• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Creationists vs "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists"

Right Divider

Body part
No, seriously... you don't understand the theories that I present.

No, seriously .... I do.

You do not understand the difference between theories based on observation and models based on very little at all.

The "theory of stellar evolution" cannot be proven by observation. Unless you've actually been around for "billions of years".

You are very funny, though.
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Are you asserting that Creationists are not constructive?

Creationists are not constructive at all. All YECs do is deny modern science and argue in favor of a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. If you guys know so much better than Einstein, then bring on the goods!
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Off the top of my head — books, degrees, careers, podcasts...

Books? Degrees? Careers? Podcasts? That tells me nothing.

Einstein gave us Relativity. You guys claim to know better than Einstein, but what have you given us?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Below is an image of Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3:
.


wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==





This supernova is located ~27,000 light years away from Earth, meaning that it takes at least 27,000 years for the light from this supernova to reach Earth. Try making any kind of scientific sense out of that with the assumption of a 6,000 year old universe.

But wait! It gets worse. This is a supernova, meaning that it is the remnants of an exploded star. Stars have very long lifespans. The largest stars have the shortest lifespans--as little as 10 million years, while smaller stars can last for around 10 billion years. So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old?

Your claim about how old stars are is based entirely on theory, not observational science. There are actually quite a few alternative theories all of which are quite valid scientifically but that aren't main stream and so get ignored. The point being that we do not actually know for a fact how long stars last or even what powers them.

As for the distance to distant objects, we don't really know that either. Red shift theory is in real trouble and has been for decades. Main stream science mostly just ignores the problems with it and just keeps on going as though the problems don't exist.There are some who try to explain the issue away but they typically are nothing other than ad hoc rescue devices (i.e. they aren't scientific).
`

"On October 3, 2003, the Big Bang theory was falsified by direct observation. The galaxy NGC 7319 was measured to have a redshift of z = 0.0225. It is not uncommon for “nearby” galaxies to have redshifts below z = 1. However, a quasar was located in front of NGC 7319’s opaque gas clouds with an observed redshift of z = 2.114.

The two principle tenets of the Big Bang theory are that redshift is proportional to distance and that it is an indicator of velocity. The larger an object’s redshift the farther away it is and the faster it is moving away from the observer. Those two ideas provide the backdrop for the commonly held belief that the Universe is expanding.

According to the Big Bang, the NGC 7319 quasar “must be billions of light years farther away than the galaxy” because it has a higher redshift. Yet, since the galaxy is opaque, the quasar has to be in front of the galactic dust clouds and not shining through them.

“No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift of 2.11, so close to the center of an active galaxy,” said the late astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge at the time. The discovery team included his spouse, E. Margaret Burbidge, another noted astronomer. The find was significant because it is the most extreme example of a quasar in front of a galaxy with a lower redshift." - Stephen Smith

wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==



The above is by no means the only such example. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds. The unfortunate fact is that there isn't any way we know of for us to tell how far away these object are once they get passed the point where we can measure their parallax.

The bottom line is that the things you think you know are not the facts that modern science presents them to be. Evolution, whether cosmological or biological has become a religion and most of main stream science left the actual scientific method behind about a hundred years ago and trading observation with mathematical abstractions and computer models.

Further, it is not valid to make any attempt to falsify the idea that the universe is created by looking at the nature of the universe, at least not in the manner you are trying to do it anyway. Any argument you could make would be question begging because you cannot know what state the universe was created in and are thus forced to presuppose the veracity of your position in order to make the argument, which is textbook question begging. There is no requirement, for example, to believe that all stars were created in a newly formed state where they'd have to wait millions of years to burn out their fuel. In fact, it isn't necessary to believe that God didn't create the universe in basically the state in which we find it, with exploded stars and light stretching from there to here already. Light is, after all, the very first thing God created and what would be the point of creating stars three days later in such a way that no one could see them? Just as, Adam and Eve were not created as single celled embryos that had to mature for twenty years to become mature adults and just as the trees in Eden were not created as seedlings on day three of creation, so also the stars were fully formed, mature, visible and roughly speaking in their current state when God created them on day four.

