If God doesn't exist...

[Boss]

And you know a small part of me believes that karma bullshit so even I'm spiritual.

Imagine when paleo or mono or cro Magnum man first tapped into spirituality. I'm sure everything good was a gift and every bad thing a punishment.

I don't think any of the modern religions will be around 1000 years from now. We're getting too smart too fast. But in 1000 years people will still be spiritual.

Well a large part of you should believe the karma bullshit but you should simply define it as spiritual. The same applies to love. Love is spiritual. Some will argue that love is an emotion triggered by chemical reactions in the brain but that is backward thinking. Chemical reactions in the brain are triggered by the spiritual recognition of love.

I am glad you are now using phrases like "tapped into spirituality" as opposed to "invented" because that shows you've progressed in your thinking. You're beginning to understand that we could not have invented it and that's good on your part. The next thing I'd like you to focus on is this concept of "good" and "bad" and what that actually means. How did we come up with what is good and bad?

You see... If I live in the jungle and I'm hungry, in need of food, and you have food... it's good for me to take your food even if I need to kill you to do so. Or if I have a family of offspring and you are in my territory, it might be good for me to eliminate the potential threat you pose by killing you. So what happened to change our primal instincts so dynamically and cause us to create a moral code of "good and bad" that persists to this day?

Some will argue, well it was a mutually cooperative thing where we realized it was better to get along... but I don't buy that because it would have been just like today, some people would have adopted that idea and others would have rejected it. Screw that noise, I'll steal your food and kill you if I need to.... self preservation baby! When you accept spirituality the answer becomes more clear... We became aware of something greater than ourselves.

Our spiritual connection guides us on a path toward good and away from evil. We are hard-wired with the conception of good and evil because we are spiritual creatures who make a spiritual connection to something beyond ourselves... a greater good.

 

[zaangalewa]

My first word was mother on Swedish

mor, moder, mutter, mamma, mamsen or morsa?

then father=isa then one more closer to 3 year old.

"Isä" is Suomi. Did you call your mother "mutteri"? - this would be as well Suomi and Swedish.

Then my Finnish breaks down. Father drive back to Finland.

Okay - but maybe reality and imagination are the same for you. Reality-imagination-and-same-are-you-for? It's a little strange situation for me, because I should have no problems to understand a swedish way of life. But I have great problems to understand what you say and how you feel and think. Why is this so?

 

[zaangalewa]

So where did life originate? Why do you exist? Where are you going? Why are you here? How do you know this?

Oh my "god." Go back to grade school and learn about evolution, will ya?

LittleNipper

Short intermezzo and some dirty and quick explanations:

Q:Where did life originate?
A: The theory of evolution is able to say "in a first cell", because every lifeform has a common ancestor with every other lifeform. Saint Francis would say: "We are all brothers and sisters" like brother worm and sister bee for example.

Q: Why do you exist?
A: The theory of evolution is not able to give here an answer.

Q: Where are you going?
A: For the theory of evolution life is only able to exist in combination with death - while paradise and heaven are a place full of life without death.

Q: Why are you here?
A: The theory of evolution denies the existance of plans (teleology) in nature. The philosophy of the theory of evolution would say: We are on no special reason here in this world and we go a way without any definable end, except the end of the own life.

Q: How do you know this?
A: We know something in natural science because we agree on plausible reasons (in mathematics for example) or because we are able to ask the reality all around (for example in experiments). In biology for example we compare similiar structures and categorize this structures. For example we compare the hand of a Gorilla with the hand of a human being and try to find the common elements and the different elements. The more common elements and the less different elements the more is something like we are. A Gorilla is more similiar (near) - a bee and a worm are not so similiar (far).
The very big problem of the theory of evolution are the experiments in genetics because all lifeforms on our planet are using the same code for reproduction. Nature makes changes littlest step by littlest step. We make it ... I fear "crazy". I personally don't have the impression in the Eldorado "genetics" is a good knowledge really existing. Sometimes I have in this context the imagination children are playing with fire in a dry barn full of dry straw surrounded from a dry world without exit.

