Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,965 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 851,585
Pageviews Today: 1,092,083Threads Today: 243Posts Today: 3,898
07:15 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The earth is NOT 6000 years old.

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4418582
United States
12/02/2012 10:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
The earth and universe are 6000 years old!!

Evidence here on earth shows there was no 'big bang' and the earth did not form as that theory or model claims.

The baserock granites are claimed to be igneous from when the earth cooled down over bazzillions of years - needed for the evolution beliefs. However well known is that granite cannot be heated to a molten state and remain granite - proof it was never molten. For this reason they cannot produce granite in a lab, even though they can produce all-types of other mineral, even something close to diamond. This science fact confirms the biblical account that God created granite 6000 years ago on the first day.

THE EARTH WAS NEVER MOLTEN COOLING DOWN

Granite was never molten and is not an igneous rock. It cannot be produced in a lab. Also interesting that granite has radio halos with a fleeting half-life proving granite formed almost instantaneous; published in science journals long ago and never disproven. (Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Gentry, R.V., Science 184, 62, 1974)

[link to www.halos.com]

[link to www.youtube.com]



Other observations around the galaxy confirm a young universe.



According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only 274 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

According to their [Astronomers] model, the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if our galaxy is 6,000-10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to reach this size. So the number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the galaxy is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of years.

[link to creation.com]

[link to www.mrao.cam.ac.uk]
 Quoting: - 1547099


Three pages after I've broken down creationist's arguments, we are back to posing completely new arguments when you haven't even read my first posts.

Now the UNIVERSE is only 6000 years old too?!?! Wtf are you smoking. Not even the whole lot of pseudoscientists will claim that. That is by far the most radical and ridiculous thing I've seen yet. We know for a fact the universe as well as earth are billions of years old.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26125917
United States
12/02/2012 10:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Granite:

[link to geology.about.com]

From the article:


Third, almost all granite is igneous (it solidified from a fluid state) and plutonic (it did so in a large, deeply buried body or pluton). The random arrangement of grains in granite—its lack of fabric—is evidence of its plutonic origin. Rock with the same composition as granite can form through long and intense metamorphism of sedimentary rocks. But that kind of rock has a strong fabric and is usually called granite gneiss.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4418582
United States
12/02/2012 10:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
The earth and universe are 6000 years old!!

Evidence here on earth shows there was no 'big bang' and the earth did not form as that theory or model claims.

The baserock granites are claimed to be igneous from when the earth cooled down over bazzillions of years - needed for the evolution beliefs. However well known is that granite cannot be heated to a molten state and remain granite - proof it was never molten. For this reason they cannot produce granite in a lab, even though they can produce all-types of other mineral, even something close to diamond. This science fact confirms the biblical account that God created granite 6000 years ago on the first day.

THE EARTH WAS NEVER MOLTEN COOLING DOWN

Granite was never molten and is not an igneous rock. It cannot be produced in a lab. Also interesting that granite has radio halos with a fleeting half-life proving granite formed almost instantaneous; published in science journals long ago and never disproven. (Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Gentry, R.V., Science 184, 62, 1974)

[link to www.halos.com]

[link to www.youtube.com]



Other observations around the galaxy confirm a young universe.



According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only 274 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

According to their [Astronomers] model, the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if our galaxy is 6,000-10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to reach this size. So the number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the galaxy is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of years.

[link to creation.com]

[link to www.mrao.cam.ac.uk]
 Quoting: - 1547099


Three pages after I've broken down creationist's arguments, we are back to posing completely new arguments when you haven't even read my first posts.

Now the UNIVERSE is only 6000 years old too?!?! Wtf are you smoking. Not even the whole lot of pseudoscientists will claim that. That is by far the most radical and ridiculous thing I've seen yet. We know for a fact the universe as well as earth are billions of years old.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4418582


If you actually understand what it is you're posting. Then have a short read into how we are certain starts are still forming.
Dummy.

Creationists have argued that primordial stars cannot form, and that stars are not forming in the universe now. We are led to two primary sources, both hosted by Answers in Genesis.

The first of these, Stars Could Not have Come from the Big Bang, which has no author credited to it, makes the assertion that primordial gas clouds are "a hundred times too hot to collapse". There is no reference to a source to support this contention, and no sample calculation is given. However, the short piece finishes with an elegant quote: "The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." This is attributed to Abraham Loeb (Department of Astronomy, Harvard University) with citation to a 1998 article in New Scientist, a well known British publication, that concentrates on news and opinion pieces and a few popular reviews. Taken out of context, it's hard to know what Loeb really means, and that, of course, is the reason why the quote is provided without context. After all, the fact that we do not understand gravitation at a fundamental level does not mean that we cannot use both Newton and Einstein to describe the workings of gravitation in considerable detail. Likewise, even though we do not understand star formation at a fundamental level, this certainly does not mean that we know nothing. It does not mean that we cannot apply relevant physics to the solution of the problem.

Perhaps we can better understand what Prof. Loeb really has in mind by looking at what he has written about star formation. For instance, In the Beginning: The First Source of Light and the Reionization of the Universe, currently in preprint form, is destined for the pages of Physics Reports. It's a 136 page review of the physics of the infant universe, including the formation of primordial stars, by Rennan Barkana, currently at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, and Loeb.

This paper demonstrates that the true context of Loeb's comments is rather different than Answers in Genesis would have you believe. First, we know that primordial stars, and non primordial stars, can and do form. Second, the assertion that clouds are "a hundred times too hot" to form stars is directly refuted by the analysis that appears in section 3.3, "Molecular Chemistry, Photo-Dissociation, and Cooling", as well as chapter 4, "Fragmentation of the First Gaseous Objects". The Jeans mass is about 30,000 solar masses, and will fragment to form an accreted hierarchy, but the cooling mass limit is higher, about 500,000 solar masses. This means that, as presumed, the first primordial stars were very massive by the standards of star formation we are now used to. But the clouds are not too hot to collapse, as Answers in Genesis suggests.

