Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew

[james bond]

We don't have Perfect Knowledge and even some basic research may be dangerous; the scientific method is still our best bet, in my opinion.

Which you can't admit to yourself was created by creation scientist Sir Francis Bacon -- Sir Francis Bacon. At least, we remember our BIG scientists who created our best science unlike yours who made up radiometric dating. (I know but won't tell you lol).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you can't admit to yourself was created by creation scientist Sir Francis Bacon -- Sir Francis Bacon.

So what? That knowledge came in spite of religion, not because of it. He had the same iron aged book of childish myths as every man before him had for millennia. Yet we had to wait for him.

So...way to highlight yet another way your book of silly myths is useless, when it comes to science.

 

[Hollie]

I would say the radiometric dating of rocks is important for the atheists. I suspect they'll pay for their false beliefs in the end.

You're offended by the advancement of science and knowledge because discovery of the natural world leaves less and less room for belief in ancient fears and superstitions. Are you aware that not everyone is a fundamentalist Christian, or shares your extremist views? Your apparent goal is to project your fears and superstitions on others and to use your extremist views like a weapon. Trying to convince people that the bible is not a myth, or that the Bibies are an authoritative rendering of history is nonsense. Bible thumping is counter-productive and using your Bibles and gods to hurl cheap threats is makes you look like some Taliban wannabe.

How is looking at scientific evidence "with a biblical view" different from looking at it in any other light? Are you suggesting that the conclusions should be influenced by biblical faith? Shame on you. Facts are facts, regardless of your religious beliefs.

 

[danielpalos]

Which you can't admit to yourself was created by creation scientist Sir Francis Bacon -- Sir Francis Bacon. At least, we remember our BIG scientists who created our best science unlike yours who made up radiometric dating. (I know but won't tell you lol).

I don't follow your line of reasoning. The scientific method comes from the discovery of self-evident truths studied.

 

[james bond]

So what? That knowledge came in spite of religion, not because of it. He had the same iron aged book of childish myths as every man before him had for millennia. Yet we had to wait for him.

So...way to highlight yet another way your book of silly myths is useless, when it comes to science.

So LMAO. Your guy who invented radiometric dating is long forgotten. Don't be jealous. Envy is one of the seven deadly sins.

 

[james bond]

I don't follow your line of reasoning. The scientific method comes from the discovery of self-evident truths studied.

The scientific method is the ideal way science should be done. It's not based on atheistic lies like radiometric dating, evolution, and evolutionary thinking because no one was there to observe when billions of years old meteors were formed. OTOH God was there since the beginning of creation and told us how he did it in the Bible, his autobiography.

The greatest scientists in the history of the world have been creation scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Johan Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (invented calculus), Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, James Joule, Louis Pasteur, James Maxwell, George Washington Carver, and more. Albert Einstein believed in a personal god and wasn't atheist. He wasn't exactly a creationist either. The atheist list doesn't match up. Can you name a few and their accomplishments? Who invented radiometric dating?

 

[danielpalos]

It's not based on atheistic lies like radiometric dating, evolution, and evolutionary thinking because no one was there to observe when billions of years old meteors were formed.

It is more objective than anything else.

 

[Wuwei]

And atheist scientists are not such as readily accepting billions of years universe and Earth from the 1950s? It's like atheists practice voodoo science with atheist evolution. They just want to contradict and disprove what the Bible said.

No guessing on the part of the creationists. It's already in the Bible and science backs up the parts of the Bible we are discussing. It came up with singularity first and the big bang, i.e. expansion of the universe, and then the atheist scientists stole it once the discovery of CMB. The atheist scientists claimed an infinite universe existed in order to not have God starting space and time and the universe, but they were freaking wrong. Now, they have to claim long time because the Bible stated cosmic expansion or big bang, i.e. there was a beginning.

Thus, it is you who are wrong once again. You have feces on your face and not egg because this has happened to the atheists over and over. The universe is not infinite. Earth didn't exist until it was created. The atheists can't even explain the energy nor the cosmic expansion unless they claim natural singularity. What bull. The Bible and the creationists stated what happened first and science has backed it up with creation singularity and the big bang.

You have gotten too emotional over this and the destruction of radiometric dating and don't know what you are talking about anymore. It really is sad and pathetic to read your posts.

More preaching. Also this:

You have feces on your face and not egg because this has happened to the atheists over and over.​

...​

You have gotten too emotional over this...​

How can you be my BFF when you say things like that. It shows you got the emotion thing backwards, ya know.

Lol. More lies. Creationists talk about the atheists and their evolutionary thinking all the time. We find we discuss how science backs up the Bible and then the atheist scientists steal what was discovered and try to make up stuff and an atheist version to explain the Biblical truth and science. I provided one of the biggest examples above.

