|
|
Post by Benfxmth on Apr 8, 2021 12:07:21 GMT -5
Ok snj90 , if you saw that on youtube that's undisputable then... Because taking five minutes looking for recent finding on a certain field would cost too much fatigue I suppose... [1] [2] However, apart from all these specific examples which I won't confute one by one as I did some years ago in a certain other thread because I have better stuff to do, there is definitively some other elements that are emerging from your posts. In the last few ones in particular, the logic behind what you say sounds a lot like: "your theory misses some points, so it is wrong, and consequently my theory is undoubtedly the right one" (as if those were the only two possible options). But this is not how the falsification of a scientific theory works, and not even how to demonstrate than a new theory is right instead. This and similar logical fallacies were systematically noticed in creationistic writings [3], and it actually belongs more to pseudoscience [4] and conspiracy theory [5] than anything else. As such, it's quite evident that it's quite impossible to disprove any scientific theory (not even the weakest one) with any of this stuff, the confrontation would just not stand. No point in arguing with snj90--I couldn't care less if people have non-scientific opinions; however, I agree with all your points, especially in that it is annoying when people go after and tell others that they're right (not trying to argue with snj90 either). |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 25, 2021 6:28:20 GMT -5
Ariete - Referring to the comment you made towards me yesterday in the shoutbox, I now have the impression that you think or thought I subscribe to geocentrism. That’s totally false. Really, I highly recommend the astronomy video I posted on the previous page. It has nothing to do with geocentrism. The guy who does the presentation is a former atheist scientist who worked for the US military space force. He started his career as an atheist. He goes through all the reasons that the objects in the solar system rebut the nebular model and an old age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 25, 2021 10:15:47 GMT -5
Ariete - Referring to the comment you made towards me yesterday in the shoutbox, I now have the impression that you think or thought I subscribe to geocentrism. That’s totally false. Really, I highly recommend the astronomy video I posted on the previous page. It has nothing to do with geocentrism. The guy who does the presentation is a former atheist scientist who worked for the US military space force. He started his career as an atheist. He goes through all the reasons that the objects in the solar system rebut the nebular model and an old age.
Nope, I used geocentrism because it was a good example IMO and I know you don't believe that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 26, 2021 2:40:53 GMT -5
If the universe is younger than 10k years old, how do you explain our ability to see further than 10k lightyears into space?
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 26, 2021 5:59:02 GMT -5
If the universe is younger than 10k years old, how do you explain our ability to see further than 10k lightyears into space? There’s no definitive answer to that question, but I don’t see why that should hinder me from believing in biblical creation. It is your side that has to come up with numerous far-fetched scenarios to explain away all the reasons mentioned in the video that I posted for why the solar system cannot be old. You have to invoke the tooth fairy dozens of times at least. So even if there’s one thing I don’t have a definitive answer on, I know there must be one because of all the other overwhelming proofs in my favor. You even created this very thread, making the assumption that evolution is true, but not being able to explain bird flight. The solution that I favor is that God had sped up the speed of light in the past and/or in the distant regions of the universe so as to allow us to see the distant objects. Now, in my worldview, where God created the heavens and the earth, and has obviously created all the laws of nature to allow for our existence, this is not hard to imagine. Dr. Grady McMurtry mentions in the video below some results from even secular researchers demonstrating that the speed of light is not a constant. It can be sped up, slowed down. One of the citations is to an atheist astronomer whose research shows that the speed of light may have been millions of times faster in the recent past. If you don’t want to watch the whole video, then the part I mentioned begins at about 43:20.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Apr 26, 2021 7:06:39 GMT -5
If the universe is younger than 10k years old, how do you explain our ability to see further than 10k lightyears into space? There’s no definitive answer to that question, but I don’t see why that should hinder me from believing in biblical creation. It is your side that has to come up with numerous far-fetched scenarios to explain away all the reasons mentioned in the video that I posted for why the solar system cannot be old. You have to invoke the tooth fairy dozens of times at least. So even if there’s one thing I don’t have a definitive answer on, I know there must be one because of all the other overwhelming proofs in my favor. You even created this very thread, making the assumption that evolution is true, but not being able to explain bird flight. The solution that I favor is that God had sped up the speed of light in the past and/or in the distant regions of the universe so as to allow us to see the distant objects. Now, in my worldview, where God created the heavens and the earth, and has obviously created all the laws of nature to allow for our existence, this is not hard to imagine. Dr. Grady McMurtry mentions in the video below some results from even secular researchers demonstrating that the speed of light is not a constant. It can be sped up, slowed down. One of the citations is to an atheist astronomer whose research shows that the speed of light may have been millions of times faster in the recent past. If you don’t want to watch the whole video, then the part I mentioned begins at about 43:20.