Clete

Clete
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
The bottom line is that the things you think you know are not the facts that modern science presents them to be. Evolution, whether cosmological or biological has become a religion and most of main stream science left the actual scientific method behind about a hundred years ago and trading observation with mathematical abstractions and computer models.

On the contrary, as I have already stated in this thread:

Science is subject to change when presented with new information. It isn't "doctrine" or "dogma."

YECs are the ones who are bound to doctrine and dogma, and are not guided by the scientific method. I can't say that YECs ever chucked the scientific method behind them because they never used it in the first place.

The only reason you know about the problems in cosmology is because the very scientists who you claim "left the actual scientific method behind about a hundred years ago" are telling you all about them.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
On the contrary, as I have already stated in this thread:
Saying it doesn't make it so.

YECs are the ones who are bound to doctrine and dogma, and are not guided by the scientific method.
Saying it doesn't make it so.

But I can't say that YECs ever chucked the scientific method behind them because they never used it in the first place.
This one you knew was a lie when you said it.

Who exactly are you trying to convince here, yourself maybe?

The only reason you know about the problems in cosmology is because the very scientists who you claim "left the actual scientific method behind about a hundred years ago" are telling you all about them.
Ha! That's a complete laugh! Why do you base your entire life on a worldview that you obviously know nothing about? I mean your ignorance is glaringly obvious here. You're a hack - at best - and your whole life and sense of self importance is wrapped up in a worldview you don't know anything about!

The anomalous red shifts were talked about by Dr. Halton Arp, who was hardly a mainstream scientist. He rejected Big Bang cosmology entirely and is sort of the father of Plasma Cosmology. His book was published decades ago and ever so slowly and with the most obviously negative bias and resistance, mainstream science has had to more and more acknowledge that the universe is not almost entirely governed by gravity, as Big Bang Cosmology logically REQUIRES. It was years before mainstream astronomers would acknowledge the existence of cosmological scale magnetic fields that their own instruments detected and they still refuse to accept that those magnetic fields imply the existence of huge electric currents (electric currents are the only way magnetic field are generated (the semi-exception being permanent magnets where the electron orbitals lined up so they contribute to an overall magnetic field, which, of course, cannot happen in mostly empty space and plasma fields - i.e. in galaxies, stars, et al.).

The fact is that the dozens and dozens of anomalous red shifts that exist flat out falsify the big bang theory. There is nothing and I mean nothing at all in Big Bang theology that can possibly account for a quasar being billions of light years further away than the galaxy behind it.

And anomalous red shifts are only one of the things that recent science has actually observed that flat out falsify the big bang. One of my favorites is the Hercules Corona Borealis Wall which was discovered in December of 2013. Such structures cannot exist in a big bang universe but not only can they exist but are in fact predicted by Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe Theory.

The proof, by the way, that the big bang theory is really just dogma and not science is the fact that none of the mainstream scientists ever permit anything to falsify it. Instead, they spend whole careers figuring out what are quite literally ad hoc rescue devices, the most famous and most ridiculous being things like dark matter and dark energy, which there is precisely zero observational evidence for whatsoever. In fact, the more we look, the more don't find it and yet every single main stream cosmologist (physicist / astronomer) insists that it exists and base all of their work on this "fact".

Clete

P.S. If you want to learn something for real and get a feel for what real science looks and sounds like, take the time to watch the following video.


 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
the scientific method

"the scientific method", eh?

What you're talking about is that fools' game wherein "scientists" say evidence supports X being true, and yet, inexplicably, continue to feel a need to "accumulate more and more evidence", so that later, they will turn around and say evidence supports X having been false all along--so that, at the end of the day, these "scientists"(whom you let do your thinking for you) have handed us that evidence supports both X and the contradictory of X. What irrationality, what stupidity your "the scientific method" is, that by it "scientists" are motivated to say that evidence supports falsehoods, thus showing that their (and your (you being one of their many shoulder parrots)) doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless.

