-
If the earth is flat, what is its origin and age?
-
If the earth is flat, what is its origin and age?
What does science say?
-
If the earth is flat, what is its origin and age?
What does science say?
According to FES NASA scientists don't tell the truth about the earth. Right?
-
According to FES NASA scientists don't tell the truth about the earth. Right?
Didn't we go over this? I believe NASA isn't lying or faking anything, so I see no problem with asking them for the answers. It is their full-time job, after all.
-
According to FES NASA scientists don't tell the truth about the earth. Right?
Didn't we go over this? I believe NASA isn't lying or faking anything, so I see no problem with asking them for the answers. It is their full-time job, after all.
Did I say anything about you? I only said something about FES in general.
-
According to FES NASA scientists don't tell the truth about the earth. Right?
Didn't we go over this? I believe NASA isn't lying or faking anything, so I see no problem with asking them for the answers. It is their full-time job, after all.
Did I say anything about you? I only said something about FES in general.
Sorry, my bad, I thought the quotation was a reply. :)
-
If the earth is flat, what is its origin and age?
What does science say?
(correct me if im wrong) The earth formed 4.54 billion years ago in the protoplanetary disc of the young sun.
-
(correct me if im wrong) The earth formed 4.54 billion years ago in the protoplanetary disc of the young sun.
That sounds about right to me.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
-
(correct me if im wrong) The earth formed 4.54 billion years ago in the protoplanetary disc of the young sun.
That sounds about right to me.
But how did the earth form in the flat earth model? the sun is wayy too small to have created an infinite plane.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Quoting the Bible to prove the formation of the earth, it's like using a comic book to prove the creation of Superman.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
There are plenty of Harry Potter fans, as well!
Me? I prefer Tolkien.
-
The Bible: "An anvil that's worn out many a skeptics' hammer"
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no, the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
That tiny spec of magic fairy dust is more believable than:
- The universe being 6000 year old
- An inexperienced man and his family building a wooden ark that somehow endured 1.1 billion cubic miles of water per second over 40 days, which fit 10 billion species, while at the same time taking care of all of them.
- An incestous family populating the earth TWICE.
- Talking animals.
- Numerous scientific errors.
- Virgin births.
- Resurrections.
and many other things that i am too lazy to type.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
That tiny spec of magic fairy dust is more believable than:
- The universe being 6000 year old
- An inexperienced man and his family building a wooden ark that somehow endured 1.1 billion cubic miles of water per second over 40 days, which fit 10 billion species, while at the same time taking care of all of them.
- An incestous family populating the earth TWICE.
- Talking animals.
- Numerous scientific errors.
- Virgin births.
- Resurrections.
and many other things that i am too lazy to type.
I think most people fail to realise that the technology of the ancients was vastly superior to our own in the present day.
Do you know anything about human DNA?
I suggest you look into it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
There are not 10 billion different species of animals that is nonsense.
And Men wrote the bible not God.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
How do you consider another man's word to be evidence ?
How have you verified how old fossils are ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How have you verified that the continents have drifted ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know asteroid strikes produced craters over 100000 of years.
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know the grand canyon took millions of years to form with water erosion?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
For example :
Fossils could be 3500 years old they could 10 years old how would you be able to verify their age ?
The continents could be stationary how could you verify that they move an alleged 20 mm a year.?
These so called asteroid strikes you speak of could of been the battle scars of the ancients superior weapons.
The Grand canyon could be the result of the ancients mining with there superior machines and technology.
All your doing is repeating what you have been told you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever.
I all comes down to belief .
Do you believe what you have been told or not.
I do not.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
That tiny spec of magic fairy dust is more believable than:
- The universe being 6000 year old
- An inexperienced man and his family building a wooden ark that somehow endured 1.1 billion cubic miles of water per second over 40 days, which fit 10 billion species, while at the same time taking care of all of them.
- An incestous family populating the earth TWICE.
- Talking animals.
- Numerous scientific errors.
- Virgin births.
- Resurrections.
and many other things that i am too lazy to type.
I think most people fail to realise that the technology of the ancients was vastly superior to our own in the present day.
Do you know anything about human DNA?
I suggest you look into it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
There are not 10 billion different species of animals that is nonsense.
And Men wrote the bible not God.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
How were our antecesor's technology superior than ours?
Not sure what were you triying to tell me with those articles in wikipedia, either way it helps me prove my point, as the chromosomal adam's age ranges from 200,000 to 300,000 years.
How many animals do you propose were in the ark?
Do you believe in the bible?
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
That tiny spec of magic fairy dust is more believable than:
- The universe being 6000 year old
- An inexperienced man and his family building a wooden ark that somehow endured 1.1 billion cubic miles of water per second over 40 days, which fit 10 billion species, while at the same time taking care of all of them.
- An incestous family populating the earth TWICE.
- Talking animals.
- Numerous scientific errors.
- Virgin births.
- Resurrections.
and many other things that i am too lazy to type.
I think most people fail to realise that the technology of the ancients was vastly superior to our own in the present day.
Do you know anything about human DNA?
I suggest you look into it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
There are not 10 billion different species of animals that is nonsense.
And Men wrote the bible not God.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
How were our antecesor's technology superior than ours?
Not sure what were you triying to tell me with those articles in wikipedia, either way it helps me prove my point, as the chromosomal adam's age ranges from 200,000 to 300,000 years.
How many animals do you propose were in the ark?
Do you believe in the bible?
It is irrelevant what I believe.
The scientists claim Adam existed 300000 years ago.
The only thing that is a definite is that DNA proves the Earth was populated from a very small number of people.
Could we build the Pyrimids in the present day ?
If we build something in the present day how long does it last ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
How do you consider another man's word to be evidence ?
How have you verified how old fossils are ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How have you verified that the continents have drifted ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know asteroid strikes produced craters over 100000 of years.
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know the grand canyon took millions of years to form with water erosion?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
For example :
Fossils could be 3500 years old they could 10 years old how would you be able to verify their age ?
The continents could be stationary how could you verify that they move an alleged 20 mm a year.?
These so called asteroid strikes you speak of could of been the battle scars of the ancients superior weapons.
The Grand canyon could be the result of the ancients mining with there superior machines and technology.
All your doing is repeating what you have been told you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever.
I all comes down to belief .
Do you believe what you have been told or not.
I do not.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
How do you consider another man's word to be evidence ?
How have you verified how old fossils are ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How have you verified that the continents have drifted ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know asteroid strikes produced craters over 100000 of years.
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know the grand canyon took millions of years to form with water erosion?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
For example :
Fossils could be 3500 years old they could 10 years old how would you be able to verify their age ?
The continents could be stationary how could you verify that they move an alleged 20 mm a year.?
These so called asteroid strikes you speak of could of been the battle scars of the ancients superior weapons.
The Grand canyon could be the result of the ancients mining with there superior machines and technology.
All your doing is repeating what you have been told you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever.
I all comes down to belief .
Do you believe what you have been told or not.
I do not.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You are right, i cant, myself, personally verify the age of fossils, i only know how scientists do it
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age.htm
However, the continents arent stationary, look how well they fit with each other, they also found diferent fossils in differents part of the world.
I also see how these kind of asteroid impacts are pretty rare, as they usually accompany mass extintions and catastrophic events, had they hit sooner we might aswell not be here, discussing the origin of earth.
Also, you can see the effects of erosions yourself, personally, when it rains here, the rain form mini craters and holes, now, imagine the time it might have taken for an erosion of that size.
Why do you believe that our antecesors made these things with the so called superior technology? Somebody told you?
In fact, does australia exist? i have not been in australia, but people tell me it exists. :P
sorry for the slow reply, im in my cellphone right now :(
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
That tiny spec of magic fairy dust is more believable than:
- The universe being 6000 year old
- An inexperienced man and his family building a wooden ark that somehow endured 1.1 billion cubic miles of water per second over 40 days, which fit 10 billion species, while at the same time taking care of all of them.
- An incestous family populating the earth TWICE.
- Talking animals.
- Numerous scientific errors.
- Virgin births.
- Resurrections.
and many other things that i am too lazy to type.
I think most people fail to realise that the technology of the ancients was vastly superior to our own in the present day.
Do you know anything about human DNA?
I suggest you look into it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
There are not 10 billion different species of animals that is nonsense.
And Men wrote the bible not God.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
How were our antecesor's technology superior than ours?
Not sure what were you triying to tell me with those articles in wikipedia, either way it helps me prove my point, as the chromosomal adam's age ranges from 200,000 to 300,000 years.
How many animals do you propose were in the ark?
Do you believe in the bible?
It is irrelevant what I believe.
The scientists claim Adam existed 300000 years ago.
The only thing that is a definite is that DNA proves the Earth was populated from a very small number of people.
Could we build the Pyrimids in the present day ?
If we build something in the present day how long does it last ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
hmm, i guess it does make sense that earth was populated from a small group of people.
yes, we could build the pyramids today.
the time it took to build burj khalifa was 6 years from 2004 to 2010
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
How do you consider another man's word to be evidence ?
How have you verified how old fossils are ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How have you verified that the continents have drifted ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know asteroid strikes produced craters over 100000 of years.
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know the grand canyon took millions of years to form with water erosion?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
For example :
Fossils could be 3500 years old they could 10 years old how would you be able to verify their age ?
The continents could be stationary how could you verify that they move an alleged 20 mm a year.?
These so called asteroid strikes you speak of could of been the battle scars of the ancients superior weapons.
The Grand canyon could be the result of the ancients mining with there superior machines and technology.
All your doing is repeating what you have been told you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever.
I all comes down to belief .
Do you believe what you have been told or not.
I do not.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You are right, i cant, myself, personally verify the age of fossils, i only know how scientists do it
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age.htm
However, the continents arent stationary, look how well they fit with each other, they also found diferent fossils in differents part of the world.
I also see how these kind of asteroid impacts are pretty rare, as they usually accompany mass extintions and catastrophic events, had they hit sooner we might aswell not be here, discussing the origin of earth.
Also, you can see the effects of erosions yourself, personally, when it rains here, the rain form mini craters and holes, now, imagine the time it might have taken for an erosion of that size.
Why do you believe that our antecesors made these things with the so called superior technology? Somebody told you?
In fact, does australia exist? i have not been in australia, but people tell me it exists. :P
sorry for the slow reply, im in my cellphone right now :(
So I'm right you just repeat what you have been told.
You are so clever ;D
I think they had superior technology as when we build something now it doesn't last thousands of years.
I went to an ancient ampetheatre in Greece it was acoustically perfect and I was told it was thousands of years old.
I believe to carve these stone buildings that are ancient perfect and still standing today would take superior technology.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
How do you consider another man's word to be evidence ?
How have you verified how old fossils are ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How have you verified that the continents have drifted ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know asteroid strikes produced craters over 100000 of years.
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know the grand canyon took millions of years to form with water erosion?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
For example :
Fossils could be 3500 years old they could 10 years old how would you be able to verify their age ?
The continents could be stationary how could you verify that they move an alleged 20 mm a year.?
These so called asteroid strikes you speak of could of been the battle scars of the ancients superior weapons.
The Grand canyon could be the result of the ancients mining with there superior machines and technology.
All your doing is repeating what you have been told you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever.
I all comes down to belief .
Do you believe what you have been told or not.
I do not.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You are right, i cant, myself, personally verify the age of fossils, i only know how scientists do it
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age.htm
However, the continents arent stationary, look how well they fit with each other, they also found diferent fossils in differents part of the world.
I also see how these kind of asteroid impacts are pretty rare, as they usually accompany mass extintions and catastrophic events, had they hit sooner we might aswell not be here, discussing the origin of earth.
Also, you can see the effects of erosions yourself, personally, when it rains here, the rain form mini craters and holes, now, imagine the time it might have taken for an erosion of that size.
Why do you believe that our antecesors made these things with the so called superior technology? Somebody told you?
In fact, does australia exist? i have not been in australia, but people tell me it exists. :P
sorry for the slow reply, im in my cellphone right now :(
So I'm right you just repeat what you have been told.
You are so clever ;D
I think they had superior technology as when we build something now it doesn't last thousands of years.
I went to an ancient ampetheatre in Greece it was acoustically perfect and I was told it was thousands of years old.
I believe to carve these stone buildings that are ancient perfect and still standing today would take superior technology.
Well, many historic structures that have survived were built with conservative designs, like the pyramids, the only real risk is erosion or intentional destruction, they cant collapse, since they have almost no hollow space.
-
Anyways, can you tell me your personal answer to my question? What is the origin of earth and its age in a flat earth model?
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
How do you consider another man's word to be evidence ?
How have you verified how old fossils are ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How have you verified that the continents have drifted ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know asteroid strikes produced craters over 100000 of years.
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know the grand canyon took millions of years to form with water erosion?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
For example :
Fossils could be 3500 years old they could 10 years old how would you be able to verify their age ?
The continents could be stationary how could you verify that they move an alleged 20 mm a year.?
These so called asteroid strikes you speak of could of been the battle scars of the ancients superior weapons.
The Grand canyon could be the result of the ancients mining with there superior machines and technology.
All your doing is repeating what you have been told you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever.
I all comes down to belief .
Do you believe what you have been told or not.
I do not.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You are right, i cant, myself, personally verify the age of fossils, i only know how scientists do it
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age.htm
However, the continents arent stationary, look how well they fit with each other, they also found diferent fossils in differents part of the world.
I also see how these kind of asteroid impacts are pretty rare, as they usually accompany mass extintions and catastrophic events, had they hit sooner we might aswell not be here, discussing the origin of earth.
Also, you can see the effects of erosions yourself, personally, when it rains here, the rain form mini craters and holes, now, imagine the time it might have taken for an erosion of that size.
Why do you believe that our antecesors made these things with the so called superior technology? Somebody told you?
In fact, does australia exist? i have not been in australia, but people tell me it exists. :P
sorry for the slow reply, im in my cellphone right now :(
So I'm right you just repeat what you have been told.
You are so clever ;D
I think they had superior technology as when we build something now it doesn't last thousands of years.
I went to an ancient ampetheatre in Greece it was acoustically perfect and I was told it was thousands of years old.
I believe to carve these stone buildings that are ancient perfect and still standing today would take superior technology.
Stop with the double standart, please.
-
Anyways, can you tell me your personal answer to my question? What is the origin of earth and its age in a flat earth model?
I believe the Earth was created .
I have no way to verify how old the earth is.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Do you have proof that the earth was created?
-
Do you have proof that the earth was created?
Do you have proof the Earth was created by a spec of magic fairy dust ?
-
Do you have proof that the earth was created?
Do you have proof the Earth was created by a spec of magic fairy dust ?
Yes i do, but you wouldn't believe me, as it lacks personal verification. :T
-
Do you have proof that the earth was created?
Do you have proof the Earth was created by a spec of magic fairy dust ?
Yes i do, but you wouldn't believe me, as it lacks personal verification. :T
My belief is irrelevant what is this PROOF you speak of ?
Are you going to tell me that someone told you again?
You are then going to repeat what you have been told ?
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Are you going to tell me that someone told you again?
You are then going to repeat what you have been told ?
While a critical perspective is a good thing, you cannot reject an idea as inferior merely because someone else has already talked about it. No progress on anything could be made if ideas could only be talked about and explored once. It isn't a flaw in an argument to cite corroborating evidence.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Incorrect, Bishop Ussher deduced that the first day of creation fell upon, October 23, 4004 BC,
so according to even that calculation the age of the earth is roughly 6020 years, so you can guess again.
-
Are you going to tell me that someone told you again?
You are then going to repeat what you have been told ?
While a critical perspective is a good thing, you cannot reject an idea as inferior merely because someone else has already talked about it. No progress on anything could be made if ideas could only be talked about and explored once. It isn't a flaw in an argument to cite corroborating evidence.
Accepting another persons word as evidence is Not Acceptable .
I asked him to provide evidence and all he did was repeat what he had been told this is not evidence.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Accepting another persons word as evidence is Not Acceptable .
Under your rules, I can't accept that statement.
-
Accepting another persons word as evidence is Not Acceptable .
Under your rules, I can't accept that statement.
That is acceptable.
But I believe you are confused as I'm not presenting any evidence.
If I did I would not expect you to believe in words and computer generated images.
I would give you an example you can verify yourself such as this :
RIF :
The upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
ty:
What are you talking about?
You lunatic !
Have you been on those Disco beans?
RIF :
No I don't touch recreational drugs.
The Sun is relatively stationary to the Earth.
The Moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
That said if the Earth's angular velocity was zero it would be impossible to see the Moon move with the naked eye.
With that in mind let's say the Moon is in reality moving extremely slowly around the Earth.
ty :
Yes I agree and your point is ?
RIF :
As the Sun is stationary and gigantic on your heliocentric model and the Moon in reality moves extremely slowly and the cause of a solar Eclispe on your model is when the Moon "PASSES" between the Sun and the Earth it would be impossible for the Eclispe to last a few minutes on your model.
It would also be impossible for the Shadow which is 24 times smaller than the Moon itself to move west to east across the USA in a matter of hours.
We know in reality as the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth it would take nearly a week to travel across the USA.
ty
Your wrong RIF you have forgot about the angular velocity of the Earth
which Is 27 times greater than the actual velocity of the Moon this causes the Moon to rise in the East and Set in the west.
RIF :
Yes that is correct ty if you look out your window you will see that the Moon rises in the East and sets in the west this is due to the angular velocity of the earth now you have grasped how your model works you will understand that the Sun is directly behind the Moon and the Earth is directly in front of the Moon as light travels in straight lines the only place for the Moon's shadow to be is directly underneath it.
ty
I see now RIF you are right!
It would seem these Heliocentric's will say anything to defend their religion even if it's nonsensical and contradict's their model .
RIF
Agreed.
The End.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
;D ;D ;D
-
Your perspective on evidence is not going to get us anywhere
Evidence for the big bang that you can verify yourself:
Cosmic Microwave Background
In the begining the universe was extremely hot, when it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire universe. This glow not only exists, but it can be visible as microwaves, which are parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Turn up your T.V, see the static? 1% of that is caused by the electromagnetic signals by the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The Redshift of Galaxies
The redshift of distant galaxies means that the universe is expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.
You can see yourself the redshift of galaxies, you just need a telescope and stretoscopy filters.
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/is-it-possible-to-measure-galactic-red-shift-using-consumer-telescope-equipment
There, i provided evidence you can verify yourself.
Now please, provide evidence for creation.
BUT
lets use your rules.
please, provide evidence for creation that EVERYBODY can verify by themselves, you cannot use what you have been told in other sites nor in the bible/quran/anything else.
