What is the origin of earth?

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 06, 2017, 06:13:27 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 06, 2017, 05:16:50 PM

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 06, 2017, 05:11:00 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 06, 2017, 04:31:32 PM

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 06, 2017, 03:41:46 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 06, 2017, 02:54:06 PM

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 06, 2017, 02:38:23 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 06, 2017, 02:32:41 PM

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. 

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

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 ?

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 06, 2017, 07:18:54 PM

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

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 06, 2017, 07:22:13 PM

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 06, 2017, 07:18:54 PM

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.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 07, 2017, 02:21:02 AM

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.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 07, 2017, 05:32:49 AM

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.

 

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.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on August 07, 2017, 05:48:37 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 07, 2017, 05:32:49 AM

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.

 

Please, discuss that in your own thread, this thread is to discuss the origin and age of the universe.

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 06, 2017, 05:11:00 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 06, 2017, 04:31:32 PM

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 06, 2017, 03:41:46 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 06, 2017, 02:54:06 PM

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 06, 2017, 02:38:23 PM

Quote from: Silicon on August 06, 2017, 02:32:41 PM

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 

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.

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 07, 2017, 11:28:24 AM

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 

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.

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 07, 2017, 11:28:24 AM

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 

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.



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.



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:



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:

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 07, 2017, 01:03:49 PM

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 07, 2017, 11:28:24 AM

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 

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.



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.



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:



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:

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 ?

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.

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 06, 2017, 05:11:00 PM

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.

Quote from: observer on August 07, 2017, 02:41:20 PM

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 06, 2017, 05:11:00 PM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

Regarding modern medicine it is not based on evolution .

Quote

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

Quote

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

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.

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 07, 2017, 02:28:48 PM

Quote

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.

Quote

Regarding modern medicine it is not based on evolution .

Quote

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

Quote

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

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.

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 07, 2017, 02:28:48 PM

Quote

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.

Quote

Regarding modern medicine it is not based on evolution .

Quote

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

Quote

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

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.