Fatal flaw in the ToE

TOE Theory of Everything
TOE TCP/IP Offload Engine
TOE Table of Elements
TOE Tales of Eternia (game)
TOE Term of Enlistment
TOE Transesophageal Echocardiogram
TOE Tonne of Oil Equivalent
TOE Telephone Outage Emergency (Emergency Alert System Code)
TOE Total Ownership Experience
TOE Time of Event
TOE Table of Organization & Equipment
TOE Total Operating Expense(s)
TOE Task, Object, Event (computer programming)
TOE Threaded One End
TOE Test of Effectiveness (Sarbanes-Oxley compliance)
TOE Target Operating Environment
TOE Timing-Offset Estimation
TOE Trial of Entrance (gaming clan recruitment)
TOE Troops, Organization & Equipment
TOE Time Operating Efficiency
TOE Tri Ocean Engineering
TOE Training on Errors (machine learning)
TOE Technical Operations Expert
TOE Transfer of Equity (finance)
TOE Theory of Evolution
TOE Through Other Eyes (UK)
TOE Target of Evaluation

Guess I got it. So you said something like: "Verhängnisvoll fehlerbehaftet im Sinne des zu evaluierenden Zieles".

because it's hypotheses.

Give me the exact words of this what you think what the hypothese is.

Life did not originate from a first cell

That's the only solution if every living multi-cellular organism has with every other multi-cellular organism a common ancestor. If you have a better solution say it. (Don't forget: What came before the first living cell is not part of biology but part of chemistry)

or else we would be seeing this happen all around us just from one cell. This is not testable experimentally either.

The experiment in this case we call "fossils" and "pedigress". Physics is using methods of physics. Biology is using methods of biology. If we could explain biology only with methods of physics it would be physics. The hierarchy is: physics -> chemistry -> biology.

One can't even make protein from all the amino acids found in space, and it won't happen even if you can wait millions of years.
.
.
.

It happened.

To change the subject a bit, I saw Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice tonight and after the movie checked out an artist named Cleon Peterson.

Batman and Superman are products of the spirit of artists. Cleon Peterson?

His street artist art was hanging in the museum used for Lex Luther's party. Peterson uses Graeco-Roman vase style drawings depicting violence and brutality in basic black and white colors

Black and white are the colors of the german knights. Graeco-roman vases are beautiful. Both I see positive.

and sometimes red.

It is remarkable how much he is able to express just using those colors. He says, "“I call these guys the shadows. It kind of represents the dark side of all of us.”

I don't know the context now but the backround black and white and the color red don't express agressions.

His art depicts a world in which violence exists without context. And he’s not afraid to show the uglier side of humanity. He continues, “That world is today. People today, in the US especially, have become non-participatory as far as what’s going on in the world. Yes, we see violence and war in the media but people don’t feel like it’s your life – or has anything to do with you, but of course we are very much part of it.” It's why we need the death penalty.

Cleon Peterson

No one needs death penalty.

ToE = Theory of Evolution. Did you get toe jammed? It's your hypotheses.

The three letters "ToE" = "Theory of evolution" are only understandable in the context - and not absolute - of this what you speak about. I think in other ways. Knowledge needs always a context. And "Hypothese" seems to be different for me too. A hypothese needs variabels and constants and a way how to be able to falsify it.

I already gave you one "major" hypothesis using your single-cell remark. You followed it up with an untruth.

As far as I remember was my "untruth" to ask you something.

To get from single to multiple cell organisms, then you need building blocks of protein.

First were single cells - then came multicellular organisms. So there was a way, independent from this what I know about. I guess the way was not simple, because there are some billion years between the first cells and the first multicellular organisms. But the complexity of multicellular organism and the biodiversity on planet Earth grew very fast afterwards.

Science has demonstrated that "within" a single cell, protein is formed. Do you see how great God is? How did this happen outside a single-cell in outer space? The creation scientists have already explained how this is impossible to have occurred.

...

I don't live in a fight with the theory of evolution nor do I live only a little in a fight with god.

If you look at Cleon Peterson's other works, he depicts these things happening in poorer neighborhoods. That's where the red comes in. The poor want and deserve justice and the death penalty for their suffering violence and brutality on a regular basis.

Death Penalty is in the situation of the modern world today nothing else than pure nonsense. We saw: It was not good - and so we removed it. The last execution here was 35 years ago. I hope we never will have a regression into this form of addictive disorder of masses of human beings.
Somehow to discuss about remembers me in the moment how a friend of Saint Augustine had gigantic problems not to watch the gladiators in the circus, where they murdered so many people. Against his own free will he had to go often to this extremly violent games. But this time is over. One day also the time of death penalty will be over. Best is to stop today with it. Now. Immediatelly. Let death penalty not poison any longer your mind and heart.



