Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew

[alang1216]

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.

Ironic that plate tectonics was discovered by a 'creation scientist' and you still refuse to accept it.

 

[Hollie]

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.

There is nothing to support your statement that “When historic Biblical views could be freely disseminated, students were prone to THINK and PONDER and RATIONALIZE”. Christians tend to make such ludicrous claims because they’re incensed that proselytizing is illegal in the public schools.

if we are going to attempt to RATIONALIZE a literal rendering of the Bible, how goes anyone THINK and PONDER about such absurdities as talking snakes, a flat earth, a 6,000 year old earth, dead people coming back to life, etc.?

 

[Wuwei]

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.

My post addressed Rh-Os decay and your objections concerning the original amount of rhenium, contamination possibility, and invariance of decay rate.

You deflected to issues that have nothing to do with the efficacy of Rh-Os dating. I gave 3 responses in post #317. If you disagree with any responses what physical reason do you have.

As of now it looks like you can't defend your argument with the science of long half-life dating. You can only change the subject.

.

 

[Wuwei]

if we are going to attempt to RATIONALIZE a literal rendering of the Bible, how goes anyone THINK and PONDER

I don't think creationists know how to ponder.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Actually, what you are saying is nothing more than what comes out of creation ministries and that is far removed from science. You should be honest with yourself and others. “Creation science” is Christian fundamentalism. “Creation science” is simply window dressing new lipstick on a string of phony labels attempting to rebrand “Biblical Creationism" which became “Scientific Creationism, which became "Intelligent Design." All of it being attempts by Christian fundamentalists to press their religion into the public school system.

As a group, Christian extremists have shown themselves to be dishonest, agenda driven hacks.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Can it really be Faith in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the Incorrigible original sinners?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

On the contrary, i think Bond and Nipper show how fragile and shaky their faith is, when they treat us to this dog and pony show. If their faith were strong and unshakeable, they would not feel the need to go on a message board and try to justify it with lies, attacks, and fake evidence and arguments that have nothing to do with beliefs they hold for entirely different reasons. We are just the foils in this little exercise of them trying to keep their faith.

 

[alang1216]

Can it really be Faith in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the Incorrigible original sinners?

I ran that through Google Translate and it still sounds like nonsense.

 

[james bond]

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

Hm... Speaking of FAITH, I understand that on this topic, it's more a belief of the atheists and their scientists that an asteroid killed off the dinosaurs and their belief that radiometric dating from the 1950s is valid. The Bible has always told it first and the atheists and their scientists (and Satan) had to contradict everything the Bible stated. The Chicxulub explanation would contradict the global flood killing the dinosaurs.

However, the evidence doesn't show that it would cause a global extinction. It doesn't even show that there was an asteroid impact. There were no impacted rocks and debris found at the site and lack of iridium or radioactive material present in all meteors. The evidence shows that the crater was formed by a volcano. Aren't you the one going by what you believe than the actual evidence?

I didn't want to bring up Satan in s&t, but there is no other explanation of why evolution and evolutionary thinking contradicts everything in the Bible. You're entitled to believe what you want without the scientific evidence backing it up, but it's weird like the atheists and their scientists are going by the anti-Bible. Are you starting to get it now?

 

[james bond]

Ironic that plate tectonics was discovered by a 'creation scientist' and you still refuse to accept it.

Heh. It's what caused the global flood, but you and your side refuse to accept it.

 

[james bond]

On the contrary, i think Bond and Nipper show how fragile and shaky their faith is, when they treat us to this dog and pony show. If their faith were strong and unshakeable, they would not feel the need to go on a message board and try to justify it with lies, attacks, and fake evidence and arguments that have nothing to do with beliefs they hold for entirely different reasons. We are just the foils in this little exercise of them trying to keep their faith.

The stuff that happened in the past such as global flood vs. Chicxulub asteroid can only be argued by the evidence. There's plenty of factual evidence for a global flood and nothing for a large meteor impact at Chicxulub. It sounds like more fairy tales of evolutionary thinking and something made up to discredit a global flood.

 

[Wuwei]

On the contrary, i think Bond and Nipper show how fragile and shaky their faith is, when they treat us to this dog and pony show. If their faith were strong and unshakeable, they would not feel the need to go on a message board and try to justify it with lies, attacks, and fake evidence and arguments that have nothing to do with beliefs they hold for entirely different reasons. We are just the foils in this little exercise of them trying to keep their faith.

There is very little difference in the broken brain wiring of a creation "scientist" compared to scientologists, Rudy Giuliani, and the like.
We obviously can't make them see rationality but we can push them into corners, but they seem to be too oblivious to recognize their own self-contradictions. However some on this board have no recourse except simply being trolls.

All would be well if they didn't constantly hijack science threads and post crap from creationist sites that have gaslighted their minds.
.

 

[Bezukhov]

Can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt it was your version of this first cause that was responsible for everything, and not that Hindu's over there?

 

[danielpalos]

Should we ask the Sumerians?

 

[ChemEngineer]

Can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt it was your version of this first cause that was responsible for everything, and not that Hindu's over there?

You are clearly unfamiliar with the nature of "proof."
Nothing will serve as "proof" if it is contrary to their narrative.

 

[alang1216]

Hm... Speaking of FAITH, I understand that on this topic, it's more a belief of the atheists and their scientists that an asteroid killed off the dinosaurs and their belief that radiometric dating from the 1950s is valid. The Bible has always told it first and the atheists and their scientists (and Satan) had to contradict everything the Bible stated. The Chicxulub explanation would contradict the global flood killing the dinosaurs.

