Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew

[Hollie]

Why don't you give everyone your own original science lecture. Don't cut and paste. Use your own words and *scientific* acumen. We can't wait to learn the terrific *science* you will teach everyone.

Do you even KNOW the etiology of "science"?

"Don't cut and paste.''

This from the (im)poster who cuts and pastes entire pages of ''quotes" from creationer websites.

 

[james bond]

Exactly what year was this global flood in regard to the scriptures?

Going by Biblical genealogy, it was around 2345 BC.

 

[james bond]

Science does not “back up” the Bible. Please show us where science “backs up” a flat earth, talking snakes, dead people becoming undead, etc., etc.

When your source is charlatans at AIG, you immediately lose credibility.

AIG is one of the great creation science websites. You need to understand science today has become atheist vs creation science or liberal vs conservative science.

The tragedy is many people, especially atheists, believe whatever they are told. They do not even know that their science is influenced by their religion. How stupid AF is that?

 

[james bond]

So what caused the other extinctions?

Creationists believe that the global flood was the granddaddy for global extinction. The others were local catastrophes like Chicxulub. They believe that Chicxulub could have happened while the global flood was occurring, i.e. over a year's time.

 

[james bond]

FYI, "creation scientists" is an oxymoron while "atheist scientists" is redundant. Science is, by definition, a study of the natural world. If a "scientist" invokes supernatural forces or events to explain something, they are no longer a scientist and have become a theologian. Just sayin'.

Nah. Stop believing in the mythology and fairy tales of atheist science. They're the only ones who can teach their brand of science until creationists are allowed to teach creation science in schools. The greatest scientists in the history of science were creation scientists. One came up with the scientific method. Another with plate tectonics. The atheist scientist who dated the Earth and universe (in the 50s) has been forgotten.

 

[Wuwei]

How can a creationist lie if he goes by God's word in the Bible? Science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book. That should make you turn red with embarrassment for being so wrong about your competition such as your age of the Earth fiasco and posting under the wrong topic. At least if I don't know about what atheist scientists are doing and have come up with, then I can go to evolution.berkeley.edu done by my secular alma mater.

If secular scientists didn't lie, then it would be in the Bible but evolution, evolutionary thinking, and abiogenesis aren't there. Singularity is there, but God created that and the atheist scientists stole it for their own. Initially, God was and still is infinite, but atheists took that and came up with an infinite universe. They were proven wrong. The Bible is still correct stating God is infinite, but now the lying scientists have made up a billion of years old universe.

Ores millions of years old have been dated using rhenium-187 decay to osmium-187.

Rh-187 and Os-187 have been found completely isolated within diamonds. Both elements are very rare, so subsequent contamination is extremely unlikely. The diamonds have been dated to a range of 3.0 to 3.5 billion years old.

What objections do you have on the efficacy of this dating method. Please use science and be specific.

.

 

[Hollie]

AIG is one of the great creation science websites. You need to understand science today has become atheist vs creation science or liberal vs conservative science.

The tragedy is many people, especially atheists, believe whatever they are told. They do not even know that their science is influenced by their religion. How stupid AF is that?

AIG has nothing to do with science. The about page makes that clear.

"Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.''

No mention of science so who made you their spokes-charlatan?


There is no ''atheist vs creation science'' conflict as you have described your conspiracy theory. "Creation science'' has consistently been rejected as science for what it is: fundamentalist Christianity.

 

[Hollie]

Nah. Stop believing in the mythology and fairy tales of atheist science. They're the only ones who can teach their brand of science until creationists are allowed to teach creation science in schools. The greatest scientists in the history of science were creation scientists. One came up with the scientific method. Another with plate tectonics. The atheist scientist who dated the Earth and universe (in the 50s) has been forgotten.

Christian fundamentalism will not be taught in the public schools. The courts have consistently exposed the fraud of ''creationer science'' under the burqa of religious fear and ignorance.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

 

[LittleNipper]

Any child can read a 2 paragraph article and know you made up that stupid, pathetic lie. You can sit there all day and jerk off to thoughts of me., and your pathetic lie generated from your diseased brain will still be a pathetic lie. You are embarrassing yourself and your immoral religion with your behavior.