-
Accepting another persons word as evidence is Not Acceptable .
Under your rules, I can't accept that statement.
That is acceptable.
But I believe you are confused as I'm not presenting any evidence.
If I did I would not expect you to believe in words and computer generated images.
I would give you an example you can verify yourself such as this :
RIF :
The upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
ty:
What are you talking about?
You lunatic !
Have you been on those Disco beans?
RIF :
No I don't touch recreational drugs.
The Sun is relatively stationary to the Earth.
The Moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
That said if the Earth's angular velocity was zero it would be impossible to see the Moon move with the naked eye.
With that in mind let's say the Moon is in reality moving extremely slowly around the Earth.
ty :
Yes I agree and your point is ?
RIF :
As the Sun is stationary and gigantic on your heliocentric model and the Moon in reality moves extremely slowly and the cause of a solar Eclispe on your model is when the Moon "PASSES" between the Sun and the Earth it would be impossible for the Eclispe to last a few minutes on your model.
It would also be impossible for the Shadow which is 24 times smaller than the Moon itself to move west to east across the USA in a matter of hours.
We know in reality as the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth it would take nearly a week to travel across the USA.
ty
Your wrong RIF you have forgot about the angular velocity of the Earth
which Is 27 times greater than the actual velocity of the Moon this causes the Moon to rise in the East and Set in the west.
RIF :
Yes that is correct ty if you look out your window you will see that the Moon rises in the East and sets in the west this is due to the angular velocity of the earth now you have grasped how your model works you will understand that the Sun is directly behind the Moon and the Earth is directly in front of the Moon as light travels in straight lines the only place for the Moon's shadow to be is directly underneath it.
ty
I see now RIF you are right!
It would seem these Heliocentric's will say anything to defend their religion even if it's nonsensical and contradict's their model .
RIF
Agreed.
The End.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
;D ;D ;D
Please, discuss that in your own thread, this thread is to discuss the origin and age of the universe.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
How do you consider another man's word to be evidence ?
How have you verified how old fossils are ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How have you verified that the continents have drifted ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know asteroid strikes produced craters over 100000 of years.
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know the grand canyon took millions of years to form with water erosion?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
For example :
Fossils could be 3500 years old they could 10 years old how would you be able to verify their age ?
The continents could be stationary how could you verify that they move an alleged 20 mm a year.?
These so called asteroid strikes you speak of could of been the battle scars of the ancients superior weapons.
The Grand canyon could be the result of the ancients mining with there superior machines and technology.
All your doing is repeating what you have been told you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever.
I all comes down to belief .
Do you believe what you have been told or not.
I do not.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Which ancients are these that you're on about? I take it you have proof of their existence. But please, tell me where did they live? How long did their society last for? Where was the capital city and what was its name? What language did they speak?
Please share.
-
Your perspective on evidence is not going to get us anywhere
Evidence for the big bang that you can verify yourself:
Cosmic Microwave Background
In the begining the universe was extremely hot, when it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire universe. This glow not only exists, but it can be visible as microwaves, which are parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Turn up your T.V, see the static? 1% of that is caused by the electromagnetic signals by the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The Redshift of Galaxies
The redshift of distant galaxies means that the universe is expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.
You can see yourself the redshift of galaxies, you just need a telescope and stretoscopy filters.
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/is-it-possible-to-measure-galactic-red-shift-using-consumer-telescope-equipment
There, i provided evidence you can verify yourself.
Now please, provide evidence for creation.
BUT
lets use your rules.
please, provide evidence for creation that EVERYBODY can verify by themselves, you cannot use what you have been told in other sites nor in the bible/quran/anything else.
Lol.
Lol.
How is interference on my TV proof of the big bang ?
This TV interference you speak of could be and probobly is signal noise.
Cosmic microwave radiation ;D ;D ;D
How does a luminaires movement in the sky prove the redshits of Galaxy's ?
These Redshits you speak of could be and probobly are just a luminaire moving in the sky.
Those explanations could have easily been retrofitted to stitch your model together with what can be observed in reality.
I think it is Nonsense .
I personally reject those convenient explanations.
I do not accept your fairytale.
In the beginning the "most high" created man in his own image.
When it says image it does not mean that we look like an entity that is powerful enough to create the Earth.
What is meant by that is that we have the power of the most high.
This is what made the fallen, and later the dead; jealous as when and if we are chosen to ascend our power will be far greater than theirs.
Anyway us human beings had to be created because there is no evidence for evolution.
Your Heliocentric religous brethren believe in evolution.
For example there are over seven billion people on Earth so there should be millions of "missing link " fossils and skeletons .
The Human missing link has never been found.
The Human missing link will never be found.
The Human missing link doesn't and never existed.
The readers can verify this at home .
The readers can look under their beds.
The readers can look in the wardrobe/closet
The readers can dig up their garden.
The readers can use youtube and Google to try and find this "missing link"
I can assure the readers this can be verified as they will not find the missing link to human evolution.
So as their is no missing link and there is no evidence for human evolution Man had to be created.
The End.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Your perspective on evidence is not going to get us anywhere
Evidence for the big bang that you can verify yourself:
Cosmic Microwave Background
In the begining the universe was extremely hot, when it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire universe. This glow not only exists, but it can be visible as microwaves, which are parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Turn up your T.V, see the static? 1% of that is caused by the electromagnetic signals by the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The Redshift of Galaxies
The redshift of distant galaxies means that the universe is expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.
You can see yourself the redshift of galaxies, you just need a telescope and stretoscopy filters.
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/is-it-possible-to-measure-galactic-red-shift-using-consumer-telescope-equipment
There, i provided evidence you can verify yourself.
Now please, provide evidence for creation.
BUT
lets use your rules.
please, provide evidence for creation that EVERYBODY can verify by themselves, you cannot use what you have been told in other sites nor in the bible/quran/anything else.
Lol.
Lol.
How is interference on my TV proof of the big bang ?
This TV interference you speak of could be and probobly is signal noise.
Cosmic microwave radiation ;D ;D ;D
How does a luminaires movement in the sky prove the redshits of Galaxy's ?
These Redshits you speak of could be and probobly are just a luminaire moving in the sky.
Those explanations could have easily been retrofitted to stitch your model together with what can be observed in reality.
I think it is Nonsense .
I personally reject those convenient explanations.
I do not accept your fairytale.
In the beginning the "most high" created man in his own image.
When it says image it does not mean that we look like an entity that is powerful enough to create the Earth.
What is meant by that is that we have the power of the most high.
This is what made the fallen, and later the dead; jealous as when and if we are chosen to ascend our power will be far greater than theirs.
Anyway us human beings had to be created because there is no evidence for evolution.
Your Heliocentric religous brethren believe in evolution.
For example there are over seven billion people on Earth so there should be millions of "missing link " fossils and skeletons .
The Human missing link has never been found.
The Human missing link will never be found.
The Human missing link doesn't and never existed.
The readers can verify this at home .
The readers can look under their beds.
The readers can look in the wardrobe/closet
The readers can dig up their garden.
The readers can use youtube and Google to try and find this "missing link"
I can assure the readers this can be verified as they will not find the missing link to human evolution.
So as their is no missing link and there is no evidence for human evolution Man had to be created.
The End.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I get you don't like the microwave back ground radiation... but here a map of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png
Now what about these ancients you were on about.....please tell.
-
Your perspective on evidence is not going to get us anywhere
Evidence for the big bang that you can verify yourself:
Cosmic Microwave Background
In the begining the universe was extremely hot, when it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire universe. This glow not only exists, but it can be visible as microwaves, which are parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Turn up your T.V, see the static? 1% of that is caused by the electromagnetic signals by the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The Redshift of Galaxies
The redshift of distant galaxies means that the universe is expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.
You can see yourself the redshift of galaxies, you just need a telescope and stretoscopy filters.
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/is-it-possible-to-measure-galactic-red-shift-using-consumer-telescope-equipment
There, i provided evidence you can verify yourself.
Now please, provide evidence for creation.
BUT
lets use your rules.
please, provide evidence for creation that EVERYBODY can verify by themselves, you cannot use what you have been told in other sites nor in the bible/quran/anything else.
Lol.
Lol.
How is interference on my TV proof of the big bang ?
This TV interference you speak of could be and probobly is signal noise.
Cosmic microwave radiation ;D ;D ;D
How does a luminaires movement in the sky prove the redshits of Galaxy's ?
These Redshits you speak of could be and probobly are just a luminaire moving in the sky.
Those explanations could have easily been retrofitted to stitch your model together with what can be observed in reality.
I think it is Nonsense .
I personally reject those convenient explanations.
I do not accept your fairytale.
In the beginning the "most high" created man in his own image.
When it says image it does not mean that we look like an entity that is powerful enough to create the Earth.
What is meant by that is that we have the power of the most high.
This is what made the fallen, and later the dead; jealous as when and if we are chosen to ascend our power will be far greater than theirs.
Anyway us human beings had to be created because there is no evidence for evolution.
Your Heliocentric religous brethren believe in evolution.
For example there are over seven billion people on Earth so there should be millions of "missing link " fossils and skeletons .
The Human missing link has never been found.
The Human missing link will never be found.
The Human missing link doesn't and never existed.
The readers can verify this at home .
The readers can look under their beds.
The readers can look in the wardrobe/closet
The readers can dig up their garden.
The readers can use youtube and Google to try and find this "missing link"
I can assure the readers this can be verified as they will not find the missing link to human evolution.
So as their is no missing link and there is no evidence for human evolution Man had to be created.
The End.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yes, that 1% of TV interference is proof of the big bang, in fact, that annoying "noise" was what led to the discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation in the first place.
Arno Allan Penzias and Robert Wilson, built a Dicke radiometer for Bell Telephone Laboratories to use in radio astronomy and satellite communication experiments. Their instrument kept receiving a background signal that they could not account for. After trying everything imaginable to eliminate the noise (including removing the pigeon droppings from the telescope), they finally realized that the signal wasn’t “noise”, but photons from the Big Bang
https://www.universetoday.com/25560/the-switch-to-digital-switches-off-big-bang-tv-signal/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Allan_Penzias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Woodrow_Wilson
The image below is the cosmic microwave radiation.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png)
Im not sure what you mean by "luminaire", i looked on internet and it is an electronic device used to create artificial light.
The redshift of galaxies is caused by the expansion of the universe, If an object that emits light moves away from you, the light from it gets redshifted. and you can verify this yourself!
This is effect (called the doppler effect or doppler shift) is the one that causes police sirens to sound lower pitched when they move away from you. the same with blue shift,
If a light-emitting object moves towards you, the light gets blue-shifted (we see this in the andromeda galaxy that right now is moving towards us)
These distant galaxies aren’t moving, the space between them is just expanding.
(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/08/exp_photon.gif)
The doppler effect is important from an expanding universe, if we measure the light from many, many distant objects and determine their distances, we can simply based on the objects’ redshifts — learn the entire history of how the Universe expanded.
We can also measure the redshift:
(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/08/qso_redshift.gif)
What do we learn from this? That as light travels through space and space expands, it causes the wavelength of that very light to expand, too, it is NOT the result of something moving in the sky!
All this proves that the universe was squashed into a single point.
What is funny is that i predicted that you would use the missing links arguments to disprove evolution, its the first thing that comes to the creationist mind in an attemp to disprove it.
But lets assume what you say is true.
If evolution isnt true.
If that's the case, then biology is based on completely wrong premises, therefore modern medicine cannot work
This image below puts it very well:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/YduxK.jpg)
-
Your perspective on evidence is not going to get us anywhere
Evidence for the big bang that you can verify yourself:
Cosmic Microwave Background
In the begining the universe was extremely hot, when it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire universe. This glow not only exists, but it can be visible as microwaves, which are parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Turn up your T.V, see the static? 1% of that is caused by the electromagnetic signals by the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The Redshift of Galaxies
The redshift of distant galaxies means that the universe is expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.
You can see yourself the redshift of galaxies, you just need a telescope and stretoscopy filters.
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/1105/is-it-possible-to-measure-galactic-red-shift-using-consumer-telescope-equipment
There, i provided evidence you can verify yourself.
Now please, provide evidence for creation.
BUT
lets use your rules.
please, provide evidence for creation that EVERYBODY can verify by themselves, you cannot use what you have been told in other sites nor in the bible/quran/anything else.
Lol.
Lol.
How is interference on my TV proof of the big bang ?
This TV interference you speak of could be and probobly is signal noise.
Cosmic microwave radiation ;D ;D ;D
How does a luminaires movement in the sky prove the redshits of Galaxy's ?
These Redshits you speak of could be and probobly are just a luminaire moving in the sky.
Those explanations could have easily been retrofitted to stitch your model together with what can be observed in reality.
I think it is Nonsense .
I personally reject those convenient explanations.
I do not accept your fairytale.
In the beginning the "most high" created man in his own image.
When it says image it does not mean that we look like an entity that is powerful enough to create the Earth.
What is meant by that is that we have the power of the most high.
This is what made the fallen, and later the dead; jealous as when and if we are chosen to ascend our power will be far greater than theirs.
Anyway us human beings had to be created because there is no evidence for evolution.
Your Heliocentric religous brethren believe in evolution.
For example there are over seven billion people on Earth so there should be millions of "missing link " fossils and skeletons .
The Human missing link has never been found.
The Human missing link will never be found.
The Human missing link doesn't and never existed.
The readers can verify this at home .
The readers can look under their beds.
The readers can look in the wardrobe/closet
The readers can dig up their garden.
The readers can use youtube and Google to try and find this "missing link"
I can assure the readers this can be verified as they will not find the missing link to human evolution.
So as their is no missing link and there is no evidence for human evolution Man had to be created.
The End.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yes, that 1% of TV interference is proof of the big bang, in fact, that annoying "noise" was what led to the discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation in the first place.
Arno Allan Penzias and Robert Wilson, built a Dicke radiometer for Bell Telephone Laboratories to use in radio astronomy and satellite communication experiments. Their instrument kept receiving a background signal that they could not account for. After trying everything imaginable to eliminate the noise (including removing the pigeon droppings from the telescope), they finally realized that the signal wasn’t “noise”, but photons from the Big Bang
https://www.universetoday.com/25560/the-switch-to-digital-switches-off-big-bang-tv-signal/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Allan_Penzias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Woodrow_Wilson
The image below is the cosmic microwave radiation.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png)
Im not sure what you mean by "luminaire", i looked on internet and it is an electronic device used to create artificial light.
The redshift of galaxies is caused by the expansion of the universe, If an object that emits light moves away from you, the light from it gets redshifted. and you can verify this yourself!
This is effect (called the doppler effect or doppler shift) is the one that causes police sirens to sound lower pitched when they move away from you. the same with blue shift,
If a light-emitting object moves towards you, the light gets blue-shifted (we see this in the andromeda galaxy that right now is moving towards us)
These distant galaxies aren’t moving, the space between them is just expanding.
(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/08/exp_photon.gif)
The doppler effect is important from an expanding universe, if we measure the light from many, many distant objects and determine their distances, we can simply based on the objects’ redshifts — learn the entire history of how the Universe expanded.
We can also measure the redshift:
(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2009/08/qso_redshift.gif)
What do we learn from this? That as light travels through space and space expands, it causes the wavelength of that very light to expand, too, it is NOT the result of something moving in the sky!
All this proves that the universe was squashed into a single point.
What is funny is that i predicted that you would use the missing links arguments to disprove evolution, its the first thing that comes to the creationist mind in an attemp to disprove it.
But lets assume what you say is true.
If evolution isnt true.
If that's the case, then biology is based on completely wrong premises, therefore modern medicine cannot work
This image below puts it very well:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/YduxK.jpg)
Your links and tables prove nothing apart from the fact you believe what you have been told.
Regarding modern medicine it is not based on evolution .
Modern medicine is based on biology and physiology and other sciences so you are speaking nonsense.
Are you saying they design medicines using the missing link ? ;D
I apologise for my poor spelling I should have typed luminaries.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
I have news for you, mr. futile...
Most of what you know, or THINK you know, is based on information you have been TOLD!
-
Your links and tables prove nothing apart from the fact you believe what you have been told.
And what i have been taught makes perfect sense with what we see.
Regarding modern medicine it is not based on evolution .
Modern medicine is based on biology and physiology and other sciences so you are speaking nonsense.
And guess what biology is based from!
In fact, i have some proof that you can personally verify yourself.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution, in every colony of bacteria, there are few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics, this is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell made a pretty nice video about it:
Another example is the VIH/AIDS virus, the virus is believed to have originated in central africa from non human primates and later transfered to humans through a process called zoonosis, it has now evolved to a separate human-only disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
Modern medicine is based on biology and physiology and other sciences so you are speaking nonsense.
While i do not know what "physiology" is i know a science called psychology and another called philosophy both are unrelated to the discussion.
I am not the one speaking nonsense, i am not the one claiming that something moves in the sky that causes redshift, i am not the one that believed that our antecesors made asteroid impacts with some epic sci-fi technology, i am not the one claiming some high being created us, i am not the one claiming that the continents are stationary, i am not the one claiming that our antecesors made the great canyon from mining with sci-fi epic technology.
The only thing you have done in this entire discussion is dismiss the proof i have presented "gaga, yu sei wat yu vin told!111"
*sigh*
-
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
Damn evolutionists are blind sheep repeating whatever the text books told them.
Fossils: Not scientific proof as it's based on assumptions and categorically inaccurate.
Continental drift Again, based on assumptions that it takes "millions of years" - based on what?
Impact craters These fairy tale answers seem to have a pattern. Again, based on what scientific observation or experiment?
Erosion Here you screwed up pretty bad. Check the rate of erosion of the grand canyon itself. Say, 20 years, then multiply that by millions/billions of years. This "evolution" proof is laughable.
So these are your 4 evidences? So basically you've given nothing and you're asking for proof of a young Earth? By the way there is proof, actual testable,repeatable, observable and mathematically correct evidence of a young Earth. But I know how devoted to your god Darwin you all are so I'll just enjoy your funny pseudoscience and point out every little inaccuracy of your blind text book beliefs.
-
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
Damn evolutionists are blind sheep repeating whatever the text books told them.
Fossils: Not scientific proof as it's based on assumptions and categorically inaccurate.
Continental drift Again, based on assumptions that it takes "millions of years" - based on what?
Impact craters These fairy tale answers seem to have a pattern. Again, based on what scientific observation or experiment?
