Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew

[Colin norris]

james bond
Immaculate conception and virgin births etc require a lityle more than faith. Believing it won't make it fact. That's ridiculous.
Science believes the only plausible method for the universe is the big bang.
Energy etc. Are covered by many physics exercises.
If you think their theories play second fiddle to some hideous ghost flicking his fingers and it all appeared from absolutely nothing, you need medical attention.

All that aside, I find it gibbsmacking that a grown human being could possibly believe the God rubbish without question.
It's all some magic trick.
How can you ignore the facts of DNA dating back to 4.8 billion years? Yet sacrifice common sense and logic and huge research because as a kid you parents told you there was a god.
Honestly, you're an embarrassment to the human race.

 

[james bond]

james bond
What year was the great flood keeping in mind when this silly boat was built?
Be very careful with your answer because I can date when Everest started. I know about tectonic plates and the dates.
Get it wrong and we'll see who laughs the loudest.

Why don't you explain your dates? The flood date can't be for certain from the Bible genealogies (which gives us a date of around 2345 BC if genealogies weren't skipped). Some peoples genealogies were skipped in the Bible so one can't be certain of exact dating.

Regardless, it doesn't show the Earth is 4.54 B years old.

 

[Colin norris]

james bond
I'll take you question as an admission you've had nothing but the beginning, as I predicted.

Everest was formed 60 million years ago.
How far does you bible go back again?

My point is your silly story is absurd.
Take some advice, don't post anything unless you can support it with facts.
Believe what you want but don't belch it on here and insult people who know better.
If you want to try me with another if your biblical myths, go ahead.

 

[james bond]

james bond
I'll take you question as an admission you've had nothing but the beginning, as I predicted.

Everest was formed 60 million years ago.
How far does you bible go back again?

My point is your silly story is absurd.
Take some advice, don't post anything unless you can support it with facts.mi
Believe what you want but don't belch it on here and insult people who know better.
If you want to try me with another if your biblical myths, go ahead.

You provide no explanation for it. Are you claiming your K-Ar dating which was wrongly used on meteors to date the Earth? You also do not explain how these mountain ranges were formed using seafloor based sediment. We know your idiotic lies are based on atheism and the need for long time to explain evolution. It's a lie to explain a lie.

Comparing evolution to how old the Bible is is a non-sequitur. Only one of us can be right. I provided scientific evidence to back up the young Earth and the Bible.

Evolution is based on faith in atheism. Not any real science.

 

[Wuwei]

Potassium-40 decays to Argon-40 with a half life of 1.25 billion years

That's a great point and I had to look it up. In fact, I touched upon it earlier with asking about relativism since it's difficult for a creationist to relate to Darwin or evolutionary times. The rebuttal lies with we do not know the amount Potassium-40 there was in the beginning. Instead, the creation scientists have done experiments with rocks from Mt. St. Helens and have discovered volcanic rocks dated to hundreds of thousands of years using your method, but the rocks were about ten years old.

It's not creation science that is a sham, but evolutionary science that you believe in due to atheism.

Your rebuttal is wrong. In dating, the original amount of K40 is the amount of K40 measured plus the amount of in situ decay product. Ie, the original amount is K40+A40. (measured in moles.)

Mt Helens:
100,000 years is the lower limit of K40 dating. Only 0.0053% K40 would have decayed to A40. That pushes the the measurement to the limitation of the detection devices. Ie 100,000 years is consistent with zero.

Even then, those creationists said the earth was at least 100,000 yrs old. Not 6000. Creationists are proving 6000 yrs is bogus.

Your creation science web sites do not understand the limitations of instrumentation.

.

 

[Colin norris]

james bond
My explanation for the flood is it didn't happen. There's no evidence. Every drop of water that is on this earth has been here since asteroids etc stopped colliding. Now if the earth was totally coveted, wher3s the water?

As for Everest, for Christ sale r4ad some books on tectonic plates. You are completely ignorant to facts.

Where's your scientific evidence to support a young earth and bible? I know you have nothing scientific at all. You are a liar. You cannot prove a thing.
But the hypocrisy of you telling me I'm lying and my arguments is based on atheism. Your whole argument is based on your filthy God and bible bit compare it to the greatest minds on earth. Ar ed you kidding?

