2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayScience collects evidence. Does this evidence always lead to the truth? No. However, if one then comes along and says that they don't believe the evidence, the person in question presumably has additional evidence to prove their point.
You assume knowledge you do not have. You gather rates and distances and project
times when the argument is the beginning. I'm quite aware that that how it got here is
different than age, but you will never know the age without the how it got here. All of the
numbers can be perfect, the calculations flawless, and yet if the universe was created
none of ...[text shortened]... facts to back up your views
on the age, and still don't have a clue how or why it is all here.
Science can't even explain what the bulk of the universe Is made of, which they call "dark matter". All they have are crude measures to try and study what little they can observe with their limited five senses and army of machines. I'm not sure, though, what good it does to belittle what little observations they have of the universe.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYEC folks belittle ANY evidence regarding age or size of the universe, even if there is only a hint of reality in such evidence, making an end run over new work is their MO.
Science collects evidence. Does this evidence always lead to the truth? No. However, if one then comes along and says that they don't believe the evidence, the person in question presumably has additional evidence to prove their point.
Science can't even explain what the bulk of the universe Is made of, which they call "dark matter". All they have are ...[text shortened]... sure, though, what good it does to belittle what little observations they have of the universe.
They don't want the tiniest crack of real science buggering up their plans, which is at heart a political movement, having little to do with science or religion. It has to do mainly with empire building.
They would love to have the entire world go back a thousand years where the church ruled with an iron had and blasphemy and apostasy were capital offenses.
The very first thing they want is to have creationism forced to be taught in middle and high school science courses along side evolution as if creationism were an actual science, which we and even the YEC people know full well it is not, even though they have traitor Phd's trying to muddle the issue with bogus and biased science with a religious agenda.
That would only be step one however. If they win that battle, which I think will never happen, their next step would be to try to force people back to religion, those who have dared to leave.
All to save their souls, so they would say, while in reality what they want is to gain converts so they can force votes to change laws allowing Christianity to become the state religion.
Originally posted by sonhouseDid you take your meds today and have you visited your psychiatrist for treatment lately?
YEC folks belittle ANY evidence regarding age or size of the universe, even if there is only a hint of reality in such evidence, making an end run over new work is their MO.
They don't want the tiniest crack of real science buggering up their plans, which is at heart a political movement, having little to do with science or religion. It has to do mainly ...[text shortened]... verts so they can force votes to change laws allowing Christianity to become the state religion.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf there was nothing there in the beginning, then no fake stars or history is required. God just put it into place in a 6 day history as described in the first chapter of Genesis.
Yes, they would. This topic has been discussed over and over and you just stubbornly keep repeating the same mantra and ignoring any argument that contradicts your mantra or as in my case refuse to speak ever again to anyone who shows the contradiction in your argument.
Your 'fully formed' requires the existence of a fake history of the universe includ ...[text shortened]... is indistinguishable from one that is a billion years old then we say it is a billion years old.
You are making the mistaken assumption that a fully formed universe created in 6 days must immediately look like what we see today. You ignore that there has been about 6,000 years of changes that have taken place since the original creation. You or your so-called science fools were not there. Therefore, God must tell us about it in the Holy Bible. 😏
Originally posted by whodeyI can believe in the evidence and disagree with the conclusion those are two different topics.
Science collects evidence. Does this evidence always lead to the truth? No. However, if one then comes along and says that they don't believe the evidence, the person in question presumably has additional evidence to prove their point.
Science can't even explain what the bulk of the universe Is made of, which they call "dark matter". All they have are ...[text shortened]... sure, though, what good it does to belittle what little observations they have of the universe.
Point being we can go over the numbers from a data point, that is simply a data point, what
we could disagree on is what that data is showing us.
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI don't belittle what observations the astronomers have of the universe. I enjoy seeing the beauty and magnificence of what God has created in the universe.
Science collects evidence. Does this evidence always lead to the truth? No. However, if one then comes along and says that they don't believe the evidence, the person in question presumably has additional evidence to prove their point.
Science can't even explain what the bulk of the universe Is made of, which they call "dark matter". All they have are ...[text shortened]... sure, though, what good it does to belittle what little observations they have of the universe.
If I belittle anything, it is their arrogant attitude that they think they know more than God and pretend they can tell us exactly what happened billions of years ago by looking through their magic glass.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou would have fit right in with the idiots who arrested Galileo.
I don't belittle what observations the astronomers have of the universe. I enjoy seeing the beauty and magnificence of what God has created in the universe.
If I belittle anything, it is their arrogant attitude that they think they know more than God and pretend they can tell us exactly what happened billions of years ago by looking through their magic glass.
Originally posted by sonhouseThese are all blatant lies.
YEC folks belittle ANY evidence regarding age or size of the universe, even if there is only a hint of reality in such evidence, making an end run over new work is their MO.
They don't want the tiniest crack of real science buggering up their plans, which is at heart a political movement, having little to do with science or religion. It has to do mainly ...[text shortened]... verts so they can force votes to change laws allowing Christianity to become the state religion.
I condemn those who mix statism with religion. It only empowers the evil nature of men to act in such demonic fashion all in the name of God.
I don't need to be lectured by either Obama or the left leaning Pope on political matters, even though both claim to be Christian. However, they still feel the need to speak their minds, don't they?
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm only asking for a simple truth, something from you that would change my whole mindset.
YEC folks belittle ANY evidence regarding age or size of the universe, even if there is only a hint of reality in such evidence, making an end run over new work is their MO.
They don't want the tiniest crack of real science buggering up their plans, which is at heart a political movement, having little to do with science or religion. It has to do mainly ...[text shortened]... verts so they can force votes to change laws allowing Christianity to become the state religion.
Tell me how everything came into existence!?
If you don't know, than all of your complaining is just blowing smoke.
Originally posted by RJHindsI know you are not smart enough to understand this but I will try anyway:
If there was nothing there in the beginning, then no fake stars or history is required.
1. Kelly claims the light was created 'in transit' between stars and us.
2. It follows directly from that, that anything we see in the light is fake ie it represents something that did not exist.
3. If we see an exploding star, then the star we saw before it exploded never ever existed. We are seeing a whole fake star.
4. Kelly refuses to discuss this problem and when I pushed him on it he announced he would never talk to me again.
5. He nevertheless continues to promote it as a solution.