Erosion Here you screwed up pretty bad. Check the rate of erosion of the grand canyon itself. Say, 20 years, then multiply that by millions/billions of years. This "evolution" proof is laughable.
So these are your 4 evidences? So basically you've given nothing and you're asking for proof of a young Earth? By the way there is proof, actual testable,repeatable, observable and mathematically correct evidence of a young Earth. But I know how devoted to your god Darwin you all are so I'll just enjoy your funny pseudoscience and point out every little inaccuracy of your blind text book beliefs.
Lets see these proofs for a young earth then.
-
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
Damn evolutionists are blind sheep repeating whatever the text books told them.
Fossils: Not scientific proof as it's based on assumptions and categorically inaccurate.
Continental drift Again, based on assumptions that it takes "millions of years" - based on what?
Impact craters These fairy tale answers seem to have a pattern. Again, based on what scientific observation or experiment?
Erosion Here you screwed up pretty bad. Check the rate of erosion of the grand canyon itself. Say, 20 years, then multiply that by millions/billions of years. This "evolution" proof is laughable.
So these are your 4 evidences? So basically you've given nothing and you're asking for proof of a young Earth? By the way there is proof, actual testable,repeatable, observable and mathematically correct evidence of a young Earth. But I know how devoted to your god Darwin you all are so I'll just enjoy your funny pseudoscience and point out every little inaccuracy of your blind text book beliefs.
Lets see these proofs for a young earth then.
His Sunday School teacher TOLD him!
-
Damn evolutionists are blind sheep repeating whatever the text books told them.
Fossils: Not scientific proof as it's based on assumptions and categorically inaccurate.
Continental drift Again, based on assumptions that it takes "millions of years" - based on what?
Impact craters These fairy tale answers seem to have a pattern. Again, based on what scientific observation or experiment?
Erosion Here you screwed up pretty bad. Check the rate of erosion of the grand canyon itself. Say, 20 years, then multiply that by millions/billions of years. This "evolution" proof is laughable.
So these are your 4 evidences? So basically you've given nothing and you're asking for proof of a young Earth? By the way there is proof, actual testable,repeatable, observable and mathematically correct evidence of a young Earth. But I know how devoted to your god Darwin you all are so I'll just enjoy your funny pseudoscience and point out every little inaccuracy of your blind text book beliefs.
Micro-evolution (gradual change within a species) has been seen and proven. Macro-evolution (one species turning into another) hasn't been seen, but we can use the evidence we already have to prove it.
Fossils I agree, fossils don't prove evolution, nor do they prove Old Earth. The rocks they are found in prove Old Earth.
Continental drift This can be measured (each continent moves measurable amounts each year).
Impact craters I don't know what this point is about, honestly. I've never heard of this argument.
Erosion I haven't done enough research to debate this.
But there are more pieces of evidence. (None of these are what my textbook told me, if that helps at all)
Ring species are one of my personal favourites.
Micro-evolution
Bacteria developing resistance to drugs
DNA, and its structure which almost necessitates mutation.
-
Impact craters I don't know what this point is about, honestly. I've never heard of this argument.
The number of impact craters can provide a probable lower limit on the age of the Earth. Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrences; the chance of an asteroid with an Earth-crossing orbit actually striking the planet has been estimated at 2.5 x 10−9 yr−1, and when multiplied by the estimated number of Earth-crossing asteroids this approximates about one collision for every 313,000 years. If this frequency is correct, the number of impact craters on Earth were it only a few thousand years old should be very few. The most logical number of observable >1km impact craters for a young Earth would in fact be something like zero — a number that is completely at odds with the observable evidence, since over one hundred such craters have been discovered.
Erosion I haven't done enough research to debate this.
Many places on Earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods.
The Grand Canyon, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
-
Your links and tables prove nothing apart from the fact you believe what you have been told.
And what i have been taught makes perfect sense with what we see.
Regarding modern medicine it is not based on evolution .
Modern medicine is based on biology and physiology and other sciences so you are speaking nonsense.
And guess what biology is based from!
In fact, i have some proof that you can personally verify yourself.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution, in every colony of bacteria, there are few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics, this is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell made a pretty nice video about it:
Another example is the VIH/AIDS virus, the virus is believed to have originated in central africa from non human primates and later transfered to humans through a process called zoonosis, it has now evolved to a separate human-only disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
Modern medicine is based on biology and physiology and other sciences so you are speaking nonsense.
While i do not know what "physiology" is i know a science called psychology and another called philosophy both are unrelated to the discussion.
I am not the one speaking nonsense, i am not the one claiming that something moves in the sky that causes redshift, i am not the one that believed that our antecesors made asteroid impacts with some epic sci-fi technology, i am not the one claiming some high being created us, i am not the one claiming that the continents are stationary, i am not the one claiming that our antecesors made the great canyon from mining with sci-fi epic technology.
The only thing you have done in this entire discussion is dismiss the proof i have presented "gaga, yu sei wat yu vin told!111"
*sigh*
You do talk nonsense medicine is not based on evolution.
These bacteria you speak of mutated to survive they didn't evolve into a different life form.
Hope this helps.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology
By the way philosophy is Not considered a science.
I'm beginning to see why and how you believe all of this Heliocentric nonsense.
Would you consider yourself a typical heliocentric?
You believe s magic spec of fairy dust exploded in a vacuum ;D
Then created the universe by accident.
You believe in human evolution even though the "missing link" has NEVER been found.
You believe in the universe even though you have never seen it.
You believe in the Globe even though you have never seen it.
You then mock me for believing :
Our perfectly balanced Earth was intelligently created.
That the ancients had superior technology bearing in mind that our present technology only moved on from the industrial revolution around 300 years ago and the ancients had over 1300 years to move forward from.
That the ancients built many superior structures and monuments some of which are still standing to this day.
That the Earth still bears the scars of the ancients technology.
I have seen some of these structures .
I have seen paintings and statues of animal human hybrids these are written about in religous scriptures also.
To splice DNA would take superior technology.
People can believe what ever they want just don't think that you are superior just because you believe and repeat what you have been told by the people you perceive to be in authority.
You are no different to a North Korean who believes what their authorities have told them.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Your links and tables prove nothing apart from the fact you believe what you have been told.
And what i have been taught makes perfect sense with what we see.
Regarding modern medicine it is not based on evolution .
Modern medicine is based on biology and physiology and other sciences so you are speaking nonsense.
And guess what biology is based from!
In fact, i have some proof that you can personally verify yourself.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution, in every colony of bacteria, there are few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics, this is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell made a pretty nice video about it:
Another example is the VIH/AIDS virus, the virus is believed to have originated in central africa from non human primates and later transfered to humans through a process called zoonosis, it has now evolved to a separate human-only disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
Modern medicine is based on biology and physiology and other sciences so you are speaking nonsense.
While i do not know what "physiology" is i know a science called psychology and another called philosophy both are unrelated to the discussion.
I am not the one speaking nonsense, i am not the one claiming that something moves in the sky that causes redshift, i am not the one that believed that our antecesors made asteroid impacts with some epic sci-fi technology, i am not the one claiming some high being created us, i am not the one claiming that the continents are stationary, i am not the one claiming that our antecesors made the great canyon from mining with sci-fi epic technology.
The only thing you have done in this entire discussion is dismiss the proof i have presented "gaga, yu sei wat yu vin told!111"
*sigh*
You do talk nonsense medicine is not based on evolution.
These bacteria you speak of mutated to survive they didn't evolve into a different life form.
Hope this helps.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology
By the way philosophy is Not considered a science.
I'm beginning to see why and how you believe all of this Heliocentric nonsense.
Would you consider yourself a typical heliocentric?
You believe s magic spec of fairy dust exploded in a vacuum ;D
Then created the universe by accident.
You believe in human evolution even though the "missing link" has NEVER been found.
You believe in the universe even though you have never seen it.
You believe in the Globe even though you have never seen it.
You then mock me for believing :
Our perfectly balanced Earth was intelligently created.
That the ancients had superior technology bearing in mind that our present technology only moved on from the industrial revolution around 300 years ago and the ancients had over 1300 years to move forward from.
That the ancients built many superior structures and monuments some of which are still standing to this day.
That the Earth still bears the scars of the ancients technology.
I have seen some of these structures .
I have seen paintings and statues of animal human hybrids these are written about in religous scriptures also.
To splice DNA would take superior technology.
People can believe what ever they want just don't think that you are superior just because you believe and repeat what you have been told by the people you perceive to be in authority.
You are no different to a North Korean who believes what their authorities have told them.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You have still not answered my questions. Who are these ancients you keep referring to. Did you meet them yourself or were you told about them?
-
Damn creationists are blind sheep repeating whatever an iron age book told them.
Fossils: Not scientific proof as it's based on assumptions and categorically inaccurate.
How is it based on assumptions and categorically inaccurate?
Continental drift Again, based on assumptions that it takes "millions of years" - based on what?
Tectonic drift is an extremely slow process, satellite data shows that the continents move 2 cm PER YEAR the only logical solution, is that it must have taken MILLIONS of years.
Impact craters These fairy tale answers seem to have a pattern. Again, based on what scientific observation or experiment?
I already answered this, but asteroid strikes that produce craters kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrences, even if creationists were to present some scenario in which many dozens of large asteroids could hit the Earth in less than 6,000 years, there are still tremendous problems with this idea, the largest asteroid impacts are some of the most catastrophic events the world has ever seen.
In Antarctica there is a crater 500 km in diameter which is calculated to have been caused by an asteroid 48 km in diameter roughly 250 million years ago.
How the life we see today could have survived such an incident (if it had occurred in the last 6,000 years) is a serious problem for YECs; an asteroid impact that big would have led to the extinction of all medium to large size species, an event that given the creationist model: short time frame, no evolution — the world would still not have recovered from.
Erosion Here you screwed up pretty bad. Check the rate of erosion of the grand canyon itself. Say, 20 years, then multiply that by millions/billions of years. This "evolution" proof is laughable.
Using the normal rate of erosion seen in water it would have taken 6 million years for the grand canyon to form.
However, some research has shown that it could have taken 17 million years for it to form.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/science/07canyon.html?_r==1&ref==us&oref==slogin
So these are your 4 evidences? So basically you've given nothing and you're asking for proof of a young Earth? By the way there is proof, actual testable,repeatable, observable and mathematically correct evidence of a young Earth. But I know how devoted to your god Darwin you all are so I'll just enjoy your funny pseudoscience and point out every little inaccuracy of your blind text book beliefs.
Yes, these are just 4 of the many other piece of evidence that point towards a much much older earth.
Mine is not pseudoscience, mine is called science.
Im asking proof for a young earth because so far you guys have given NOTHING, all you have done is triying to poke holes at evolution, while not giving any proof that supports a young created earth, give me some of these "actual, testable, repeatable, observable and mathematically correct evidence for a young earth."
But i know how devoted you are to a man made iron age book that claims that some supreme being created the universe in 6000 years, ill just enjoy your true funny pseudoscience and point out every little inaccuracy of your blind iron age book beliefs.
-
Your links and tables prove nothing apart from the fact you believe what you have been told.
And what i have been taught makes perfect sense with what we see.
Regarding modern medicine it is not based on evolution .
Modern medicine is based on biology and physiology and other sciences so you are speaking nonsense.
And guess what biology is based from!
In fact, i have some proof that you can personally verify yourself.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution, in every colony of bacteria, there are few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics, this is because of the random nature of mutations.
When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell made a pretty nice video about it:
Another example is the VIH/AIDS virus, the virus is believed to have originated in central africa from non human primates and later transfered to humans through a process called zoonosis, it has now evolved to a separate human-only disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
Modern medicine is based on biology and physiology and other sciences so you are speaking nonsense.
While i do not know what "physiology" is i know a science called psychology and another called philosophy both are unrelated to the discussion.
I am not the one speaking nonsense, i am not the one claiming that something moves in the sky that causes redshift, i am not the one that believed that our antecesors made asteroid impacts with some epic sci-fi technology, i am not the one claiming some high being created us, i am not the one claiming that the continents are stationary, i am not the one claiming that our antecesors made the great canyon from mining with sci-fi epic technology.
The only thing you have done in this entire discussion is dismiss the proof i have presented "gaga, yu sei wat yu vin told!111"
*sigh*
You do talk nonsense medicine is not based on evolution.
These bacteria you speak of mutated to survive they didn't evolve into a different life form.
Hope this helps.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology
By the way philosophy is Not considered a science.
I'm beginning to see why and how you believe all of this Heliocentric nonsense.
Would you consider yourself a typical heliocentric?
You believe s magic spec of fairy dust exploded in a vacuum ;D
Then created the universe by accident.
You believe in human evolution even though the "missing link" has NEVER been found.
You believe in the universe even though you have never seen it.
You believe in the Globe even though you have never seen it.
You then mock me for believing :
Our perfectly balanced Earth was intelligently created.
That the ancients had superior technology bearing in mind that our present technology only moved on from the industrial revolution around 300 years ago and the ancients had over 1300 years to move forward from.
That the ancients built many superior structures and monuments some of which are still standing to this day.
That the Earth still bears the scars of the ancients technology.
I have seen some of these structures .
I have seen paintings and statues of animal human hybrids these are written about in religous scriptures also.
To splice DNA would take superior technology.
People can believe what ever they want just don't think that you are superior just because you believe and repeat what you have been told by the people you perceive to be in authority.
You are no different to a North Korean who believes what their authorities have told them.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
oh, so Physiology truly exists, sorry, my bad.
Modern medicine is truly based on evolution,
Flu viruses evolve rapidly.
As they circulate through populations around the world and switch hosts, flu viruses change so much that our vaccines are rendered obsolete every year. The flu is a problem for which a solution must be redesigned and rebuilt every year, like a bridge that gets washed away every flood season. Only by understanding the flu as an evolving entity can we understand why our solution to the problem must change every year.
Every day we come into contact with millions of bacteria and viruses. Some are harmful and others are beneficial, while the rest have no apparent effect on our health. When harmful microorganisms enter our bodies, a battle ensues.
Rapid reproduction and natural selection
Because bacteria and viruses reproduce rapidly, they evolve rapidly. These short generation times — some bacteria have a generation time of just 15 minutes — mean that natural selection acts quickly. In each pathogen generation, new mutations and gene combinations are generated that then pass through the selective filter of our drugs and immune response. Over the course of many pathogen generations (a small fraction of a single human lifetime), they adapt to our defenses, evolving right out from under our attempts to rid ourselves of them.
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/relevance/bacterialgrowth.gif)
Only a few decades ago, antibiotics were considered to be wonder drugs because they worked so well to cure deadly diseases. Ironically, though, many antibiotics have become less effective, precisely because they have worked so well and have been used so often.
The golden age of antibiotics proved to be a short-lived one. During the past few decades, many strains of bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics. An example of this is Neisseria gonorrhoeae, the bacteria that causes gonorrhea, shown at right. In the 1960s penicillin and ampicillin were able to control most cases of gonorrhea. Today, more than 24 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in the U.S. are resistant to at least one antibiotic, and 98 percent of gonorrheal bacteria in Southeast Asia are resistant to penicillin.1 Infectious bacteria are much harder to control than their predecessors were ten or twenty years ago.
Doctors miss the "good old days," when the antibiotics they prescribed consistently cured their patients. However, evolutionary theory suggests some specific tactics to help slow the rate at which bacteria become resistant to our drugs.
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/relevance/antibacterial.gif)
Applying evolution in medicine:
Evolutionary theory predicted that bacterial resistance would happen. Given time, heredity, and variation, any living organisms (including bacteria) will evolve when a selective pressure (like an antibiotic) is introduced. But evolutionary theory also gives doctors and patients some specific strategies for delaying even more widespread evolution of antibiotic resistance. These strategies include:
Don't use antibiotics to treat viral infections.
Antibiotics kill bacteria, not viruses. If you take antibiotics for a viral infection (like a cold or the flu), you will not kill the viruses, but you will introduce a selective pressure on bacteria in your body, inadvertently selecting for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Basically, you want your bacteria to be "antibiotic virgins," so that if they someday get out of hand and cause an infection that your immune system can't handle, they can be killed by a readily available antibiotic.
Selecting for antibiotic-resistant bacteriaAvoid mild doses of antibiotics over long time periods.
If an infection needs to be controlled with antibiotics, a short-term, high-dosage prescription is preferable. This is because you want to kill all of the illness-causing bacteria, leaving no bacterial survivors. Any bacteria that survive a mild dose are likely to be somewhat resistant. Basically, if you are going to introduce a selective pressure (antibiotics), make it so strong that you cause the extinction of the illness-causing bacteria in the host and not their evolution into resistant forms.
When treating a bacterial infection with antibiotics, take all your pills.
Just as mild doses can breed resistance, an incomplete regimen of antibiotics can let bacteria survive and adapt. If you are going to introduce a selective pressure (antibiotics), make it a really strong one and a long enough one to cause the extinction of the illness-causing bacteria and not their evolution.
Use a combination of drugs to treat a bacterial infection.
If one particular drug doesn't help with a bacterial infection, you may be dealing with a resistant strain. Giving a stronger dose of the same antibiotic just increases the strength of the same selective pressure — and may even cause the evolution of a "super-resistant" strain. Instead, you might want to try an entirely different antibiotic that the bacteria have never encountered before. This new and different selective pressure might do a better job of causing their extinction, not their evolution.
Reduce or eliminate the "preventive" use of antibiotics on livestock and crops.
Unnecessary use of antibiotics for agricultural and livestock purposes may lead to the evolution of resistant strains. Later, these strains will not be able to be controlled by antibiotics when it really is necessary. Preventive use of antibiotics on livestock and crops can also introduce antibiotics into the bodies of the humans who eat them.
Ultimately, recognizing bacteria as evolving entities and understanding their evolution should help us to control that evolution, allowing us to prolong the useful lifespan of antibiotics.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_02
Of course you are going to refuse to accept this, you will say i just listen what i was told, but really, go to a hospital and ask the doctors there if you want his info to be verified.
-
Also, remember i used HIV/AIDS virus as an example of how modern medicine is based on evolution?
Well, there's more!
HIV: the ultimate evolver
Evolutionary biologists can help uncover clues to new ways to treat or vaccinate against HIV. These clues emerge from the evolutionary origins of the virus, how human populations have evolved under pressure from other deadly pathogens, and how the virus evolves resistance to the drugs we've designed. Controlling the disease may be a matter of controlling the evolution of this constantly adapting virus.