Evolution is fact. There's no more doubt about it and you can believe what you want but not one bible will ever prove it wrong.
Finally, evolution is based on pure science , nothing else. No gods or myths. Not even atheism.
You are an intellectual vacuum in this regard. How can you be so ignorant to facts which are proven while upholding a ridiculous belief that some faith you have is far more realistic.
You are a blight on human intelligence.

 

[james bond]

Potassium-40 decays to Argon-40 with a half life of 1.25 billion years

That's a great point and I had to look it up. In fact, I touched upon it earlier with asking about relativism since it's difficult for a creationist to relate to Darwin or evolutionary times. The rebuttal lies with we do not know the amount Potassium-40 there was in the beginning. Instead, the creation scientists have done experiments with rocks from Mt. St. Helens and have discovered volcanic rocks dated to hundreds of thousands of years using your method, but the rocks were about ten years old.

It's not creation science that is a sham, but evolutionary science that you believe in due to atheism.

Your rebuttal is wrong. In dating, the original amount of K40 is the amount of K40 measured plus the amount of in situ decay product. Ie, the original amount is K40+A40. (measured in moles.)

Mt Helens:
100,000 years is the lower limit of K40 dating. Only 0.0053% K40 would have decayed to A40. That pushes the the measurement to the limitation of the detection devices. Ie 100,000 years is consistent with zero.

Even then, those creationists said the earth was at least 100,000 yrs old. Not 6000. Creationists are proving 6000 yrs is bogus.

Your creation science web sites do not understand the limitations of instrumentation.

.

No, your original attack was on the Bible and its genealogies used as basis for a young or current estimate of around 6,000 yo Earth. It's not going to give you an accurate age, i.e. it could be thousands of years off with genealogies left out, but should be better than the long ages of evolution based on atheism. The Bible wasn't intended to provide the age of the Earth. Instead, it provides us a reference point when things began. Your claim of the Bible being in error due to the error in the 6,000 yo age of the Earth was shown to be wrong.

If there are creationists that go with an older Earth, then they are based on their beliefs in evolution and radiometric dating. Are you saying recent creationists state hundreds of thousands of years and not billions. Where is your source for that?

Moreover, your radiometric dating of meteors and the Earth's age in the billions was shown to be way off due to not knowing the original K amounts. You can disagree, but it would be based on your atheism just as evolution is based on atheism. I doubt Mt. St. Helens dating would be as accurate as you think they are.

I'll still opt for the younger Earth even though the genealogies could be thousands of years off because of the lack of seafloor buildup and Earth's magnetic field rapidly dissipating. Both show it won't be in the hundreds of thousands years. A big part of our disagreement is that I admit my beliefs are based on the Bible while you won't admit it's your atheism and its atheistic science that drive your beliefs. Yet, I can explain basic things such as how the Earth was formed while you can't. I'm still waiting for your explanation of the Himalayas, Mt. Everest, and other topologies. Where did our vast amount of surface water come from? Instead, you're still hung up on your erroneous radiometric dating techniques despite your admission of the limitations of the instrumentation.

>>Your creation science web sites do not understand the limitations of instrumentation.<<

We both use the same instrumentation, but the initial assumptions made are way different. For example, you won't believe humans were created by a creator and lived with dinosaurs. God provided when human life began. Creationists aren't hung up on having an exact age of the Earth, but the young Earth ones like me base it on the genealogies found in the Bible. I admit there may missing genealogies, but don't think the young Earth would be that far in error such as hundreds of thousands of years off if they are. Are you admitting that the instrumentation does not give us millions nor billions yo Earth?

 

[Wuwei]

The Bible wasn't intended to provide the age of the Earth. Instead, it provides us a reference point when things began. Your claim of the Bible being in error due to the error in the 6,000 yo age of the Earth was shown to be wrong.

Many Christians believe the bible isn't in error because it's an allegory which shouldn't be taken literally. Young earth creationists are the ones in error.

If there are creationists that go with an older Earth, then they are based on their beliefs in evolution and radiometric dating. Are you saying recent creationists state hundreds of thousands of years and not billions. Where is your source for that?

If you disagree with the concept behind radiometric data, you disagree with physics. Evolution is not relevant in determining the earth's age. The source for 100,000 years comes from creationist (erroneous) assays of diamonds. They do not understand the measuring instruments. Please Google "noise floor".

Moreover, your radiometric dating of meteors and the Earth's age in the billions was shown to be way off due to not knowing the original K amounts. You can disagree, but it would be based on your atheism

Radiological dating is based on physics, not on atheism. How can you possibly think that.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of the Himalayas, Mt. Everest, and other topologies.

