Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.

None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.

I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.

The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.

TO LONESTAR: Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.

Just one question, please explain in your own words how you know the light traveled 13 billion light years, and not, say 6 billion light years. (this should be good)

Quick!!! Hurry!!! Do your frantic search for an answer! Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...

I shouldn't play your little ego games, but its too easy to make you look like a fool, and you deserve it for asking the question with such condescension.

No search needed, as I already answered this the post you quoted. You're reading comprehension must not be what you think it is. (I'll give you a hint: IT'S DEFINITIONAL). I don't even have to know C. It's right there in the definition for a light-year. A light-year is defined as the distance light will travel in a year, therefore if the distance between a star and an object is X light-years, it will, by definition, take X years for light leaving the star to reach that object. Therefore, the light from a star that is 13 billion light-years away, will take 13 Billion years to reach us. If it took 6 billion years, then it is six billion years away. Relativity is only important if you are talking about an observer either on the beam of light, in which case no passage of time is felt at all, or approaching the speed of light, in which case time asymptotically nears zero movement as your mass would become infinite.

This is boring. At least ask something that is difficult, or stop trying to "stump" me for your own egotistical ends so we can try on move on with this discussion.

Nice try, but you didn't answer the question. How do you know that the light you are seeing from a specific star actually took 13 billion years to get here? How have you calculated the distance the star is from the earth?

 

[UltimateReality]

UR, so what if science keeps changing their minds about things, at least they're looking for the truth, you're just sitting back on your simpleton couch repeating how your invisible god made everything because the universe is too complex for you to wrap your rigid mind around.
What IDers do is ASSUME, with no proof, that there's a god who made all of this. Do you also think that the earth is flat?

Sure Hollie. You guys really need to come up with your own material.

 

[UltimateReality]

UR: "And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents."

So because we figured something out, we are gods? Bra, you make no sense.

Your logic is severely lacking. You don't understand the definition of intelligence. SETI does though.

 

[UltimateReality]

cool video, thanks, but i'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.

None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so i am going to try to explain this very clearly.

I asked ywc how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then i got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... No shit. Now, here we are with you telling me i need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.

The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.

to lonestar: Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, necessarily, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.

yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.

You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.

that's an odd claim coming from a religious zealot who can offer no better evidence for his gods than the greeks could offer for theirs.

liar.

 

[UltimateReality]

These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
If not at the beginning of life then when?

They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.

They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.

The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.

If you choose to educate yourself with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

Most likely another lie.

 

[newpolitics]

Just one question, please explain in your own words how you know the light traveled 13 billion light years, and not, say 6 billion light years. (this should be good)

Quick!!! Hurry!!! Do your frantic search for an answer! Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock...

I shouldn't play your little ego games, but its too easy to make you look like a fool, and you deserve it for asking the question with such condescension.

No search needed, as I already answered this the post you quoted. You're reading comprehension must not be what you think it is. (I'll give you a hint: IT'S DEFINITIONAL). I don't even have to know C. It's right there in the definition for a light-year. A light-year is defined as the distance light will travel in a year, therefore if the distance between a star and an object is X light-years, it will, by definition, take X years for light leaving the star to reach that object. Therefore, the light from a star that is 13 billion light-years away, will take 13 Billion years to reach us. If it took 6 billion years, then it is six billion years away. Relativity is only important if you are talking about an observer either on the beam of light, in which case no passage of time is felt at all, or approaching the speed of light, in which case time asymptotically nears zero movement as your mass would become infinite.

This is boring. At least ask something that is difficult, or stop trying to "stump" me for your own egotistical ends so we can try on move on with this discussion.

Nice try, but you didn't answer the question. How do you know that the light you are seeing from a specific star actually took 13 billion years to get here? How have you calculated the distance the star is from the earth?

Are you questioning the methodology of astronomers? If so, on what basis?

 

[UltimateReality]

Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.

If you choose to educate yourself with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.

 

[newpolitics]

yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.

You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.

that's an odd claim coming from a religious zealot who can offer no better evidence for his gods than the greeks could offer for theirs.

liar.

This is absolutely true. You have no more evidence for your god than the Greek's did for theirs, Muslims for theirs, Hindu's for theirs, etc...

 

[UltimateReality]

God, that looks like us, sits on a gold throne and creates everything.
If there was anything that ever qualified as "flawed" scientifically the above claim would be.
That one is #1 flawed argument.

