.1. sketched my point on the stars I'll do it again. If Genesis contents the earth is 6000 years old. Then logicaly the night sky should only have stars in it that are 6000 lightyears or less away, very local in cosmic terms.
2. Again the time periods I gave are not just based in time but even as my original point said, in the evolutionare fase of life. Sometimes in the type of rock found.( Cretacious) after large quantities of chalk found dating from that period. Sometimes geograpicaly. I'm not stuck on the naming. You brought it up, siting it as proof of the fact that science doesn't find time a factor when naming a strata. While geology is tightly intertwined with the theory of evolution as the names of some of the geolical periods prove.
3. Science has added some very unpopular ideas since before it was science. Evolution was one of them when it was introduced. So was plate tectonics, the big bang and numerous others we consider common knowledge. Supressing anything in it is extremely difficult if not impossible. Since any theory brought out by science constantly has to stand the test of reality. A scientist who can disprove an accepted theory becomes a hero to science. Claiming it supresses ideas is simply untrue.
4.
Prominent Hominid Fossils
The link provided brings you to a site with homonid fossils and a description of what they found.Most are fragments but some are considerably more then that. And remember I don't have to prove that all of them are homonids just one is sufficient to invalidate Genesis.
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.