It would seem that the short and unattributed Stars Could Not have Come from the Big Bang is simply a propaganda piece of no intelligent value or content (a feeling reinforced by the evidence that no one wishes to be cited as author). However, the other entry from Answers in Genesis has an author: Are Stars Forming Today?. This is a "creation question", answered by Dr. Ronald G. Samec, who appears to not have a biography posted at Answers in Genesis; he may have been on the faculty of Astronomy and Physics at Millikan University, but is not there now. [see footnote]

Samec faces the question posed: "The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has recently taken some spectacular pictures of stars forming. Doesn't this prove that stars were not created?" The reference is to the HST images of the Eagle Nebula (M16).

Samec says, "I presume that the temperatures of these areas are near 10,000 K so that they glow like the surfaces of stars of similar temperature, that is, white. Gas at such temperatures will quickly disperse and there is no chance of it forming stars. We should not be convinced that embedded stars exist within the 'finger tips' of these dust regions unless they are actually imaged." [Italics are Samec's]

Recent observations with NIRSPEC, an infrared spectrometer on the Keck telescope, reveals temperatures in the photodissociation region of 9500 K, not far from Samec's guess of 10,000 K. But that's for the hot halo gas. The same data show a molecular hydrogen temperature of 930 K, far below Samec's guess. ("Hot stars and cool clouds: The photodissociation region M16" N.A. Levenson et al., Astrophysical Journal 533(1): L53-L56, April 10 2000).

Observations with ISOCAM (an instrument on the Infrared Space Observatory) show even lower temperatures, about 250-320 Kelvins, in the main nebular cloud ("ISOCAM images of the 'elephant trunks' in M 16", G.L. Pilbratt et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 333(1): L9-L12, May 1 1998).

Observations of molecular emission from the dense dust knots reveal the gas to be a "surprisingly warm" 60 K, while the dust is as cool as 20 K. Furthermore, model simulations of the earliest stages of star formation produce results that look just like what is actually seen in the Eagle Nebula ("The Eagle Nebula's fingers - pointers to the earliest stages of star formation?", G.J. White, et al.", Astronomy and Astrophysics 342(1): 233-256, February 1999).

In this case Samec's intuition turns out to be quite wrong. His 10,000 K turns out in reality to be as low as 20-60 K. How did Samec manage to miss by over 9000 K? Wishful thinking, I suppose: any professional astronomer really should have known that star formation would take place inside the dense clouds (just like the press release says) and that the temperature there could not be anywhere near 10,000 K (as observation has confirmed). Yet he went out of his way to emphasize (remember, the italics in my quote are from Samec's original) "there is no chance of star formation". In my considered opinion, only a strong, wishful bias can explain such poor judgment.

Both Samec and Anonymous have proven to be less than reliable purveyors of information regarding star formation. But the Eagle Nebula images, as spectacular as they are, are not the only star formation show in town. Indeed, the venerable Hubble has done far better, if it's star formation you want to know about. Astronomy 122: Birth and Death of Stars is a University of Oregon class for non science majors, delivered entirely over the Internet. The lectures are well illustrated, especially lecture 14, "Star Formation". There you will find illustrations of how the basic theory of star formation has long been known to work; a collapsing, rotating cloud produces a flat disk, and eventually axial jets form, primarily because the protostar wind is blocked by the equatorial disk, though magnetic field focusing plays a role as well.

Look at the lecture diagrams first, and then look at the HST images of "proplyds" in the Orion Nebula, and the HST Orion Nebula Mosaic. You see disks, as expected, with protostars in the middle, as expected. Even better, look at Hubble Observes the Fire and Fury of a Stellar Birth, where we see disks and the predicted axial jets. The time lapse image of HH-30 shows that you can see the motion in the axial jet. That motion has even been turned into a movie.

Blind assertion and wishful thinking simply don't cut it in a field dominated by science. Samec guessed at temperatures over 10,000 K to prevent star formation because he allowed his wish that it be that way to cloud his judgment that it could not be that way. Observation proved him wrong. Anonymous tried to trick the reader into thinking that a respected astronomer was admitting some deep weakness in astrophysics, when in reality he was just making a simple observation that all theories are "not understood at the fundamental level", since there is no such thing as a scientific theory that can boast of perfection.

Science may not be perfect, but it is consistent. It is absurd, and no other word will do, to argue that star formation does not or cannot happen, unless you can demonstrate why the images here are not images of star formation, and unless you can demonstrate why the physics that leads inevitably to star formation is wrong. Word games and quote mining won't do, objections have to be quantitative and valid.

I maintain that there are no valid creationist objections to star formation, primordial or otherwise. Simple physics leads inevitably to star formation.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4418582
United States
12/02/2012 10:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
These creationists have a way of picking through actual science and trying their hardest to find any hint that it may be wrong about something because that would automatically prove they are correct, but what they often do is take people's statements and bend them until they read in a way that favors them. This is a fucking low, that science doesn't need to bring themselves to stoop to. The end game is basically take anything you can, even things you know are incorrect and present them to the followers who don't really understand what we are saying, and they will believe, because it is proof of the almighty! Oh yeah. Believe it. It's sad to watch grown men grasp at straws. /:
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28962414
United States
12/02/2012 11:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Thread: Age of the earth

Biological evidence for a young age of the earth
Image: Dr Mary Schweitzer


The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.
DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
 Quoting: Neesie



Thread: VIDEO: Dinosaur Soft Tissue Destroys Millions of Years Ideas - Do you think Dinosaurs where the Dragons the old timers talk about?

Mary Schweitzer has discovered dinosaur soft tissue numerous times during the last 10 years. This video shows the strongest cases and debunks the evolutionary rebuttals. It also includes amazing video interviews from Schweitzer herself.

I think it pretty silly that people claim "the tissue wasn't soft until chemically treated". I would wonder what they mean by 'soft' but it is completely beside the point! The fact is - the tissue survived. It's condition is irrelevant.

