If God doesn't exist...

[Boss]

again you ignore the diagram, all cellular structures are within the initial cell - each because of the triggering combined nucleus's directive to perform differing tasks are nonetheless composed entirely from the initial cell. there are no dissimilar cells within any living creature on Earth.

I didn't ignore anything. Your diagram doesn't show any unicellular life form. Again... EVERY cell in EVERY multi-cell life form is different... like snowflakes.

Jesus you are weapons-grade stupid.

Wow... it's so hard for me to argue with such sound and well-thought-out arguments!

 

[james bond]

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.

1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.

I think this is where we left off. Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life. Just busy with personal stuff. Will reply again today to keep up this "interesting" thread.

 

[james bond]

True. Now, if you're specically talking humans, there is no single point where a creature is suddenly a different species. An analogy is that 1 grain of sand is clearly not a "pile of sand." 1 million grains clearly is. At what point is it not a pile of sand, but you add one more grain and it becomes a pile? There is none. Similarly, there is no singular point where we could say "not human," then "human." It was a gradual process.

Problem is, the fossil record disagrees with you. We should see the fossil layers rife with "transitional species" whereby one thing is becoming something else, and we don't see that. We see species suddenly coming into existence and suddenly disappearing.

Not quite. It seems you're thinking of evolution like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, where there is a set beginning state and a set end state, with a transition state in between. But that's not what evolutionary theory claims. Most changes are incremental and small, and not necessarily distinctly recognizable. There's no point where you can clearly say: "this generation was species A, and the next generation was species B." There's a point where you can say "Species A" and a point where you can say "Species B," but you can't necessarily recognize the point of change...or a side branch that becomes species A.5 instead of B.

And remember...when you're saying "suddenly," that means over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Fossils are rare. We can't expect to find any, but what we can do is predict that IF certain fossils are found that they will have certain qualities. And those predictions, such as whales with legs, have been correct.

Trey Smith points out, if an arm becomes a wing... it's going to be a very bad arm for a long time before it becomes a very good wing. Such a slow transition is likely not going to save a species in evolution.

Why would it have to "save it?" Ostriches, emus, cassowaries, kiwis, all seem to do well with non-functioning wings that are not good arms.

All of this is just hypotheses or just SWAG. Not much evidence for the millions of years except that which was made up and then piled upon like you know what.

 

[forkup]

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.

1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.

I think this is where we left off. Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life. Just busy with personal stuff. Will reply again today to keep up this "interesting" thread.

Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.

 

[james bond]

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.

1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.

I think this is where we left off. Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life. Just busy with personal stuff. Will reply again today to keep up this "interesting" thread.

Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.

Back to the grind.

1. Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000. How right was your astronomy?

Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances? What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence. They used lightyears as distance. Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct? This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon. That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down? The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old. When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy. Cosmology is more philosophy than science.

To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them, not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe. Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve." However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain. Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness." The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power. Jesus loved the sun and the moon. There is more, but I'll stop here.

2. So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars. However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth. If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed. This isn't based on time and distance of stars.

3. I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all. We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.

4. So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?

5. I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy. Another is the moon's recession and age. Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit. If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees. The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations. What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon. If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.

 

[forkup]

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.

1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.

I think this is where we left off. Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life. Just busy with personal stuff. Will reply again today to keep up this "interesting" thread.

Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.

Back to the grind.

1. Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000. How right was your astronomy?

Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances? What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence. They used lightyears as distance. Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct? This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon. That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down? The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old. When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy. Cosmology is more philosophy than science.

To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them, not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe. Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve." However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain. Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness." The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power. Jesus loved the sun and the moon. There is more, but I'll stop here.

2. So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars. However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth. If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed. This isn't based on time and distance of stars.

3. I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all. We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.

4. So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?

5. I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy. Another is the moon's recession and age. Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit. If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees. The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations. What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon. If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.

1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because

• Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
• Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
• The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
• The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
• Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
• Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
• The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.

I think this is where we left off. Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life. Just busy with personal stuff. Will reply again today to keep up this "interesting" thread.

Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.

Back to the grind.

1. Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000. How right was your astronomy?

Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances? What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence. They used lightyears as distance. Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct? This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon. That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down? The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old. When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy. Cosmology is more philosophy than science.

To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them, not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe. Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve." However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain. Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness." The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power. Jesus loved the sun and the moon. There is more, but I'll stop here.

2. So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars. However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth. If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed. This isn't based on time and distance of stars.

3. I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all. We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.

4. So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?

5. I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy. Another is the moon's recession and age. Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit. If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees. The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations. What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon. If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.

What came first baby humans or adult humans?

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.

I think this is where we left off. Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life. Just busy with personal stuff. Will reply again today to keep up this "interesting" thread.

Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.

Back to the grind.

1. Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000. How right was your astronomy?

Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances? What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence. They used lightyears as distance. Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct? This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon. That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down? The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old. When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy. Cosmology is more philosophy than science.

To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them, not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe. Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve." However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain. Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness." The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power. Jesus loved the sun and the moon. There is more, but I'll stop here.

2. So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars. However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth. If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed. This isn't based on time and distance of stars.

3. I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all. We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.

4. So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?

5. I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy. Another is the moon's recession and age. Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit. If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees. The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations. What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon. If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.

What came first baby humans or adult humans?

Idiots ... - oh, sorry - I was wrong: Idiots evolved under the second main law of aerodynamics. So everyone should take care not to wash baby humans in very hot water because he's a an adult human conserved in alcohol.

 

[james bond]

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.

1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.

I think this is where we left off. Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life. Just busy with personal stuff. Will reply again today to keep up this "interesting" thread.

Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.

Back to the grind.

1. Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000. How right was your astronomy?

Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances? What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence. They used lightyears as distance. Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct? This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon. That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down? The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old. When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy. Cosmology is more philosophy than science.

To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them, not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe. Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve." However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain. Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness." The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power. Jesus loved the sun and the moon. There is more, but I'll stop here.

2. So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars. However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth. If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed. This isn't based on time and distance of stars.

3. I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all. We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.

4. So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?

5. I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy. Another is the moon's recession and age. Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit. If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees. The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations. What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon. If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.

1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because

• Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
• Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
• The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
• The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
• Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
• Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
• The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.

1. What unsubstantiated claim? The naked eye can see about 3000 stars. That's a fact.

Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky

2. Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
3. Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science. Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
4. We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains. This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
5. Is this from evolutionary thought? Then it's so wrong. Have to run. Will explain later.

 

[sealybobo]

1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.

I think this is where we left off. Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life. Just busy with personal stuff. Will reply again today to keep up this "interesting" thread.

Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.

Back to the grind.

1. Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000. How right was your astronomy?

Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances? What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence. They used lightyears as distance. Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct? This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon. That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down? The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old. When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy. Cosmology is more philosophy than science.

To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them, not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe. Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve." However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain. Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness." The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power. Jesus loved the sun and the moon. There is more, but I'll stop here.

2. So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars. However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth. If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed. This isn't based on time and distance of stars.

3. I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all. We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.

4. So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?

5. I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy. Another is the moon's recession and age. Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit. If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees. The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations. What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon. If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.

1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because

• Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
• Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
• The Moon has a relatively small iron core.
• The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
• Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
• Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
• The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.

1. What unsubstantiated claim? The naked eye can see about 3000 stars. That's a fact.

Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky

2. Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
3. Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science. Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
4. We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains. This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
5. Is this from evolutionary thought? Then it's so wrong. Have to run. Will explain later.

Do you realize some of those lights you think are stars are actually entire galaxies?

NASA has released the largest and sharpest photograph ever made of the Andromeda Galaxy, the nearest spiral galaxy to ours that contains an estimated 1 trillion stars.

And you don't know who really believed in god back then. It wasn't safe for a person to admit they didn't believe back then.

 

[zaangalewa]

james bond
sealybobo

The most people in the world believe in god and never had anyone great problems to accept that the universe is some billion years old - except we are all idiots and no one knows what he's speaking about. So what are you really discussing about? Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) for example spoke about that foggy lights in the sky could be islands of stars. 200 years before someone discovered the first galaxy. By the way: Who was this?

Saint Francis, Third Planet Solar System, AD 2016

 

[zaangalewa]

james bond
sealybobo

And another question in this context: Who was the first human being who really understood the first time in history that stars and suns are the same?

“Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason

(Comment to this quote: The expression "starry heavens" [plural?] is written in the original text: "bestirnter Himmel" [singular!]. And what Kant saw in the sky were "stars"="Sterne". So the correct expression would had been "besternter Himmel" and not "bestirnter Himmel". Why used Kant this word? "Stirn" means "forehead". And what comes after our forehead? Our logos, isn't it? )

 

[forkup]