Tu nicht, als wenn du Tausende von Jahren zu leben hättest. Der Tod schwebt über deinem Haupte. So lange du noch lebst, so lange du noch kannst, sei ein rechtschaffener Mensch.
Mark Aurel

Do not act as if you were going to live ten thousand years. Death hangs over you. While you live, while it is in your power, be good.
Marcus Aurelius

 

[zaangalewa]

... Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.

We can't compare her feet to the tracks found. There are no foot bones! Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. ...

Cleveland Museum of natural history: What your scientists found in Africa and what they reconstructed. Looks very good and plausible as far as I am able to see. And I don't have any idea about, how someone is able not to see the similarity between human beings and this "ape" - if it was an ape.

Under our skin we are all Africans: we are all Africa.

 

[forkup]

I'll make a couple of points here.
1. How do you explain the starfilled sky?
2. "Even their names are based on geography, not time." , think that's stretching the truth quite a bit
Archean time period from the Greek for beginning.
Protorezoic time period Greek for earlier life
Phanerozoic time period Greek for visible life. the list goes on but you get my drift.
3. If you claim science supress data I would like proof of that statement. Not "If there were ape-like fossils found, then it would be ignored by evos"
4. The fact that you admit to these layers, proves my point that the earth is older then 6000 years. Fossilazation in itself is a process wich is understood to take a minimum of 10000 years. Coal, oil are known to be biological in origin. and take hundred of thousands of years minimally, a few exeptions not withstanding. These are natural processes know and understood by science.
5. Ill make this point again. I can use different tracks to disprove a young earth. You might say they're both believe systems, but my belief system does seem to offer a tremendous amount of cooberating facts. I accept since you have faith you don't feel the need to prove what you belief. But if, and I'm talking about creatonism, you feel the need to use the Bible as the ultimate proof in a scientific world. I think it reasonable that the bible needs to go trough the same scrutiny as any scientific theory before you can actually put it in a classroom for instance.

1. I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time. NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic. Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
2. With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location. Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places. The names follow Occam's Razor -- The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.
3. I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists. Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.

One of the best known “human ancestors” is an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton called Lucy. What does she look like? A human skull? Uhh... no.

This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:

4. Nope. The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism. There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
5. I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours. It does not have to be in detail.

.1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.

1. Oh, that's what you meant. LOL. This has been answered by science and math.

The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation. Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998). If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas. However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe. This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.

Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away? Please answer.

Here is what I learned in school. Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point. This is what surveyors do.

What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away. At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth. This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes. So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright? This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.

So what's the problem? The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem. How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth? Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter. We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away. It is the narrow triangle problem.

Are you following me? You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms. Just how do you do that?

2. I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference. It sounds like circular reasoning. The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago. The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago. When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?

.What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed. Occam's razor.

3 and 4. What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?

1. The narrow triangle problem is solved from making 2 measurements 6 months spread AKA at a different time in its orbit. The point is not like you suggest 8000 miles but rather the orbital distance of the Earth traveling around the Sun. In other words the earth as a vastly different position in space in 6 months . Methods of Measuring Stellar Distances
This links describes in 3 other methods used in detail.
2. So you think it's bioligist deciding how to name strata? You flipped your argument btw. First it was the naming is geographical now it's, because it's not geograpical it's Biological it has to be a conspiracy. And let's look at the fossil record alot of it is buried deep and I mean very deep in the floor, 6000 years is a hell of a short time to bury something in some cases 2000 meters in the ground and turn it into stone. Do you have any idea what natural phenomona would be able to do that?
3. I've made this point alot already but I'll say it again. I've given you multiple proofs and by no means all of them, in different branches of science, going from astronomy to geoligy,physics, chemistry, etc. So far the best you've come back with is that either my data is wrong, altough it's accepted by an OVERWHELMING majority in the scientific world, or it's a conspiracy of the scientific community.I have kept my explanations general and simple to give you room to ask questions and I've answered nearly all of them In return you have given me nothing but some very conveluted assumptions from ppl lived for 950 years in Biblical times to the naming of strata proves geoligist don't accept evolution because some layers are named for locations. Or it's a conspiracy.At no point where you able to give any real accepted scientific data to cooberate this. As i said before you are entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to say, that those beliefs don't stand the test of reality as science does.

