decay rates are, as the name suggests, nuclear phenomenon. The forces we consider huge to us are mere tinkerings with the electron clouds surrounding nuclei. They are feeble chemical interactions. So are you claiming this 'resetting' is magic? Or is there evidence to suggest that the chemical environment can influence decay rates? If so, we proponents of nuclear power would be delighted to know!
Misterb0z 2 months ago
@Misterb0z Do you think our sky is the same sky the ancient civilization were looking,observing and recording 6000-10000 yrs ago? We brand their(ancient) narrative/poetic style of writing as mythical and yet the flood is a worldwide story. They have no idea of fictional writing. Honesty is the best policy or else death for lying. Life is of little value in the ancient world.Pls read my other response. thanks
MrMatutum 2 months ago
@MrMatutum "Do you think our sky is the same sky the ancient civilization were looking,observing and recording 6000-10000 yrs ago?"
Your point evades me.
Misterb0z 2 months ago
@Misterb0z The alien sky was an interplay of 3 planets, Venus cometary display for a 1000 years. Intense electromagnetic radiation, thunderbolts changing the topography of the earth,grand canyon was carved,ocean basin shifted, mountains raised, people,plants animals obliterated blink of an eye. Fossils formed within minutes, universal flooding. Gradualism to base radiodmetric dating of rocks in geology is altered-percentage formulae age of sample is unreliable.(S. smith) The alien sky( Talbot)
MrMatutum 2 months ago
@MrMatutum "The alien sky was an interplay of 3 planets, Venus cometary display for a 1000 years"
So the negligible gravitational attraction of a few planets and a few comets somehow affected nuclei in a way that we are utterly unable to reproduce in laboratory conditions. Right. By the way, I have some magic beans. Give me your cow.
Misterb0z 2 months ago
@MrMatutum One word: Nutcase! That's you, you belong in some hospital or something if you mean those things seriously: )
winterstellar 2 months ago
@winterstellar If you are one of those scientist who believes in gravity warping space, relativity, blackholes, bigbang, darkmatter, neutron stars,nuclear sun to describe our universe then you need overhaul of your, concensus ignorance, delusional brain. The electric universe paradigm has more substance in predicting and experimentation, more conclusive in explaining our universe, the topography of earth, mars venus ecth.
MrMatutum 2 months ago
590 creationists didn't like this video. XD
Trampadoo 2 months ago
wow what an amazing God
fish5133 2 months ago
@fish5133 Ah, no, you're mistaken. Potholer isn't a god, he'd just very adept at making informative videos.
Misterb0z 2 months ago
checkmate!
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
Comment removed
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
Comment removed
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
Comment removed
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
For every dating method that seems to show the earth is old, there 10 more than indicate it is very young - too young for evolution to have happened and consistent with the biblical chronology. That is a fact evolutionists must deal with but refuse to.
bestvalue 3 months ago
Comment removed
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
@bestvalue Where did you find your data at? or did you "CREATE" it.
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
@stringtheory9991 creation. com/ age-of-the-earth
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue You could not have pulled your information from a more biased website.
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
@stringtheory9991 You're not seriously going to make an ad hominem attack against the website without examining the evidence are you? That would be closed-minded and irrational and we wouldn't (cough) expect that of an atheist. All the information comes from the peer-reviewed literature. Of course the conclusions are biased. So is everyone. So are you. Richard Dawkins is the most biased person on the face of the planet. What matters is the evidence. Read it and weep.
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue O.K that is a reasonable rebuttal. Here are some statements I found posted on the website.(that are absurd)
1. Even when heavily permineralized (‘fossilized’), this does not need to require more than a few weeks. 2.It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousand years old.
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
@stringtheory9991 Would you agree that no one has watched something fossilize over millions of years? Of course not. According to the traditional timescale, humans haven't existed that long. Have we seen things fossilize in a few weeks or years? Yes. Same with canyons. No one has seen them form over millions of years. Yet there are at least 3 canyons in the U.S. that formed in a few days in the past 100 years. So which is more scientific and reasonable to believe - what we've seen or imagined?