The Bible says God is Spirit. If he exists outside of matter, space, time and energy, what would ever make you think that he "looks" like anything you know or that he can "sit" anywhere. Have you been listening to Red Neck Theologians?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

There is no evidence that your particular gawds or anyone else's gawds were involved.

The fact is, a still young science is showing that gawds are simply not a requirement for existence. You fail to understand that your gawds are simply the more recent configuration of earlier supernatural entities that have been abandoned due to humanity shedding the fear and superstition you choose to embrace. Your gawds are little more than a consolidation of earlier Greek gawds. For conveniences' sake, many gawds have been relegated to inconsequential tasks or have been fired for being obsolete. We now have only a few gawds who themselves have been relegated to menial tasks as knowledge and enlightenment has reduced their workload and relevance.

You have nothing but pseudo-science.

Which takes as much if not more faith to believe in.

 

[newpolitics]

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.

Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.

Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.

 

[UltimateReality]

Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.

If you choose to educate yourself with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is assumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

I understand that you're in denial of demonstrable science and you can continue to deny in favor of supernaturalism but your argument is just more creationist babble.

Which of the gods came first in the hierarchy of gods, super-gods, etc. which were the designer gods of your gods?

How many times can you repeat this same question?? It has been answered for you numerous times in this thread and your flawed logic still can't grasp it. If you are going to reference Theology, then you have to accept the logic contained in theology which is perfectly sound for why God doesn't have a beginning. You have proven time and again you just can't refrain from regurgitating the same tired arguments. We were all here when you were owned on this the first time. Do you think any of us have forgotten about it? You just aren't too bright sometimes. And you are a


LIAR. Why can't you just admit you lied about my cut and pastes from Harun Yahya???

 

[UltimateReality]

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

Nice dodge. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia has been shown to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica,...

 

[UltimateReality]

I shouldn't play your little ego games, but its too easy to make you look like a fool, and you deserve it for asking the question with such condescension.

No search needed, as I already answered this the post you quoted. You're reading comprehension must not be what you think it is. (I'll give you a hint: IT'S DEFINITIONAL). I don't even have to know C. It's right there in the definition for a light-year. A light-year is defined as the distance light will travel in a year, therefore if the distance between a star and an object is X light-years, it will, by definition, take X years for light leaving the star to reach that object. Therefore, the light from a star that is 13 billion light-years away, will take 13 Billion years to reach us. If it took 6 billion years, then it is six billion years away. Relativity is only important if you are talking about an observer either on the beam of light, in which case no passage of time is felt at all, or approaching the speed of light, in which case time asymptotically nears zero movement as your mass would become infinite.

This is boring. At least ask something that is difficult, or stop trying to "stump" me for your own egotistical ends so we can try on move on with this discussion.

Nice try, but you didn't answer the question. How do you know that the light you are seeing from a specific star actually took 13 billion years to get here? How have you calculated the distance the star is from the earth?

Are you questioning the methodology of astronomers? If so, on what basis?

No, I am questioning your understanding of it. How do you know how far a star is from the earth?

 

[Hollie]

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is assumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

I understand that you're in denial of demonstrable science and you can continue to deny in favor of supernaturalism but your argument is just more creationist babble.

Which of the gods came first in the hierarchy of gods, super-gods, etc. which were the designer gods of your gods?

How many times can you repeat this same question?? It has been answered for you numerous times in this thread and your flawed logic still can't grasp it. If you are going to reference Theology, then you have to accept the logic contained in theology which is perfectly sound for why God doesn't have a beginning. You have proven time and again you just can't refrain from regurgitating the same tired arguments. We were all here when you were owned on this the first time. Do you think any of us have forgotten about it? You just aren't too bright sometimes. And you are a


LIAR. Why can't you just admit you lied about my cut and pastes from Harun Yahya???

I'm afraid you're simply reiterating Christian creationist dogma. I have no reason to accept your absurd claims that your gawds are excused from the very standard of existence you insist must be applied to the rational world. Your droning on about a special exception for your gawds is ridiculous.

You need to go elsewhere and thump people with your bibles and fraudulent claims.

 

[UltimateReality]

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

The old soup fairy tale. Newsflash: This has been totally discredited since the odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins are about 1 in 1 x 10 to the 146. There are only 1 x 10 to the 80 atomic particles in the entire visible universe.