Read about plate tectonics.

Instead, you're still hung up on your erroneous radiometric dating techniques despite your admission of the limitations of the instrumentation.

Google "noise floor" Creationists think instrument noise has value where the error bars at that level overwhelm any scientific deduction.

Are you admitting that the instrumentation does not give us millions nor billions yo Earth?

I said the instrumentation is unreliable for K40 dating for any object less than 100,000 years old. This older source puts it at 250,000 years.

Potassium-argon Dating | Encyclopedia.com

*potassium–argon dating* A dating technique [1] for certain rocks that depends on the decay of the radioisotope potassium–40 to argon–40, a process with a half-life of about 1.27 × 1010 years.

www.encyclopedia.com

potassium—argon dating (K—Ar method) Geologic dating technique based on the radioactive decay of potassium (40K) to argon (40Ar). This potassium isotope has a half-life (see DECAY CONSTANT) of 1.3 billion (109) years, making this a valuable dating method. The minimum age limit for this dating method is about 250 000 years.​

What that means is that creationists were wasting their time assaying young rocks from a volcano.

.

 

[Colin norris]

james bond
You've got a Hang up based around atheism and evution.
Evolution is not based on atheism. It's a fact. That's why you attempt to refute it with your religious rubbish.

There are no genealogy for the earth age. It is proven by science etc. It's fact.
You can romance your bible to dispute it but it still remains a fact.

It's an Insult to the human race that you godbotherers can argue that your religious beliefs takes precedent over the scientific research and knowledge we know today. It's absolutely insane to even suggest it.
You live with help of science every day and accept it as a given. But when it comes to religion, all the laws of nature are suspended, all research is set aside like embroidery and some supernatural diety takes compete control because you are frightened of mortality.

 

[james bond]

The Bible wasn't intended to provide the age of the Earth. Instead, it provides us a reference point when things began. Your claim of the Bible being in error due to the error in the 6,000 yo age of the Earth was shown to be wrong.

Many Christians believe the bible isn't in error because it's an allegory which shouldn't be taken literally. Young earth creationists are the ones in error.

If there are creationists that go with an older Earth, then they are based on their beliefs in evolution and radiometric dating. Are you saying recent creationists state hundreds of thousands of years and not billions. Where is your source for that?

If you disagree with the concept behind radiometric data, you disagree with physics. Evolution is not relevant in determining the earth's age. The source for 100,000 years comes from creationist (erroneous) assays of diamonds. They do not understand the measuring instruments. Please Google "noise floor".

Moreover, your radiometric dating of meteors and the Earth's age in the billions was shown to be way off due to not knowing the original K amounts. You can disagree, but it would be based on your atheism

Radiological dating is based on physics, not on atheism. How can you possibly think that.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of the Himalayas, Mt. Everest, and other topologies.

Read about plate tectonics.

Instead, you're still hung up on your erroneous radiometric dating techniques despite your admission of the limitations of the instrumentation.

Google "noise floor" Creationists think instrument noise has value where the error bars at that level overwhelm any scientific deduction.

Are you admitting that the instrumentation does not give us millions nor billions yo Earth?

I said the instrumentation is unreliable for K40 dating for any object less than 100,000 years old. This older source puts it at 250,000 years.

Potassium-argon Dating | Encyclopedia.com

*potassium–argon dating* A dating technique [1] for certain rocks that depends on the decay of the radioisotope potassium–40 to argon–40, a process with a half-life of about 1.27 × 1010 years.

www.encyclopedia.com

potassium—argon dating (K—Ar method) Geologic dating technique based on the radioactive decay of potassium (40K) to argon (40Ar). This potassium isotope has a half-life (see DECAY CONSTANT) of 1.3 billion (109) years, making this a valuable dating method. The minimum age limit for this dating method is about 250 000 years.​

What that means is that creationists were wasting their time assaying young rocks from a volcano.

.

Last, I pointed out how ignorant you are of how the Earth was dated as well as how the continents were formed. I knew your side dated meteors for the Earth. Do you know why?

Furthermore, it was Christian scientists who came up with plate tectonics. Why don't you read about creation scientist Alfred Wegener and plate tectonics? Before that was creation scientist Sir Frances Bacon and continental drift. No one from your side mentioned of how our continents formed from breaking larger land masses. Instead, I have to deal with atheist idiots who know squat , but claim to know the "facts."