What you spread over and over and over are atheistic LIES. You believe if "smart" atheistic people say something enough then it has to be true --- or at least if enough people say it then it must be fact. I don't believe what you say. You are a very immature person who shows little if any concern for anyone but yourself. And you like to label people who beg to differ with your views and opinions.

 

[ChemEngineer]

What you spread over and over and over are atheistic LIES. You believe if "smart" atheistic people say something enough then it has to be true --- or at least if enough people say it then it must be fact. I don't believe what you say. You are a very immature person who shows little if any concern for anyone but yourself. And you like to label people who beg to differ with you view and opinions.

My Friend, please put such people on Ignore. That's what it's for.

"Go from the presence of a foolish man."

"Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him." - The Holy Bible

More recently and crudely put:

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is always an order of magnitude greater than it took to produce it." - Brandolini's Law

 

[LittleNipper]

Christian fundamentalism will not be taught in the public schools. The courts have consistently exposed the fraud of ''creationer science'' under the burqa of religious fear and ignorance.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

Atheism should not be taught as secular truth in public classrooms either. When historic Biblical views could be freely disseminated, students were prone to THINK and PONDER and RATIONALIZE. Try to encourage a discussion today and instructors risk losing their jobs because to THINK one must be willing to consider right and wrong. To PONDER one must be willing to regard values and opinions. And to RATIONALIZE one must consider that there are values and opinions that are irrational. That doesn't have to be mean or vindictive, but it must be fair, honest and scrutinized. Public institutions are not willing to do that today. They are far too concerned with allowing people born biologically male or female to insist to be called "IT" without any scientific validation, and yet disregard values or opinions simply because they are supportive of GODLY principles some don't wish to deal with.

 

[james bond]

Ores millions of years old have been dated using rhenium-187 decay to osmium-187.

Rh-187 and Os-187 have been found completely isolated within diamonds. Both elements are very rare, so subsequent contamination is extremely unlikely. The diamonds have been dated to a range of 3.0 to 3.5 billion years old.

What objections do you have on the efficacy of this dating method. Please use science and be specific.

.

I still think you're hung up on the age of the Earth because you're a dumb atheist stuck on evolution and evolutionary thinking. Admit you are the one who cares badly about the age of the Earth!

Are you finally admitting the Earth is not 4.54 billions of years old as claimed from the 1950s in the above? What does the millions of years mean? I think it would be a path toward some genuine knowledge and it would fail today's evolution and evolutionary thinking. My arguments against radiometric dating were: 1) We do not know how much of the parent isotope there was present at the beginning, 2) we assume there has been no contamination, and 3) the decay rate has remained constant. Radiometric dating is unreliable and an erroneous process as it usually fails all three! The creationists have dated rocks of known ages and have gotten extremely inflated ages. If valid, radiometric dating is the only thing that supports the long time evolution needs, but it isn't valid.

 

[james bond]

Christian fundamentalism will not be taught in the public schools. The courts have consistently exposed the fraud of ''creationer science'' under the burqa of religious fear and ignorance.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

As usual, Flattie Hollie, you fail to read and understand what I am saying. We are for teaching creation science as an argument against just teaching atheist science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What you spread over and over and over are atheistic LIES.

Backed by every shred of evidence we have ever collected in every field of science.

You have a book of myths written in the iron age.

I like my chances. Good luck!

 

[ChemEngineer]

Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one. - The Late Milton Friedman

(no title)

TheEducationFraud.wordpress.com

Colleges are turning out millions of brainwashed Leftists every year. That explains the
dolts we have in the White House.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one. - The Late Milton Friedman

(no title)

TheEducationFraud.wordpress.com

Colleges are turning out millions of brainwashed Leftists every year. That explains the
dolts we have in the White House.


View attachment 516918

You uneducated slob right wingers have been using this same talking point since forever. Educated, intelligent people tend to be more moderate and more liberal. And since you feel inferior n so many ways, you attack.