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/relevance/hiv1.jpg)
The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV, shown here budding from a white blood cell) is one of the fastest evolving entities known. It reproduces sloppily, accumulating lots of mutations when it copies its genetic material. It also reproduces at a lightning-fast rate — a single virus can spawn billions of copies in just one day. To fight HIV, we must understand its evolution within the human body and then ultimately find a way to control its evolution.
Taking an evolutionary perspective on HIV has led scientists to look in three new directions in their search for treatments and vaccines:
What are the evolutionary origins of HIV?
Why are some people resistant to HIV?
How can we control HIV's evolution of resistance to our drugs?
Origins of HIV-1
1. What are the evolutionary origins of HIV?
HIV, like any evolving entity, has been deeply marked by its history. Scientists studying the evolutionary history of HIV found that it is closely related to other viruses. Those viruses include SIVs (simian immunodeficiency viruses), which infect primates, and the more distantly related FIVs (the feline strains), which infect cats.
However, studies of these related viral lineages showed something surprising: primates with SIV and wild cats with FIV don't seem to be harmed by the viruses they carry. If scientists can figure out how non-human primates and wild cats are able to live with these viruses, they may learn how to better treat HIV infections or prevent them altogether.
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/relevance/hivtree.gif)
The diagram shows some of the evolutionary history of HIV as we know it today. An ancestral virus (bottom) evolved into strains that infected chimpanzees (SIV). Over time, new strains began to infect humans (HIV).
2. Why are some people resistant to HIV?
HIV is by no means the first plague that human populations have weathered. Many pathogens have deeply affected our evolutionary history. In fact, the human genome is littered with the remnants of our past battles with pathogens — and one of these remnants, a mutation to a gene called CCR5, may lead researchers to a new treatment for HIV.
The CCR5 mutation in Europe probably began to spread in northern Europe during the past 700 years when the population was ravaged by a plague. (It may have been bubonic plague or some other pathogen; research on this topic continues.) The mutant CCR5 probably made its bearers resistant to the disease, and so its frequency increased.
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/relevance/ccr5map.gif)
In some parts of Europe today, up to 20% of the population carry at least one copy of the protective allele. However, the populations of Asia and Africa were not exposed to the same epidemics; very few Asians and Africans now carry the allele (see map above). Thus, CCR5 is fairly common in northern Europe but its frequency diminishes as one moves south, and the mutation is rare in the rest of the world.
We now know that the mutant CCR5 allele has an unexpected side effect: it confers resistance to HIV. Scientists hope that studying this by-product of past selection will help them develop new treatments for the HIV epidemic ravaging human populations today.
3. How can we control HIV's evolution of resistance to our drugs?
HIV evolves so quickly that it evolves right out from under our treatments. When a patient begins taking an HIV drug, the drug keeps many of the viruses from reproducing, but some survive because they happen to have a certain level of resistance. Because of HIV's speedy evolution, it responds to selection pressures quickly: viruses that happen to survive the drug are favored, and resistant virus strains evolve within the patient, sometimes in just a few weeks. However, basic evolutionary theory points out a way that this evolution of resistant viral strains can be delayed. Patients are prescribed "drug cocktails" — several different HIV drugs taken together.
When taking any single drug, it is fairly likely that some mutant virus in the patient might happen to be resistant, survive the onslaught, and spawn a resistant lineage.
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/relevance/drugs1.gif)
But the probability that the patient hosts a mutant virus that happens to be resistant to several different drugs at the same time is much lower. Although multiple-drug-resistant HIV strains do eventually evolve, drug cocktails delay their evolution.
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/relevance/drugs3.gif)
An evolutionary trade-off
If a patient is already infected with a drug-resistant HIV strain, basic evolutionary theory has also pointed out a way to make the drug useful again. Studies of the evolution of resistance often show that you don't get something for nothing. Specifically, it "costs" a pest or pathogen to be resistant to a pesticide or drug. If you place resistant and non-resistant organisms in head-to-head competition in the absence of the pesticide or drug, the non-resistant organisms generally win.
Consider a patient who takes a particular drug and winds up with viruses resistant to the drug. If the patient stops taking the drug for a while, evolutionary theory predicts that her viral load will evolve back towards a non-resistant strain. If she then takes very strong doses of the drug, it may be able to halt the replication of those non-resistant viruses and reduce her viral load to very low levels.
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/relevance/drugs2.gif)
This therapy has shown early, promising results — it may not eliminate HIV, but it could keep patients' virus loads low for a long time, slowing progression of the disease.
Ultimately, understanding the evolutionary history of HIV and its pattern of evolutionary change may help us control this disease.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think i have shown that indeed, evolution is helpful to modern medicine.
To deny evolution and say that the earth is young is to deny every foundation of chemistry, biology, paleontology, geology, etc, etc, etc.
But then you will say "Impossible!! you just repeat what you have been told!!"
Well buddy, tell that to the millions of doctors, hospitals, biologists, zoologists, scientists, scholars, university teachers, biology students, medicine students, and all the scientific books of the last centuries that and refuse to take any modern medicine.
-
Forgot to reply to these commments:
Would you consider yourself a typical heliocentric?
Yes i do.
You believe s magic spec of fairy dust exploded in a vacuum ;D
Nope, i believe that an extremely dense and hot singularity passed trough a process of fast expansion that eventually cooled down and formed structures while continuing its expansion.
Then created the universe by accident.
Yep.
You believe in human evolution even though the "missing link" has NEVER been found.
You guys with your friggin missing links...
'Missing link' is not a term used by scientists in this field it tends to be used more by creationists and relates to an outdated view of evolution as akin to animal species being like links in a chain.
Also, what does it mean to say the missing link between 'the ape and the man'? Humans are apes. Our most recent common ancestor with chimpanzees lived about 5-6 million years ago. Would a fossil of that animal (neither a chimp nor a human) be 'the' missing link?
In any case, many, many transitional fossils have been found between all kinds of distinct taxonomical groups, including in our ancestral line. There is no one 'missing link' waiting to be found.
One final point you suggest that there would have been many individuals of the 'missing link' species? Not necessarily. Some research suggests the human population in sub-Saharan Africa dropped to as low as 2000 individuals for around 100k years.
You believe in the universe even though you have never seen it.
I have seen it, in the night sky, through a telescope, photograps, videos, the sun, the moon, heck, the earth is part of the universe! i am part of the universe! thus, everytime i see myself through a mirror, im seeing part of the universe, therefore, i have seen the universe.
You believe in the Globe even though you have never seen it.
And also because it fits all the observations made during the last centuries, ships sinking below the horizon, sunrise, sunsets, passes of the moon, eclipses, shadows, etc etc.
even before the telescope was invented people had found out the earth was not flat.
You then mock me for believing :
Our perfectly balanced Earth was intelligently created.
I have not mocked you, i have, not a single time in this discussion called you a flattard nor an ignorant.
That the ancients had superior technology bearing in mind that our present technology only moved on from the industrial revolution around 300 years ago and the ancients had over 1300 years to move forward from.
And the industrial revolution gave us superior technology.
While the ancients have built impressive things, these things would have been called inefficient, and inpractical.
Such as the pyramids, while impressive, it has almost no hollow space, one of the only uses i could think of is burying important people and storing money and other things.
That the ancients built many superior structures and monuments some of which are still standing to this day.
What are these ancient superior structures and monuments some of which are still standing to this day?
That the Earth still bears the scars of the ancients technology.
You have not given proof of this.
I have seen some of these structures .
Tell us about them.
I have seen paintings and statues of animal human hybrids these are written about in religous scriptures also.
Nice.
To splice DNA would take superior technology.
And we are doing that right now, we have even found a way to modify the human genome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_editing
https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-genome-editing
http://www.nature.com/news/genome-editing-7-facts-about-a-revolutionary-technology-1.18869
People can believe what ever they want just don't think that you are superior just because you believe and repeat what you have been told by the people you perceive to be in authority.
I do not feel superior to you.
The way you perceive things is troubling to me, i have not been to australia, yet people tell me its a real place, does that mean australia doesnt exist?
I was taught things, and these things that people have told me seem real and logical to me.
You are no different to a North Korean who believes what their authorities told them.
And you are no different to the people who told you that the "missing links" are a problem for evolution.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False
Your Strange Geocentric Delusion is False
Honestly, arguing with you feels like a chore, i have provided evidence, just for you to not acept and refuse to acknowledge it due to me being told these things.
Can you please, stop triying to poke holes at evolution, the big bang, plate tectonics, biology, astronomy, archeology, paleontology, etc etc and give me proof of a recent creation and how it works?
-
Damn creationists are blind sheep repeating whatever an iron age book told them.
What did I quote from the bible? This is your blindness that instantly makes you think that any science or answer given against your Darwinian religion is automatically from the bible.
Fossils: Not scientific proof as it's based on assumptions and categorically inaccurate.
How is it based on assumptions and categorically inaccurate?
Go study radiometric dating and what it's actually based on.
Continental drift Again, based on assumptions that it takes "millions of years" - based on what?
Tectonic drift is an extremely slow process, satellite data shows that the continents move 2 cm PER YEAR the only logical solution, is that it must have taken MILLIONS of years.
Assumptions again. What must have taken MILLIONS of years? What's the starting point? Is that scientifically proven as well?
Impact craters These fairy tale answers seem to have a pattern. Again, based on what scientific observation or experiment?
I already answered this, but asteroid strikes that produce craters kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrences, even if creationists were to present some scenario in which many dozens of large asteroids could hit the Earth in less than 6,000 years, there are still tremendous problems with this idea, the largest asteroid impacts are some of the most catastrophic events the world has ever seen.
This doesn't answer the question nor does it prove anything you're trying to prove. All assumptions on events that MAY or MAY NOT have happened.
In Antarctica there is a crater 500 km in diameter which is calculated to have been caused by an asteroid 48 km in diameter roughly 250 million years ago.
How the life we see today could have survived such an incident (if it had occurred in the last 6,000 years) is a serious problem for YECs; an asteroid impact that big would have led to the extinction of all medium to large size species, an event that given the creationist model: short time frame, no evolution — the world would still not have recovered from.
All your assumptions are highlighted above. NONE provable hence dismissed in the name of real SCIENCE. Besides, if according to your belief medium to large size "species" did not survive every asteroid impact each 310,000 years which you also believe as fact then how did the medium to large "species" evolve from the survivor smaller species again in under 310,000 years? I thought it took millions of years for macro-evolution to occur?
Erosion Here you screwed up pretty bad. Check the rate of erosion of the grand canyon itself. Say, 20 years, then multiply that by millions/billions of years. This "evolution" proof is laughable.
Using the normal rate of erosion seen in water it would have taken 6 million years for the grand canyon to form.
However, some research has shown that it could have taken 17 million years for it to form.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/science/07canyon.html?_r==1&ref==us&oref==slogin
That's funny. You're giving me a source to a multi-million dollar corporation who has its own section on Evolution "news"? Also, more assumptions to prove your "facts"? How does that exactly work? To prove something is a fact, I start taking guesses? Very smart. 1. You assume the rate of erosion has been constant for your so called MILLIONS of years. 2. You assume it was carved by water yet there's HIGHER points to the canyon where there is NO water at present but you'll dismiss that observable FACT. You assume there's NEVER been any sort of catastrophic event to interfere.
So these are your 4 evidences? So basically you've given nothing and you're asking for proof of a young Earth? By the way there is proof, actual testable,repeatable, observable and mathematically correct evidence of a young Earth. But I know how devoted to your god Darwin you all are so I'll just enjoy your funny pseudoscience and point out every little inaccuracy of your blind text book beliefs.
Yes, these are just 4 of the many other piece of evidence that point towards a much much older earth.
Mine is not pseudoscience, mine is science in its purest form.
Okay you keep telling yourself that.
-
What did I quote from the bible? This is your blindness that instantly makes you think that any science or answer given against your Darwinian religion is automatically from the bible
Oh, sorry bout that, i thought you were a creationist due to you denying evolution, thinking the earth is young and calling Darwinism a religion, my bad
Go study radiometric dating and what it's actually based on.
umm, what is the problem? can you explain pretty pleasee??
Assumptions again. What must have taken MILLIONS of years? What's the starting point? Is that scientifically proven as well?
The continental drift is the thing that must have taken millions of years, the starting point was probably the early archean period, no, it is not scientifically proven, it is a theory.
All your assumptions are highlighted above. NONE provable hence dismissed in the name of real SCIENCE. Besides, if according to your belief medium to large size "species" did not survive every asteroid impact each 310,000 years which you also believe as fact then how did the medium to large "species" evolve from the survivor smaller species again in under 310,000 years? I thought it took millions of years for macro-evolution to occur?
That is, assuming that the frequency i gave is correct, theorically, only 1 asteroid in a crossing orbit with earth would hit every 300,000 years, of course i dont know if there was some close asteroid 310,000 years ago, the last major extincion event that happened on earth was the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event that killed the dinosaurs.
What you said gave me chance to post about the evolutionary importance of mass extincions.
Mass extinctions have sometimes accelerated the evolution of life on Earth. When dominance of particular ecological niches passes from one group of organisms to another, it is rarely because the new dominant group is "superior" to the old and usually because an extinction event eliminates the old dominant group and makes way for the new one.
For example, mammaliformes ("almost mammals") and then mammals existed throughout the reign of the dinosaurs, but could not compete for the large terrestrial vertebrate niches which dinosaurs monopolized. The end-Cretaceous mass extinction removed the non-avian dinosaurs and made it possible for mammals to expand into the large terrestrial vertebrate niches. Ironically, the dinosaurs themselves had been beneficiaries of a previous mass extinction, the end-Triassic, which eliminated most of their chief rivals, the crurotarsans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/278/5338/597
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/78842694/why-mass-extinctions-are-good-for-evolution-and-what-may-cause-the-next-one
https://www.wired.com/2010/09/mass-extinction-dynamics/
Lastly, we dont actually know the time it takes for macro-evolution to happen.
That's funny. You're giving me a source to a multi-million dollar corporation who has its own section on Evolution "news"? Also, more assumptions to prove your "facts"? How does that exactly work? To prove something is a fact, I start taking guesses? Very smart. 1. You assume the rate of erosion has been constant for your so called MILLIONS of years. 2. You assume it was carved by water yet there's HIGHER points to the canyon where there is NO water at present but you'll dismiss that observable FACT. You assume there's NEVER been any sort of catastrophic event to interfere.
Yeah, it being a multi million dollar corporation that has its own section on evolution is not new, almost all other science pages probably have evolution sections and evolution articles, that does not mean its content isnt true.
The general scientific consensus is that the time it took to form was 6 million years, but this one gives the posibility for 17 million years.
1.- Hmm, true what time would you give for the erosion of the grand canyon?
2.- You are right, i wrote that under the assumption that water was the only factor that caused the grand canyon, i didnt take in account the volcanic activity, the uplift of the region in the laramide orogeny (a mountain building event 75 million years ago) and the climate brought by the ice age.
Okay you keep telling yourself that.
Yeah, maybe i sounded very arrogant there, already fixed it.
Now, can you tell me more about yourself? it might make debating with you easier.
Now that i discovered that you might not be a creationist, what are your beliefs? are you religious? atheist? why do you believe in a young earth? what do you believe is the age of earth?
Do you believe the earth is flat?
-
Damn creationists are blind sheep repeating whatever an iron age book told them.
What did I quote from the bible? This is your blindness that instantly makes you think that any science or answer given against your Darwinian religion is automatically from the bible.
Fossils: Not scientific proof as it's based on assumptions and categorically inaccurate.
How is it based on assumptions and categorically inaccurate?
Go study radiometric dating and what it's actually based on.
Continental drift Again, based on assumptions that it takes "millions of years" - based on what?
Tectonic drift is an extremely slow process, satellite data shows that the continents move 2 cm PER YEAR the only logical solution, is that it must have taken MILLIONS of years.
Assumptions again. What must have taken MILLIONS of years? What's the starting point? Is that scientifically proven as well?
Impact craters These fairy tale answers seem to have a pattern. Again, based on what scientific observation or experiment?
I already answered this, but asteroid strikes that produce craters kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrences, even if creationists were to present some scenario in which many dozens of large asteroids could hit the Earth in less than 6,000 years, there are still tremendous problems with this idea, the largest asteroid impacts are some of the most catastrophic events the world has ever seen.
This doesn't answer the question nor does it prove anything you're trying to prove. All assumptions on events that MAY or MAY NOT have happened.
In Antarctica there is a crater 500 km in diameter which is calculated to have been caused by an asteroid 48 km in diameter roughly 250 million years ago.
How the life we see today could have survived such an incident (if it had occurred in the last 6,000 years) is a serious problem for YECs; an asteroid impact that big would have led to the extinction of all medium to large size species, an event that given the creationist model: short time frame, no evolution — the world would still not have recovered from.
All your assumptions are highlighted above. NONE provable hence dismissed in the name of real SCIENCE. Besides, if according to your belief medium to large size "species" did not survive every asteroid impact each 310,000 years which you also believe as fact then how did the medium to large "species" evolve from the survivor smaller species again in under 310,000 years? I thought it took millions of years for macro-evolution to occur?
Erosion Here you screwed up pretty bad. Check the rate of erosion of the grand canyon itself. Say, 20 years, then multiply that by millions/billions of years. This "evolution" proof is laughable.
Using the normal rate of erosion seen in water it would have taken 6 million years for the grand canyon to form.
However, some research has shown that it could have taken 17 million years for it to form.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/science/07canyon.html?_r==1&ref==us&oref==slogin
That's funny. You're giving me a source to a multi-million dollar corporation who has its own section on Evolution "news"? Also, more assumptions to prove your "facts"? How does that exactly work? To prove something is a fact, I start taking guesses? Very smart. 1. You assume the rate of erosion has been constant for your so called MILLIONS of years. 2. You assume it was carved by water yet there's HIGHER points to the canyon where there is NO water at present but you'll dismiss that observable FACT. You assume there's NEVER been any sort of catastrophic event to interfere.
So these are your 4 evidences? So basically you've given nothing and you're asking for proof of a young Earth? By the way there is proof, actual testable,repeatable, observable and mathematically correct evidence of a young Earth. But I know how devoted to your god Darwin you all are so I'll just enjoy your funny pseudoscience and point out every little inaccuracy of your blind text book beliefs.
Yes, these are just 4 of the many other piece of evidence that point towards a much much older earth.
Mine is not pseudoscience, mine is science in its purest form.
Okay you keep telling yourself that.
Continental drift caused by plate techtonics has been well studied. I think there are numerous events that happen every year that may be small clues....earthquakes.....subduction, one continental plate sliding under another?
