Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why don't you turn yourself in as the nazi that you are?A Jew got your tongue?Projecting on me isn't a comment? Are you more confused than usual? You should just turn yourself in.About time you shut the fuck up.
no comment, Nazi
no comment, Nazi
This sentence is not translatable. What do you like to know from me, Nazi?
Why don't you turn yourself in as the nazi that you are?A Jew got your tongue?Projecting on me isn't a comment? Are you more confused than usual? You should just turn yourself in.no comment, Nazi
no comment, Nazi
This sentence is not translatable. What do you like to know from me, Nazi?
This sentence is not translatable. What do you like to know from me, Nazi?
(excluding MUDDA) -
what religion were the +90% German's that voted for H and of those how few relied on the bible for their guidance ....
.
...and science holds the answer to all questions....
Then what kick started the universe?
After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?
If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...
Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?
*****CHUCKLE*****
I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today1. 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.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.
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.
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.
- First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
- I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
This sentence is not translatable. What do you like to know from me, Nazi?
(excluding MUDDA) -
what religion were the +90% German's that voted for H and of those how few relied on the bible for their guidance ....
.
For Hitlers NSDAP voted about 33% of the Germans in the last free elections in November 1932. The worst results had the NSDAP in Berlin and in the catholic regions of Germany. The best result for the NSDAP was in the East of Germany - in the regions where today is Poland, Russia and Czechoslovakia.
Adolf Hitler becomes president of Germany - Aug 19, 1934 - HISTORY.com
But that was not enough for Hitler either. In February 1933, Hitler blamed a devastating Reichstag fire on the communists ....
A plebiscite vote was held on August 19. Intimidation, and fear of the communists, brought Hitler a 90 percent majority. He was now, for all intents and purposes, dictator.
This sentence is not translatable. What do you like to know from me, Nazi?
(excluding MUDDA) -
what religion were the +90% German's that voted for H and of those how few relied on the bible for their guidance ....
.
For Hitlers NSDAP voted about 33% of the Germans in the last free elections in November 1932. The worst results had the NSDAP in Berlin and in the catholic regions of Germany. The best result for the NSDAP was in the East of Germany - in the regions where today is Poland, Russia and Czechoslovakia.
for may reasons the 90% is common and a fact of history -
Adolf Hitler becomes president of Germany - Aug 19, 1934 - HISTORY.com
But that was not enough for Hitler either. In February 1933, Hitler blamed a devastating Reichstag fire on the communists ....
A plebiscite vote was held on August 19. Intimidation, and fear of the communists, brought Hitler a 90 percent majority. He was now, for all intents and purposes, dictator.
The worst results had the NSDAP in Berlin ...
- those damn LIBERALS ....]
playing the commie card - or - business as usual, which one zaang or are they one in the same.
.
4 was also in 1932 existing. So I would say in 1932 voted 12 Million people in Germany for Hitler. In this case about 6-7 milllion Christians voted for Hitler. 35 million people voted. If you are right and 90% were Christians then 31,5 million Christians voted. So about 20%-25% of all Christians (Protestants and Catholics) voted in 1932 for Hitler what means 75%-80% of the Christians were not for Hitler. Confused? Me too. But maybe it's a better confusion now.K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today1. 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.
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.
- First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
- I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
1. I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones. Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today. It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show. And what do we get? Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction. Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about. If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation. That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s. Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon. I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
"... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
A Young Moon
The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
2. At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism. Usually, there is no overlap. The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water. Evolutionists do not have an explanation. The flood waters came from underneath the earth. There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction. The great flood also changed our lives for the worse. The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
The catholic church tried to criticize Hitler in 1937 in the encyclica "Mit brennender Sorge"
I have the feeling your are very confused.
And I would say to try to see in the Nazis a catholic movement is as absurde as to try to see in Stalin an orthodox movement
The catholic church tried to criticize Hitler in 1937 in the encyclica "Mit brennender Sorge"
I have the feeling your are very confused.
your account of history reminds me of an Ostrich and why history repeats itself.
And I would say to try to see in the Nazis a catholic movement is as absurde as to try to see in Stalin an orthodox movement
you are showing your hand zaang, Stalin was placed in power through the abuses of religion where the above photo demonstrates the abuse of religion being used by both the State and the Clergy as is the case today being the same for the biblicists - zaang.
What do you see on this picture? I see Hitler speaking with one of his marionettes, the leader of the Nazi-organisation "Deutsche Christen" (="German Christians"). This is Ludwig Müller, isn't it?
that is Pope Pius XII shaking hands with H ....Because Hitler tried to erase all Jews biologically from this panet you try now to erase all Christians spiritually from this planet? ... Whatever.
History is for me more a kind of natural law not a game. I would say: Panta rei - Nothing repeats in history. And I would say: God is always new. On the other side: ignorant and agressive characters make ignorant and agressive decisions - and ignorant and agressive decisions lead to an ignorant an agressive world with a growing ignorant and agressive mentality.
The Creationist ArgumentsI'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today1. 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.
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.
- First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
- I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?
1. I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones. Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today. It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show. And what do we get? Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction. Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about. If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation. That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s. Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon. I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.
"... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."
A Young Moon
The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research
2. At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism. Usually, there is no overlap. The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water. Evolutionists do not have an explanation. The flood waters came from underneath the earth. There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction. The great flood also changed our lives for the worse. The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.
No it isn't.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.
What do you see on this picture? I see Hitler speaking with one of his marionettes, the leader of the Nazi-organisation "Deutsche Christen" (="German Christians"). This is Ludwig Müller, isn't it?
are you serious
...Because Hitler tried to erase all Jews biologically from this panet you try now to erase all Christians spiritually from this planet? ... Whatever.
the jews, islamist and christians are peas in the same pod, without religion and are a threat to humanity. ...
. I am not saying catholics, you are I am saying it was biblicist that were the core supporters who voted overwhelmingly for AH and catholics were among them.I'm not even sure wether real humanism could become real without the belief in god - although not everyone is able to believe in god.
I'm not even sure wether real humanism could become real without the belief in god - although not everyone is able to believe in god.
if it were not possible then there would be no test for the goal of Remission where uncertainty indubitably would be a qualification for Admission.
a naturalist may conclude there is a God but the conclusion is irrelevant in fact to the existence the naturalist is able to physically witness as being a path to the Everlasting as a prescription offered by the Almighty without a specific reason for its existence.
without the belief in god ...
you seem to be doing just fine with your scriptural belief of Jesus your christ.
.
You fucking krauts deserved to get your ass kicked.
By the way: What shows this picture? What is the bad deed you see on this picture? Who are this people and what had happended there? What do you think is important in this context? Your proudness that your nation was a winner of world war 1+2 makes not any evil deed better what had happened during this time and afterwards and what's happening now in the world.
You fucking krauts deserved to get your ass kicked.
By the way: What shows this picture? What is the bad deed you see on this picture? Who are this people and what had happended there? What do you think is important in this context? Your proudness that your nation was a winner of world war 1+2 makes not any evil deed better what had happened during this time and afterwards and what's happening now in the world.