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue More lies from creationists. There are no cases of things fossilized in a few weeks. There have been misinterpretations of things being fossilized, but that was by people who did not understand the process of fossilization. And I would be very interested in learning about a new canyon forming in the last 100 years. By the way, a stream slightly changing its channel does not count as forming a canyon. I just thought I would save you some extra work.
subductionzone 3 months ago
@stringtheory9991 Why is your second point absurd? The evidence fits better with the idea that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. I'm not asking you to go on blind faith. I'm saying follow the evidence where it leads.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue You never answered the question.I cannot find any creation science that predicts a future event (event that was stated before it happened). Is there any observation which was predicted by creation science? You just started spuing babble about fossils and dinosaures living with man. That is a very legitimate question for "religious-science".
P.S i think it's cute you flagged my other posts as spam so nobody else could read them.
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
@stringtheory9991 I did not flag your posts and I would never do that. I don't know who is doing that but I was unflagging them so I could answer them. And I did answer your question. Whoever is flagging stringtheory's posts, please stop it. If you think you are helping me, you are not. And string, why do you keep removing your posts. You're a smart guy with some good questions. Give me an opportunity to answer them.
bestvalue 3 months ago
Comment removed
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue So I have done some research and I have noticed that Creation Science seems to only have answers for passed events. I cannot find any creation science that predicts a future event (event that was stated before it happened). Is there any observation which was predicted by creation science? If this can be shown this It would be a wonderful argument against Science as we know.
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
@stringtheory9991 Excellent question. Yes, for a theory to be scientific it must make predictions. Here are 5 off the top of my head: 1. a huge amount of fossils buried in rock strata with little or no change between major kinds. (That's what we find.) 2. the universe had a beginning. (The big bang.) 3. Non-existence of "junk" DNA. 4. Many things that are claimed to be old will turn our to be quite young (eg coal, oil diamonds) 5. mutations will only lose genetic information, not gain it.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "1. a huge amount of fossils buried in rock strata with little or no change between major kinds. (That's what we find.)" Fine. So where are the fossil mammals in the Cambrian period?
"2. the universe had a beginning. (The big bang.) " Yep. That's what the evidence suggests. 14 billion years ago.
" 3. Non-existence of "junk" DNA." You mean the genes we share with each of our common ancestors in turn, just as the ToE predicts?
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z 1. My theory would not predict mammals in the Cambrian. But we do find fossils out of order - a prediction of my model but not of evolution.
2. I could live with 13.72 billion years but there is so much other evidence against it and a better explanation with more explanatory power.
3. No, I mean the areas of the genome evolutionists claimed was junk because of their presuppositions which held back biology for 30 years. They were wrong. I.D.ers were right.
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "2. I could live with 13.72 billion years but there is so much other evidence against it and a better explanation with more explanatory power." Really? Then what is it?
"3. No, I mean the areas of the genome evolutionists claimed was junk because of their presuppositions which held back biology for 30 years." Yes. You're talking about genes that no longer are used to make proteins. Inactive genes. As we've learnt more, the amount we consider 'junk' has decreased.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z Also notice your presupposition in the use of the word "share" in number 3 above. You're already assuming common ancestry which is begging the question. Every English book in the library shares the same 26 letters. Does that they prove they evolved from one another? No, that's the code to write in English. And the 4-letter genetic code is the code to program living things.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue @bestvalue I did remove some posts just because I considered after posting them that they were not getting my point across. Good answer for the pope argument. I think however your misunderstanding how an atheist views religion. Put it this way, you are an atheist to every single religion but the one you believe in. An atheist views all those religions that you don't believe in the same way you do, except they include yours as well.