They're only farfetched because you lack the knowledge to understand the science. |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 27, 2021 20:11:01 GMT -5
They're only farfetched because you lack the knowledge to understand the science. It’s because I DO understand the science that I call the scenarios far-fetched. You need to learn the difference between science and story-telling, because it’s mostly the latter that is employed to explain the inconsistencies between the empirical observations and the (secular) theoretical foundations for what we see in the solar system. For instance, as discussed in the video I posted on the last page, it is an acknowledged fact that water could not have formed in this region of the solar system based on the nebular model. Therefore, comets are proposed by secular science not because there’s a solid scientific basis to suppose that all of earth’s water could have come from extraterrestrial bombardment (what an absolutely preposterous idea!), but as a recusing device - because otherwise, the secular hypothesis is falsified. As preposterous as the idea of comet bombardment is, it's falsified still because of the observed ratios of deuterium to water on most comets, which ratios don't match the earth's very little deuterium levels. Likewise, it is an established fact the comets cannot last billions of years. They're formed of ice and decay too rapidly. But the secular, old age model is falsified by comets, so a recusing device (the Oort Cloud) is invented. There’s not a shred of evidence the Oort Cloud actually exists. It’s just a rescuing device, because otherwise the secular model is falsified. And there are many other such examples. We have reliable observations of the strength of the earth’s magnetic field, and it’s decaying far too rapidly for it to be old. Yet, Mercury also has a magnetic field. A dynamo effect was invented to explain the earth’s magnetic field, which is not based on scientific observation, but is a rescuing device for the fact that the magnetic field cannot have been decaying at its observed steady rate for the earth, or the earth would be liquefied if we extrapolate backwards a mere 20k years. Yet, the dynamo effect doesn’t work for Mercury. It can’t have a liquid core any longer if it were billions of years old. These are by no means the only examples. The whole solar system is full of rescuing devices for secularists. If only you would take the time to watch the video I posted, you might learn a thing or two. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 28, 2021 6:14:02 GMT -5
You need to learn the difference between science and story-telling
Nice freudian slip there.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mörön on Apr 28, 2021 11:08:04 GMT -5
You need to learn the difference between science and story-telling
Nice freudian slip there. Oi, dickhead!  |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete is a Russian Alcoholic on Apr 29, 2021 2:51:41 GMT -5
Right, as entertaining as this thread is, I believe everything is answered by the following video:
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on May 7, 2021 11:47:58 GMT -5
Here’s an article I saw on Google News today, written from a pro-evolution perspective, concerning how the fossil evidence does not support their theory of human origins. phys.org/news/2021-05-human-stories-compatible-fossils.amp“ Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today.” This is not a creationist source, folks. Yet some act as if this evolutionary goo-to-you story is a scientific fact beyond reproach. Take the blinders off. |
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on May 7, 2021 14:44:29 GMT -5
Here’s an article I saw on Google News today, written from a pro-evolution perspective, concerning how the fossil evidence does not support their theory of human origins. phys.org/news/2021-05-human-stories-compatible-fossils.amp“ Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today.” This is not a creationist source, folks. Yet some act as if this evolutionary goo-to-you story is a scientific fact beyond reproach. Take the blinders off. Just copying a longer extract from your own link: The link just sais that the human evolution picture is still incomplete, but not even the quoted people are suggesting that evolution is wrong. Here is the original paper they are talking about, anyway science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6542/eabb4363Original abstract of the original scientific source: |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on May 7, 2021 15:10:12 GMT -5