That aside the rate of movement of the earth's plates are constantly measured.
Read and learn
http://www.iris.edu/hq/files/programs/education_and_outreach/aotm/14/1.GPS_Background.pdf
From having read your previous rants you most likely won't believe it, but that is the nature of one such as you.
As for radiometrica dating, that is just a function of the way in which certain elements behav. Again dispute that then you are flying in the face of both certifiable knowledge and reason, but of course that's what all you anti-science types do.
If baffles me on why you are so selective about what you reject. Take quantum physics for example that explains how the very small stuff of which everything is made works.
The same laws that explain radioactive decay, also explain how microprocessors work and how fusion in our sun takes place. Reject one and you reject them all.
So I take it you don't believe in the computer you type on or the earth upon which you stand?
I wish for once that you flat earth believers would be a bit more consistent and stop treating science as something akin to pick and mix.
-
Now that i discovered that you might not be a creationist, what are your beliefs? are you religious? atheist? why do you believe in a young earth? what do you believe is the age of earth?
Do you believe the earth is flat?
I'll answer this portion only if that's okay. The rest is clarified pretty much how it's not an exact science and based on wild assumptions.
1. What are my beliefs. I believe in a creator outside of this universe which is based purely on faith and cannot be proven with Science. The only alternative is the Darwinian religion which is also based on faith and not Science. From the two, being created is far more logical than evolving from a rock.
2. Am I religious? No
3. Am I an atheist? No
4,5. I believe in a young Earth based on many factors. It's not even remotely based on the bible. Every indication in scientific verifiable research points to a 10-20,000 years which is a VERY long time. Millions and billions is pure fantasy and holds no scientific credibility to me based on the definition of Science.
6. Do I believe the Earth is flat. No. Not at all.
-
According to FES NASA scientists don't tell the truth about the earth. Right?
Didn't we go over this? I believe NASA isn't lying or faking anything, so I see no problem with asking them for the answers. It is their full-time job, after all.
But NASA also says the Earth is spherical and has pictures to prove it. As a Flat Earther conspiracy theorist, how can you possibly say NASA doesn't fake anything?
-
Forgot to reply to these commments:
Would you consider yourself a typical heliocentric?
Yes i do.
You believe s magic spec of fairy dust exploded in a vacuum ;D
Nope, i believe that an extremely dense and hot singularity passed trough a process of fast expansion that eventually cooled down and formed structures while continuing its expansion.
Then created the universe by accident.
Yep.
You believe in human evolution even though the "missing link" has NEVER been found.
You guys with your friggin missing links...
'Missing link' is not a term used by scientists in this field it tends to be used more by creationists and relates to an outdated view of evolution as akin to animal species being like links in a chain.
Also, what does it mean to say the missing link between 'the ape and the man'? Humans are apes. Our most recent common ancestor with chimpanzees lived about 5-6 million years ago. Would a fossil of that animal (neither a chimp nor a human) be 'the' missing link?
In any case, many, many transitional fossils have been found between all kinds of distinct taxonomical groups, including in our ancestral line. There is no one 'missing link' waiting to be found.
One final point you suggest that there would have been many individuals of the 'missing link' species? Not necessarily. Some research suggests the human population in sub-Saharan Africa dropped to as low as 2000 individuals for around 100k years.
You believe in the universe even though you have never seen it.
I have seen it, in the night sky, through a telescope, photograps, videos, the sun, the moon, heck, the earth is part of the universe! i am part of the universe! thus, everytime i see myself through a mirror, im seeing part of the universe, therefore, i have seen the universe.
You believe in the Globe even though you have never seen it.
And also because it fits all the observations made during the last centuries, ships sinking below the horizon, sunrise, sunsets, passes of the moon, eclipses, shadows, etc etc.
even before the telescope was invented people had found out the earth was not flat.
You then mock me for believing :
Our perfectly balanced Earth was intelligently created.
I have not mocked you, i have, not a single time in this discussion called you a flattard nor an ignorant.
That the ancients had superior technology bearing in mind that our present technology only moved on from the industrial revolution around 300 years ago and the ancients had over 1300 years to move forward from.
And the industrial revolution gave us superior technology.
While the ancients have built impressive things, these things would have been called inefficient, and inpractical.
Such as the pyramids, while impressive, it has almost no hollow space, one of the only uses i could think of is burying important people and storing money and other things.
That the ancients built many superior structures and monuments some of which are still standing to this day.
What are these ancient superior structures and monuments some of which are still standing to this day?
That the Earth still bears the scars of the ancients technology.
You have not given proof of this.
I have seen some of these structures .
Tell us about them.
I have seen paintings and statues of animal human hybrids these are written about in religous scriptures also.
Nice.
To splice DNA would take superior technology.
And we are doing that right now, we have even found a way to modify the human genome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_editing
https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-genome-editing
http://www.nature.com/news/genome-editing-7-facts-about-a-revolutionary-technology-1.18869
People can believe what ever they want just don't think that you are superior just because you believe and repeat what you have been told by the people you perceive to be in authority.
I do not feel superior to you.
The way you perceive things is troubling to me, i have not been to australia, yet people tell me its a real place, does that mean australia doesnt exist?
I was taught things, and these things that people have told me seem real and logical to me.
You are no different to a North Korean who believes what their authorities told them.
And you are no different to the people who told you that the "missing links" are a problem for evolution.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False
Your Strange Geocentric Delusion is False
Honestly, arguing with you feels like a chore, i have provided evidence, just for you to not acept and refuse to acknowledge it due to me being told these things.
Can you please, stop triying to poke holes at evolution, the big bang, plate tectonics, biology, astronomy, archeology, paleontology, etc etc and give me proof of a recent creation and how it works?
For a Heliocentric you are alright you are able to admit when you have made a mistake.
However :
You believe philosophy is a science.
You have never heard of physiology?
And yet ; you claim to be an expert on medicine ?
I'm sorry if I offend but that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.
In ten years time when your in your thirties and more educated I might be able to take you seriously.
You have not provided any evidence for your 10 billion year old Universe.
You have provided hypothesis and theorys.
These theory's have not been properly verified.
Like most Heliocentric's you just accept these theorys with no amount of critical thinking because they fit your model.
Like most Heliocentric's you have Evolution and Mutation confused.
The Darwin religion of evolution relies on the fact that there has to be many different stages of development.
On your Heliocentric model billions of years ago the only living organism was a photosynthesising piece of bacteria.
So we should be able to trace and verify the stages from this bacteria to sea organisms ect. to mammals to apes to human beings.
This can't be done.
So your Darwin religion has never been verified.
So your Darwin religion is just a theory.
I find it amusing when your Heliocentric brethren will for example find what they claim is a Dinosaurs toe nail then build and name a complete Dinosaur from the said toe nail.
Your Religion has never been verified
this is because this perfectly balenced Earth we reside on was intelligently created.
Jerimiah 5 : 21
Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear:
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
For a Heliocentric you are alright you are able to admit when you have made a mistake.
Thanks.
However :
You believe philosophy is a science.
You have never heard of physiology?
I am deeply embarrased for not knowing about physiology. :-[
And yet ; you claim to be an expert on medicine ?
I have never claimed that, i just said that without evolution, biology is based on the wrong premises and modern medicine would not be well understood.
Besides, im too young to believe im an expert on medicine.
I'm sorry if I offend but that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.
Its okay.
In ten years time when your in your thirties and more educated I might be able to take you seriously.
In 16 years i will be 30 years old.
You have not provided any evidence for your 10 billion year old Universe.
True, i just gave evidence for an old earth, not an old universe, if i gave you evidence for a old universe, would you accept it?
You have provided hypothesis and theorys.
These theory's have not been properly verified.
Yes they have, the plate tectonics theory gave us better understanding of the geology of earth, it also gave us better study of earthquakes. evolution gave us a better understanding of the development of the species on earth, along with better understanding of biology, medicine, agriculture, etc.
Like most Heliocentric's you just accept these theorys with no amount of critical thinking because they fit your model.
Like most Heliocentric's you have Evolution and Mutation confused.
Mutation is essential for evolution, without mutations, evolution would not be possible.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution-17395346
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Also i think you are talking about Macro-evolution, which is when one species turns into another different species, this is part of evolution.
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Micro-evolution is the gradual change whitin species.
Thus, viruses do evolve.
The Darwin religion of evolution relies on the fact that there has to be many different stages of development.
On your Heliocentric model billions of years ago the only living organism was a photosynthesising piece of bacteria.
So we should be able to trace and verify the stages from this bacteria to sea organisms ect. to mammals to apes to human beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms
This can't be done.
So your Darwin religion has never been verified.
So your Darwin religion is just a theory.
I am not religious, i do not hold Charles Darwin as the supreme all powerful god.
Theories are the highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory, that would be like saying Donald Trump is just a a president or that Albert Einstein was just a genius, or that Billionaires are just Billionaires.
Evolution is a theory, the cell theory and gravity which are the fundamental principles of biology and physics are theories too.
We, human beings do not hold the absolute truth, what we hold as truth changes over time, thus, changing what we hold as true, that is why nothing we know is really fully confirmed, it might have been different in the past, scientific theories are the things that are the closest things to what we humans consider as true.
I find it amusing when your Heliocentric brethren will for example find what they claim is a Dinosaurs toe nail then build and name a complete Dinosaur from the said toe nail.
That toe nail would be proof that the dinosaur existed, however, the dinosaur could not have evolved from the toe nail, as to my understanding, toe nails arent alive.
Your Religion has never been verified
this is because this perfectly balenced Earth we reside on was intelligently created.
It is not a religion.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This phrase is getting annoying.
You do seem to hold a lot of hate for the heliocentric model of the universe.
We, heliocentrics hold an astronomical model in which the earth, planets and pluto revolve around the sun.
Why do you despise us so much?
-
Like most Heliocentric's you just accept these theorys with no amount of critical thinking because they fit your model.
Totally incorrect.
Like most Heliocentric's you have Evolution and Mutation confused.
Totally irrelevant to the shape and movement of the earth.
The Darwin religion of evolution relies on the fact that there has to be many different stages of development.
So what? Like most neo-Flat Earthism Religious Believers to totally confuse the shape and movement of the earth with age and origins.
The "age and origins of the earth" must be a subject of hypothesis. We are not there and cannot directly observe nor measure them.
But the "the shape and movement of the earth" is something we can and do observe and measure now.
The shape of the earth has been measured and directly observed and it is not flat!
The rotation of the earth has been directly (high precision laser gyroscopes) and indirectly measured (astronomical methods) and been found to be not stationary but rotating.
So, until you can refute all the evidence available, I am quite convinced that the Heliocentric Globe is well justified.
You flat earth model can't explain numerous observations,
for even obvious things like sunrises and sunsets, day lengths and lunar and solar eclipses.
It is just as well there are plenty of believers in the Globe around to keep the world going for your mob.
-
Like most Heliocentric's you just accept these theorys with no amount of critical thinking because they fit your model.
Totally incorrect.
Like most Heliocentric's you have Evolution and Mutation confused.
Totally irrelevant to the shape and movement of the earth.
The Darwin religion of evolution relies on the fact that there has to be many different stages of development.
So what? Like most neo-Flat Earthism Religious Believers to totally confuse the shape and movement of the earth with age and origins.
The "age and origins of the earth" must be a subject of hypothesis. We are not there and cannot directly observe nor measure them.
But the "the shape and movement of the earth" is something we can and do observe and measure now.
The shape of the earth has been measured and directly observed and it is not flat!
The rotation of the earth has been directly (high precision laser gyroscopes) and indirectly measured (astronomical methods) and been found to be not stationary but rotating.
So, until you can refute all the evidence available, I am quite convinced that the Heliocentric Globe is well justified.
You flat earth model can't explain numerous observations,
for even obvious things like sunrises and sunsets, day lengths and lunar and solar eclipses.
It is just as well there are plenty of believers in the Globe around to keep the world going for your mob.
You are incorrect.
All these aspects of Your heliocentric religion have been recently discussed and debunked on this forum.
I know your Old and decrepit; it would appear you are now senile aswell.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Quick question for 'Young Earthers': Could you explain to a senile, decrepit Old Earther like me how ring species work under creationist rules? Surely ring species are the link between micro- and macro-evolution?
-
Like most Heliocentric's you just accept these theorys with no amount of critical thinking because they fit your model.
Totally incorrect.
Like most Heliocentric's you have Evolution and Mutation confused.
Totally irrelevant to the shape and movement of the earth.
The Darwin religion of evolution relies on the fact that there has to be many different stages of development.
So what? Like most neo-Flat Earthism Religious Believers to totally confuse the shape and movement of the earth with age and origins.
The "age and origins of the earth" must be a subject of hypothesis. We are not there and cannot directly observe nor measure them.
But the "the shape and movement of the earth" is something we can and do observe and measure now.
The shape of the earth has been measured and directly observed and it is not flat!
The rotation of the earth has been directly (high precision laser gyroscopes) and indirectly measured (astronomical methods) and been found to be not stationary but rotating.
So, until you can refute all the evidence available, I am quite convinced that the Heliocentric Globe is well justified.
You flat earth model can't explain numerous observations,
for even obvious things like sunrises and sunsets, day lengths and lunar and solar eclipses.
It is just as well there are plenty of believers in the Globe around to keep the world going for your mob.
You are incorrect.
All these aspects of Your heliocentric religion have been recently discussed and debunked on this forum.
I know your Old and decrepit; it would appear you are now senile aswell.
Now, we know for sure that you realise that you have no logical arguments left and all you can do is stoop to personal attacks.
It's usually called argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "to the man") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim.
From: Argumentum ad hominem - RationalWiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem)
Thanks for that admission!
Bye bye, Ignorance.Is.Bliss, the admitted loser! Hope you like this eclipse (https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0puori7rfe55sy/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif?dl=1)
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
How do you consider another man's word to be evidence ?
How have you verified how old fossils are ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How have you verified that the continents have drifted ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know asteroid strikes produced craters over 100000 of years.
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know the grand canyon took millions of years to form with water erosion?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
For example :
Fossils could be 3500 years old they could 10 years old how would you be able to verify their age ?
The continents could be stationary how could you verify that they move an alleged 20 mm a year.?
These so called asteroid strikes you speak of could of been the battle scars of the ancients superior weapons.
The Grand canyon could be the result of the ancients mining with there superior machines and technology.
All your doing is repeating what you have been told you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever.
I all comes down to belief .
Do you believe what you have been told or not.
I do not.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Which ancients are these that you're on about? I take it you have proof of their existence. But please, tell me where did they live? How long did their society last for? Where was the capital city and what was its name? What language did they speak?
Please share.
Trust me.
You will not want me to go there.
I will take the readers from The Fallen Angels right up to your brethren building the the large hadron collider at Cern.
They will then use this abomination to bring these entities back into this dimension and then claim that they are Aliens from " SPACE "
Lol.
Lol.
Do you want some more ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Bye bye, Ignorance.Is.Bliss, the admitted loser! Hope you like this eclipse (https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0puori7rfe55sy/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif?dl=1)
Does your boss allow you to play around with paint/photoshop during the day ?
You should take a course, because with moden tools it can look a lot better .
-
Which ancients are these that you're on about? I take it you have proof of their existence. But please, tell me where did they live? How long did their society last for? Where was the capital city and what was its name? What language did they speak?
Please share.
Trust me.
You will not want me to go there.
I will take the readers from The Fallen Angels right up to your brethren building the the large hadron collider at Cern.
They will then use this abomination to bring these entities back into this dimension and then claim that they are Aliens from " SPACE "
Lol.
Lol.
Do you want some more ?
Yes, absolutely I want more, with that introduction!
-
Bye bye, Ignorance.Is.Bliss, the admitted loser! Hope you like this eclipse (https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0puori7rfe55sy/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif?dl=1)
Does your boss allow you to play around with paint/photoshop during the day ?
That eclipse looks good doesn't it?
I don't have a boss! :P But please, oh please, don't tell "she who must be obeyed" that! :P
You should take a course, because with moden tools it can look a lot better .
No, I don't want genuine photos to "look a lot better". I prefer to stick to factual photos,
not those :D :D Flat-Earth Fair-Tails that Ignorance.is.Bliss keeps coming up with. :D :D
-
Which ancients are these that you're on about? I take it you have proof of their existence. But please, tell me where did they live? How long did their society last for? Where was the capital city and what was its name? What language did they speak?
Please share.
Trust me.
You will not want me to go there.
I will take the readers from The Fallen Angels right up to your brethren building the the large hadron collider at Cern.
They will then use this abomination to bring these entities back into this dimension and then claim that they are Aliens from " SPACE "
Lol.
Lol.
Do you want some more ?
Yes, absolutely I want more, with that introduction!
Tee hee hee
OK I will go into this later today when I have time.
Don't blame me if this site gets shut down.
Remember you asked for this.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
-
For a Heliocentric you are alright you are able to admit when you have made a mistake.
Thanks.
However :
You believe philosophy is a science.
You have never heard of physiology?
I am deeply embarrased for not knowing about physiology. :-[
And yet ; you claim to be an expert on medicine ?
I have never claimed that, i just said that without evolution, biology is based on the wrong premises and modern medicine would not be well understood.
Besides, im too young to believe im an expert on medicine.
I'm sorry if I offend but that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.
Its okay.
In ten years time when your in your thirties and more educated I might be able to take you seriously.
In 16 years i will be 30 years old.
You have not provided any evidence for your 10 billion year old Universe.
True, i just gave evidence for an old earth, not an old universe, if i gave you evidence for a old universe, would you accept it?
You have provided hypothesis and theorys.
These theory's have not been properly verified.
Yes they have, the plate tectonics theory gave us better understanding of the geology of earth, it also gave us better study of earthquakes. evolution gave us a better understanding of the development of the species on earth, along with better understanding of biology, medicine, agriculture, etc.
Like most Heliocentric's you just accept these theorys with no amount of critical thinking because they fit your model.
Like most Heliocentric's you have Evolution and Mutation confused.
Mutation is essential for evolution, without mutations, evolution would not be possible.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution-17395346
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Also i think you are talking about Macro-evolution, which is when one species turns into another different species, this is part of evolution.
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Micro-evolution is the gradual change whitin species.
Thus, viruses do evolve.
The Darwin religion of evolution relies on the fact that there has to be many different stages of development.
On your Heliocentric model billions of years ago the only living organism was a photosynthesising piece of bacteria.
So we should be able to trace and verify the stages from this bacteria to sea organisms ect. to mammals to apes to human beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms
This can't be done.
