the Universe Is Not "Billions of Years"Old (Imnotdutch)

[big_bad_buff]

Nice work finding that.

Unfortunately their four possibilities are not right at all, and im not just saying this to disagree. Distances in space can be accurately measured and we have proven so in the past. The other two are actually funny as hell, implying that because the speed of light Light and proven astrophysics do not agree with the theory than they must be wrong in a 'magical way'. Proving that light takes a "shortcut" using archaic astrological methods or that the speed of light changing over time.

That is absurd, im not really suprised that these interpretations are only reviewed by other creationist members, as they hold no footing if presented to actual astro related scientists. We know how light works and based on the images we see gravity, EM radiation, and we have laws for these things. Why do you suppose that no creationists are working in the big elite space organizations? ands that the smartest people in the community won't even awknowledge it.

Also if the universe was created by a god, that wouldn’t explain the cosmic background radiation that we can still detect presumably from the heat and power of the 'big bang' theory that has since Doppler shifted from the visible light and IR spectrum. Some of the stuff you posted in the past at least had a little scientific merit, but in this article they are essentially making stuff up.

and just because you say so i must believe this? your joking right?




and what if I were to say to you that there are many astrologists that are christians, and do not believe the stuff you are saying? and many have quite, and been fired for their beliefs? I have seen and heard many cases such as these. and you will say BS. well good job, it all comes down to the fact that your just another hard headed ignorant atheist. and i'm an idiot who doesn't believe all this mumbo jumbo that everyone is saying on here. I'm not trying to prove their is a god, i'm trying to prove their are many many more true facts that disprove this evolution big bang theory, it has nothing to do with creation vs evolution, it has to do with everything evolutionist believe is a joke. I think of evolutionist as just people who sit around trying to prove their is no god. most the stuff that they come up with has no logic. and again, before you say(and creationist have logic) this is about the stupidity of evolution. not E vs C

 

[Imnotdutch]

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris”. Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

I simply ran a search as i stated in google, and posted the first few threads that looked like it had to do with "lucy" but of course you just stating they are all wrong of course proves it to me.

I thought it was a known fact that lucy was a joke. I actually heard it first on the discovery channel, and then on several other shows.

Discovery channel????????

As for lucy.........shit so your quote says the skull is largely incomplete. Big deal. did you read the post saying other more complete examples have been found? It seems to me that you are taking the typical creationists approach to this and only looking at the evidence that you choose. Hardly a good way to present a good argument. Oh with regards to the quote........it isnt as if well known scientists havent been misquoted in the past by Creationists........it is their favourite past-time. Shit they even did it to a staunch evolutionist in Stephen Jay Gould.....luckily he heard of it and corrected the dumbass that misquoted him. Creationists find a quote that says the complete opposite of what they want to say and then take a short piece that appears to back up the creation or disproves science.

It seems to me that the purpose of this thread is solely to destroy evolution no mater what it takes........even if it is posting misleading info. You are wasting your time........post good considered articles and everybody will listen.

 

[Imnotdutch]

and just because you say so i must believe this? your joking right?




and what if I were to say to you that there are many astrologists that are christians, and do not believe the stuff you are saying?

//An astrologist predicts the future from looking at the skies.......I'm not suprised that they would believe in something like God.

and many have quite, and been fired for their beliefs? I have seen and heard many cases such as these. and you will say BS. well good job, it all comes down to the fact that your just another hard headed ignorant atheist.

//Way to make your argument........could I turn it around and say that seeing as your evidence is very weak and faulty that you are just another hard-headed creationist.

and i'm an idiot who doesn't believe all this mumbo jumbo that everyone is saying on here. I'm not trying to prove their is a god, i'm trying to prove their are many many more true facts that disprove this evolution big bang theory,

//And people have disputed your evidence using good arguments. Where are your counter arguments? BTW facts do not exist.......science and humans in general do not deal in facts. Facts are for people who do not understand anything about science or how the world works. Humans deal in things called conceptions.....ideas of how we see the world. Some conceptions are better supported than others.

it has nothing to do with creation vs evolution, it has to do with everything evolutionist believe is a joke.

//So you should be able to disprove the theory int he blink of an eye........you have failed to do that. Hence this statement is bullshit.......

I think of evolutionist as just people who sit around trying to prove their is no god.

//Science has nothing to do with trying to disprove the existence of God. That is an insecure creationist idea........a good scientist realises the limits of what science tells us.......and what religion tells us. The two can co-exist.

most the stuff that they come up with has no logic.

//On the contrary, science deals in logic. This is the difference between science and religion........science uses logic to formulate ideas.

and again, before you say(and creationist have logic) this is about the stupidity of evolution. not E vs C

//Really.........??

 

[big_bad_buff]

The best support for evolution is the ignorance of people, remember that! might I add, there was not one person who disproved every single one of those listed. if you would like, why don't we have a debate, stating one idea at a time. and this can be between just me and you if you would like. asking each other one question at a time until we are finished with it. and then the other may ask a question. I would enjoy this very much. I don't want it to go down in a fighting manner, just discuss one issue at a time on this board. let me know!