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
@stringtheory9991 Okay, I'm glad it wasn't something I said. I do understand the "I just go one god further" argument. But my intention is to show that it is irrational in light of the evidence. You know the SETI program, right? I don't believe in life on other planets. So if we started getting a signal from space with the prime and you thought it was an obvious sign of intelligent life and I said, "Nah, it's just a co-incidence" would that be rational? The DNA code is infinitely more complex.
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue Also your last post stating that atheists "they don't want to live by God's rules so it's easier for them to pretend he doesn't exist." thats like saying atheists have no morals that is just not the case and our views on morality are probably quite similar for the most part.
stringtheory9991 3 months ago
@stringtheory9991 No, I believe atheist DO have morals. (The Bible says as much.) But hey have no foundation for ethics. Atheists often tell me that Hitler murdering 6 million Jews and torturing babies for fun is not wrong. And in their worldview, I would agree with them. They are being consistent. Yes, I totally agree that our morals are likely similar. You'd say that's proof that our morals evolved and I'd day it's evidence of God. I would never imply that you are immoral, by the way.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "notice your presupposition in the use of the word "share"
Yes. Fine. It's a presupposition. But it's no more unwarranted a supposition than supposing gravity to make things fall when explaining how the sun shines.
It's possible to conceive of an alternate reality where people like you feel the need to lie, withhold and contort the truth in order to deny gravity because it conflicts with some cultural monstrosity. Their tactics would be the same as yours.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z We can observe gravity. It is a fact. We cannot observe common ancestry because no one was there. This debate is never over the facts. It is always over the conclusions drawn from the facts.
I was just pointing out that by using "share" you are assuming common ancestry. It's like if I kept saying something like the human eye was "designed" I'd be begging the question because design vs non-design is what we are attempting to prove.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "design vs non-design is what we are attempting to prove." If you're attempting to prove something then you're not doing science. If observations tomorrow showed a magical being creating living things ex-nihilo tomorrow we would have to concede that magical design describes reality. We don't have any such evidence. A scientist won't deny any possibility, only file ideas like ID into the 'no evidence to suggest this' category.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z Damn! You caught me on the "prove" thing. I'm the one who always corrects people and says science doesn't provide proof. I used the word against my better judgement, in haste, and you caught me. Totally agree.
We might not have evidence of "magical" design but evidence for "intelligent" design is overwhelming. Of course scientist deny possibilities. Science is restricted to the natural world. That doesn't mean the supernatural does not exist.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue Supernatural by definition is outside of nature. Anything supernatural is, therefore, utterly irrelevant. That is unless it influences our reality, in which case it must no longer be supernatural, and science can describe it.
Intelligent design fails to explain anything, because of course the intelligent designer's origins then need to be explained.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z Please not the "who made God ?" fallacy or I'm going to have to start screaming. 8^( )
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "Please not the "who made God ?" fallacy or I'm going to have to start screaming." The 'who made god' fallacy? What? You mean objecting to your special pleading is somehow an insult to your intelligence? Come off it. The definition of your god (and you automatically assume it's yours!) has been arrived at via dialectics over the ages. What apparently used to appear as a burning bush has been shovelled off into 'outside of space and time'. Speaks volumes.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z Oh God, not the special pleading argument too. Atheist for centuries claimed the universe was eternal. It was not special pleading then and it is not special pleading now. If I said "your universe cannot be eternal but my God can," that's special pleading. I'd be happy to accept an eternal universe and become an atheist. But the universe is not eternal. The atheists were wrong and the Bible was right.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "The atheists were wrong and the Bible was right." Really? When did bats cease to be birds? (Lev 11:13)?
The Bible even contradicts itself. It is clearly the work of a primitive people, and tells us nothing about any gods.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z "When did bats cease to be birds?"
Who says they did? Just because modern scientists class them otherwise does not make them right. I think God knows what he's talking about since he created them. Also, that's a strange argument for an evolutionist to make. When did birds cease to be dinosaurs?
There are many alleged contradictions in the Bible but every one I've ever seen has a satisfying answer. But I prefer to stick to science.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "When did bats cease to be birds?"
"Who says they did?"