However, the evidence doesn't show that it would cause a global extinction. It doesn't even show that there was an asteroid impact. There were no impacted rocks and debris found at the site and lack of iridium or radioactive material present in all meteors. The evidence shows that the crater was formed by a volcano. Aren't you the one going by what you believe than the actual evidence?

I didn't want to bring up Satan in s&t, but there is no other explanation of why evolution and evolutionary thinking contradicts everything in the Bible. You're entitled to believe what you want without the scientific evidence backing it up, but it's weird like the atheists and their scientists are going by the anti-Bible. Are you starting to get it now?

Here is an account of a scientific exploration of the crater. They drilled into it and removed rock cores. They found NO volcanic rock. You can look at them yourself. I have to doubt your honesty when you claim the evidence shows that the crater was formed by a volcano. What evidence?

I do get it. You use a book on theology as a scientific textbook. You really need to understand the difference between theology and science. The Bible doesn't have to be literally true to have value, you are the one cheapening it by demanding it does. What does it matter if the flood were literally true or not, is your faith so fragile that you have to invent things to back it up?

Inch by inch, the team pulled up the skinny core of ghostly white limestone from the ocean floor, gazing at the compressed remains of ancient organisms that died tens of millions of years ago. But then a stark divide appeared as the layers abruptly darkened.​

​

“It was nothing like the stuff above,” recalls Sean Gulick, a co-chief scientist of the expedition and a researcher at the University of Texas at Austin.​

​

This change in the rock marks one of the most catastrophic events in Earth’s history, some 66 million years ago, when an epic asteroid slammed into the sea just offshore of Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula. ​

 

[Wuwei]

Can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt it was your version of this first cause that was responsible for everything, and not that Hindu's over there?

The way I see it is that if you want to say the big bang had a first cause, that's fine. But that means nothing further can be said. It does not mean that a particular religion is valid. It does not give rise to any form of prayer, liturgy, or rituals. It does not say that same first cause micromanages your life.
.

 

[james bond]

My post addressed Rh-Os decay and your objections concerning the original amount of rhenium, contamination possibility, and invariance of decay rate.

You deflected to issues that have nothing to do with the efficacy of Rh-Os dating. I gave 3 responses in post #317. If you disagree with any responses what physical reason do you have.

As of now it looks like you can't defend your argument with the science of long half-life dating. You can only change the subject.

.

When was RH-Os decay done initially? What was it used to date to get the long half-life time? I suspect you're giving a different example of how radiometric decay can be used to date a rock and we went over that already -- The Radiometric Dating Game.

Moreover, I've found that you're getting the radiometric age which may not have to do with actual age.

Finally, I can accept that you won't accept the creation science of radiocarbon dating of dinosaur fossils because it shows they died off in short time. It's real science, but you cannot accept it due and continually avoid it because it destroys your erroneous atheist worldview.

There is very little difference in the broken brain wiring of a creation "scientist" compared to scientologists, Rudy Giuliani, and the like.
We obviously can't make them see rationality but we can push them into corners, but they seem to be too oblivious to recognize their own self-contradictions. However some on this board have no recourse except simply being trolls.

All would be well if they didn't constantly hijack science threads and post crap from creationist sites that have gaslighted their minds.
.

Come now. Basically, all I get from you are libturd atheist science promotion and lies of atheist science arguments. I understand because it's based on trying to support your religion and contradicting what the Bible stated.

Thus, I agree that we'll disagree, but I didn't expect to find that we disagree on everything. My science is based on the Bible, but I try to leave out the religious parts as creationists have found that science backs up the Bible. For example, God creating singularity and the big bang cause spacetime and our universe to be formed. However, we find that afterwards atheist scientists took singularity for themselves and hypothesized that it and the big bang happens naturally. That's a ridiculous and weak argument and huge lie.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

? I suspect you're giving a different example of how radiometric decay can be used to date a rock and we went over that already -- The Radiometric Dating Game.

Haha...do you ever have a moment of clarity and realize you have to cite fringe morons who have published no science? That you embarrass youself when you do this? I doubt it.

 

[Hollie]

When was RH-Os decay done initially? What was it used to date to get the long half-life time? I suspect you're giving a different example of how radiometric decay can be used to date a rock and we went over that already -- The Radiometric Dating Game.

Moreover, I've found that you're getting the radiometric age which may not have to do with actual age.

Finally, I can accept that you won't accept the creation science of radiocarbon dating of dinosaur fossils because it shows they died off in short time. It's real science, but you cannot accept it due and continually avoid it because it destroys your erroneous atheist worldview.


Come now. Basically, all I get from you are libturd atheist science promotion and lies of atheist science arguments. I understand because it's based on trying to support your religion and contradicting what the Bible stated.

Thus, I agree that we'll disagree, but I didn't expect to find that we disagree on everything. My science is based on the Bible, but I try to leave out the religious parts as creationists have found that science backs up the Bible. For example, God creating singularity and the big bang cause spacetime and our universe to be formed. However, we find that afterwards atheist scientists took singularity for themselves and hypothesized that it and the big bang happens naturally. That's a ridiculous and weak argument and huge lie.

Cutting and pasting from a religioners personal blog is hardly a relevant argument.