1. The methods would not work because as in the how to thread I gave you only considered space and distance. When traveling at the speed of light (c), then It would involve spactime and distance which is something we do not quite understand yet. For example, if we looked at 2-dimensional flatlander beings, then they would not understand depth. All they could measure is length and width. Time is definitely a factor because if you went into space in a rocket that could travel at c, for one year, then when you returned we would have aged thirty years while you aged one. There is the problem of spacetime. I can demonstrate these things to you with today's technology. However, we still do not know how it affects the distance calculations even if you could overcome the narrow triangle problem.
2. I didn't flip anything. When evo science states that the rock layers represent time, then they are using circular reasoning when one actually sees what the are doing with fossils and the rock layer. Then there is the problem not knowing the amount of daughter nuclides we started with using radiometric dating. Today, the media explains how millions and billions of years old these things are in almost every news article. If it was "fact," then we would already know and the media would not have to keep convincing us. On top of all this, radiometric dating is only considered correct if it falls within a certain time period. If the dating is considered outside the time period, then it is discarded. It is biased to say the least. All of the results should be discarded.
3. I brought up Lucy and "250" fossils which doesn't explain they're human fossils because they're just fragments. The picture above showed 16 of them. The other problem with evolution and the sciences that you mention is money. Money skews these scientists into finding evidence for one side, and only one side. Other arguments evos use are the Laetoli footprints which are part of the famous footprint trail discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey’s team at Laetoli, Tanzania. This represents the cementing evidence for bipedalism in a trail of ash dated to 3.5 millions years ago. It shows the tracks of two hominids were captured for a distance of nearly eighty feet. The problem with this is that 3.5 million years predates the other "alleged" hominid fossils of out human ancestors. Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.

We can't compare her feet to the tracks found. There are no foot bones! Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. This is the overwhelming evidence that you describe.

Is it any wonder that a whole generation was deceived into believing the Piltdown Man? It's just more evolutionary ca-ca.

1. There where 3 other ways they use to measure distance of stars. You can try to attack and i do mean try 1 of them. But if you come up with a result on 4 occasions using 4 seperate methods. Why do you feel you can insist that somehow the data is wrong? The same can be said for are enitre argument btw. I can use a bunch of different ways to prove the earth is older then 6000 years old. I don't really have to look for specific counterargument on Creasonist websites. Nore do I have to revert to speude scientific hogwash like your space time argument is. Space time has nothing to do with observing distant stars. Or galaxies for that matter. 6000 Ligtyears is barely our frontdoor in galactic terms, you can't just blow past that.
2. I already refuted your ncleide argument using your own link no less, since he said there is outside confermation by observing super nova. But lets forget that there's a bunch of other dating methods.
Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
radiometrics is only one of them and I kow you think wikipedia is biased but I'm very sure this is fact.
3. Bipedalism is actually usually established from how the hip is formed, you don't need feet to prove it.
As to your Money issue. The Creationist musuem is by no means a mom and pop type of place. Creationist also have considerable political clout since half the Republican establishment for Southern consumption sais it supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there states in the US that actually try to circumvent the supreme courts decision to not allow Creationism to be thaught in schools? Point is there's a lot of people who have money supporting creatonism.
4.Mysterious Graves Discovered at Ancient European Cemetery
This is a discovery I found just typing acient graves.This is just simple google search. If this is like you will claim A conspiracy, it' the most insane one ever.Literraly everybody is involved and everything fits togheter. Show me 1 piece of data, for instance a grave site with a 700 year old person in it and I'll have to grant you at least 1 of your statements, but I'm pretty sure you wont.

 

[james bond]

1. I guess by "starfilled sky," you mean is it based on time. NDT corrected perfectionist Director James Cameron in one of the scenes of his movie Titanic. Yes, I agree with that but what does have to do with our discussion?
2. With few exceptions, the names of the strata layers are mostly based on location. Maybe you're so stuck on the names being associated with time because evolutionists have thoroughly indoctrinated generations of students to believe that rock layers are associated with time, not places. The names follow Occam's Razor -- The kinds of plants and animals present when the rocks were formed depends on geography (that is, ecological zone), not time. That’s why most have geographic names.
3. I claim science suppress creation and creation scientists. Science does not accept the supernatural since 1795.

One of the best known “human ancestors” is an Australopithecus afarensis skeleton called Lucy. What does she look like? A human skull? Uhh... no.

This is one of the best photos of the "250" hominid fossils:

4. Nope. The layers are based on catastrophism, not unifamitarianism. There was a global flood and our earth was shaped within months not millions or billions of years.
5. I already sketched the outline of my arguments, so please proceed with yours. It does not have to be in detail.

.1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
4.Prominent Hominid Fossils
The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.

1. Oh, that's what you meant. LOL. This has been answered by science and math.

The Earth being 6,000 years old is based on observation. Astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into a supernova (ICR September, 1998). If the universe were billions of years old, it would equal to about several hundred million supernovas. However, astronomers have observed less than 300 supernovas in the universe. This limited number of supernovas shows that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, just like the Bible says.