 

[Colin norris]

james bond
What's your point?
Tectonic plates existed before any creationist scientists etc. I don't care if he is still a Christian. It's irrelevant.
Atheists had no input into the debate other accepting the facts. Why bring them into it?

 

[cnm]

I'm an Ivy League grad.

I'm sure they want that advertised everywhere...

 

[Wuwei]

Last, I pointed out how ignorant you are of how the Earth was dated as well as how the continents were formed. I knew your side dated meteors for the Earth. Do you know why?

So I take it that you still don't believe in radiological dating science.

Furthermore, it was Christian scientists who came up with plate tectonics.

Then it is really a surprise that you don't know how Himalayas, Mt. Everest, etc were formed.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm an Ivy League grad.

I'm sure they want that advertised everywhere...

I can see why you don't....

When you graduated from Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College ....


.....did they give you a diploma or just that big red nose?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm an Ivy League grad.

I'm sure they want that advertised everywhere...

Well, the reason it is only advertised on an anonymous message board is because it is so obviously false.

 

[james bond]

Last, I pointed out how ignorant you are of how the Earth was dated as well as how the continents were formed. I knew your side dated meteors for the Earth. Do you know why?

So I take it that you still don't believe in radiological dating science.

Furthermore, it was Christian scientists who came up with plate tectonics.

Then it is really a surprise that you don't know how Himalayas, Mt. Everest, etc were formed.

.

Your denials, lack of explanation and lack of explanations shows you believe in lies. OTW, you would have explained already and we would have understood. OTOH, I have already explained but you could not believe it so it went over your head . The Himalayas and our continents land masses were due to Noah's Flood. The proof is them being consisted of seafloor sediment.

If your science wasn't atheistic, then you would accept the possibility of God as creator and science backing up the Bible. It does. Those are the facts. Moreover, it would've been atheist scientists with the discoveries, too. They haven't done much. Most have been wrong. How big of an error is an infinite universe to a billions of years old universe which is supposedly "fact" now? You don't even have a KCA. You don't even know how the magnetic field works. What we have is an Earth that is dying and eventually will be destroyed. After 2060 is one possibility and the first SWAG by Sir Isaac Newton.

No, what you have are lies and beliefs in the atheist religion. It wouldn't be a big deal, but being wrong about it means other things happen to you after you die. Life is supernatural. We all die, i.e. our physical selves, but our spiritual side lives on forever. OW, you would be right in seeing abiogenesis happen or life being created from non-life. Life would be another temporary, natural process. We would have transitional fossils. The exact age of the Earth would probably be irrelevant. We would prolly have found intelligent life elsewhere. Instead, we know the Earth and the universe will be destroyed and a new way of existence will emerge.

Bottom line is I know what to expect if we are to believe evolution happened. The only thing that happens is natural selection and catastrophism and that is what God gave us and have punished us with. It's truly amazing your side thinks they know it all, have all the "facts," when they have no evidence whatsoever and have been wrong.

 

[james bond]

I'm an Ivy League grad.

I'm sure they want that advertised everywhere...

Well, the reason it is only advertised on an anonymous message board is because it is so obviously false.

How do you know it is obviously false? If you claimed it, then many of us and I would agree you were lying.

 

[Hollie]

You choose to ignore the evidence.

Why would I do that? You have no evidence. For example, you state singularity but where did the infinite energy come from?

OTOH, the Bible states, i.e. God told us, let there be light. He created the EMS which contains all the energy in the universe that it will ever need.

I never 'stated singularity'. Not surprisingly, you don't even understand the terms you use.

 

[danielpalos]

What does the Bible say about Pangaea?

Pangaea or Pangea ( /pænˈdʒiːə/) was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras. It assembled from earlier continental units approximately 335 million years ago, and began to break apart about 175 million years ago.

Pangaea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[james bond]

You choose to ignore the evidence.

Why would I do that? You have no evidence. For example, you state singularity but where did the infinite energy come from?

OTOH, the Bible states, i.e. God told us, let there be light. He created the EMS which contains all the energy in the universe that it will ever need.

I never 'stated singularity'. Not surprisingly, you don't even understand the terms you use.

Good if you didn't state singularity because that is pure BS. Physics and good logic dictates we have no infinite temperature and infinite density and never had in our universe. It's more evidence for God starting space and time together and the KCA.

However, you do not understand any of this so you may as well be dismissed.