Bats are mammals.
"When did birds cease to be dinosaurs?" Birds are dinosaurs. Just as you and I are eucaryotes, vertebrates, mammals, monkeys and apes. You don't outgrow your past.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z Do you not even realize what you are doing? Birds are dinosaurs. Why? Because that's how paleontologists classify them. Why do they classify them that way? Because birds are dinosaurs. It's circular reasoning. Maybe to God, bats are birds. Just because idiot human beings classify them differently doesn't make it so. Apparently some of us did not out grow our past. (Just kidding. ;^D)
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "Birds are dinosaurs. Why? Because that's how paleontologists classify them." Pah! Those experts, eh? Why trust a word they say? And it's not just palaeontologists, any taxonomist will be able to point out to you how we know that birds are descended from one group of dinosaurs.
"Maybe to God, bats are birds." And maybe it's possible for 942,000 angels to dance on the head of a pin.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@bestvalue "Atheist for centuries claimed the universe was eternal." Did they? So? What's the relevance of this particular inanity of yours? The point is, positing a creator answers nothing. It may be true that there is a creator, but if it's supernatural then it has nothing to do with our universe as we observe it.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z It refutes your special pleading nonsense.
"positing a creator answers nothing" Okay, so if they find a city on Mars and you believe it is a sign of intelligent life and I say it just evolved there through natural processes, I'll give you the same argument and see how rational you think it is.
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue " so if they find a city on Mars and you believe it is a sign of intelligent life and I say it just evolved there through natural processes..." Stop talking crap. Cities are not living things. They don't evolve.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z The big bang is, by definition, a supernatural event because it does not (and cannot) have a natural explanation. It must therefore have a supernatural one. The intelligent designer, by definition, does not have an origin.
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "The intelligent designer, by definition, does not have an origin." Special pleading. No different to the claim "The universe, by definition, does not have an origin".
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z Have you heard of the big bang? The universe DID have an origin. I know you'd like to run away from that just like Einstein and others did at first because it implies God. At least Einstein was honest enough to admit it was the "biggest blunder" of his life.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "Have you heard of the big bang?" No. No I haven't. You patronising arse, of course I have, but unlike you I understand what is meant by it. Physics doesn't tell us that physical laws didn't exist at the moment of expansion, simply that our current laws *in the form that they are now* were the result. Space and time are properties of the universe, so it's meaningless to talk about 'before' or 'outside' the universe. Speculate and believe all you want, just don't assert.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z Well, come on. If the patronage fits . . . Are unaware that the big bang posits an absolute beginning for time, space and matter?
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "At least Einstein was honest enough to admit it was the "biggest blunder" of his life" Einstein was referring to his insertion of a 'cosmological constant' that kept his equation in line with contemporary understanding. Einstein wasn't an atheist, more like a pantheist. Either way he was human, and made mistakes. So?
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z I know what Einstein was talking about and I know he wasn't an atheist (or a theist for that matter). Do you know why he added the cosmological constant? Because he was trying to avoid a beginning to the universe. Many others refused to accept it as well because of the theological implications. Since they lost that battle they now must invoke multiple universes to avoid God. It's truly amazing how far they will go to avoid the evidence that is staring them right in the face.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "Do you know why he added the cosmological constant? Because he was trying to avoid a beginning to the universe." No. He was fitting his model of universe to fit the prevailing view of the form the universe took.