Next, how do you calculate the distance between a star and earth that is lightyears away? Please answer.

Here is what I learned in school. Using trigonometry, if you have two observation points, then you can calculate the distance to a third point. This is what surveyors do.

What we can do is take a point on the Earth and another point very far away such as the distance of the sun from earth which is 93 million miles away. At the speed of light, it takes around 8 minutes for the sun's rays to reach earth. This means that the diameter of earth’s orbit around the sun is 16 light minutes. So, if you look at a star today and then looked at it 6 months later, it would be 16 light minutes away, amiright? This star would be approx. 186 million miles away; Not a problem when you're traveling at the speed of light.

So what's the problem? The reason I use the distance of the earth and sun is to point out a problem. How do you measure distance to something that is lightyears away when you are on earth? Earth is about 8,000 miles in diameter. We can use trig to calculate the third point, i.e. the star, but you are trying to measure a star that is very far away when physically you can only set up a point 8,000 miles away. It is the narrow triangle problem.

Are you following me? You stated that you can measure 6000 lightyears away which is very local in cosmic terms. Just how do you do that?

2. I think you are admitting that your evolutionary time periods were calculated by evolutionists based on the layer and somehow they concluded it showed millions of years difference. It sounds like circular reasoning. The dinosaur fossils are 100 million years old because they are found in rocks that were formed 100 million years ago. The rocks are known to be 100 million years old because they contain the bones of dinosaurs that died 100 million years ago. When the evos get two different time periods between the rock and the fossil, what do they use?

.What I stated was the layers of rock found and what scientists found, i.e. fossils, is based on the what was there at the time the things got buried and the rock formed. Occam's razor.

3 and 4. What do these prominent Hominid fossils show anyway?

1. The narrow triangle problem is solved from making 2 measurements 6 months spread AKA at a different time in its orbit. The point is not like you suggest 8000 miles but rather the orbital distance of the Earth traveling around the Sun. In other words the earth as a vastly different position in space in 6 months . Methods of Measuring Stellar Distances
This links describes in 3 other methods used in detail.
2. So you think it's bioligist deciding how to name strata? You flipped your argument btw. First it was the naming is geographical now it's, because it's not geograpical it's Biological it has to be a conspiracy. And let's look at the fossil record alot of it is buried deep and I mean very deep in the floor, 6000 years is a hell of a short time to bury something in some cases 2000 meters in the ground and turn it into stone. Do you have any idea what natural phenomona would be able to do that?
3. I've made this point alot already but I'll say it again. I've given you multiple proofs and by no means all of them, in different branches of science, going from astronomy to geoligy,physics, chemistry, etc. So far the best you've come back with is that either my data is wrong, altough it's accepted by an OVERWHELMING majority in the scientific world, or it's a conspiracy of the scientific community.I have kept my explanations general and simple to give you room to ask questions and I've answered nearly all of them In return you have given me nothing but some very conveluted assumptions from ppl lived for 950 years in Biblical times to the naming of strata proves geoligist don't accept evolution because some layers are named for locations. Or it's a conspiracy.At no point where you able to give any real accepted scientific data to cooberate this. As i said before you are entitled to your beliefs, but I think it's safe to say, that those beliefs don't stand the test of reality as science does.

1. The methods would not work because as in the how to thread I gave you only considered space and distance. When traveling at the speed of light (c), then It would involve spactime and distance which is something we do not quite understand yet. For example, if we looked at 2-dimensional flatlander beings, then they would not understand depth. All they could measure is length and width. Time is definitely a factor because if you went into space in a rocket that could travel at c, for one year, then when you returned we would have aged thirty years while you aged one. There is the problem of spacetime. I can demonstrate these things to you with today's technology. However, we still do not know how it affects the distance calculations even if you could overcome the narrow triangle problem.
2. I didn't flip anything. When evo science states that the rock layers represent time, then they are using circular reasoning when one actually sees what the are doing with fossils and the rock layer. Then there is the problem not knowing the amount of daughter nuclides we started with using radiometric dating. Today, the media explains how millions and billions of years old these things are in almost every news article. If it was "fact," then we would already know and the media would not have to keep convincing us. On top of all this, radiometric dating is only considered correct if it falls within a certain time period. If the dating is considered outside the time period, then it is discarded. It is biased to say the least. All of the results should be discarded.
3. I brought up Lucy and "250" fossils which doesn't explain they're human fossils because they're just fragments. The picture above showed 16 of them. The other problem with evolution and the sciences that you mention is money. Money skews these scientists into finding evidence for one side, and only one side. Other arguments evos use are the Laetoli footprints which are part of the famous footprint trail discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey’s team at Laetoli, Tanzania. This represents the cementing evidence for bipedalism in a trail of ash dated to 3.5 millions years ago. It shows the tracks of two hominids were captured for a distance of nearly eighty feet. The problem with this is that 3.5 million years predates the other "alleged" hominid fossils of out human ancestors. Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.