 Quoting: TripleH

Analysis of Dinosaur Bone Cells Confirms Ancient Protein Preservation
[link to www.nsf.gov] 10/23/2012
A team of researchers from North Carolina State University and the Palo Alto Research Center has found more evidence for the preservation of ancient dinosaur proteins, including reactivity to antibodies that target specific proteins normally found in bone cells of vertebrates. These results further rule out sample contamination, and help solidify the case for preservation of cells--and possibly DNA--in ancient remains.



Thread: Dinosaur Blood Extracted From Bone
[link to www.wnd.com] 4/30/2009
Collagen, hemoglobin, elastin, laminin and cell-like structures resembling blood and bone cells have been found in a dinosaur bone scientists still claim is 80 million years old, according to a report in Science magazine today.

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University first claimed to have isolated soft tissues and collagen from a Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone several years ago.

But because the leg was broken during excavation, the evidence was damaged and could never be independently confirmed.

Schweitzer then examined a more pristine leg of a plant-eating hadrosaur excavated from sandstone and found even better samples of soft tissue, according to the report.

“Our findings demonstrated that it did contain basement membrane matrix,” said Lewis Cantley, chief of the division of signal transduction at Beth Israel Deaconess, and a co-author on the Science study. Basement membranes, which degrade and regenerate during development and wound repair, comprise a continuous extracellular matrix that links endothelial, epithelial, muscle, or neuronal cells and their adjacent stroma.

In situ mass spectrometery independently verified amino acids in dinosaur tissues, including the collagen signature amino acid, hydroxylated proline.

While scientists previously questioned the possibility that soft tissue could survive tens of millions of years of fossilization, few seem to be questioning their assumptions that dinosaurs actually went extinct 65 million years ago.

Young earth proponents see something entirely different in the findings. As one creationist noted: “There’s no way this blood could be 80 million years old. The evolutionists are just saying so because they cannot bear the thought of recent dinosaurs causing their millions of years scenario to come crashing down. Without the millions of years, Darwinism is dead, dead, dead.”
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11705783



Thread: There are living dinosaurs today wipes out darwins theory

---------------------------------------------------------​-----------------------
Cryptozoological Realms

-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------


Artwork by Bill Rebsamen

Mokele-mbembe: The Living Dinosaur!



Introduction
In the jungles of central Africa countries of Congo, Cameroon, and Gabon are reports of animal an animal with a long neck, a long tail, and rounded shape tracks with three claws. The closest known animal that has these characteristics is a sauropod dinosaur.

When some of the local people of the Likouala region would draw in the dirt or sand a representation of Mokele-mbembe they drew the shape of a sauropod dinosaur. Then when they were shown a picture of a sauropod dinosaur they said that picture is Mokele-mbembe.
 Quoting: nobody 799171

MonsterQuest Season 3: Episode 18 - The Last Dinosaur

[link to www.history.com] 6/24/2009
In the jungles of central Africa there may be a living relic of a dinosaur that stalks the rivers and frightens the local inhabitants. The feared creature, known as Mokele-mbembe, or "the one who stops the flow of rivers," is said to closely resemble the enormous long necked and four legged saurpod - a dinosaur that science claims went extinct 65 million years ago.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11705783


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11705783

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11705783

Thar be dragons!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27449736
United States
12/02/2012 11:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
i believe the earth is 6000 years old. do you hate me for it?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4838283
United States
12/02/2012 11:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Do the Christians of this forum have an opinion on this? Its pretty controversial to confront Christian belief of creation. What about when its done by one of your own?

[link to www.huffingtonpost.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22256187


Correct, the world is 6001 years old.

whatever
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4418582
United States
12/02/2012 11:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
So this one again?

Monsterquest?!?! Omg they have all this credible evidence and have produced zero results!! Yes!! Um no...

You just proved your own argument to be false.
Finding tissue in dinosaurs, allows us to date the cells accurately!
Therefore proving our dating techniques to be accurate therefore discrediting pretty much every one of your theories!!! Yay.

Gary hurd phd

[link to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au]

Redux

This one refutes the more recent claims made by YECs
[link to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au]

I think if you check out the links, which you won't you'll feel pretty stupid.
-
User ID: 1547099
United States
12/02/2012 11:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Creationists have argued that primordial stars cannot form, and that stars are not forming in the universe now. We are led to two primary sources, both hosted by Answers in Genesis.

The first of these, Stars Could Not have Come from the Big Bang, which has no author credited to it, makes the assertion that primordial gas clouds are "a hundred times too hot to collapse". There is no reference to a source to support this contention, and no sample calculation is given. However, the short piece finishes with an elegant quote: "The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." This is attributed to Abraham Loeb (Department of Astronomy, Harvard University) with citation to a 1998 article in New Scientist, a well known British publication, that concentrates on news and opinion pieces and a few popular reviews. Taken out of context, it's hard to know what Loeb really means, and that, of course, is the reason why the quote is provided without context. After all, the fact that we do not understand gravitation at a fundamental level does not mean that we cannot use both Newton and Einstein to describe the workings of gravitation in considerable detail. Likewise, even though we do not understand star formation at a fundamental level, this certainly does not mean that we know nothing. It does not mean that we cannot apply relevant physics to the solution of the problem.

Perhaps we can better understand what Prof. Loeb really has in mind by looking at what he has written about star formation. For instance, In the Beginning: The First Source of Light and the Reionization of the Universe, currently in preprint form, is destined for the pages of Physics Reports. It's a 136 page review of the physics of the infant universe, including the formation of primordial stars, by Rennan Barkana, currently at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, and Loeb.

This paper demonstrates that the true context of Loeb's comments is rather different than Answers in Genesis would have you believe. First, we know that primordial stars, and non primordial stars, can and do form. Second, the assertion that clouds are "a hundred times too hot" to form stars is directly refuted by the analysis that appears in section 3.3, "Molecular Chemistry, Photo-Dissociation, and Cooling", as well as chapter 4, "Fragmentation of the First Gaseous Objects". The Jeans mass is about 30,000 solar masses, and will fragment to form an accreted hierarchy, but the cooling mass limit is higher, about 500,000 solar masses. This means that, as presumed, the first primordial stars were very massive by the standards of star formation we are now used to. But the clouds are not too hot to collapse, as Answers in Genesis suggests.