1.Lol claiming i don't understand science because I know that spacetime has absolutly nothing to do with measuring distance to stars is kind of ironic. Like I said on numurous ocasions , you can try to confuse matters but astronomy is actually something I do have some knowledge of. I'll explain it to you using how Einstein started his theory. He was riding a bus while looking back at a clocktower. He theorised and later mathamaticly proved that if the bus was going to near the speed of light he would observe the clock slowing, because the light would take longer to reach him. The closer to the speed of light, the slower time would appear from his viewpoint. In astronomy objects with immens gravity fields AKA black holes can exert such gravity that light can't escape. The point where that happens is the event horizon. Now exactly explain to me how it has any bearing on how we observe light from distant stars? Space time isn't speudo science your application of it just is. And you didn't even touch the fact the triangulating is NOT the only way astronomers judge distance.
2. Claiming it's easy to count supernova again shows how little you know about astronomy. supernova's are pretty commen but only in galactic terms. The only way you can observe them is by a sudden brightening of a star. The closest estimates for it happening in our Milky Way is 3 a century. They have been observed but not that often.
3. You seem to want to make believe that evolution works in a straight line, it doesn't, btw modern apes are bipedail to just not always. Like usual you are trying to confuse matters by cherry picking data.
4.Ages are now being confirmed by microscopic examination of tooth enamel. When tooth enamel grows, it produces tiny growth lines in the enamel. These lines can be counted to give the tooth’s age. And comon ancestry between Humans and Neanthertals is accepted knowledge latin name for humans is Homo sapiens sapiens, for Neanthertal Homo Neandertalensins. Homo being the genus.
5. Most importantly I've been bringing up one argument after another. I think it's time you bring up some arguments for a 6000 year old earth, a great flood or the existence of Eden or somehow prove Earth can be created in 7 days.... Something to support Genesis.

I think this is where we left off. Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life. Just busy with personal stuff. Will reply again today to keep up this "interesting" thread.

Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.

Back to the grind.

1. Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000. How right was your astronomy?

Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances? What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence. They used lightyears as distance. Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct? This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon. That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down? The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old. When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy. Cosmology is more philosophy than science.

To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them, not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe. Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve." However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain. Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness." The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power. Jesus loved the sun and the moon. There is more, but I'll stop here.

2. So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars. However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth. If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed. This isn't based on time and distance of stars.

3. I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all. We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.

4. So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?

5. I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy. Another is the moon's recession and age. Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit. If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees. The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations. What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon. If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.

1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because

• Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
• Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
• The Moon has a relatively small iro.n core.
• The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
• Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
• Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
• The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.

1. What unsubstantiated claim? The naked eye can see about 3000 stars. That's a fact.

Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky

2. Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
3. Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science. Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
4. We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains. This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
5. Is this from evolutionary thought? Then it's so wrong. Have to run. Will explain later.

I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.

 

[I amso IR]

We should remember how our minds and our thinking are limited by our languages. This often leads to unsupportable assumptions and logic-loops.
Since we cannot explain some things, especially something so important as existence, we force nouns and terms to fit our fears. The universe must have had a start, yet there must have been a precedent.
What makes us insist on that? Since we know that we don't know, how can we ask the question, "what was before the beginning?", when the very question posits an oxymoron? There can be no "before the beginning". Yet, human thinking cannot tolerate, nor indeed digest, such a thought.
We need to let go more.
Or, we can just use 'God' as a metaphor to help us along until we grow into a fuller understanding.

Prior to the beginning there was an ending which followed a beginning, etc, etc, etc, ....... The "bouncing ball" theory, which may or may not be valid. Hope that clears that up!

 

[I amso IR]

I think I will simply believe the outline of the bible. Why you ask? It is so much simpler and makes me personally feel better. Feel free to believe what you will. See how easy that was. Cheers

 

[Militants]

Goden and Buddha will exist.

 

[james bond]

I think this is where we left off. Just wanted to let you know I'm still in this life. Just busy with personal stuff. Will reply again today to keep up this "interesting" thread.

Don't worry my hours are crazy atm for me too.So I actually don't have much time myself.

Back to the grind.

1. Since you know something about astronomy, then you should know that ancient astronomers counted the stars they could see in ancient times and thought around 3,000. How right was your astronomy?

Getting back to the issue, how are the astronomers exactly calculating the distances? What I pointed out is it is faulty and showed the evidence. They used lightyears as distance. Wouldn't going at the speed of light mean that the light is traveling through spacetime since Einstein was correct? This means that their distance calculation is faulty since they are not taking time slowing down and coming to a standstill at the event horizon. That is, how can lightyears be accurate if time slows down? The whole point of the number of years or time comes in because we are trying to determine the age of the earth and the universe and whether it is around 13.7 billion years old or 6,000 years old. When we get into that realm, then one is using cosmology and not astronomy. Cosmology is more philosophy than science.

To answer your questions about what bearing it has observing distant stars, i.e. the light reaching us from them, not much in regards to creation scientists in answering the age of the earth or the universe. Don't get me wrong, creationists do not deny that stars can change or "evolve." However, this cannot viably account for the origin of stars, nor the timescales which I gather is what you want me to explain. Another problem with astronomy is that they use magnitude or size and power, i.e. the amount of light that a star can emit as to its "greatness." The sun and the moon is what is considered greatness to the creation scientist, not size and power. Jesus loved the sun and the moon. There is more, but I'll stop here.