We can't compare her feet to the tracks found. There are no foot bones! Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. This is the overwhelming evidence that you describe.

Is it any wonder that a whole generation was deceived into believing the Piltdown Man? It's just more evolutionary ca-ca.

1. There where 3 other ways they use to measure distance of stars. You can try to attack and i do mean try 1 of them. But if you come up with a result on 4 occasions using 4 seperate methods. Why do you feel you can insist that somehow the data is wrong? The same can be said for are enitre argument btw. I can use a bunch of different ways to prove the earth is older then 6000 years old. I don't really have to look for specific counterargument on Creasonist websites. Nore do I have to revert to speude scientific hogwash like your space time argument is. Space time has nothing to do with observing distant stars. Or galaxies for that matter. 6000 Ligtyears is barely our frontdoor in galactic terms, you can't just blow past that.
2. I already refuted your ncleide argument using your own link no less, since he said there is outside confermation by observing super nova. But lets forget that there's a bunch of other dating methods.
Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
radiometrics is only one of them and I kow you think wikipedia is biased but I'm very sure this is fact.
3. Bipedalism is actually usually established from how the hip is formed, you don't need feet to prove it.
As to your Money issue. The Creationist musuem is by no means a mom and pop type of place. Creationist also have considerable political clout since half the Republican establishment for Southern consumption sais it supports it. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there states in the US that actually try to circumvent the supreme courts decision to not allow Creationism to be thaught in schools? Point is there's a lot of people who have money supporting creatonism.
4.Mysterious Graves Discovered at Ancient European Cemetery
This is a discovery I found just typing acient graves.This is just simple google search. If this is like you will claim A conspiracy, it' the most insane one ever.Literraly everybody is involved and everything fits togheter. Show me 1 piece of data, for instance a grave site with a 700 year old person in it and I'll have to grant you at least 1 of your statements, but I'm pretty sure you wont.

1. It does not appear you understand science if you consider spacetime as pseudoscience. I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend for you. This was proven with the detection of gravitational waves this year or did you miss that bit of scientific news? Einstein figured it out in 1905 with his special theory of relativity. Only one of the most biggest breakthroughs we've had in science. Furthermore, the recent invention of the one billion trillion FPS high-speed camera can capture light and we can see spacetime. The light is reflected but you can see it move forward. You can watch it on youtube. So what does it mean when we look at the light from stars. It means they are curved by gravity and time slows down eventually coming to a standstill at the event horizon. If you can actually do your calculations, then show us one for the closest star using the methods you claim work. Unlike evo fails, CS use other methods to prove their point. Like I stated, I do not think anyone can know what we are seeing with our telescopes when they look at the millions of stars. Finally, there is one more controversial topic and that is whether the universe is expanding or there are set boundaries. CS have a peer-reviewed paper on the universe have set boundaries or an edge.
2. Seems pretty simple to count the number of supernovas. I do not think what the evos talk about is correct as I explained. CS have come up with their own White Hole cosmology, but it is not accepted by mainstream science. What's funny is eventually the evo scientists usurp it an use it with their own theories. Why is this so? This has happened with the theory of natural selection (Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same theory as Darwin, but he came up with it first. Darwin was able to publish it first.). It also happened with catastrophism. It is being used for the extinction of dinosaurs.
3. Show me how bipedalism evolved? The evidence points to it suddenly appeared, so there wasn't enough time for evolution to "work."

"In 1994 and 1995 paleoanthropologists reported two sets of discoveries that described the fossil remains of two species of australopithecines. One research team uncovered the remains of a hominid in Ethiopia dated at 4.4 million years in age.11 This specimen they named Australopithecus ramidus, though it was later reassigned to a new genus, Ardipithecus.12

Meanwhile, another team of researchers discovered a set of hominid fossils in Kenya determined to be between 3.9 and 4.2 million years in age.13 These specimens were attributed to a newly recognized australopithecine species, Australopithecus anamensis. A follow-up discovery confirmed the date for this species at 4.07 million years ago.14 Analysis of an A. anamensis tibia clearly established its bipedal capacity, pushing the appearance of bipedalism back by at least a half a million years. Prior to this discovery the oldest primate with bipedal capabilities was believed to be Australopithecus afarensis (~3.9 million years ago).