So your Darwin religion has never been verified.
So your Darwin religion is just a theory.
I am not religious, i do not hold Charles Darwin as the supreme all powerful god.
Theories are the highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory, that would be like saying Donald Trump is just a a president or that Albert Einstein was just a genius, or that Billionaires are just Billionaires.
Evolution is a theory, the cell theory and gravity which are the fundamental principles of biology and physics are theories too.
We, human beings do not hold the absolute truth, what we hold as truth changes over time, thus, changing what we hold as true, that is why nothing we know is really fully confirmed, it might have been different in the past, scientific theories are the things that are the closest things to what we humans consider as true.
I find it amusing when your Heliocentric brethren will for example find what they claim is a Dinosaurs toe nail then build and name a complete Dinosaur from the said toe nail.
That toe nail would be proof that the dinosaur existed, however, the dinosaur could not have evolved from the toe nail, as to my understanding, toe nails arent alive.
Your Religion has never been verified
this is because this perfectly balenced Earth we reside on was intelligently created.
It is not a religion.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This phrase is getting annoying.
You do seem to hold a lot of hate for the heliocentric model of the universe.
We, heliocentrics hold an astronomical model in which the earth, planets and pluto revolve around the sun.
Why do you despise us so much?
I do not Hate anyone or anything.
Hate is a negative emotion that can last indefinitely.
Negative emotions consume the Soul Body and mind.
I do not like your Heliocentric model because it is a lie and a deception.
I like the truth.
I do not despise you Heliocentrics I pity you .
You have been deceived.
You have been used.
You have been abused.
You do not realise the seriousness and implications of what you are doing.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
I like the truth.
You claim that you "like the truth."
If that is true, you will believe all the voluminous evidence that the earth is a rotating Globe, like: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0puori7rfe55sy/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif?dl=1)
-
I like the truth.
You claim that you "like the truth."
If that is true, you will believe all the voluminous evidence that the earth is a rotating Globe, like: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0puori7rfe55sy/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif?dl=1)
OK ::)
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
I do not like your (multiple) Flat Earth models, because they are lies and deception.
I like the truth.
I do not despise you Flattards, I pity you .
You have been deceived.
You have been used.
You have been abused.
You do not realise the seriousness and implications of what you are doing.
Your ridiculous flat Earth Religion is False.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
How do you consider another man's word to be evidence ?
How have you verified how old fossils are ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How have you verified that the continents have drifted ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know asteroid strikes produced craters over 100000 of years.
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know the grand canyon took millions of years to form with water erosion?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
For example :
Fossils could be 3500 years old they could 10 years old how would you be able to verify their age ?
The continents could be stationary how could you verify that they move an alleged 20 mm a year.?
These so called asteroid strikes you speak of could of been the battle scars of the ancients superior weapons.
The Grand canyon could be the result of the ancients mining with there superior machines and technology.
All your doing is repeating what you have been told you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever.
I all comes down to belief .
Do you believe what you have been told or not.
I do not.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Which ancients are these that you're on about? I take it you have proof of their existence. But please, tell me where did they live? How long did their society last for? Where was the capital city and what was its name? What language did they speak?
Please share.
Trust me.
You will not want me to go there.
I will take the readers from The Fallen Angels right up to your brethren building the the large hadron collider at Cern.
They will then use this abomination to bring these entities back into this dimension and then claim that they are Aliens from " SPACE "
Lol.
Lol.
Do you want some more ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
what...
-
For a Heliocentric you are alright you are able to admit when you have made a mistake.
Thanks.
However :
You believe philosophy is a science.
You have never heard of physiology?
I am deeply embarrased for not knowing about physiology. :-[
And yet ; you claim to be an expert on medicine ?
I have never claimed that, i just said that without evolution, biology is based on the wrong premises and modern medicine would not be well understood.
Besides, im too young to believe im an expert on medicine.
I'm sorry if I offend but that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.
Its okay.
In ten years time when your in your thirties and more educated I might be able to take you seriously.
In 16 years i will be 30 years old.
You have not provided any evidence for your 10 billion year old Universe.
True, i just gave evidence for an old earth, not an old universe, if i gave you evidence for a old universe, would you accept it?
You have provided hypothesis and theorys.
These theory's have not been properly verified.
Yes they have, the plate tectonics theory gave us better understanding of the geology of earth, it also gave us better study of earthquakes. evolution gave us a better understanding of the development of the species on earth, along with better understanding of biology, medicine, agriculture, etc.
Like most Heliocentric's you just accept these theorys with no amount of critical thinking because they fit your model.
Like most Heliocentric's you have Evolution and Mutation confused.
Mutation is essential for evolution, without mutations, evolution would not be possible.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution-17395346
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Also i think you are talking about Macro-evolution, which is when one species turns into another different species, this is part of evolution.
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Micro-evolution is the gradual change whitin species.
Thus, viruses do evolve.
The Darwin religion of evolution relies on the fact that there has to be many different stages of development.
On your Heliocentric model billions of years ago the only living organism was a photosynthesising piece of bacteria.
So we should be able to trace and verify the stages from this bacteria to sea organisms ect. to mammals to apes to human beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms
This can't be done.
So your Darwin religion has never been verified.
So your Darwin religion is just a theory.
I am not religious, i do not hold Charles Darwin as the supreme all powerful god.
Theories are the highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory, that would be like saying Donald Trump is just a a president or that Albert Einstein was just a genius, or that Billionaires are just Billionaires.
Evolution is a theory, the cell theory and gravity which are the fundamental principles of biology and physics are theories too.
We, human beings do not hold the absolute truth, what we hold as truth changes over time, thus, changing what we hold as true, that is why nothing we know is really fully confirmed, it might have been different in the past, scientific theories are the things that are the closest things to what we humans consider as true.
I find it amusing when your Heliocentric brethren will for example find what they claim is a Dinosaurs toe nail then build and name a complete Dinosaur from the said toe nail.
That toe nail would be proof that the dinosaur existed, however, the dinosaur could not have evolved from the toe nail, as to my understanding, toe nails arent alive.
Your Religion has never been verified
this is because this perfectly balenced Earth we reside on was intelligently created.
It is not a religion.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This phrase is getting annoying.
You do seem to hold a lot of hate for the heliocentric model of the universe.
We, heliocentrics hold an astronomical model in which the earth, planets and pluto revolve around the sun.
Why do you despise us so much?
I do not Hate anyone or anything.
Hate is a negative emotion that can last indefinitely.
Negative emotions consume the Soul Body and mind.
I do not like your Heliocentric model because it is a lie and a deception.
I like the truth.
I do not despise you Heliocentrics I pity you .
You have been deceived.
You have been used.
You have been abused.
You do not realise the seriousness and implications of what you are doing.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I also do not see why is it such a serious big deal.
We hold an astronomic model that says that the earth is one of the 8 planets and pluto that orbits the sun, while the sun itself is one of the billions of stars that conform the milky way, which is, itself, one of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe.
This astronomical model has been the standart in astronomy for 400 years (correct me if wrong).
Really, what are the serious implications of this?
-
For a Heliocentric you are alright you are able to admit when you have made a mistake.
Thanks.
However :
You believe philosophy is a science.
You have never heard of physiology?
I am deeply embarrased for not knowing about physiology. :-[
And yet ; you claim to be an expert on medicine ?
I have never claimed that, i just said that without evolution, biology is based on the wrong premises and modern medicine would not be well understood.
Besides, im too young to believe im an expert on medicine.
I'm sorry if I offend but that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.
Its okay.
In ten years time when your in your thirties and more educated I might be able to take you seriously.
In 16 years i will be 30 years old.
You have not provided any evidence for your 10 billion year old Universe.
True, i just gave evidence for an old earth, not an old universe, if i gave you evidence for a old universe, would you accept it?
You have provided hypothesis and theorys.
These theory's have not been properly verified.
Yes they have, the plate tectonics theory gave us better understanding of the geology of earth, it also gave us better study of earthquakes. evolution gave us a better understanding of the development of the species on earth, along with better understanding of biology, medicine, agriculture, etc.
Like most Heliocentric's you just accept these theorys with no amount of critical thinking because they fit your model.
Like most Heliocentric's you have Evolution and Mutation confused.
Mutation is essential for evolution, without mutations, evolution would not be possible.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution-17395346
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Also i think you are talking about Macro-evolution, which is when one species turns into another different species, this is part of evolution.
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Micro-evolution is the gradual change whitin species.
Thus, viruses do evolve.
The Darwin religion of evolution relies on the fact that there has to be many different stages of development.
On your Heliocentric model billions of years ago the only living organism was a photosynthesising piece of bacteria.
So we should be able to trace and verify the stages from this bacteria to sea organisms ect. to mammals to apes to human beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms
This can't be done.
So your Darwin religion has never been verified.
So your Darwin religion is just a theory.
I am not religious, i do not hold Charles Darwin as the supreme all powerful god.
Theories are the highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory, that would be like saying Donald Trump is just a a president or that Albert Einstein was just a genius, or that Billionaires are just Billionaires.
Evolution is a theory, the cell theory and gravity which are the fundamental principles of biology and physics are theories too.
We, human beings do not hold the absolute truth, what we hold as truth changes over time, thus, changing what we hold as true, that is why nothing we know is really fully confirmed, it might have been different in the past, scientific theories are the things that are the closest things to what we humans consider as true.
I find it amusing when your Heliocentric brethren will for example find what they claim is a Dinosaurs toe nail then build and name a complete Dinosaur from the said toe nail.
That toe nail would be proof that the dinosaur existed, however, the dinosaur could not have evolved from the toe nail, as to my understanding, toe nails arent alive.
Your Religion has never been verified
this is because this perfectly balenced Earth we reside on was intelligently created.
It is not a religion.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This phrase is getting annoying.
You do seem to hold a lot of hate for the heliocentric model of the universe.
We, heliocentrics hold an astronomical model in which the earth, planets and pluto revolve around the sun.
Why do you despise us so much?
I do not Hate anyone or anything.
Hate is a negative emotion that can last indefinitely.
Negative emotions consume the Soul Body and mind.
I do not like your Heliocentric model because it is a lie and a deception.
I like the truth.
I do not despise you Heliocentrics I pity you .
You have been deceived.
You have been used.
You have been abused.
You do not realise the seriousness and implications of what you are doing.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I also do not see why is it such a serious big deal.
We hold an astronomic model that says that the earth is one of the 8 planets and pluto that orbits the sun, while the sun itself is one of the billions of stars that conform the milky way, which is, itself, one of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe.
This astronomical model has been the standart in astronomy for 400 years (correct me if wrong).
Really, what are the serious implications of this?
You are too young to understand this is highlighted by the fact you have had to ask.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
For a Heliocentric you are alright you are able to admit when you have made a mistake.
Thanks.
However :
You believe philosophy is a science.
You have never heard of physiology?
I am deeply embarrased for not knowing about physiology. :-[
And yet ; you claim to be an expert on medicine ?
I have never claimed that, i just said that without evolution, biology is based on the wrong premises and modern medicine would not be well understood.
Besides, im too young to believe im an expert on medicine.
I'm sorry if I offend but that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.
Its okay.
In ten years time when your in your thirties and more educated I might be able to take you seriously.
In 16 years i will be 30 years old.
You have not provided any evidence for your 10 billion year old Universe.
True, i just gave evidence for an old earth, not an old universe, if i gave you evidence for a old universe, would you accept it?
You have provided hypothesis and theorys.
These theory's have not been properly verified.
Yes they have, the plate tectonics theory gave us better understanding of the geology of earth, it also gave us better study of earthquakes. evolution gave us a better understanding of the development of the species on earth, along with better understanding of biology, medicine, agriculture, etc.
Like most Heliocentric's you just accept these theorys with no amount of critical thinking because they fit your model.
Like most Heliocentric's you have Evolution and Mutation confused.
Mutation is essential for evolution, without mutations, evolution would not be possible.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution-17395346
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/12-mutation-not-natural-selection-drives-evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
Also i think you are talking about Macro-evolution, which is when one species turns into another different species, this is part of evolution.
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Micro-evolution is the gradual change whitin species.
Thus, viruses do evolve.
The Darwin religion of evolution relies on the fact that there has to be many different stages of development.
On your Heliocentric model billions of years ago the only living organism was a photosynthesising piece of bacteria.
So we should be able to trace and verify the stages from this bacteria to sea organisms ect. to mammals to apes to human beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms
This can't be done.
So your Darwin religion has never been verified.
So your Darwin religion is just a theory.
I am not religious, i do not hold Charles Darwin as the supreme all powerful god.
Theories are the highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory, that would be like saying Donald Trump is just a a president or that Albert Einstein was just a genius, or that Billionaires are just Billionaires.
Evolution is a theory, the cell theory and gravity which are the fundamental principles of biology and physics are theories too.
We, human beings do not hold the absolute truth, what we hold as truth changes over time, thus, changing what we hold as true, that is why nothing we know is really fully confirmed, it might have been different in the past, scientific theories are the things that are the closest things to what we humans consider as true.
I find it amusing when your Heliocentric brethren will for example find what they claim is a Dinosaurs toe nail then build and name a complete Dinosaur from the said toe nail.
That toe nail would be proof that the dinosaur existed, however, the dinosaur could not have evolved from the toe nail, as to my understanding, toe nails arent alive.
Your Religion has never been verified
this is because this perfectly balenced Earth we reside on was intelligently created.
It is not a religion.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This phrase is getting annoying.
You do seem to hold a lot of hate for the heliocentric model of the universe.
We, heliocentrics hold an astronomical model in which the earth, planets and pluto revolve around the sun.
Why do you despise us so much?
I do not Hate anyone or anything.
Hate is a negative emotion that can last indefinitely.
Negative emotions consume the Soul Body and mind.
I do not like your Heliocentric model because it is a lie and a deception.
I like the truth.
I do not despise you Heliocentrics I pity you .
You have been deceived.
You have been used.
You have been abused.
You do not realise the seriousness and implications of what you are doing.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I also do not see why is it such a serious big deal.
We hold an astronomic model that says that the earth is one of the 8 planets and pluto that orbits the sun, while the sun itself is one of the billions of stars that conform the milky way, which is, itself, one of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe.
This astronomical model has been the standart in astronomy for 400 years (correct me if wrong).
Really, what are the serious implications of this?
You are too young to understand this is highlighted by the fact you have had to ask.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Still waiting for the answer.
-
Does anyone have an idea when that Flat-tard is going to spill the beans about the ancients, he was on about.
I for one am on hooks that are so tender!
-
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
Damn evolutionists are blind sheep repeating whatever the text books told them.
Fossils: Not scientific proof as it's based on assumptions and categorically inaccurate.
Continental drift Again, based on assumptions that it takes "millions of years" - based on what?
Impact craters These fairy tale answers seem to have a pattern. Again, based on what scientific observation or experiment?
Erosion Here you screwed up pretty bad. Check the rate of erosion of the grand canyon itself. Say, 20 years, then multiply that by millions/billions of years. This "evolution" proof is laughable.
So these are your 4 evidences? So basically you've given nothing and you're asking for proof of a young Earth? By the way there is proof, actual testable,repeatable, observable and mathematically correct evidence of a young Earth. But I know how devoted to your god Darwin you all are so I'll just enjoy your funny pseudoscience and point out every little inaccuracy of your blind text book beliefs.
Interesting questions. You answers are just wrong. The explanations for each usually take a four year degree so people telling you simple explanations I doubt you'd accept.
However, I don't have an issue reconciling Genesis with science. The following link is an article written by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He is a Ph.D in physics, is Jewish, and formally trained in theology. If nothing else it's an interesting read.
http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53
Mike
-
Well, with all the arguing that i have been doing in this thread (the first real debate of my life lmao) i think i have found my answer, the only answer i got (minus tessa yuri) is a supreme being creating it or something, im satisfied with the answers i got.
Since Mr Resistance.Is.Futile wont accept any evidence, i think all my attempts will be futile. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think im finished with this thread, i will still be answering if i want to though.
-
Well, with all the arguing that i have been doing in this thread (the first real debate of my life lmao) i think i have found my answer, the only answer i got (minus tessa yuri) is a supreme being creating it or something, im satisfied with the answers i got.
Since Mr Resistance.Is.Futile wont accept any evidence, i think all my attempts will be futile. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think im finished with this thread, i will still be answering if i want to though.
No Incorrect.
The Supreme being did NOT create the Earth.
GOD created the Earth.
That is GOD all mighty
That is GOD the Most high.
No being could possibly have enough power to create the Earth and the heavens.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Well, with all the arguing that i have been doing in this thread (the first real debate of my life lmao) i think i have found my answer, the only answer i got (minus tessa yuri) is a supreme being creating it or something, im satisfied with the answers i got.
Since Mr Resistance.Is.Futile wont accept any evidence, i think all my attempts will be futile. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think im finished with this thread, i will still be answering if i want to though.
No Incorrect.
The Supreme being did NOT create the Earth.
GOD created the Earth.
That is GOD all mighty
That is GOD the Most high.
No being could possibly have enough power to create the Earth and the heavens.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Isn't God the supreme being i was talking about?
-
Well, with all the arguing that i have been doing in this thread (the first real debate of my life lmao) i think i have found my answer, the only answer i got (minus tessa yuri) is a supreme being creating it or something, im satisfied with the answers i got.
Since Mr Resistance.Is.Futile wont accept any evidence, i think all my attempts will be futile. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think im finished with this thread, i will still be answering if i want to though.
No Incorrect.
The Supreme being did NOT create the Earth.
GOD created the Earth.
That is GOD all mighty
That is GOD the Most high.
No being could possibly have enough power to create the Earth and the heavens.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Isn't God the supreme being i was talking about?
No the supreme being is the Biblical " Beast from the Pit "
God All Mighty is not a being.
According to scripture God All Mighty has already defeated the supreme being and the other Fallen Angels on two separate occasions but he has forgiven them.
He will not forgive them again this time they will be consumed along with all who follow them.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Well, with all the arguing that i have been doing in this thread (the first real debate of my life lmao) i think i have found my answer, the only answer i got (minus tessa yuri) is a supreme being creating it or something, im satisfied with the answers i got.
Since Mr Resistance.Is.Futile wont accept any evidence, i think all my attempts will be futile. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think im finished with this thread, i will still be answering if i want to though.
No Incorrect.
The Supreme being did NOT create the Earth.
GOD created the Earth.
That is GOD all mighty
That is GOD the Most high.
No being could possibly have enough power to create the Earth and the heavens.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Isn't God the supreme being i was talking about?