As for measurements, I have been giving you what was measured and what the creationists have measured or did you just ignore radiocarbon dating? It sounds like your emotions have made you blind or deaf to what your opponent is presenting.

Let me say it again. The reference you gave me was almost all about K-Ar dating. The contamination and dispersion problems they cover in detail are well known to scientists. Nothing new there. But you failed to give a reference that covers Rh-Os dating which has none of those problems.

Furthermore one other isotope they cover in many paragraphs is C14, but they failed to give any analysis of the noise problems when trying to date anything past 60-80 thousand years. That is negligent and simply deceitful. Contamination and dispersion in K-Ar, but not for C14! Cmon.

I can only guess the neutrinos section and article was to show the various whining and complaints of atheists when creationists point out the truthful science first.

I don't have to guess. The excerpt about neutrinos had no basis in fact, and the authors failed to mathematically analyze it if they were serious.

From the above facts it can be seen that the radiometric dating methods do not in general fulfill all of the requirements for a reliable clock.

Rh-Os dating fulfills all the reliability requirements extremely well.

Can you provide some links and articles where you are getting this? Am I just supposed to take your atheist word on Rh-Os dating?

I already gave you the link in an earlier thread and also this one. Here it is for the third time:

Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution | Research & News

Diamond inclusion research yields age and insight into earth history

www.gia.edu

The universe isn't billions of years old as you claim. Otherwise, our sun would have used up most of it's energy. It's still a strong sun.

Can you give me a link to that. Or maybe you really should retract it.

Summary:
Your friends complain about dispersion in K-Ar, but don't mention it at all in C14 data. Kind of disingenuous dontya think. And your source was about K-Ar. You never gave a cogent response to Rh-Os which 1) has a long stable half life, 2) with a parent that is tightly contained, 3) a daughter isotope that is likewise contained, and 4) both are very rare and the daughter product barely exists naturally. So no contamination or dispersion.

.

 

[james bond]

It is more objective than anything else.

I think creation science is more objective, but if you don't believe in the Bible and Christian God, then I can see how someone of the atheist religion would go with the atheist science of evolution and radiometric thinking and make assumptions for it. Where the rubber meets to road is in the hard evidence that creation science has from the Bible and science that backs it up despite the Bible not being a science book. Political views also plays a big part because most liberals are atheists today.

 

[james bond]

More preaching. Also this:
You have feces on your face and not egg because this has happened to the atheists over and over....You have gotten too emotional over this...How can you be my BFF when you say things like that. It shows you got the emotion thing backwards, ya know.

LMAO. You keep taking things out of context from creationists articles, science articles, and my posts. No wonder you are so mixed up over creation science.

Let me say it again. The reference you gave me was almost all about K-Ar dating. The contamination and dispersion problems they cover in detail are well known to scientists. Nothing new there. But you failed to give a reference that covers Rh-Os dating which has none of those problems.

It's your claim that Rh-Os has none of those problems. Can you provide some scientific evidence that it has none of those problems? It isn't widely used. Why not? Why don't you post some other links to convince us of your Rh-Os claims. Why should I believe the statements of an atheist? At least, I provide my sources thru valid links. I'm your opposition and you expect me to know all your dirty little lies. You're sound like an atheist believer which I can understand, but also an atheist bullshitter which I can't understand. It makes you sound like a dirty atheist liar.

I mean please explain your GIA article. It doesn't even explain what diamonds are in scientific terms. Compare it to an AIG article -- Radiohalos and Diamonds.

>>Diamonds are vastly older than any archeological relic, so carbon dating—which can only date items back to around 60,000 years ago—isn’t possible.<<

Creation scientists have done C14 dating of diamonds to disprove the atheists claims of old age. Your atheist scientist Shirley only believes his own BS and continually only sees one side.

"Buoyed by this success, the RATE radiocarbon research next checked for carbon-14 in diamonds. Diamonds are the hardest known natural substance and resist physical abrasion. Also, the chemical bonding of the carbon in diamonds makes them highly resistant to chemical corrosion and weathering. Diamonds also repel and exclude water from adhering to their surfaces, which would eliminate any possibility of the carbon in the diamonds becoming contaminated. Sure enough, the diamonds submitted for radiocarbon analyses did contain detectable, significant levels of carbon-14, equivalent to an age of around 55,000 years. Again, the laboratory did repeat analyses and discounted any possibility that this carbon-14 was due to contamination, in situ to the diamonds or added in the laboratory. At 1–2 billion years old, these diamonds, which are formed deep inside the earth, are regarded as being related to the earth’s early history. Therefore, it was concluded that carbon-14 in these diamonds was consistent with a young age for the earth itself."