It would seem that the short and unattributed Stars Could Not have Come from the Big Bang is simply a propaganda piece of no intelligent value or content (a feeling reinforced by the evidence that no one wishes to be cited as author). However, the other entry from Answers in Genesis has an author: Are Stars Forming Today?. This is a "creation question", answered by Dr. Ronald G. Samec, who appears to not have a biography posted at Answers in Genesis; he may have been on the faculty of Astronomy and Physics at Millikan University, but is not there now. [see footnote]

Samec faces the question posed: "The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has recently taken some spectacular pictures of stars forming. Doesn't this prove that stars were not created?" The reference is to the HST images of the Eagle Nebula (M16).

Samec says, "I presume that the temperatures of these areas are near 10,000 K so that they glow like the surfaces of stars of similar temperature, that is, white. Gas at such temperatures will quickly disperse and there is no chance of it forming stars. We should not be convinced that embedded stars exist within the 'finger tips' of these dust regions unless they are actually imaged." [Italics are Samec's]

Recent observations with NIRSPEC, an infrared spectrometer on the Keck telescope, reveals temperatures in the photodissociation region of 9500 K, not far from Samec's guess of 10,000 K. But that's for the hot halo gas. The same data show a molecular hydrogen temperature of 930 K, far below Samec's guess. ("Hot stars and cool clouds: The photodissociation region M16" N.A. Levenson et al., Astrophysical Journal 533(1): L53-L56, April 10 2000).

Observations with ISOCAM (an instrument on the Infrared Space Observatory) show even lower temperatures, about 250-320 Kelvins, in the main nebular cloud ("ISOCAM images of the 'elephant trunks' in M 16", G.L. Pilbratt et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 333(1): L9-L12, May 1 1998).

Observations of molecular emission from the dense dust knots reveal the gas to be a "surprisingly warm" 60 K, while the dust is as cool as 20 K. Furthermore, model simulations of the earliest stages of star formation produce results that look just like what is actually seen in the Eagle Nebula ("The Eagle Nebula's fingers - pointers to the earliest stages of star formation?", G.J. White, et al.", Astronomy and Astrophysics 342(1): 233-256, February 1999).

In this case Samec's intuition turns out to be quite wrong. His 10,000 K turns out in reality to be as low as 20-60 K. How did Samec manage to miss by over 9000 K? Wishful thinking, I suppose: any professional astronomer really should have known that star formation would take place inside the dense clouds (just like the press release says) and that the temperature there could not be anywhere near 10,000 K (as observation has confirmed). Yet he went out of his way to emphasize (remember, the italics in my quote are from Samec's original) "there is no chance of star formation". In my considered opinion, only a strong, wishful bias can explain such poor judgment.

Both Samec and Anonymous have proven to be less than reliable purveyors of information regarding star formation. But the Eagle Nebula images, as spectacular as they are, are not the only star formation show in town. Indeed, the venerable Hubble has done far better, if it's star formation you want to know about. Astronomy 122: Birth and Death of Stars is a University of Oregon class for non science majors, delivered entirely over the Internet. The lectures are well illustrated, especially lecture 14, "Star Formation". There you will find illustrations of how the basic theory of star formation has long been known to work; a collapsing, rotating cloud produces a flat disk, and eventually axial jets form, primarily because the protostar wind is blocked by the equatorial disk, though magnetic field focusing plays a role as well.

Look at the lecture diagrams first, and then look at the HST images of "proplyds" in the Orion Nebula, and the HST Orion Nebula Mosaic. You see disks, as expected, with protostars in the middle, as expected. Even better, look at Hubble Observes the Fire and Fury of a Stellar Birth, where we see disks and the predicted axial jets. The time lapse image of HH-30 shows that you can see the motion in the axial jet. That motion has even been turned into a movie.

Blind assertion and wishful thinking simply don't cut it in a field dominated by science. Samec guessed at temperatures over 10,000 K to prevent star formation because he allowed his wish that it be that way to cloud his judgment that it could not be that way. Observation proved him wrong. Anonymous tried to trick the reader into thinking that a respected astronomer was admitting some deep weakness in astrophysics, when in reality he was just making a simple observation that all theories are "not understood at the fundamental level", since there is no such thing as a scientific theory that can boast of perfection.

Science may not be perfect, but it is consistent. It is absurd, and no other word will do, to argue that star formation does not or cannot happen, unless you can demonstrate why the images here are not images of star formation, and unless you can demonstrate why the physics that leads inevitably to star formation is wrong. Word games and quote mining won't do, objections have to be quantitative and valid.

I maintain that there are no valid creationist objections to star formation, primordial or otherwise. Simple physics leads inevitably to star formation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4418582



Stars appear out from behind a stellar cloud (oort). The rest is all theory.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4418582
United States
12/02/2012 11:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
So far we've debunked everything from Noah's bizarre, to the stars, and they keep throwing me more Shit. Without one person looking the evidence and how they've been proved wrong. Maybe they believe that if one of their theories is correct that all of them are!
Well, when I've crushed about most of you dreams, where does it end..I know how you guys are indoctrinated and why you need this to be true. Face the facts it is simply not. How many do I have to disprove before you give up?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4418582
United States
12/02/2012 11:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Creationists have argued that primordial stars cannot form, and that stars are not forming in the universe now. We are led to two primary sources, both hosted by Answers in Genesis.

The first of these, Stars Could Not have Come from the Big Bang, which has no author credited to it, makes the assertion that primordial gas clouds are "a hundred times too hot to collapse". There is no reference to a source to support this contention, and no sample calculation is given. However, the short piece finishes with an elegant quote: "The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." This is attributed to Abraham Loeb (Department of Astronomy, Harvard University) with citation to a 1998 article in New Scientist, a well known British publication, that concentrates on news and opinion pieces and a few popular reviews. Taken out of context, it's hard to know what Loeb really means, and that, of course, is the reason why the quote is provided without context. After all, the fact that we do not understand gravitation at a fundamental level does not mean that we cannot use both Newton and Einstein to describe the workings of gravitation in considerable detail. Likewise, even though we do not understand star formation at a fundamental level, this certainly does not mean that we know nothing. It does not mean that we cannot apply relevant physics to the solution of the problem.