No the supreme being is the Biblical " Beast from the Pit "
God All Mighty is not a being.
According to scripture God All Mighty has already defeated the supreme being and the other Fallen Angels on two separate occasions but he has forgiven them.
He will not forgive them again this time they will be consumed along with all who follow them.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Interesting. Can you show me the quote from the Bible that says that. Actually not doubting you just interested in reading that part.
-
Well, with all the arguing that i have been doing in this thread (the first real debate of my life lmao) i think i have found my answer, the only answer i got (minus tessa yuri) is a supreme being creating it or something, im satisfied with the answers i got.
Since Mr Resistance.Is.Futile wont accept any evidence, i think all my attempts will be futile. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think im finished with this thread, i will still be answering if i want to though.
No Incorrect.
The Supreme being did NOT create the Earth.
GOD created the Earth.
That is GOD all mighty
That is GOD the Most high.
No being could possibly have enough power to create the Earth and the heavens.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Isn't God the supreme being i was talking about?
No the supreme being is the Biblical " Beast from the Pit "
God All Mighty is not a being.
According to scripture God All Mighty has already defeated the supreme being and the other Fallen Angels on two separate occasions but he has forgiven them.
He will not forgive them again this time they will be consumed along with all who follow them.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Interesting. Can you show me the quote from the Bible that says that. Actually not doubting you just interested in reading that part.
This is a flat earth forum not a bible study forum as it is still the sabbath here in the UK I will comply.
Do want all the references for the above ?
I have only referenced the first time they got filled in (Ass kicked for yanks )
Revelation 12:7 -12:11
Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.
And the dragon lost the battle, and he and his angels were forced out of heaven.
This great dragon--the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world--was thrown down to the earth with all his angels.
-
"Woe to you, oh Earth and sea, for the Devil sends the Beast with wrath
Because he knows the time is short
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the Beast
For it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty six"
-
"Woe to you, oh Earth and sea, for the Devil sends the Beast with wrath
Because he knows the time is short
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the Beast
For it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty six"
Are you referring to this :
http://design-guidelines.web.cern.ch/outline-logo
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Iron Maiden - The Number of the Best intro lyric.
Being from UK, I expect you to know this!
-
Well, with all the arguing that i have been doing in this thread (the first real debate of my life lmao) i think i have found my answer, the only answer i got (minus tessa yuri) is a supreme being creating it or something, im satisfied with the answers i got.
Since Mr Resistance.Is.Futile wont accept any evidence, i think all my attempts will be futile. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think im finished with this thread, i will still be answering if i want to though.
No Incorrect.
The Supreme being did NOT create the Earth.
GOD created the Earth.
That is GOD all mighty
That is GOD the Most high.
No being could possibly have enough power to create the Earth and the heavens.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Isn't God the supreme being i was talking about?
No the supreme being is the Biblical " Beast from the Pit "
God All Mighty is not a being.
According to scripture God All Mighty has already defeated the supreme being and the other Fallen Angels on two separate occasions but he has forgiven them.
He will not forgive them again this time they will be consumed along with all who follow them.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Interesting. Can you show me the quote from the Bible that says that. Actually not doubting you just interested in reading that part.
This is a flat earth forum not a bible study forum as it is still the sabbath here in the UK I will comply.
Do want all the references for the above ?
I have only referenced the first time they got filled in (Ass kicked for yanks )
Revelation 12:7 -12:11
Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.
And the dragon lost the battle, and he and his angels were forced out of heaven.
This great dragon--the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world--was thrown down to the earth with all his angels.
Thanks for that. Interesting stuff. I guess what threw me was you calling the dragon the supreme being. I'm not finding where it says that.
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
Are you actually asking people to choose between the process in wich something was created and it's creator?
That's like choosing between the recipe or the chef as an answer of how a lasagna was made.
Are you retarded or just very very dense?
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
How do you consider another man's word to be evidence ?
How have you verified how old fossils are ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How have you verified that the continents have drifted ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know asteroid strikes produced craters over 100000 of years.
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know the grand canyon took millions of years to form with water erosion?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
For example :
Fossils could be 3500 years old they could 10 years old how would you be able to verify their age ?
The continents could be stationary how could you verify that they move an alleged 20 mm a year.?
These so called asteroid strikes you speak of could of been the battle scars of the ancients superior weapons.
The Grand canyon could be the result of the ancients mining with there superior machines and technology.
All your doing is repeating what you have been told you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever.
I all comes down to belief .
Do you believe what you have been told or not.
I do not.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Which ancients are these that you're on about? I take it you have proof of their existence. But please, tell me where did they live? How long did their society last for? Where was the capital city and what was its name? What language did they speak?
Please share.
Trust me.
You will not want me to go there.
I will take the readers from The Fallen Angels right up to your brethren building the the large hadron collider at Cern.
They will then use this abomination to bring these entities back into this dimension and then claim that they are Aliens from " SPACE "
Lol.
Lol.
Do you want some more ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Fuck yeah. I write science fiction and that was some fun stuff.
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
Are you actually asking people to choose between the process in wich something was created and it's creator?
That's like choosing between the recipe or the chef as an answer of how a lasagna was made.
Are you retarded or just very very dense?
Why can't that be the way god created everything? I mean the Bible is full of parables, why can't genesis be another one?
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
Spot on
Are you actually asking people to choose between the process in wich something was created and it's creator?
That's like choosing between the recipe or the chef as an answer of how a lasagna was made.
Are you retarded or just very very dense?
Pathetic analogy as it's based on your belief as being fact. "Process" is what believe to be fact. Theists don't so the analogy is one side. The fact remains that they're both religious beliefs so it's EXACTLY how simba put it.
And if you love lasagna so much then I'll help you out with a relative analogy.
The choices are:
a chef used ingredients as the building material and put it together in perfect manner to form a lasagna.
or
Nothing exploded and over billions of years the residue from that explosion formed a perfect tasty lasagna..
Indeed, what is more believable!!!!!
-
Indeed, what is more believable!!!!!
That bible God ceated this world of course !!!!!
You fail to present your cosmic accident correctly !
A cosmic pea without matter....only energy was present at the beginning.
No DNA, no plan, no nothing only maximal compressed ''energy''.
It explodes into all directions.
The nothingness the pea exploded in, inflated to enormous proportions
Then particles from the initial energy pea (that progressed from energy to matter ) started to cluster and stick together.
Then stars, planets and galaxies were formed
Then earth was formed and cooled down to a certain ideal temperature
Then accidentally life was formed
Then accidentally life became more complex
Then accidentally life became so complex that it was concious...a characterization that the initial pea did not possess.
Then concious life on earth thought about meaning and purpose, something that was never initiated to begin with.
Of course God is the creator of everything, i am glad He is ! Instead of some wacko hypothesis by narcissistic cosmologists ( Lawrence M. Krauss) that clearly have to much time doing nothing of any importance and meaning, but to seek the spotlights at every given oppertunity.
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
Are you actually asking people to choose between the process in wich something was created and it's creator?
That's like choosing between the recipe or the chef as an answer of how a lasagna was made.
Are you retarded or just very very dense?
Why can't that be the way god created everything? I mean the Bible is full of parables, why can't genesis be another one?
The big bang doesn't contradict the existence of a creator, nor evolution. By the way, you may consider me as an agnostic.
-
Indeed, what is more believable!!!!!
That bible God ceated this world of course !!!!!
You fail to present your cosmic accident correctly !
A cosmic pea without matter....only energy was present at the beginning.
No DNA, no plan, no nothing only maximal compressed ''energy''.
It explodes into all directions.
The nothingness the pea exploded in, inflated to enormous proportions
Then particles from the initial energy pea (that progressed from energy to matter ) started to cluster and stick together.
Then stars, planets and galaxies were formed
Then earth was formed and cooled down to a certain ideal temperature
Then accidentally life was formed
Then accidentally life became more complex
Then accidentally life became so complex that it was concious...a characterization that the initial pea did not possess.
Then concious life on earth thought about meaning and purpose, something that was never initiated to begin with.
Of course God is the creator of everything, i am glad He is ! Instead of some wacko hypothesis by narcissistic cosmologists ( Lawrence M. Krauss) that clearly have to much time doing nothing of any importance and meaning, but to seek the spotlights at every given oppertunity.
You say accidentally like it is a bad thing ::)
Many things were created by accident, popsicles, even babies (everyone in this forum might have been an accidents tho :P)
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
Are you actually asking people to choose between the process in wich something was created and it's creator?
That's like choosing between the recipe or the chef as an answer of how a lasagna was made.
Are you retarded or just very very dense?
Why can't that be the way god created everything? I mean the Bible is full of parables, why can't genesis be another one?
The big bang doesn't contradict the existence of a creator, nor evolution. By the way, you may consider me as an agnostic.
That's what I'm saying. Science, at least as far as I have seen, doesn't contradict the existence of a creator. Only the interpretation of some believers.
-
You say accidentally like it is a bad thing ::)
Many things were created by accident, popsicles, even babies (everyone in this forum might have been an accidents tho :P)
I meant accidentally as in ''highly improbable''.
some accidents are indeed accidents, like making a baby, but some cosmic accidents are impossible when you try to wrap your head around the currently supported hypothesis.
More so,....they are getting absurder every decade.........if we follow the evolution of our universe back in time we get an infinite density and infinitly strong gravity into a singularity that causes all current equations and models to collaps.
Something is not right here.....or should i say improbable ? ;D
Back to the drawing board,....or like i do, live by faith ?
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
Are you actually asking people to choose between the process in wich something was created and it's creator?
That's like choosing between the recipe or the chef as an answer of how a lasagna was made.
Are you retarded or just very very dense?
Why can't that be the way god created everything? I mean the Bible is full of parables, why can't genesis be another one?
The big bang doesn't contradict the existence of a creator, nor evolution. By the way, you may consider me as an agnostic.
That's what I'm saying. Science, at least as far as I have seen, doesn't contradict the existence of a creator. Only the interpretation of some believers.
Science cannot contradict nor prove the existence of God. In the same way Science has not proven Evolution at all. In fact, the progress of Science has been a huge deterrent for Evolution. Both religions and any other trying to prove their beliefs with Science simply doesn't understand the basic concept of what Science actually is.
Also, the BIG BANG absolutely contradicts a creator because the "big bang" is something from and by nothing. You cannot spin a "big bang" with a "creator" because every religion has their scriptures and the "big bang" is in none. The big bang belief is part of the most recent religion.
-
You say accidentally like it is a bad thing ::)
Many things were created by accident, popsicles, even babies (everyone in this forum might have been an accidents tho :P)
I meant accidentally as in ''highly improbable''.
some accidents are indeed accidents, like making a baby, but some cosmic accidents are impossible when you try to wrap your head around the currently supported hypothesis.
More so,....they are getting absurder every decade.........if we follow the evolution of our universe back in time we get an infinite density and infinitly strong gravity into a singularity that causes all current equations and models to collaps.
Something is not right here.....or should i say improbable ? ;D
Back to the drawing board,....or like i do, live by faith ?
I think the key statement there is the wrapping your head around it part.
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
Are you actually asking people to choose between the process in wich something was created and it's creator?
That's like choosing between the recipe or the chef as an answer of how a lasagna was made.
Are you retarded or just very very dense?
Why can't that be the way god created everything? I mean the Bible is full of parables, why can't genesis be another one?
The big bang doesn't contradict the existence of a creator, nor evolution. By the way, you may consider me as an agnostic.
That's what I'm saying. Science, at least as far as I have seen, doesn't contradict the existence of a creator. Only the interpretation of some believers.
Science cannot contradict nor prove the existence of God. In the same way Science has not proven Evolution at all. In fact, the progress of Science has been a huge deterrent for Evolution. Both religions and any other trying to prove their beliefs with Science simply doesn't understand the basic concept of what Science actually is.
Also, the BIG BANG absolutely contradicts a creator because the "big bang" is something from and by nothing. You cannot spin a "big bang" with a "creator" because every religion has their scriptures and the "big bang" is in none. The big bang belief is part of the most recent religion.
I think he meant that a creator could have used the big bang to create the universe instead of creating it supernaturally.
-
God created the earth, and the age I would guess being not much more than 4,117 years old.
Proof?
The Bible, book of Genesis. You can lookup to see how they dated Abraham, and then work your way back from there since you are given specific information.
Yeah, no the flying spaguetti monster created the universe, the planets are shaped like meatballs!
No seriously, present scientific proof that the universe is 4,117 years old, a quote from the bible wont convince me.
What scientific proof do you have that this universe you speak of exists and is not simply lights in the sky.
What scientific evidence do you have the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I would say you don't.
All you have is another man's word and computer generated images.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Well, here's some evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
- Fossils
- Continental drift, tectonic drift is a slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years, satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year which means that for the continents had to be together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.
- Impact craters, Asteroid strikes that can produce craters on the order of kilometers across are extremely infrequent occurrence, there is one large asteroid inpact every 310,000 years if the earth were young, there would be zero impact craters.
- Erosion, The Grand Canyon, took millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water.
Those are just 4 of many other pieces of evidence that prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, how about YOU present some scientific evidence for a young earth?
How do you consider another man's word to be evidence ?
How have you verified how old fossils are ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How have you verified that the continents have drifted ?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know asteroid strikes produced craters over 100000 of years.
Answer.
Because someone told you.
How do you know the grand canyon took millions of years to form with water erosion?
Answer.
Because someone told you.
For example :
Fossils could be 3500 years old they could 10 years old how would you be able to verify their age ?
The continents could be stationary how could you verify that they move an alleged 20 mm a year.?
These so called asteroid strikes you speak of could of been the battle scars of the ancients superior weapons.
The Grand canyon could be the result of the ancients mining with there superior machines and technology.
All your doing is repeating what you have been told you have yet to provide any evidence what so ever.
I all comes down to belief .
Do you believe what you have been told or not.
I do not.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Which ancients are these that you're on about? I take it you have proof of their existence. But please, tell me where did they live? How long did their society last for? Where was the capital city and what was its name? What language did they speak?
Please share.
Trust me.
You will not want me to go there.
I will take the readers from The Fallen Angels right up to your brethren building the the large hadron collider at Cern.
They will then use this abomination to bring these entities back into this dimension and then claim that they are Aliens from " SPACE "
Lol.
Lol.
Do you want some more ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Fuck yeah. I write science fiction and that was some fun stuff.
I agree everything you write is fiction.
I did not say the supreme being was the dragon referenced in the Bible.
The supreme being is the anti Christ biblically known as the Beast from the Pit.
I ask you why Cern have 666 in there logo?
http://design-guidelines.web.cern.ch/outline-logo
I ask you why Cern have a statue of the abomination SHIVA THE DESTROYER in front of their head quarters.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-maha-shivratri-why-cern-the-world-s-largest-particle-physics-lab-has-a-statue-of-lord-shiva-2186655
Let's look at the facts:
http://www.stfc.ac.uk/research/particle-physics-and-particle-astrophysics/large-hadron-collider/
The LHC is the biggest machine ever made weighing 38000 tonnes.
The LHC Runs for 27 km
The LHC accelerates particles to 11000 circuits a second of the 27 km run.
The LHC had 111 Nations involved in it's construction.
The LHC cost 3.74 Billion.
Let's look at the numbers:
We have 666 the mark of the Beast in the Cern logo.
We have 9 11 in the description of the LHC.
We also have a 33 in the description of the LHC.
It's difficult to believe these reoccurring numbers are nothing to do with the occult.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
-
RIF, ok first of all props for the come back, that was funny.
As for the dragon, the quote you cited did say dragon but didn't say supreme being or anti christ.
Now then, I'm not at the moment going to read all the links, maybe later, but please go on with your story. I really want to hear it.
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
Are you actually asking people to choose between the process in wich something was created and it's creator?
That's like choosing between the recipe or the chef as an answer of how a lasagna was made.
Are you retarded or just very very dense?
Why can't that be the way god created everything? I mean the Bible is full of parables, why can't genesis be another one?
I think most creationists have a problem with this because it teaches about death before the fall:
(http://www.creationliberty.com/images/ageisdoctrine02.jpg)
(https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/2010/03/biblical-view-death.jpg)
(https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/2010/03/secular-view-death.jpg)
From the experts themselves:
https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/biblically-could-death-have-existed-before-sin/
https://www.icr.org/article/295/
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/ageisdoctrine.php
I also found these:
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/creationevolution-1250344348-phpapp02/95/creation-vs-evolution-86-728.jpg?cb=1250327371)
(http://www.fountainoflifetm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Old-Earth-Creationism-vs-Young-Earth-Creationism.png)
On the other side of the coin though:
(http://www.godofevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GOE-evolution-tree.jpg)
(http://www.godofevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/How-are-they-going-to-believe.jpg)
(http://www.godofevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Nye-vs-Ham-cartoon-evidence.jpg)
from http://www.godofevolution.com/
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Lol, was gonna say that, you got me.
-
It's a simple choice.
You either believe God created the Earth.
Or
That a tiny spec of magic fairy dust exploded on it's own accord in an infinite vacuum; ::) and magically created by accident The Earth the Stars and the Sun and the moon and all life ; with a perfectly balanced food chain.
Which one is more believable ?
Are you actually asking people to choose between the process in wich something was created and it's creator?
That's like choosing between the recipe or the chef as an answer of how a lasagna was made.
Are you retarded or just very very dense?
Why can't that be the way god created everything? I mean the Bible is full of parables, why can't genesis be another one?
I think most creationists have a problem with this because it teaches about death before the fall:
(http://www.creationliberty.com/images/ageisdoctrine02.jpg)
(https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/2010/03/biblical-view-death.jpg)
(https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/2010/03/secular-view-death.jpg)
From the experts themselves:
https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/biblically-could-death-have-existed-before-sin/
https://www.icr.org/article/295/
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/ageisdoctrine.php
I also found these:
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/creationevolution-1250344348-phpapp02/95/creation-vs-evolution-86-728.jpg?cb=1250327371)
(http://www.fountainoflifetm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Old-Earth-Creationism-vs-Young-Earth-Creationism.png)
On the other side of the coin though:
(http://www.godofevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GOE-evolution-tree.jpg)
(http://www.godofevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/How-are-they-going-to-believe.jpg)
(http://www.godofevolution.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Nye-vs-Ham-cartoon-evidence.jpg)
from http://www.godofevolution.com/
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Lol, was gonna say that, you got me.
I've pointed that little tidbit out in his other ridiculous threads but I believe he just ignores it.
-
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Jesuites are part of the illuminati, together with the freeemasons of the scottish rite the main cause of a hypothetical world that kicked God out existence.