Note: Generally, creation scientists use C14 dating for organic items, but used it on diamonds because it was found in them -- Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. This is why creation science should be taught in schools as science. The smarter students don't just accept the teachings of evolution. Instead they question it, think it is BS, and start to look for other answers. Even from you, I get one-sided answers/articles and claims that I am preaching. Aren't you the one preaching your atheist religion and only giving one sided answers?

I gave you atheists credit for radiometric dating, but I am finding it is erroneous from discussing it with you and going back and reading AIG and creation.com articles. Science does not back up old Earth and evolution.

Finally, I am not preaching but asking questions which you do not answer or making points you can not rebut. It's you and your side who only presents a one-sided presentation and makes atheist old Earth assumptions. Otherwise, you don't know about the Bible and how science backs it up. You make stereotypical assumptions of creationists and their scientists and act like a stuck up basturd when the Bible's answers do not fit your stereotypical views. Your side bases your science on uniformitarianism and atheism. My side bases it on catastrophism and the Bible's parts where we found science backs up the Bible. We acknowledge our opposition and makes smart comments to support our statements and disprove or rebut our opposition's scientific beliefs. Your smug atheist scientists only present one side.

 

[Hollie]

I think creation science is more objective, but if you don't believe in the Bible and Christian God, then I can see how someone of the atheist religion would go with the atheist science of evolution and radiometric thinking and make assumptions for it. Where the rubber meets to road is in the hard evidence that creation science has from the Bible and science that backs it up despite the Bible not being a science book. Political views also plays a big part because most liberals are atheists today.

Creationer ''science'' is neither science nor is it objective. Like all of the fundamentalist ministries, they have a single-minded goal of proselytizing not science investigation.

From the AIG website:
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. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and bedfellow: a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

There's nothing to misinterpret there. Science to the christian fundamentalist is an annoyance because it conflicts with fundamentalist christian notions such as a flat earth, young earth, etc.

 

[Hollie]

The scientific method is the ideal way science should be done. It's not based on atheistic lies like radiometric dating, evolution, and evolutionary thinking because no one was there to observe when billions of years old meteors were formed. OTOH God was there since the beginning of creation and told us how he did it in the Bible, his autobiography.

The greatest scientists in the history of the world have been creation scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Johan Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (invented calculus), Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morse, James Joule, Louis Pasteur, James Maxwell, George Washington Carver, and more. Albert Einstein believed in a personal god and wasn't atheist. He wasn't exactly a creationist either. The atheist list doesn't match up. Can you name a few and their accomplishments? Who invented radiometric dating?

Actually, "creationer scientists" is a relatively recent slogan invented by the Christian ministries. None of the people you listed were "creationer scientists".

It's really desperate and dishonest to force your religious beliefs on others.

 

[danielpalos]

I think creation science is more objective, but if you don't believe in the Bible and Christian God, then I can see how someone of the atheist religion would go with the atheist science of evolution and radiometric thinking and make assumptions for it. Where the rubber meets to road is in the hard evidence that creation science has from the Bible and science that backs it up despite the Bible not being a science book. Political views also plays a big part because most liberals are atheists today.

From my perception, all myths are based on creationism. And, if all Religion requires is faith, it is not difficult to understand why we are in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the Incorrigibles.

 

[james bond]

Can you give me a link to that. Or maybe you really should retract it.

Summary:
Your friends complain about dispersion in K-Ar, but don't mention it at all in C14 data. Kind of disingenuous dontya think. And your source was about K-Ar. You never gave a cogent response to Rh-Os which 1) has a long stable half life, 2) with a parent that is tightly contained, 3) a daughter isotope that is likewise contained, and 4) both are very rare and the daughter product barely exists naturally. So no contamination or dispersion.

Creationer ''science'' is neither science nor is it objective. Like all of the fundamentalist ministries, they have a single-minded goal of proselytizing not science investigation.

From the AIG website:
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. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and bedfellow: a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).

There's nothing to misinterpret there. Science to the christian fundamentalist is an annoyance because it conflicts with fundamentalist christian notions such as a flat earth, young earth, etc.

It's creation science, Flattie Hollie. Sure, it's objective because it came first and the creator was objective and truthful. He wrote his beautiful and heartful autobiography in the Bible (life of Jesus) and we usually discuss Genesis here, but there is more that which science backs up throughout. There is likely more to find out as humankind will discover new truths in the future such as the universe has a boundary. Isn't that what real science is about? What's funny is the atheist scientists do not admit their religious science. They do not admit that it's atheist science from the get go. That's a huge and erroneous assumption and will cause pain, agony, and hurt as they willfully contradict the creator. You're butthurt any time creation science or real science is discussed here. I can only point out the truth vs the errors in s&t and am the one who presents a more balanced view.