Perhaps we can better understand what Prof. Loeb really has in mind by looking at what he has written about star formation. For instance, In the Beginning: The First Source of Light and the Reionization of the Universe, currently in preprint form, is destined for the pages of Physics Reports. It's a 136 page review of the physics of the infant universe, including the formation of primordial stars, by Rennan Barkana, currently at the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, and Loeb.

This paper demonstrates that the true context of Loeb's comments is rather different than Answers in Genesis would have you believe. First, we know that primordial stars, and non primordial stars, can and do form. Second, the assertion that clouds are "a hundred times too hot" to form stars is directly refuted by the analysis that appears in section 3.3, "Molecular Chemistry, Photo-Dissociation, and Cooling", as well as chapter 4, "Fragmentation of the First Gaseous Objects". The Jeans mass is about 30,000 solar masses, and will fragment to form an accreted hierarchy, but the cooling mass limit is higher, about 500,000 solar masses. This means that, as presumed, the first primordial stars were very massive by the standards of star formation we are now used to. But the clouds are not too hot to collapse, as Answers in Genesis suggests.

It would seem that the short and unattributed Stars Could Not have Come from the Big Bang is simply a propaganda piece of no intelligent value or content (a feeling reinforced by the evidence that no one wishes to be cited as author). However, the other entry from Answers in Genesis has an author: Are Stars Forming Today?. This is a "creation question", answered by Dr. Ronald G. Samec, who appears to not have a biography posted at Answers in Genesis; he may have been on the faculty of Astronomy and Physics at Millikan University, but is not there now. [see footnote]

Samec faces the question posed: "The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has recently taken some spectacular pictures of stars forming. Doesn't this prove that stars were not created?" The reference is to the HST images of the Eagle Nebula (M16).

Samec says, "I presume that the temperatures of these areas are near 10,000 K so that they glow like the surfaces of stars of similar temperature, that is, white. Gas at such temperatures will quickly disperse and there is no chance of it forming stars. We should not be convinced that embedded stars exist within the 'finger tips' of these dust regions unless they are actually imaged." [Italics are Samec's]

Recent observations with NIRSPEC, an infrared spectrometer on the Keck telescope, reveals temperatures in the photodissociation region of 9500 K, not far from Samec's guess of 10,000 K. But that's for the hot halo gas. The same data show a molecular hydrogen temperature of 930 K, far below Samec's guess. ("Hot stars and cool clouds: The photodissociation region M16" N.A. Levenson et al., Astrophysical Journal 533(1): L53-L56, April 10 2000).

Observations with ISOCAM (an instrument on the Infrared Space Observatory) show even lower temperatures, about 250-320 Kelvins, in the main nebular cloud ("ISOCAM images of the 'elephant trunks' in M 16", G.L. Pilbratt et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 333(1): L9-L12, May 1 1998).

Observations of molecular emission from the dense dust knots reveal the gas to be a "surprisingly warm" 60 K, while the dust is as cool as 20 K. Furthermore, model simulations of the earliest stages of star formation produce results that look just like what is actually seen in the Eagle Nebula ("The Eagle Nebula's fingers - pointers to the earliest stages of star formation?", G.J. White, et al.", Astronomy and Astrophysics 342(1): 233-256, February 1999).

In this case Samec's intuition turns out to be quite wrong. His 10,000 K turns out in reality to be as low as 20-60 K. How did Samec manage to miss by over 9000 K? Wishful thinking, I suppose: any professional astronomer really should have known that star formation would take place inside the dense clouds (just like the press release says) and that the temperature there could not be anywhere near 10,000 K (as observation has confirmed). Yet he went out of his way to emphasize (remember, the italics in my quote are from Samec's original) "there is no chance of star formation". In my considered opinion, only a strong, wishful bias can explain such poor judgment.

Both Samec and Anonymous have proven to be less than reliable purveyors of information regarding star formation. But the Eagle Nebula images, as spectacular as they are, are not the only star formation show in town. Indeed, the venerable Hubble has done far better, if it's star formation you want to know about. Astronomy 122: Birth and Death of Stars is a University of Oregon class for non science majors, delivered entirely over the Internet. The lectures are well illustrated, especially lecture 14, "Star Formation". There you will find illustrations of how the basic theory of star formation has long been known to work; a collapsing, rotating cloud produces a flat disk, and eventually axial jets form, primarily because the protostar wind is blocked by the equatorial disk, though magnetic field focusing plays a role as well.

Look at the lecture diagrams first, and then look at the HST images of "proplyds" in the Orion Nebula, and the HST Orion Nebula Mosaic. You see disks, as expected, with protostars in the middle, as expected. Even better, look at Hubble Observes the Fire and Fury of a Stellar Birth, where we see disks and the predicted axial jets. The time lapse image of HH-30 shows that you can see the motion in the axial jet. That motion has even been turned into a movie.

Blind assertion and wishful thinking simply don't cut it in a field dominated by science. Samec guessed at temperatures over 10,000 K to prevent star formation because he allowed his wish that it be that way to cloud his judgment that it could not be that way. Observation proved him wrong. Anonymous tried to trick the reader into thinking that a respected astronomer was admitting some deep weakness in astrophysics, when in reality he was just making a simple observation that all theories are "not understood at the fundamental level", since there is no such thing as a scientific theory that can boast of perfection.

Science may not be perfect, but it is consistent. It is absurd, and no other word will do, to argue that star formation does not or cannot happen, unless you can demonstrate why the images here are not images of star formation, and unless you can demonstrate why the physics that leads inevitably to star formation is wrong. Word games and quote mining won't do, objections have to be quantitative and valid.