Let me ask you, point blank, so that I can get you on record stonewalling against my questions:
  • Can/does evidence ever support one or more false proposition(s)? Yes or No?
  • Can/does evidence ever support both propositions that constitute a pair of contradictories? Yes or No?
Happy stonewalling!:)

(Oh, and your "the scientific method"--is it not what you--child of "The Enlightenment" that you are--consider to be the foundation of your worldview?)
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Let me ask you, point blank, so that I can get you on record stonewalling against my questions:
  • Can/does evidence ever support one or more false proposition(s)? Yes or No?
  • Can/does evidence ever support both propositions that constitute a pair of contradictories? Yes or No?

There's this thing called "the weight of scientific evidence." It may be that some evidence could be used to support multiple, even contradictory, assumptions. (This reminds me of the old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.") So the question should be, "On which side of the balance does the weight of scientific evidence fall?" Certainly not on the side of YEC.
 

Right Divider

Body part
There's this thing called "the weight of scientific evidence." It may be that some evidence could be used to support multiple, even contradictory, assumptions. (This reminds me of the old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.") So the question should be, "On which side of the balance does the weight of scientific evidence fall?" Certainly not on the side of YEC.

I laugh so loud when you guys start taking this silly "weight of scientific evidence" tactic to try to prop up your bogus ideas.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
There's this thing called "the weight of scientific evidence." It may be that some evidence could be used to support multiple, even contradictory, assumptions. (This reminds me of the old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.") So the question should be, "On which side of the balance does the weight of scientific evidence fall?" Certainly not on the side of YEC.

If, by "the weight of scientific evidence", you mean "not all, but only some scientific evidence", you just described the very stupidity, the very irrationality I am talking about. Your (and many, many others') doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless, since you say that evidence can support falsehoods.

Also, when you claim something as dumb as that "the weight of scientific evidence [supports X]", you create the further problem for yourself of now having to support, with evidence, your claim that "the weight of scientific evidence [supports X]".

Why does your claim that evidence can support false propositions remind you of "the old saying" you cited?

Here's a fun question for you to try to deal with:

Is all evidence truth? Is every thing that is evidence something that is true? Yes or No?

Personally, I would answer "Yes" to this question, and in so doing would not create a problem of incoherence for my worldview. You, on the other hand, will have shot yourself in the foot if you answer "Yes" to it. Why? Simple. First, ask yourself: "What is it for evidence, E, to support a proposition, P, if not for P to be entailed by E?" Now, I, for one, take it as an axiom that where E is true, for E to entail P is necessarily for P to be true. Yet, you would be saying that E could be true, and could entail P, even though P were false--in other words, that a true proposition could entail a false proposition.

I do love, however, that you just admitted that YEC is supported by evidence.:)
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
I do love, however, that you just admitted that YEC is supported by evidence.:)

I'm sure that some bits of evidence, cherry-picked and taken out of context, could be alleged to support YEC. That's what YECs do in place of the scientific method.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
I'm sure that some bits of evidence, cherry-picked and taken out of context, could be alleged to support YEC.

Here, you've just changed your story: first, you had told me that some evidence supports YEC, whereas now, you claim that no evidence supports YEC. Before, you had told me that "the weight of evidence" supports anti-YEC, but now, because you can't defend your stupidity of claiming that evidence can support each of two, mutually-contradictory propositions, you have changed your story to tell me that ALL evidence supports anti-YEC.

What you've done, thereby, is admitted (in contradiction of what you had previously affirmed) that you really agree with me that evidence cannot support each of two, mutually-contradictory propositions.

That's what YECs do in place of the scientific method.

If YECs were to do the irrational thinking you wholly emotively call "the scientific method", we'd be in the same, self-defeating intellectual mess under which the likes of you have buried yourselves.

Is all evidence truth? Is every thing that is evidence something that is true? Yes or No?
<NO ANSWER>

You really, really, really do not like being asked this question, do you?:chicken:
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
And yet, there it is. Surprise!
What a waste of time you are.

So you think that YECs came to believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old through using the scientific method, rather than through doctrine and dogma? Yeah, no. I'm not buying it.
Your brain is broken. I never even implied any such thing.

You said it!
What are you even doing here?
 
Top