Notice, you do not even realize that your science is "religioner science" and follows what Lucifer said and did. Instead of a snake, he is talking through atheist scientists. The price for your religioner science will be high indeed. How can anyone live without the one and true most awesome God? What's evidence for this? We all die daily as that is explained in the Bible when we live without God. God is gone from our universe and lives in the original heaven.

 

[james bond]

From my perception, all myths are based on creationism. And, if all Religion requires is faith, it is not difficult to understand why we are in Nexus Six with Zardoz and the Incorrigibles.

You're just fooled by Lucifer's anti-Bible of atheist science.

 

[danielpalos]

You're just fooled by Lucifer's anti-Bible of atheist science.

He was upset He had to get stuck with us in Nexus Six.

 

[james bond]

He was upset He had to get stuck with us in Nexus Six.

That goes a way back and was a great flick. Do you know Fort Fun Indiana? You should hit it off on Nexus 6 and other imaginary places with your imaginary science.

 

[Wuwei]

It's your claim that Rh-Os has none of those problems. Can you provide some scientific evidence that it has none of those problems?

I did. It should have been clear.

Why don't you post some other links to convince us of your Rh-Os claims. Why should I believe the statements of an atheist?

You ask me to post some links; then in the next sentence you say you won't believe them. That seems sorta futile dontya think?

I mean please explain your GIA article. It doesn't even explain what diamonds are in scientific terms.

What diamonds are is very well known. Wikipedia has a very long discussion with 161 references.

I gave you atheists credit for radiometric dating, but I am finding it is erroneous from discussing it with you and going back and reading AIG and creation.com articles. Science does not back up old Earth and evolution.

Finally, I am not preaching but asking questions which you do not answer or making points you can not rebut. It's you and your side who only presents a one-sided presentation and makes atheist old Earth assumptions. Otherwise, you don't know about the Bible and how science backs it up. You make stereotypical assumptions of creationists and their scientists and act like a stuck up basturd when the Bible's answers do not fit your stereotypical views. Your side bases your science on uniformitarianism and atheism. My side bases it on catastrophism and the Bible's parts where we found science backs up the Bible. We acknowledge our opposition and makes smart comments to support our statements and disprove or rebut our opposition's scientific beliefs. Your smug atheist scientists only present one side.

We already know you don't believe the science because your creation web site says so. You have never shown a source that tells why YECs dismiss the fact that all measuring instruments, specifically mass spectrometers, used at their limit are dealing with noise... Never. You have wrapped yourself in a self-contradiction.

That is why it is so obvious that creation "science" is not science. You can't fool us.

.

 

[Hollie]

It's creation science, Flattie Hollie. Sure, it's objective because it came first and the creator was objective and truthful. He wrote his beautiful and heartful autobiography in the Bible (life of Jesus) and we usually discuss Genesis here, but there is more that which science backs up throughout. There is likely more to find out as humankind will discover new truths in the future such as the universe has a boundary. Isn't that what real science is about? What's funny is the atheist scientists do not admit their religious science. They do not admit that it's atheist science from the get go. That's a huge and erroneous assumption and will cause pain, agony, and hurt as they willfully contradict the creator. You're butthurt any time creation science or real science is discussed here. I can only point out the truth vs the errors in s&t and am the one who presents a more balanced view.

Notice, you do not even realize that your science is "religioner science" and follows what Lucifer said and did. Instead of a snake, he is talking through atheist scientists. The price for your religioner science will be high indeed. How can anyone live without the one and true most awesome God? What's evidence for this? We all die daily as that is explained in the Bible when we live without God. God is gone from our universe and lives in the original heaven.

Your ministries make no pretenses about what they preach.

From the AIG charlatans:
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.

You can't have missed there was no mention of science. Rather, they seek to proselytize. It's simply dishonest to claim a fundamentalist ministry is seeking to advance science.

Where did the Lucifer character ever mention "religioner science"? You may choose to live your life in trembling fear of characters invented two thousand years ago and intended to frighten and coerce the gullible, why would you think others should share your fears and superstitions?

 

[Hollie]

“To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.”
― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life



“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson


“Don't creationists ever wonder about the fact that the paleontologists found ape-like skulls with the 'human leg and foot bones,' rather than the other way around, i.e., human skulls with 'ape leg and foot bones?' . . . Come on, creationists, think about it! Did God hide the human skulls, only leaving behind leg and foot bones belonging to human midgets with misshapen feet, and mix such bones only with the skulls of ape-like creatures with larger cranial capacities than living apes? What a 'kidder' the creationists' God must be.”
― Edward Babinski