I maintain that there are no valid creationist objections to star formation, primordial or otherwise. Simple physics leads inevitably to star formation.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4418582



Stars appear out from behind a stellar cloud (oort). The rest is all theory.
 Quoting: - 1547099


All cosmology. Astronomy, astrophysics, all based on theory... Sure....
But creationism isn't even based on that based on the need for it to be true in order for the bible to be correct. But only for them, because most Christians don't even believe this Shit.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27449736
United States
12/02/2012 11:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
So far we've debunked everything from Noah's bizarre, to the stars, and they keep throwing me more Shit. Without one person looking the evidence and how they've been proved wrong. Maybe they believe that if one of their theories is correct that all of them are!
Well, when I've crushed about most of you dreams, where does it end..I know how you guys are indoctrinated and why you need this to be true. Face the facts it is simply not. How many do I have to disprove before you give up?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4418582


bible is correct and holocaust didnt happen
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4418582
United States
12/02/2012 11:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
So far we've debunked everything from Noah's bizarre, to the stars, and they keep throwing me more Shit. Without one person looking the evidence and how they've been proved wrong. Maybe they believe that if one of their theories is correct that all of them are!
Well, when I've crushed about most of you dreams, where does it end..I know how you guys are indoctrinated and why you need this to be true. Face the facts it is simply not. How many do I have to disprove before you give up?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4418582


bible is correct and holocaust didnt happen
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27449736


Thanks for your reply. Haha. Wow.
I'm with you. Neither did the inquisition ;)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28880109
United States
12/02/2012 11:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
MHz

User ID: 25505891
Canada
12/03/2012 04:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
So far we've debunked everything from Noah's bizarre, to the stars, and they keep throwing me more Shit. Without one person looking the evidence and how they've been proved wrong. Maybe they believe that if one of their theories is correct that all of them are!
Well, when I've crushed about most of you dreams, where does it end..I know how you guys are indoctrinated and why you need this to be true. Face the facts it is simply not. How many do I have to disprove before you give up?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4418582

I must have missed that post. God sent 20 ft of rain onto the land in 40 days, that would have dropped the ocean level 5 ft. On the high hills and mountain tops it fellas snow or freezing rain and it took the rest of a full year for all that to melt and return to the ocean.
How did you debunk that?

How about the 1 where He stops the sun at noon? Light cloud cover until noon then let it get deeper so no outline of the sun can be seen and then move in Ezekiel's wheel to the right height where it can be mistaken for the sun standing still in the sky, at evening it just goes higher and that natural evening takes over.

Need some more example on how God would do those things> The first supernatural part of the flood is forecasting weather conditions 100 years in advance.

Last Edited by MHz on 12/03/2012 04:09 AM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/03/2012 10:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
So far we've debunked everything from Noah's bizarre, to the stars, and they keep throwing me more Shit. Without one person looking the evidence and how they've been proved wrong. Maybe they believe that if one of their theories is correct that all of them are!
Well, when I've crushed about most of you dreams, where does it end..I know how you guys are indoctrinated and why you need this to be true. Face the facts it is simply not. How many do I have to disprove before you give up?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4418582


Most of them never will. They have already convinced themselves that whatever is on that paper or website with evidence contradicting their worldview is something that you yourself made up, or someone like you just made up. They feel that this is a rational consideration because in the backs of their minds they intrinsically KNOW that the bible is all made up too and people "believe" it simply because others say to so why SHOULDN'T science be the same? In their mind, science books are written the way atheists think the bible was written.

Also, many of them are just dumb. They are also wildly prone to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is to say they are dumb, but mistakenly believe themselves to be intelligent. When this occurs, a dumb person will make a ridiculous excuse but will not believe the excuse to really be ridiculous to anyone but them (because they're the clever person that came up with it and it sounds clever to them) and that everyone on the planet is less bright then they are and will therefore fall for it and the argument will have been won.

There is a cognitive dissonance that is formed at the moment when the Dunning-Kruger Effect is upturned and the dumb person is not taken at their word and a ridiculous excuse is percieved by others as just that. That's when the next stage of butthurt sets in, and they get viscous and accuse the other of attacking them, their god, their faith, serving the devil....whatever they can come up with to lob at you.
MHz

User ID: 25505891
Canada
12/03/2012 11:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Science has confirmed the date of the oceanic crust, they failed to make any updates for the ramifications of that compared to the earlier beliefsthat turned out to be flat-out.

[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4418582
United States
12/03/2012 01:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
I thought about this a lot last night. The things that infuriated me the most is this idea, that somehow the entire science community and the public education system in the US are insiders to this sinful, atheistic plot to manipulate, and indoctrinate, the masses into their dogmatic evolution based way of thinking, well it is just the most insane and far fetched conspiracy theory out there.

The fact remains however, that at no point does evolution seek to disprove god! It does so, based on its proponents doing research and having the science and mathematics to back it up. Where, on the other hand we have an organization like the creationists, that by their nature are only taking these same experiments, without the knowledge to do their own, and bending, twisting and falsely understanding how they work to fit their creationist arguments. If it were the other way around, I might be inclined to believe them, but the fact remains that science, in no way is seeking to disprove them. It just so happens that the science contradicts everything they believe.

So when we have this conspiracy thrown at us, claiming that there is an atheist agenda perpetuated in the school system, it makes me very sad and angry. They've convinced their younger followers that if somehow this conspiracy exists, that it must prove that science is working to undermine god! But we see all the evidence to the contrary.

We are at no time, under a gun, forced to believe these things. We are presented with the newest ideas, and asked to pay attention to what goes on in whole of science. Whereas on the other hand, this group is told to only believe the pseudoscience, and reject what the rest of the world is telling them. It's a narrow way of thinking that will always come back negatively on them. But that is okay to their ringleaders, because the cult needs followers at the end of the day. This notion of an atheist agenda is completely ignorant and made up. The evidence against it, is so great that they themselves do not even feel like they were ever part of it. Does not exist. And, as I've said all of these creation based theories have been proven false. And this is why we are left in an empty thread. It's great I must say.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28996045
United States
12/03/2012 01:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
I can't believe there are still people who will defend this in public.