Nobody's unhappy with the idea of the universe having been incredibly dense 14 billion years ago, and it's only the 14 billion that you're objecting to. Had it been measured to be 6 thousand you'd be loopy with glee.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z No, I don't have a problem with the 14 (actually 13.72 but who's counting?) billion years. It's the absolute beginning that were talking about. The time is a different issue. It has nothing to do with evolution either (in case you were thinking that) because there is still not enough time for evolution to have happened even in 14 (13.72 but who's counting?) billion years.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "The universe DID have an origin... (and) it implies God"
I'll concede for the sake of argument that the origin of the universe conclusively proves a creator. First of all, what now? Is that going to change nature? Certainly not. This assumption changes nothing about what we observe. Science still holds true. The data we collect still describe nature. Everything in this video, therefore holds true. So you're wasting everyone's time.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
(cont). Why Yahweh? Why not any of the more reasonable deities or mystical forces that have been proposed? Why not any one (or any group, or category) of the infinite set of possible creators? What arrogance is it to suppose that our feeble species on our insignificant rock in one corner of a very ordinary galaxy amongst billions is of any special interest to it? This is the kind of thing that makes me an atheist. Not science. Just the sheer absurdity of your claims.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z I would ask why not Yahweh? Why are you biased against him? Name a "more reasonable" deity or mystical force. Why are they more reasonable in your opinion?
"This is the kind of thing that makes me an atheist."
Thank you for that admission. It is NEVER science that makes one an atheist. It is always for emotional reasons. One can believe in God for purely rational reasons (as I do). But one cannot reject him for rational reasons. Atheism is ultimately an irrational position.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "It is NEVER science that makes one an atheist. It is always for emotional reasons. " Is failing to be convinced by a story an emotional response? If you say at the end of a ghost story that you're not scared because there's no evidence to support the existence of ghosts, who's being emotional? You or the little kiddies clinging to their blankets in fear? Fear and tall stories are a tool of religion, and the emotional response is yours.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z "because there's no evidence to support the existence of"
I see what you're saying and I don't believe in ghosts either. But there is plenty of evidence for the existence God. The emotional part comes in when atheists refuse to consider the evidence. They do so because the Christian God makes them feel bad about themselves because he says they are a sinner. It's more comforting to just pretend he doesn't exist and make up your own rules.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "I would ask why not Yahweh? Why are you biased against him?" Because there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it exists. Stories, yes, but stories suggest the existence of Godzilla.
"Name a "more reasonable" deity or mystical force." One that wouldn't command an insignificant little tribe to slaughter its enemies. That didn't care how pigeons were sacrificed. That didn't rely on our swooning obeisance. Come on, give me a challenge, this is too easy.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@bestvalue "I would ask why not Yahweh? Why are you biased against him?" I would ask why not the loch ness monster? Why are you biassed against him? Why not Odin? Why are you biassed against him? You've played your argument from majority card, so now let me play the argument from authority card. Better educated people are far less likely to be theists. And many atheists, including me, were raised as christians. I *have* examined the claims of other religions. Have you?
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z "I *have* examined the claims of other religions. Have you?" Yes, and I've found the majority of them to be self-refuting. I find it strange that many of my atheist friends seem to be attracted to Buddhism when I find it to be very unscientific.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "I've found the majority of (religions) to be self-refuting" And yet you don't examine your own with the same level of scrutiny. Go on, read the bible. Cover to cover. I dare you.
The fact is, we all have loony beliefs, myself included. We just have to recognise that we need to alter our beliefs when they're at odds with reality, not deny the evidence to keep our beliefs intact as you're doing.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@bestvalue buddhism is a philosophy/way of life. There is no god to worship in buddhusm. Also I'm from the future.
TheFatalGuide 2 months ago
@Misterb0z It means miracles are possible. God created the laws so he can contravene them once in a while. (Like to raise someone from the dead.) And if you start studying who that God might be, you discover that other religions and worldviews are self-refuting and the Bible and Christianity are supported by the evidence. That realization that God exists will change your life in a personal way. It has eternal consequences. But forget theology. I prefer science.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "But forget theology. I prefer science." So then why are you going to all these lengths to attempt to refute science just because it's not what's written in your primitive book?
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z I am not attempting to refute science - just the conclusions of some (albeit most) scientists. There is a mountain of evidence they must ignore because it does not fit into their evolutionary paradigm. But if we look at the whole picture, we discover that the Bible had it right all along - strong evidence that it is inspired by someone. God perhaps?