The globe and the heliocentric inventions are invented during the total reign of the Roman Catholic church not independent science, because that has never existed.
If the Catholic church demanded a flatearth,....it was going to be a flatearth all the way.
Copernicus lived in a private estate instaed of being burned at the stake as a heretic, the stake which trinity deniers did receive.
The Castholic church/order of the Jesuites invented the heliocentric model and the big bang.
The pope has recently stated to baptise aliens at the Vatican if they would visit earth.
Like i have pointed out in another topic it is all about the alien/evil entities that will be introduced as inhabitants of the vast universe we have become so familiar with through the Hollywood film industry.
By creating a hypothetical vast universe, life somewhere else seems very likely.
And those life forms could look like anything.
This way the devil can clog behind the ''space fantasies'' when revealing himself and his armees upon the face of this world.
All meticulously described in the bible for the one with eyes to see and ears to hear.
-
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Jesuites are part of the illuminati, together with the freeemasons of the scottish rite the main cause of a hypothetical world that kicked God out existence.
The globe and the heliocentric inventions are invented during the total reign of the Roman Catholic church not independent science, because that has never existed.
If the Catholic church demanded a flatearth,....it was going to be a flatearth all the way.
Copernicus lived in a private estate instaed of being burned at the stake as a heretic, the stake which trinity deniers did receive.
The Castholic church/order of the Jesuites invented the heliocentric model and the big bang.
The pope has recently stated to baptise aliens at the Vatican if they would visit earth.
Like i have pointed out in another topic it is all about the alien/evil entities that will be introduced as inhabitants of the vast universe we have become so familiar with through the Hollywood film industry.
By creating a hypothetical vast universe, life somewhere else seems very likely.
And those life forms could look like anything.
This way the devil can clog behind the ''space fantasies'' when revealing himself and his armees upon the face of this world.
All meticulously described in the bible for the one with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Wasn't Galileo imprisoned by the roman catholic church for supporting the heliocentric model?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
"The Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642."
-
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Jesuites are part of the illuminati, together with the freeemasons of the scottish rite the main cause of a hypothetical world that kicked God out existence.
The globe and the heliocentric inventions are invented during the total reign of the Roman Catholic church not independent science, because that has never existed.
If the Catholic church demanded a flatearth,....it was going to be a flatearth all the way.
Copernicus lived in a private estate instaed of being burned at the stake as a heretic, the stake which trinity deniers did receive.
The Castholic church/order of the Jesuites invented the heliocentric model and the big bang.
The pope has recently stated to baptise aliens at the Vatican if they would visit earth.
Like i have pointed out in another topic it is all about the alien/evil entities that will be introduced as inhabitants of the vast universe we have become so familiar with through the Hollywood film industry.
By creating a hypothetical vast universe, life somewhere else seems very likely.
And those life forms could look like anything.
This way the devil can clog behind the ''space fantasies'' when revealing himself and his armees upon the face of this world.
All meticulously described in the bible for the one with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Wasn't Galileo imprisoned by the roman catholic church for supporting the heliocentric model?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
"The Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642."
His house arrest was for his agressive behaviour not his views.
He presented his theory in Italian instead of Latin which offended a lot of Roman Catholics....there is much more to it though.....
In the end he was imprisoned for the rest of his life.....9 years.
They didn't kill him, if they really thought the world was flat, because it was in the bilbe, they surely would have done so.
Roman Catholics are heretics and our current cosmological model has it roots solely in the order of the Jesuits.
I don't understand why most people claim as if the Catholic church was a flatearth bastion ?
-
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Priests are not Christians they rape little boys.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/evil-catholic-priest-raped-young-10220240
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/22/priest-raped-and-molested-boy-more-than-100-times-new-lawsuit-alleges/419807001/
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Jesuites are part of the illuminati, together with the freeemasons of the scottish rite the main cause of a hypothetical world that kicked God out existence.
The globe and the heliocentric inventions are invented during the total reign of the Roman Catholic church not independent science, because that has never existed.
If the Catholic church demanded a flatearth,....it was going to be a flatearth all the way.
Copernicus lived in a private estate instaed of being burned at the stake as a heretic, the stake which trinity deniers did receive.
The Castholic church/order of the Jesuites invented the heliocentric model and the big bang.
The pope has recently stated to baptise aliens at the Vatican if they would visit earth.
Like i have pointed out in another topic it is all about the alien/evil entities that will be introduced as inhabitants of the vast universe we have become so familiar with through the Hollywood film industry.
By creating a hypothetical vast universe, life somewhere else seems very likely.
And those life forms could look like anything.
This way the devil can clog behind the ''space fantasies'' when revealing himself and his armees upon the face of this world.
All meticulously described in the bible for the one with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Wasn't Galileo imprisoned by the roman catholic church for supporting the heliocentric model?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
"The Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642."
His house arrest was for his agressive behaviour not his views.
He presented his theory in Italian instead of Latin which offended a lot of Roman Catholics....there is much more to it though.....
In the end he was imprisoned for the rest of his life.....9 years.
They didn't kill him, if they really thought the world was flat, because it was in the bilbe, they surely would have done so.
Roman Catholics are heretics and our current cosmological model has it roots solely in the order of the Jesuits.
I don't understand why most people claim as if the Catholic church was a flatearth bastion ?
The Romans where pagans.
The Romans worshipped the Sun God Helios.
The Roman Catholic Church would of welcomed the Heliocentric model with open arms as they do today.
The Roman Catholic Church changed the sabbath from Saturday to the Pagan day of the Sun which is when the Pagans would worship Helios.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Jesuites are part of the illuminati, together with the freeemasons of the scottish rite the main cause of a hypothetical world that kicked God out existence.
The globe and the heliocentric inventions are invented during the total reign of the Roman Catholic church not independent science, because that has never existed.
If the Catholic church demanded a flatearth,....it was going to be a flatearth all the way.
Copernicus lived in a private estate instaed of being burned at the stake as a heretic, the stake which trinity deniers did receive.
The Castholic church/order of the Jesuites invented the heliocentric model and the big bang.
The pope has recently stated to baptise aliens at the Vatican if they would visit earth.
Like i have pointed out in another topic it is all about the alien/evil entities that will be introduced as inhabitants of the vast universe we have become so familiar with through the Hollywood film industry.
By creating a hypothetical vast universe, life somewhere else seems very likely.
And those life forms could look like anything.
This way the devil can clog behind the ''space fantasies'' when revealing himself and his armees upon the face of this world.
All meticulously described in the bible for the one with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Wasn't Galileo imprisoned by the roman catholic church for supporting the heliocentric model?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
"The Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642."
His house arrest was for his agressive behaviour not his views.
He presented his theory in Italian instead of Latin which offended a lot of Roman Catholics....there is much more to it though.....
In the end he was imprisoned for the rest of his life.....9 years.
They didn't kill him, if they really thought the world was flat, because it was in the bilbe, they surely would have done so.
Roman Catholics are heretics and our current cosmological model has it roots solely in the order of the Jesuits.
I don't understand why most people claim as if the Catholic church was a flatearth bastion ?
The Romans where pagans.
The Romans worshipped the Sun God Helios.
The Roman Catholic Church would of welcomed the Heliocentric model with open arms as they do today.
The Roman Catholic Church changed the sabbath from Saturday to the Pagan day of the Sun which is when the Pagans would worship Helios.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I don't think that's how that worked. I think it was to celebrate the risen Christ, which happened on the first day, Sunday. I also think that change came before there was a Roman Catholic Church.
-
You say accidentally like it is a bad thing ::)
Many things were created by accident, popsicles, even babies (everyone in this forum might have been an accidents tho :P)
I meant accidentally as in ''highly improbable''.
some accidents are indeed accidents, like making a baby, but some cosmic accidents are impossible when you try to wrap your head around the currently supported hypothesis.
More so,....they are getting absurder every decade.........if we follow the evolution of our universe back in time we get an infinite density and infinitly strong gravity into a singularity that causes all current equations and models to collaps.
Something is not right here.....or should i say improbable ? ;D
Back to the drawing board,....or like i do, live by faith ?
I see no problem with how the universe might have been created, it actually make some sense (to me). great amounts of matter gathering around thanks to gravity (wich isn't just a force, but an aspect of the universe/space, a property of it.) creating stars, and consequentially these stars acting like nuclear reactors and creating more elements and when these stars die, the explosion sparce these elements through space, and this process repeats, on and on, like a system, and all that thanks to gravity. Gravity have always been there, we just don't understand it good enough.
All of this does sounds highly improbable, but once you put an actor, it becomes a staged play; who is this actor you ask? It could be God, let's get even more crazy and say that God could have been the singularity from wich the big bang emerged, the universe might be God itself, those equations that you mention are just a way to understand it, to make sense of what we see and feel.
Yes, it all sounds absurd and yes this singularity does defies what we know about the universe, but take in account that, this singularity is/was what created our universe (before the big bang there were no laws, or the ones that existed were waaay different than those we know today), therefore this singularity created our laws.
Of course that this singulariy is absurdly enough to break our laws of physics (it is supposed to do so), so does God, is what created us, but you chose to accept one and deny the other when they are the same thing: A creator, our creator.
-
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Jesuites are part of the illuminati, together with the freeemasons of the scottish rite the main cause of a hypothetical world that kicked God out existence.
The globe and the heliocentric inventions are invented during the total reign of the Roman Catholic church not independent science, because that has never existed.
If the Catholic church demanded a flatearth,....it was going to be a flatearth all the way.
Copernicus lived in a private estate instaed of being burned at the stake as a heretic, the stake which trinity deniers did receive.
The Castholic church/order of the Jesuites invented the heliocentric model and the big bang.
The pope has recently stated to baptise aliens at the Vatican if they would visit earth.
Like i have pointed out in another topic it is all about the alien/evil entities that will be introduced as inhabitants of the vast universe we have become so familiar with through the Hollywood film industry.
By creating a hypothetical vast universe, life somewhere else seems very likely.
And those life forms could look like anything.
This way the devil can clog behind the ''space fantasies'' when revealing himself and his armees upon the face of this world.
All meticulously described in the bible for the one with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Wasn't Galileo imprisoned by the roman catholic church for supporting the heliocentric model?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
"The Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642."
His house arrest was for his agressive behaviour not his views.
He presented his theory in Italian instead of Latin which offended a lot of Roman Catholics....there is much more to it though.....
In the end he was imprisoned for the rest of his life.....9 years.
They didn't kill him, if they really thought the world was flat, because it was in the bilbe, they surely would have done so.
Roman Catholics are heretics and our current cosmological model has it roots solely in the order of the Jesuits.
I don't understand why most people claim as if the Catholic church was a flatearth bastion ?
The Romans where pagans.
The Romans worshipped the Sun God Helios.
The Roman Catholic Church would of welcomed the Heliocentric model with open arms as they do today.
The Roman Catholic Church changed the sabbath from Saturday to the Pagan day of the Sun which is when the Pagans would worship Helios.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I don't think that's how that worked. I think it was to celebrate the risen Christ, which happened on the first day, Sunday. I also think that change came before there was a Roman Catholic Church.
Incorrect.
https://www.sabbathtruth.com/free-resources/article-library/id/916/catholic-church-admits-they-made-the-change
These Roman Catholics and most modern Christians do not keep Gods laws.
The Ten Commandments.
This is because the majority of modern Christianity comes from the Roman Catholic Church
This is because the Romans where Pagans.
This is because the Romans worshipped Helios.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Jesuites are part of the illuminati, together with the freeemasons of the scottish rite the main cause of a hypothetical world that kicked God out existence.
The globe and the heliocentric inventions are invented during the total reign of the Roman Catholic church not independent science, because that has never existed.
If the Catholic church demanded a flatearth,....it was going to be a flatearth all the way.
Copernicus lived in a private estate instaed of being burned at the stake as a heretic, the stake which trinity deniers did receive.
The Castholic church/order of the Jesuites invented the heliocentric model and the big bang.
The pope has recently stated to baptise aliens at the Vatican if they would visit earth.
Like i have pointed out in another topic it is all about the alien/evil entities that will be introduced as inhabitants of the vast universe we have become so familiar with through the Hollywood film industry.
By creating a hypothetical vast universe, life somewhere else seems very likely.
And those life forms could look like anything.
This way the devil can clog behind the ''space fantasies'' when revealing himself and his armees upon the face of this world.
All meticulously described in the bible for the one with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Wasn't Galileo imprisoned by the roman catholic church for supporting the heliocentric model?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
"The Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642."
His house arrest was for his agressive behaviour not his views.
He presented his theory in Italian instead of Latin which offended a lot of Roman Catholics....there is much more to it though.....
In the end he was imprisoned for the rest of his life.....9 years.
They didn't kill him, if they really thought the world was flat, because it was in the bilbe, they surely would have done so.
Roman Catholics are heretics and our current cosmological model has it roots solely in the order of the Jesuits.
I don't understand why most people claim as if the Catholic church was a flatearth bastion ?
The Romans where pagans.
The Romans worshipped the Sun God Helios.
The Roman Catholic Church would of welcomed the Heliocentric model with open arms as they do today.
The Roman Catholic Church changed the sabbath from Saturday to the Pagan day of the Sun which is when the Pagans would worship Helios.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I don't think that's how that worked. I think it was to celebrate the risen Christ, which happened on the first day, Sunday. I also think that change came before there was a Roman Catholic Church.
Incorrect.
https://www.sabbathtruth.com/free-resources/article-library/id/916/catholic-church-admits-they-made-the-change
These Roman Catholics and most modern Christians do not keep Gods laws.
The Ten Commandments.
This is because the majority of modern Christianity comes from the Roman Catholic Church
This is because the Romans where Pagans.
This is because the Romans worshipped Helios.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
There are a couple of problems with that site. I have never seen another source claim Constantine was a bishop. He supported Christianity but he also supported other religions, at least until later in his reign. He was not baptized until pretty much his death bed.
Anyway, he did give Christians permission to celebrate on the first day of the week after they asked. But they had likely already been doing this for a while. They would do the sabbath and then meet the next day.
That being said I am always Leary of people who claim to know whether someone else is a real Christian, or Jew, or whatever. You are not given that authority.
-
Don't these religious nuts know that a priest was the first to come up with what later became known as the big bang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Jesuites are part of the illuminati, together with the freeemasons of the scottish rite the main cause of a hypothetical world that kicked God out existence.
The globe and the heliocentric inventions are invented during the total reign of the Roman Catholic church not independent science, because that has never existed.
If the Catholic church demanded a flatearth,....it was going to be a flatearth all the way.
Copernicus lived in a private estate instaed of being burned at the stake as a heretic, the stake which trinity deniers did receive.
The Castholic church/order of the Jesuites invented the heliocentric model and the big bang.
The pope has recently stated to baptise aliens at the Vatican if they would visit earth.
Like i have pointed out in another topic it is all about the alien/evil entities that will be introduced as inhabitants of the vast universe we have become so familiar with through the Hollywood film industry.
By creating a hypothetical vast universe, life somewhere else seems very likely.
And those life forms could look like anything.
This way the devil can clog behind the ''space fantasies'' when revealing himself and his armees upon the face of this world.
All meticulously described in the bible for the one with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Wasn't Galileo imprisoned by the roman catholic church for supporting the heliocentric model?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
"The Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642."
His house arrest was for his agressive behaviour not his views.
He presented his theory in Italian instead of Latin which offended a lot of Roman Catholics....there is much more to it though.....
In the end he was imprisoned for the rest of his life.....9 years.
They didn't kill him, if they really thought the world was flat, because it was in the bilbe, they surely would have done so.
Roman Catholics are heretics and our current cosmological model has it roots solely in the order of the Jesuits.
I don't understand why most people claim as if the Catholic church was a flatearth bastion ?
The Romans where pagans.
The Romans worshipped the Sun God Helios.
The Roman Catholic Church would of welcomed the Heliocentric model with open arms as they do today.
The Roman Catholic Church changed the sabbath from Saturday to the Pagan day of the Sun which is when the Pagans would worship Helios.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I don't think that's how that worked. I think it was to celebrate the risen Christ, which happened on the first day, Sunday. I also think that change came before there was a Roman Catholic Church.
Incorrect.
https://www.sabbathtruth.com/free-resources/article-library/id/916/catholic-church-admits-they-made-the-change
These Roman Catholics and most modern Christians do not keep Gods laws.
The Ten Commandments.
This is because the majority of modern Christianity comes from the Roman Catholic Church
This is because the Romans where Pagans.
This is because the Romans worshipped Helios.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
There are a couple of problems with that site. I have never seen another source claim Constantine was a bishop. He supported Christianity but he also supported other religions, at least until later in his reign. He was not baptized until pretty much his death bed.
Anyway, he did give Christians permission to celebrate on the first day of the week after they asked. But they had likely already been doing this for a while. They would do the sabbath and then meet the next day.
That being said I am always Leary of people who claim to know whether someone else is a real Christian, or Jew, or whatever. You are not given that authority.
God gave us the scripture and laid down the law which is very clear.
Individuals who choose to willfully break these laws such as most modern Christians are not obeying the word of God.
They are breaking commandment one two and four every time they worship.
They therefore are not real Christian's.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
God gave us the scripture and laid down the law which is very clear.
Individuals who choose to willfully break these laws such as most modern Christians are not obeying the word of God.
They are breaking commandment one two and four every time they worship.
They therefore are not real Christian's.
So you are now judging all who claim to be Christians and deciding yourself who does and does not "qualify".
That is not for you to say. Matthew 7:1-3, King James Version (KJV)- Judge not, that ye be not judged.
- For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
- And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
James 4:12
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
-
God gave us the scripture and laid down the law which is very clear.
Individuals who choose to willfully break these laws such as most modern Christians are not obeying the word of God.
They are breaking commandment one two and four every time they worship.
They therefore are not real Christian's.
So you are now judging all who claim to be Christians and deciding yourself who does and does not "qualify".
That is not for you to say. Matthew 7:1-3, King James Version (KJV)- Judge not, that ye be not judged.
- For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
- And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
James 4:12
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?
I'm not judging them.
I have not said they are marked for death ect because as you say who am I to judge my fellow man.
I have just said that is the scripture and it is very clear to anyone that reads it and they do not adhere to it.
They would rather listen to a Peadofile/Jesuit speak about carefully selected parts of the scripture.
So they are not real Christian's.
This is why Jesus gave the real Christian's these clear instructions.
Matthew 6:6
But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
-
Some people like the Harry Potter historical records...
Me? I was always partial to Tolkien.