It is still not clear if Ardipithecus ramidus possessed bipedal capabilities. If so, bipedalism’s first appearance occurs very close to the time that the ape and human lineages supposedly split. This allows the forces of natural selection only a few hundred thousand years to generate bipedalism—a time period far too short, according to evolutionary biologists, given the extensive anatomical changes necessary for a quadrupedalism-to-bipedalism transition.

If A. ramidus lacked bipedal capabilities, this too creates problems for the evolutionary paradigm. Evolutionary biologists view A. ramidus as the ancestral species that gave rise to A. anamensis. In this scenario, bipedalism must have emerged in less than two hundred thousand years—an even shorter (hence less feasible) time period for the enormous species' differentiation to occur."

Reasons To Believe : The Leap to Two Feet: The Sudden Appearance of Bipedalism

4. How can bones determine how long someone lived? I've shown you that ancient peoples had better health than we did. They were more perfect. The Neaderthal man could compete with today's athletes. We do not have the bones because fossils do not just happen. One has to be lucky. What we do have is their DNA and it shows common ancestory, but for some reason when this is brought up the evo scientists do not believe in this type of common descent.

 

[james bond]

... Finally, let's take a look at Lucy and what they have.

We can't compare her feet to the tracks found. There are no foot bones! Likely the tracks were more modern human feet instead of a common ancestor. ...

Cleveland Museum of natural history: What your scientists found in Africa and what they reconstructed. Looks very good and plausible as far as I am able to see. And I don't have any idea about, how someone is able not to see the similarity between human beings and this "ape" - if it was an ape.

Under our skin we are all Africans: we are all Africa.

The skeleton being human like and shown next to a little girl is really wishful thinking. We're not sure if Lucy was human, ape, or a link between ape and human. What we do know is Australopithecus afarensis really existed. Was Lucy a transitional form though?

Notice the nice teeth though. If we evolved, then how come all of us do not turn out this way?

I say wishful thinking for evolutionists is because timing determines all for their "theories."

 

[james bond]

BTW forkup, I forgot to mention how timing is everything when it comes to evolutionary theories. You brought up the law, but evolution cannot be taught but the evolutionists are trying. Thus, the creationists are trying to get their theories taught, as well. It will probably go on a state-by-state basis.

 

[BreezeWood]

Science has demonstrated that "within" a single cell, protein is formed. Do you see how great God is? How did this happen outside a single-cell in outer space?

all organism on earth are either single celled or multi-subdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi-disimilar celled organism in existence.

all cells throughout the life of the multi-subdivided organism (humans) have shared contents from the original cell.

.

 

[Boss]

Science has demonstrated that "within" a single cell, protein is formed. Do you see how great God is? How did this happen outside a single-cell in outer space?

all organism on earth are either single celled or multi-subdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi-disimilar celled organism in existence.

all cells throughout the life of the multi-subdivided organism (humans) have shared contents from the original cell.

.

You're an idiot.

This is NOT biology.... it's pure idiocy.

 

[BreezeWood]

Science has demonstrated that "within" a single cell, protein is formed. Do you see how great God is? How did this happen outside a single-cell in outer space?

all organism on earth are either single celled or multi-subdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi-disimilar celled organism in existence.

all cells throughout the life of the multi-subdivided organism (humans) have shared contents from the original cell.

.

You're an idiot.

This is NOT biology.... it's pure idiocy.

.
I might agree with Bond you may be the one example of an organism on Earth composed of multi dissimilar cells.

.

 

[Boss]

I might agree with Bond you may be the one example of an organism on Earth composed of multi dissimilar cells.

You're demonstrating a complete illiteracy of biology. I mean... below 5th grade level! First of all, EVERY cell of EVERY living multi-cell organism is different. Some are very much alike because they do the same thing but even they are slightly different. Secondly... a single cell organism and multi-cell organism are entirely different. Both contain a DNA molecule, that is the only similarity. In a single cell organism, the functional attributes of the organism is self-contained and the DNA controls all aspects from within that single cell. The organism can never be a multi-cellular organism. Multi-cellular organisms are completely different. The DNA molecule contains the instructions for all cells in the organism including the cell it is contained within. But the cell itself has a specific function for the organism as a whole, it is not "stand-alone" in any way. It works in harmony with other cells which the DNA also instructs.