urania93 - well, of course they don’t think evolution is wrong. That’s the point. Like I said, it’s not a creationist source. I posted it to show the disconnect between the actual evidence versus the so called science, for those who think there’s actual scientific evidence that we came from apes and that apes came from slime. It’s just a popular story believed by many.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strewthless on May 8, 2021 9:21:20 GMT -5
... urania93 It’s just a popular story believed by many. Sounds like the Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on May 9, 2021 6:48:06 GMT -5
... urania93 It’s just a popular story believed by many. Sounds like the Bible. The Bible wasn't written all at once or by a single man. There are prophecies written that are fulfilled at later times. It has been calculated that the chance of one man randomly fulfilling just 8 Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah to be 1 in 10 to the 17th power. The probability is illustrated by imagining that you cover the whole state of Texas 2 feet deep in silver dollars. Your chance of hitting those 1:10^17 odds are the same as your chance of walking across Texas and finding the one coin that is marked while blindfolded, on your first try.
But Jesus fulfilled far more than just 8 prophecies.
So my worldview is supported by a massive amount of evidence. When you look at some of these probabilities quantitatively--e.g., Bible prophecy vis-a-vis evolution, as I have done--I have no doubt that my faith is far more rational. It's honestly unnerving to me to think how I once rejected the God of the Bible in favor of the goo to you via the zoo fairytale. But it's all good now that He has saved me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strewthless on May 9, 2021 7:14:08 GMT -5
The Bible isn't proof of the Bible. It's a collection of stories written by people who knew less about science and the world than a 12 year old in 2021. Back in those days if you hallucinated and heard God talking to you, it was called a "vision". These days it's known by its correct name, Schizophrenia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strewthless on May 9, 2021 7:29:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on May 9, 2021 22:57:50 GMT -5
The Bible isn't proof of the Bible. It's a collection of stories written by people who knew less about science and the world than a 12 year old in 2021. Back in those days if you hallucinated and heard God talking to you, it was called a "vision". These days it's known by its correct name, Schizophrenia.
Or people on psychedelic drugs like shrooms.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Aug 25, 2021 19:15:26 GMT -5
You laugh at me, but you cannot begin to explain why we've found T-Rex collagen and red blood cells. It's not creationists who have found this and verified it, but evolutionists, who must come up with recusing devices for their theories. These absolutely cannot last 65 million years under any circumstances. The preservation of these things aligns with a biblical history, and not an evolutionary one. Moreover, historians from Herodotus (who is well known for anyone historically minded) to Alexander the Great to Marco Polo have clearly documented their encounters with live dragons/dinosaurs, which further confirms the historical veracity of these beasts, and their connection with fossilized dinosaurs. It's simply foolish to suppose that such a large and diverse selection of cultures have invented a purely imaginary beast as a dragon. No, the folklore from disparate cultures stems from actual encounters with these creatures. Details about such historical records can be found here: creationwiki.org/Dragon |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Aug 27, 2021 7:13:36 GMT -5
Why do evolutionists have to lie so much? Take a look at this headline I saw on Google News. This is what is spoon fed to the masses. www.sciencealert.com/more-humans-are-growing-an-extra-artery-in-our-arms-because-we-re-still-evolving/amp“ More And More Humans Are Growing an Extra Artery, Showing We're Still Evolving” Yet even if you just read that article, this claim utterly falls apart. “ An artery that temporarily runs down the center of our forearms while we're still in the womb isn't vanishing as often as it used to, according to researchers from Flinders University and the University of Adelaide in Australia.” So, in other words, there’s absolutely no increase in genetic information that would be required for molecules to man evolution. There’s rather evidently a decrease in information, as genes responsible for doing away this this artery are evidently affected by mutations, which are almost always deleterious. |
|