Ridiculous.
M-Class 25

User ID: 11518748
United States
12/03/2012 01:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
God created the earth, solar system and the universe with the material of his past creation, and that's why scientists think the earth is so old. peace
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4418582
United States
12/03/2012 01:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
So far we've debunked everything from Noah's bizarre, to the stars, and they keep throwing me more Shit. Without one person looking the evidence and how they've been proved wrong. Maybe they believe that if one of their theories is correct that all of them are!
Well, when I've crushed about most of you dreams, where does it end..I know how you guys are indoctrinated and why you need this to be true. Face the facts it is simply not. How many do I have to disprove before you give up?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4418582


Most of them never will. They have already convinced themselves that whatever is on that paper or website with evidence contradicting their worldview is something that you yourself made up, or someone like you just made up. They feel that this is a rational consideration because in the backs of their minds they intrinsically KNOW that the bible is all made up too and people "believe" it simply because others say to so why SHOULDN'T science be the same? In their mind, science books are written the way atheists think the bible was written.

Also, many of them are just dumb. They are also wildly prone to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is to say they are dumb, but mistakenly believe themselves to be intelligent. When this occurs, a dumb person will make a ridiculous excuse but will not believe the excuse to really be ridiculous to anyone but them (because they're the clever person that came up with it and it sounds clever to them) and that everyone on the planet is less bright then they are and will therefore fall for it and the argument will have been won.

There is a cognitive dissonance that is formed at the moment when the Dunning-Kruger Effect is upturned and the dumb person is not taken at their word and a ridiculous excuse is percieved by others as just that. That's when the next stage of butthurt sets in, and they get viscous and accuse the other of attacking them, their god, their faith, serving the devil....whatever they can come up with to lob at you.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821


These points are are all true.

To elaborate on the way the bible way written:

By a singular group of men who having never experienced these stories, not knowing them to be true, found it very easy to perpetuate the insanity in them as far as they'd believe. Yet, still, having no knowledge of the authenticity of the stories themselves! That should tell you something!
While on the other hand, if the new testament were to be written again in the time of science, and with all of the things we now know, it would be a very different book. One that I fear would not include any magical explanation, or immature views of how things came into existence.
These stories exist, simply because they were the best that were available to describe the outside world. It it were written today by the same people. It would not be the same book. It would most likely be obscure and in the fiction shelves.

It's a wonderful time to be alive. We no longer need the embrace of a creator god to dictate, and control our very lives. We, now, are so beyond this idea, and how evolved spiritually to the point where spirituality no longer needs to explain away the why or the how.
Isn't that beautiful? Can being you not be enough? Do we still need to be under the control of something? Are we still afraid as a species? Creationists are remnants of a society that is nearly dead. We have evolved beyond their belief systems, and that is the difference. What genes will survive, and which will die out. We know for sure now.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11705783
United States
12/03/2012 05:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
conspiracy
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4418582

Piltdown Man
[link to www.talkorigins.org]
Piltdown man is one of the most famous frauds in the history of science. In 1912 Charles Dawson discovered the first of two skulls found in the Piltdown quarry in Sussex, England, skulls of an apparently primitive hominid, an ancestor of man. Piltdown man, or Eoanthropus dawsoni to use his scientific name, was a sensation. He was the expected "missing link" [...] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a friend of Dawson, a Jesuit, a paleontologist, and a theologian. He participated in the discovery of Peking man and Piltdown man. [...] In an essay reprinted in The Panda's Thumb, Stephen Jay Gould argues the case for a conspiracy by Teilhard de Chardin and Dawson.


[link to amazingdiscoveries.org]
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) was a French Jesuit priest and scientist. He studied and practiced paleontology, theology, and philosophy.

Teilhard was also a supporter of a one-world government. Some call him “The Father of the New Age.”

According to one biographer, Teilhard “spent the bulk of his life trying to integrate religious experience with natural science, most specifically Christian theology with theories of evolution. In this endeavor he became absolutely enthralled with the possibilities for humankind, which he saw as heading for an exciting convergence of systems, an 'Omega point' where the coalescence of consciousness will lead us to a new state of peace and planetary unity.”
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11705783

Thread: The New Age movement is JESUIT CONTROLLED + Evolution (Darwin Movement)
Theilhard studied fossils, but supported the Piltdown man hoax.
 Quoting: S3/6

Holy Hoaxer?
[link to www.time.com]
Since his death in 1955, the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was also an accomplished paleontologist, has become something of a cult figure. Millions of readers have been fascinated by his writings, which often put him at odds with ecclesiastical authorities. Particularly controversial were his views on evolution, which he held moves in an upward direction with increasing domination of spirit over matter. Now the saintly Teilhard stands accused of a little playful tampering with evolution. Last week he was implicated as a conspirator in one of the most famous scientific hoaxes, the notorious Piltdown caper. [...] But who masterminded the hoax? Dawson was suspected, but some scholars doubt that he had the skills or material to carry it out. In Natural History, Harvard Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould writes that the young Teilhard, then a student in England and Dawson's friend, could easily have supplied some bones.

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4418582
United States
12/03/2012 07:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
So a singular event in history is proof of a massive conspiracy?
An atheist agenda as you've called it?
An atheist agenda carried out by god fearing jesuits no less.
That's like saying the religious agenda is carried out by militant atheists.


So dumb. This thread is dead.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/03/2012 07:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
OK. Piltdown Man will not kill this thread, nor will it be suffered to have the final word on this topic.

What Piltdown ACTUALLY demonstrates is sciences ability to root out hoaxers incredibly quicky and discount the research based on evidence gathered from hoax sources.

NO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST IN THE WORLD uses Piltdown as a credible source for ANYTHING other than creationist pseudoscientists trying to discredit the theory of evolution.

The hoax was only able to go on for 41 years (1912-1953) because as scientific method, technique and technology improved...exposure of the hoax was inevitable. Religion is relatively static and does not allow for the dealing with of clever people who wish to exploit religionists innate gullibility for their own gain. Creflo Dollar, Pat Robertson, the catholic pedofile scandal, and Ted Haggard are all strong evidence of that being a factual statement.