And people have disputed your evidence using good arguments. Where are your counter arguments?
(PLEASE POINT ONE OUT TO ME, WHERE THEIR ARGUMENT TOTALLY PROVES MY POINT TO BE WRONG)

So you should be able to disprove the theory int he blink of an eye........you have failed to do that. Hence this statement is bullshit. ( IT IS NOT SO MUCH AS PROVING IT TO BE WRONG, AS IT IS TO CRITIQUE, AND POINT OUT ALL THE HOLES, LUDICROUS GUESS WORK AND DELIBERATE HOAXES)

a good scientist realizes the limits of what science tells us.......and what religion tells us. The two can co-exist. ( PLEASE DO EXPLAIN )

 

[Drifter]

You just might want to do a bit more reading/research. It does look like the planet isn't as old as was previously thought but it still doesn't disprove evolution. And it sure as hell doesn't prove that god exists.

You want us to lay down tons of scientific facts to prove our point of view but can't even establish one fact to prove that there is a god. Pretty convienient if you ask me.

 

[Imnotdutch]

The best support for evolution is the ignorance of people, remember that!

//Not if you do some real research and look into the evidence instead of buying the shit that they put on creationist web sites.

might I add, there was not one person who disproved every single one of those listed.

//Lets face it there was a lot of them and it got a bit boring after a while.

if you would like, why don't we have a debate, stating one idea at a time. and this can be between just me and you if you would like. asking each other one question at a time until we are finished with it. and then the other may ask a question.

//A debate requires participants with open minds so you could not take part. Also, you do not understand the shit you post so I could not debate with you only the people who write your 'evidence'.

I would enjoy this very much. I don't want it to go down in a fighting manner, just discuss one issue at a time on this board. let me know!


And people have disputed your evidence using good arguments. Where are your counter arguments?
(PLEASE POINT ONE OUT TO ME, WHERE THEIR ARGUMENT TOTALLY PROVES MY POINT TO BE WRONG)

//Look again please........of course you dont undestand your 'evidence' so you prob dont understand the counter arguments either. Look into your 'evidence' more closely........you are prob gonna be embarassed that you posted it.

So you should be able to disprove the theory int he blink of an eye........you have failed to do that. Hence this statement is bullshit. ( IT IS NOT SO MUCH AS PROVING IT TO BE WRONG, AS IT IS TO CRITIQUE, AND POINT OUT ALL THE HOLES, LUDICROUS GUESS WORK AND DELIBERATE HOAXES)

//But you have not presented a critique at all!! A critique inplies that you are giving good arguments against evolution.......but what you post against it has been answered many times and to put it bluntly.........totally destroyed.

a good scientist realizes the limits of what science tells us.......and what religion tells us. The two can co-exist. ( PLEASE DO EXPLAIN )

Ok lets see.........Science would do a poor job of answering why we are here. However, religion does a reasonable of giving most people an answer that they can accept. This type of question suits religion because evidence can not be collected and it just involves building a believable picture. Similarly, religion does a poor job of describing the world and giving us an understanding of how it and its surroundings work. This is the realm that true scientists work in. They can collect objective evidence that explains phenomena (including how man came about). Religion does not work with objective evidence and really has no business trying to answer these type of questions.

Good scientists will realise that science cannot answer some questions (Dawkins isn't a good scientist BTW. He has problems dealing with the big picture). On the other hand, some people try to answer too many questions using religion.

This is best I can do 10 mins after waking up hope it makes some sense.

 

[Imnotdutch]

Very good point....!!

You just might want to do a bit more reading/research. It does look like the planet isn't as old as was previously thought but it still doesn't disprove evolution. And it sure as hell doesn't prove that god exists.

You want us to lay down tons of scientific facts to prove our point of view but can't even establish one fact to prove that there is a god. Pretty convienient if you ask me.

 

[Drunken_Weasel]

The best support for evolution is the ignorance of people, remember that!

Lmao, same goes for fucking religion.

a good scientist realizes the limits of what science tells us.......and what religion tells us. The two can co-exist. ( PLEASE DO EXPLAIN )

I'm sorry, I didn't' read through the whole thread, only the first page, and the last few posts.. but are you saying that religion and science can co-exist? if so.. why the fuck are you arguing on about how untrue science is? Science and Religion are both the same.. they are something to believe. Some believe in science, for it has more logic, while some believe in Religion, which has more answers. Personally, I think believing in religion is completely ignorant, believing something just because its in a book thousands of years old. its a fucking book.. shit, seriously... If I were to believe something out of a book.. I might as well believe in hobbits, elves, and dark lords.

 

[Imnotdutch]

It was me that said both can co-exist.

BBB seems to be anti-science......unless it is quoted out of context so that it appears to support his argument.

Lmao, same goes for fucking religion.




I'm sorry, I didn't' read through the whole thread, only the first page, and the last few posts.. but are you saying that religion and science can co-exist? if so.. why the fuck are you arguing on about how untrue science is? Science and Religion are both the same.. they are something to believe. Some believe in science, for it has more logic, while some believe in Religion, which has more answers. Personally, I think believing in religion is completely ignorant, believing something just because its in a book thousands of years old. its a fucking book.. shit, seriously... If I were to believe something out of a book.. I might as well believe in hobbits, elves, and dark lords.

 

[big_bad_buff]

your a funny guy. please quite asking me to responed to this post in other threads if your not able of holding a converstion. everything you say on here I can just turn around and say it right back at you. Hmm yes, i would like to turn this around on you: A debate requires participants with open minds so you could not take part.