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "There is a mountain of evidence they must ignore because it does not fit into their evolutionary paradigm." There is? For example...?
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@bestvalue ""The universe DID have an origin... (and) it implies God" The bewildering thing is how you make the leap from "there is a creator" to "the creator is Yahweh who chose one obscure tribe to support in their petty battles and advise on their diet on this one obscure planet out of the billions out there, then made himself human to die so that he himself could forgive this tribe for something he himself caused, and expect people to believe this in the age before mass media".
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z I don't make the leap to Yahweh. Further study and deduction must be made as I pointed out above. Christianity is the only worldview that is falsifiable, can account for the laws of logic and is not self-refuting like others that make the TRUTH claim that there is no such thing as TRUTH.
Lots of things sound absurd when you put them like that. Quantum mechanics is absurd on the face of it too. (cont.)
bestvalue 3 months ago
@Misterb0z "and expect people to believe this in the age before mass media"
Christianity is the most successful religion in history with currently over 33% in a world of 7 billion. They still believe in an age AFTER mass media. Of course, that's not a valid reason to believe but just an argument from authority. But it means you might consider that it's possible they know something you don't. How will you know which god it is unless you try to find out? Saying it's all nonsense is a cop-out.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "The big bang is, by definition, a supernatural event because it does not (and cannot) have a natural explanation"
Your predecessors said the same about the sun. Its magic powers, they thought, would be forever beyond human understanding. Science progresses. Religion has to adapt or it dies.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z You missed my point. The big bang cannot have a natural explanation because all of the natural physical laws came into existence at that moment. This is the situation you are faced with: deny that the universe had a beginning and you must deny the big bang. Or deny that the big bang required a cause and you must deny the law of causality, the foundational principle of all of science. Atheism will ultimately destroy science. True science leads straight to the Creator.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue We don't have to be there. The evidence for common ancestry is huge. And the "you weren't there" claim is a double edged sword that theists should learn to avoid. You weren't there when your god supposedly made the Earth. All you have is an old book. There is no outside evidence for your claims. Why do you believe your old book and not the old books of other religions? There is just as much evidence for all of them, none.
subductionzone 3 months ago
@subductionzone There is no evidence for common ancestry.
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "There is no evidence for common ancestry." Go to your local university and say that. I'm no biologist. I could explain to you in laborious detail my understanding of endogenous retroviruses, but you have no interested in an understanding. You deny the beauty of the work of your creator and deny its very nature in preference for the written word of primitive man.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@bestvalue Pull the other one, its got bells on. Again you are arguing from ignorance. Our DNA is almost identical. And worse yet for creationists is the discovery of ERV's. I suggest that you do a Google search on them. You are in for a nasty surprise.
subductionzone 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "Every English book in the library shares the same 26 letters. Does that they prove they evolved from one another?"
No. Certainly not. But then books aren't living things. It doesn't work as an analogy, merely as a mantra to convince yourself that you're not speaking nonsense.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z But you do believe non-living chemicals came to life, don't you? I realize abiogenesis is not apart of evolution so I'm not trying to move the goal posts here. But life coming for non-life is very much part of the argument for atheism. So unless you're willing to concede that God may have gotten the process started then the analogy is valid. I don't know who's flagging your posts as spam but it's not me.
bestvalue 3 months ago
@bestvalue "But you do believe non-living chemicals came to life, don't you?" If I were to take you apart, atom by atom, I would end up with a big pile of atoms, none of which had ever been alive, and yet through the electromagnetic force had been joined up to make you, a life. You are 100% chemicals and 0% magic. For some reason you find that fact degrading and insulting. Why should you? If you want to believe that nature is due to a deity, that's up to you, but we describe nature, not God.
Misterb0z 3 months ago
@Misterb0z I don't find that "fact" degrading. I find it false. A dead body has all the same chemicals it had before it died but it is no longer alive.
bestvalue 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue "A dead body has all the same chemicals it had before it died but it is no longer alive." So what's changed?
Misterb0z 3 months ago