But look at the 2000 YEAR OLD HOAX that is the bible and the religion that gave birth to it that is being defended to this very moment in this very thread in this very quadrant of the internet. It's like the ultimate Stockholm Syndrome...

"Oh I know that priest fucked my little boy in the ass from the age of 11 but he's really a kindhearted messenger of jesus. I know the church actively covered it up, and all the other instances of fucking other people's little boys but they're really a beneficient organization that does mostly good in the world. It's been happening for decades and probably centuries and the networks and infrastructure required to cover it up was vast and expensive and it was my money that paid for it and though it really looks like an enormous, systemic problem it really must be just a few bad apples even though one apple was accused of molesting thousands of children over the course of 20 years and the emotional wreckage left behind by that guy is really just something that we need to pray for and give to god to deal with because he performed our wedding and it was just a beautiful ceremony and he's been a part of our community for so long. God forgives and so should we. Now I'm off to my pro-life traditional marriage defense council meeting so we can keep all the baby-killers and homos in their place in soceity."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4418582
United States
12/03/2012 07:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
you're right, it shouldn't be the last word.
I'm with you, I just refuse to keep responding to every single one of their posts with actual proof that what they believe is Shit, while they cannot even so much as read what I'm posting. It's hypocritical on a massive scale. Being proven wrong, and then turning to newer theories every time is just so pathetic. It's tired me the Fuck out.
Take the reigns though, all of us atheists have a clear vision of reality that does not need to change. So by all means, you can blow these ridiculous statements out of the water for now. It's not hard, when there only evidence is coming from a singular network of ignorance and denial.
Man, is it tiring though.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/03/2012 11:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
You know, I think the rise in freethinkers over the last few years is evidence of evolution in a minor sense.

Thousands of years ago mankind believed primarily in multiple gods. That got a bit difficult to manage after a while so we whittled it down to one. Then there were, and are a bunch of arguments as to what that one is and what it means to worship it.

Now, people are beginning to realize that the whole idea is stupid because throughout this whole time, over the last 500 years, clever people have been making greater and greater scientific advancements IN SPITE OF religious oppression and each generation is producing more and more nonbelievers.

Perhaps, sociologically we are experiencing one of the effects in evolution just as we consider an animals development of the use of tool as evidence of evolution in that we are beginning to noticeably see the effects of evolving away from mystical and magical thinking altogether.

In 50 years, even belief in ghosts will be considered too looney for mulrooney.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2831069
United States
12/04/2012 12:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
I'd like to live in that age. Unfortunately I'm already there.
Everything has an earthly explanation.
-
User ID: 29002615
United States
12/04/2012 01:10 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
You know, I think the rise in freethinkers over the last few years is evidence of evolution in a minor sense.

Thousands of years ago mankind believed primarily in multiple gods. That got a bit difficult to manage after a while so we whittled it down to one. Then there were, and are a bunch of arguments as to what that one is and what it means to worship it.

Now, people are beginning to realize that the whole idea is stupid because throughout this whole time, over the last 500 years, clever people have been making greater and greater scientific advancements IN SPITE OF religious oppression and each generation is producing more and more nonbelievers.

Perhaps, sociologically we are experiencing one of the effects in evolution just as we consider an animals development of the use of tool as evidence of evolution in that we are beginning to noticeably see the effects of evolving away from mystical and magical thinking altogether.

In 50 years, even belief in ghosts will be considered too looney for mulrooney.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



Thousands of years ago many believed in other gods. The Hebrews did not.

The Bible explains the ghosts are just fallen angles like Satan. The dead are in their graves and we cannot communicate with them.

The rise of the 'enlightenment' just proves a conspiracy that spread by violent revolution, not any truth or knowledge. All others are censored &/or killed.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/04/2012 08:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
You know, I think the rise in freethinkers over the last few years is evidence of evolution in a minor sense.

Thousands of years ago mankind believed primarily in multiple gods. That got a bit difficult to manage after a while so we whittled it down to one. Then there were, and are a bunch of arguments as to what that one is and what it means to worship it.

Now, people are beginning to realize that the whole idea is stupid because throughout this whole time, over the last 500 years, clever people have been making greater and greater scientific advancements IN SPITE OF religious oppression and each generation is producing more and more nonbelievers.

Perhaps, sociologically we are experiencing one of the effects in evolution just as we consider an animals development of the use of tool as evidence of evolution in that we are beginning to noticeably see the effects of evolving away from mystical and magical thinking altogether.

In 50 years, even belief in ghosts will be considered too looney for mulrooney.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



Thousands of years ago many believed in other gods. The Hebrews did not.

The Bible explains the ghosts are just fallen angles like Satan. The dead are in their graves and we cannot communicate with them.

The rise of the 'enlightenment' just proves a conspiracy that spread by violent revolution, not any truth or knowledge. All others are censored &/or killed.
 Quoting: - 29002615


Fallen angles huh?

Were they fallen right angles? Oblique angles? BE specific in your geometry.
MHz

User ID: 25505891
Canada
12/04/2012 09:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
This specific enough for you?

Jude:1:6:
And the angels which kept not their first estate,
but left their own habitation,
he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jude:1:7:
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha,
and the cities about them in like manner,
giving themselves over to fornication,
and going after strange flesh,
are set forth for an example,
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jude:1:8:
Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh,
despise dominion,
and speak evil of dignities.

Jude:1:10:
But these speak evil of those things which they know not:
but what they know naturally,
as brute beasts,
in those things they corrupt themselves.
Jude:1:11:
Woe unto them!
for they have gone in the way of Cain,
and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward,
and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Jude:1:12:
These are spots in your feasts of charity,
when they feast with you,
feeding themselves without fear:
clouds they are without water,
carried about of winds;
trees whose fruit withereth,
without fruit, twice dead,
plucked up by the roots;
Jude:1:13:
Raging waves of the sea,
foaming out their own shame;
wandering stars,
to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Or is this a little too specific?

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!