Your asinine argument is like trying to claim a kazoo player and a symphony orchestra are virtually the same thing because a kazoo player has a brain and so does a conductor. This is beyond "dumb" and is embarrassingly illiterate of biology.

 

[james bond]

Science has demonstrated that "within" a single cell, protein is formed. Do you see how great God is? How did this happen outside a single-cell in outer space?

all organism on earth are either single celled or multi-subdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi-disimilar celled organism in existence.

all cells throughout the life of the multi-subdivided organism (humans) have shared contents from the original cell.

.

What does this have to do with my comment?

Still no answer from the evos, so do they lose?

 

[Mudda]

I might agree with Bond you may be the one example of an organism on Earth composed of multi dissimilar cells.

You're demonstrating a complete illiteracy of biology. I mean... below 5th grade level! First of all, EVERY cell of EVERY living multi-cell organism is different. Some are very much alike because they do the same thing but even they are slightly different. Secondly... a single cell organism and multi-cell organism are entirely different. Both contain a DNA molecule, that is the only similarity. In a single cell organism, the functional attributes of the organism is self-contained and the DNA controls all aspects from within that single cell. The organism can never be a multi-cellular organism. Multi-cellular organisms are completely different. The DNA molecule contains the instructions for all cells in the organism including the cell it is contained within. But the cell itself has a specific function for the organism as a whole, it is not "stand-alone" in any way. It works in harmony with other cells which the DNA also instructs.

Your asinine argument is like trying to claim a kazoo player and a symphony orchestra are virtually the same thing because a kazoo player has a brain and so does a conductor. This is beyond "dumb" and is embarrassingly illiterate of biology.

Boss likes to pretend he's superior to everyone here, because in real life I bet he's a massive loser.

 

[Boss]

Boss likes to pretend he's superior to everyone here...

It doesn't take much to be intellectually superior to this bunch.

 

[Mudda]

Boss likes to pretend he's superior to everyone here...

It doesn't take much to be intellectually superior to this bunch.

You're right, but you're not. By a long fucking shot.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

First of all, EVERY cell of EVERY living multi-cell organism is different. Some are very much alike because they do the same thing but even they are slightly different. Secondly... a single cell organism and multi-cell organism are entirely different.

bos: - a single cell organism and multi-cell organism are entirely different.

no they are not, they are both confined to an original single cell - all organisms on earth are either single celled or multisubdivided singe celled organisms - there are no multidissimilar celled organism on Earth.

it is a subtle distinction but irrefutable in the diagram above from the first division onward there is never a multi cellular organism but a multi-subdivided organism that throughout its life remains enclosed within its initial single cell.

it is a red herring to ask how multicellular organisms evolved when non have done so - every being on earth is within the confines of an original single cell.

This is beyond "dumb" and is embarrassingly illiterate of biology.

no bossy, not everyone is a neo-creationist like you ...

.

 

[Boss]

no they are not, they are both confined to an original single cell - all organisms on earth are either single celled or multisubdivided singe celled organisms - there are no multidissimilar celled organism on Earth.

they are both confined to an original single cell
*sigh* Yep... they both have a cell membrane which delineates them as cells.

all organisms on earth are either single celled or multisubdivided singe celled organisms
*sigh* No... all cells on earth are either single cell organisms or part of a multi-cell organism. There is no such thing as a "multisubdivided single cell organism" and no such word as "multisubdivided."

there are no multidissimilar celled organism on Earth.
*sigh* Also no such word as "multidissimilar" and every cell is unique.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
all the cells in the diagram are constrained inside the original cell and all the cells present and in the future are derived from that same initial cell - an organism is a combination but of only one original cell.

the point being evolution has not to date expanded from a single cell origin and has used the single cell to subdivide itself to form new species not species becoming multidissimilar multicellular organisms.

.

 

[Boss]

.
all the cells in the diagram are constrained inside the original cell and all the cells present and in the future are derived from that same initial cell - an organism is a combination but of only one original cell.

the point being evolution has not to date expanded from a single cell origin and has used the single cell to subdivide itself to form new species not species becoming multidissimilar multicellular organisms.

.

You're making even less sense than you normally make... and THAT is some feat!

The diagram you posted is a multi-cell organism replicating and reproducing. A single-cell organism doesn't do that. It remains a single cell. The diagram is showing several cells inside of a common membrane but the several cells cannot be ONE cell. Several doesn't equal one... it's math... learn it!