2. So we saw that there is great difficulty of "proving" the age of the earth or the universe using distance from stars. However, the supernova count is something we can agree on, and the number shows a young earth. If the universe were billions of years old, then there would be many more supernovas observed. This isn't based on time and distance of stars.

3. I believe that the theory of evolution does not work much at all. We both use the word "evolution" which is fine, but not the ToE.

4. So if the evidence shows hundreds of years, will you accept it or discard it?

5. I brought up a good one in #2 since we were on astronomy. Another is the moon's recession and age. Currently the moon’s orbit is inclined at about 5 degrees to the earth’s orbit. If you extrapolate back in time revealed that 4.5 billion years ago, then the inclination would have been about 10 degrees. The cause of this inclination has been a mystery for 30 years, as most dynamical processes, such as those that act to flatten Saturn’s rings, will tend to "decrease" orbital inclinations. What we find is this inclination has not changed much at all as in a 6,000 year old moon. If your cosmologists were correct, then we should be close to 0 degrees inclination and a lunar eclipse should occur at each full phase.

1. As unsubstanciated claims go the fact that you say acient astronomers thaught after counting there's only 3000 stars is a dozy; Give me a link because it's easily refuted, baseless, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
As to the rest of your statement. Light has a calculatable speed it's finite, this has been done and proven,it's not ambigious in the least. You can throw terms as spacetime and event horizon in there as much as you want, it's stupid to try to put it in doubt. Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I post this link, again using wikipedia. If nothing else it proves that what I'm telling you is ACCEPTED scientific knowledge.
2. The explosion of a supernova is an explosive event. A star that goes supernova goes from dim to insanely bright to a gascloud or a pulsar. So explain to me exactly why we would have observed more supernova's? Oh and btw the existence of supernova refutes a young universe since a supernova is the result of a star burning all it's fuel. So unless you want to claim that this takes less then 6000 years, the mere existence of supernova proves that the universe is older then 6000 years.
3. Evolution works just fine and is logical and rational. Creatonism isn't. Because it has to literally go against basicly all scientific knowledge for it to work as a theory, wich is exactly why I find it problematic. So far you have had to try to cast in doubt how astronomers calculate distance, any type of dating method and the entire fossil record. You have basicly come out and said that sientist are delibaretly witholding data that proves creatonism, without any evidence to support it.
4. Show me 1 acient human tooth wich, I'll make it easy is say older then 150 years old based on it's emaile and I'll grant you that humans in acient times lived longer.
5. I'm so glad you brought up the moon. Accepted science, think it likely that the moon used to be part of the earth and was formed after a collision between earth and another protoplanet they think it likely because

• Earth's spin and the Moon's orbit have similar orientations.
• Moon samples indicate that the Moon once had a molten surface.
• The Moon has a relatively small iro.n core.
• The Moon has a lower density than Earth.
• Evidence exists of similar collisions in other star systems (that result in debris disks).
• Giant collisions are consistent with the leading theories of the formation of the solar system.
• The stable-isotope ratios of lunar and terrestrial rock are identical, implying a common origin.

1. What unsubstantiated claim? The naked eye can see about 3000 stars. That's a fact.

Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky

2. Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
3. Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science. Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
4. We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains. This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
5. Is this from evolutionary thought? Then it's so wrong. Have to run. Will explain later.

I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.

Hahaha. So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about. Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see). They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion. Hey, what's a few billion years among friends? The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions. Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.

 

[james bond]

To forkup and other atheists: The part you keep forgetting is what you consider billions of years is off because of spacetime. This has been demonstrated with two atomic clocks synchronized with each other and then one goes off into space. The more distance you go away from earth, the more time will have slowed. To be billions of years difference is a possibility.

 

[james bond]

The most people in the world believe in god and never had anyone great problems to accept that the universe is some billion years old

mr. zaangalwa, just because the majority believe it to be so doesn't make it so -- argumentum ad populum.

 

[zaangalewa]

The most people in the world believe in god and never had anyone great problems to accept that the universe is some billion years old

mr. zaangalwa, just because the majority believe it to be so doesn't make it so -- argumentum ad populum.

About 13.82 bilion years is the age of the universe - that's the last approximation after CERN found the Higgs-boson, what showed that the standard theory of quantum mechanics is still not wrong. So the belief in this particle in the last decades was correct. If you have an idea to show to the phycicists in the world what's wrong with their calculation then start to study mathematics and physics. An alternative could be to start to work in a sawmill - what's in this context as sensefull as to argue with the christian religion against anything what's true or on the way to find out what's true.