Wow, that is really false. This is has been demonstrated in the Miller-Urey Experiments, which I am now mentioning for the fifth time, and I don't really care that you don't consider these experiments sound. The improvements to make them more like proto-earth actually produced more amino acids than the original experiment, further falsifying your claim.

Have you not heard that amino acids have been found on meteorites? This is evidence that amino acids are not rare at all, and are easily formable throughout our entire universe. Its only a matter of statistics that they find the right conditions to produce life, and we find ourselves in one of those places. Undoubtedly, there are countless other places with life in the universe.

NP, I am really tired of arguing with you. Yes, in the past I have put you down after you attacked me. However, the more I read your posts the more I have compassion for you and how lost you really are. If you are truly interested in this subject matter, I would suggest you take a class on it. It is obvious from your posts you have cobbled information together from websites you have read and you lack formal training. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that under specific conditions, amino acids could form. Now, even admittedly in your own post, this has been disproven by the fact the early atmosphere was nothing like the one in their experiments. And you missed my point entirely. I was talking about proteins, which are made from amino acids and have to be specifically ordered in order to function. There is no possibility they "floated" together or hooked up in the precise order it takes for them to function. Chance and Necessity have been thrown out as a possible explanation for the first proteins.

 

[UltimateReality]

I understand that you're in denial of demonstrable science and you can continue to deny in favor of supernaturalism but your argument is just more creationist babble.

Which of the gods came first in the hierarchy of gods, super-gods, etc. which were the designer gods of your gods?

How many times can you repeat this same question?? It has been answered for you numerous times in this thread and your flawed logic still can't grasp it. If you are going to reference Theology, then you have to accept the logic contained in theology which is perfectly sound for why God doesn't have a beginning. You have proven time and again you just can't refrain from regurgitating the same tired arguments. We were all here when you were owned on this the first time. Do you think any of us have forgotten about it? You just aren't too bright sometimes. And you are a


LIAR. Why can't you just admit you lied about my cut and pastes from Harun Yahya???

I'm afraid you're simply reiterating Christian creationist dogma. I have no reason to accept your absurd claims that your gawds are excused from the very standard of existence you insist must be applied to the rational world. Your droning on about a special exception for your gawds is ridiculous.

You need to go elsewhere and thump people with your bibles and fraudulent claims.

Why won't you just admit you lied about me cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya?

"And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."

Believe me, you will feel better if you come clean.

 

[UltimateReality]

that's an odd claim coming from a religious zealot who can offer no better evidence for his gods than the greeks could offer for theirs.

liar.

This is absolutely true. You have no more evidence for your god than the Greek's did for theirs, Muslims for theirs, Hindu's for theirs, etc...

Lie. I have digital code in DNA which was written billions of years ago and is very recent discovery. It irrefutably points to an Intelligent Designer. I also have the Big Bang, which supports the Bible and the fact the universe and time had a beginning. The Greeks didn't have this and it just so happens the Big Bang lines up perfectly with Christian Theology.

 

[newpolitics]

Nice try, but you didn't answer the question. How do you know that the light you are seeing from a specific star actually took 13 billion years to get here? How have you calculated the distance the star is from the earth?

Are you questioning the methodology of astronomers? If so, on what basis?

No, I am questioning your understanding of it. How do you know how far a star is from the earth?

I would have thought my asking question the I did, would have implicitly answered this. I got my measurements from astronomers, who, over the last 500 years, have figured a few things out. So, I'll ask again, do you question their methodology? Because, if you aren't, then I don't understand the point in your asking me this question.

 

[newpolitics]

liar.

This is absolutely true. You have no more evidence for your god than the Greek's did for theirs, Muslims for theirs, Hindu's for theirs, etc...

Lie. I have digital code in DNA which was written billions of years ago and is very recent discovery. It irrefutably points to an Intelligent Designer. I also have the Big Bang, which supports the Bible and the fact the universe and time had a beginning. The Greeks didn't have this and it just so happens the Big Bang lines up perfectly with Christian Theology.

I understand that you have concluded illogically that because DNA is a BINARY code, that it must be created by a designer, but this is simply an erroneous conclusion based off of the data, and one which uses pure inductive reasoning without any deductive reasoning to reach said conclusion. That is not science.