 

[Wuwei]

Are you finally admitting the Earth is not 4.54 billions of years old as claimed from the 1950s in the above? What does the millions of years mean?

The age of the earth is irrelevant in this post. I'm simply giving the range that Rh-Os can measure. The context here is radiology not evolution.

1) We do not know how much of the parent isotope there was present at the beginning,

We absolutely do know the original amount. It Is the current amount of Rh plus the current amount of Os. Why? Looking back in time, the Os in the sample was once all Rh. That was the amount of the parent element in the material at the start, namely the sum of amounts of Rh + Os. The Os comes from the original Rh. It was once Rh, and now it's Os. It's as simple as that.

2) we assume there has been no contamination,

Rh - Os is embedded in diamond, not exposed to the air like carbon samples are. If there was Os contamination it could easily be measured because only 1.96% of Osmium-187 isotope is naturally occurring. If there was contamination almost all of it would be from the heavier isotopes, Os-188 through Os-192 which are easily weeded out.

OTOH, Diamonds and old rocks are exposed to open air and much more subject to contamination if C14 is used for dating.

3) [we assume] the decay rate has remained constant

The decay rates depends on fundamental physical forces and constants. Isotopes can undergo beta decay, alpha decay, and gamma decay. If any of these forces were not constant, the stars and planets would have blown up or shriveled up long ago.

Those are my 3 responses. If you disagree with any responses what physical reason do you have.

.

 

[james bond]

The age of the earth is irrelevant in this post. I'm simply giving the range that Rh-Os can measure. The context here is radiology not evolution.

We absolutely do know the original amount. It Is the current amount of Rh plus the current amount of Os. Why? Looking back in time, the Os in the sample was once all Rh. That was the amount of the parent element in the material at the start, namely the sum of amounts of Rh + Os. The Os comes from the original Rh. It was once Rh, and now it's Os. It's as simple as that.

Rh - Os is embedded in diamond, not exposed to the air like carbon samples are. If there was Os contamination it could easily be measured because only 1.96% of Osmium-187 isotope is naturally occurring. If there was contamination almost all of it would be from the heavier isotopes, Os-188 through Os-192 which are easily weeded out.

OTOH, Diamonds and old rocks are exposed to open air and much more subject to contamination if C14 is used for dating.

The decay rates depends on fundamental physical forces and constants. Isotopes can undergo beta decay, alpha decay, and gamma decay. If any of these forces were not constant, the stars and planets would have blown up or shriveled up long ago.

Those are my 3 responses. If you disagree with any responses what physical reason do you have.

.

You should back off the age of the Earth since the creation scientists can just use C14 dating for organic items such as fossils. What was interesting was the soft tissue and C14 remaining in dinosaur fossils. That alone should scare the crap outta you that evolution and evolutionary thinking is wrong. Instead, radiometric dating from the 1950s is what you base your entire arguments upon since there is no evidence for abiogenesis nor atheist singularity. The tables have turned since you stupidly brought up age of the Earth.

As for rocks and diamonds, I think the creation scientists only used radiometric dating on rocks and diamonds of known age to show they weren't billions of years as thought. It exposed what the atheist scientist of 1950s claimed.

I'm glad you admit radiometric dating is flawed. At least, I think that's what you're saying and admitting defeat.

 

[james bond]

Backed by every shred of evidence we have ever collected in every field of science.

You have a book of myths written in the iron age.

I like my chances. Good luck!

You're the worst science poster here. You should be in the atheist religion section. Yours is not backed by any shred of evidence that require real science. It's basically backed by atheism and in your case with enormous stupidity. Radiometric dating is supposed to support long time, but the dating method is flawed due to poor assumptions.

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating

www.cs.unc.edu

 

[alang1216]

Creationists believe that the global flood was the granddaddy for global extinction. The others were local catastrophes like Chicxulub. They believe that Chicxulub could have happened while the global flood was occurring, i.e. over a year's time.

One has to admire the strength of your faith and you're ability to ignore any evidence that may contradict it.