• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution is a Big Lie

outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
barry is a quack and his information is not valid.

You have a habit of using terrible sources with no scientific credibility
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
outhouse said:
barry is a quack and his information is not valid.

You have a habit of using terrible sources with no scientific credibility
Click to expand...

Thank you for detailing exactly how the information is not valid and why he's a quack.

You have a habit of never actually bothering to go beyond the "Your source is wrong!" part.
 
Last edited:
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
Photonic said:
Steady State theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sorry, but taking an old theory and putting a religious twist on it doesn't make it more valid in the present.

Please stop spreading misinformation.
Click to expand...

Wow, you post a wikipedia article about a theory (with a fairly decent discussion page) , you don't bother addressing any of the claims, and you accuse me of "spreading misinformation" without explaining why any of what I posted is incorrect in detail. I have an idea, how about you quote from your own article like I did.

My world is utterly shattered. How will I pick up the pieces.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Shermana said:
Thank you for detailing exactly how the information is not valid and why he's a quack.

You have a habit of never actually bothering to go beyond the "Your source is wrong!" part.
Click to expand...


im sorry i dont waist time on YEC pseudoscience
 
Photonic

Photonic

Ad astra!
Shermana said:
Wow, you post a wikipedia article about a theory (with a fairly decent discussion page) , you don't bother addressing any of the claims, and you accuse me of "spreading misinformation" without explaining why any of what I posted is incorrect in detail. I have an idea, how about you quote from your own article like I did.

My world is utterly shattered. How will I pick up the pieces.
Click to expand...

Testing the waters to see how you would react, that's all I needed to know. I'm not going to waste my time on you. Your decision doesn't come from reasoning.

Inside of that article it states why the hypothesis doesn't stand. If that isn't enough to at least make you think, you won't be willing to listen to reason.
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
Photonic said:
Testing the waters to see how you would react, that's all I needed to know. I'm not going to waste my time on you. Your decision doesn't come from reasoning.

Inside of that article it states why the hypothesis doesn't stand. If that isn't enough to at least make you think, you won't be willing to listen to reason.
Click to expand...

Right. Have a nice day, let me know if you ever want to actually discuss the claims in question. I do strongly suggest you learn how to quote from your own articles and attack specific claims when someone else quotes from theirs. I don't understand though why my decision doesn't come from reasoning, I guess asking someone to go over the claims in question doesn't come from reasoning, but refusing to does. And no need to address the Talk page either I guess.

PS Have you actually read your own article? This is all it has on the criticism section.

Criticism

Astrophysicist and cosmologist Ned Wright has pointed out flaws in the theory.[3] These first comments were soon rebutted by the proponents.[4] Wright and other mainstream cosmologists reviewing QSS have pointed out new flaws and discrepancies with observations left unexplained by proponents.[5]
Click to expand...
And this:
The steady state model is now largely discredited, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe.
Click to expand...
Hmm, not exactly filled with specifics and details. You wouldn't just say things about an article you haven't read would you? Of course not....But we could discuss the sources in question.

Oh, and one of the "quacks" who you may speak of, Halton Arp, now works at the Max Planck institute.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
 
Last edited:
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Shermana said:
Care to explain how its poor data and a weak hypothesis other than just saying it is?
Click to expand...
Care to explain how Redshift Quantization is valid evidence of Creationism, or Geocentrism for that matter, other than posting bits of articles about a hypothesis that has yet to pass any sort of scientific verification?
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Shermana said:
Right. Have a nice day, let me know if you ever want to actually discuss the claims in question. I do strongly suggest you learn how to quote from your own articles and attack specific claims when someone else quotes from theirs. I don't understand though why my decision doesn't come from reasoning, I guess asking someone to go over the claims in question doesn't come from reasoning, but refusing to does. And no need to address the Talk page either I guess.

PS Have you actually read your own article? This is all it has on the criticism section.

And this:
Hmm, not exactly filled with specifics and details. You wouldn't just say things about an article you haven't read would you? Of course not....But we could discuss the sources in question.

Oh, and one of the "quacks" who you may speak of, Halton Arp, now works at the Max Planck institute.

Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift
Click to expand...

we dont waist our time with pseudoscience, so far that is all you have posted except for a few paragraphs that didnt pertain to anything you brought up.



I typical YEC tactic of truth , truth , dishonesty
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
tumbleweed41 said:
Care to explain how Redshift Quantization is valid evidence of Creationism, or Geocentrism for that matter, other than posting bits of articles about a hypothesis that has yet to pass any sort of scientific verification?
Click to expand...

Sure, it proves that the Universe stopped stretching and stabilized into a Steady state after a while and that its' perfectly distanced to give Earth as its center, Hubble's Law comes into effect here. You cannot just dismiss an article for failing to pass "Scientific verification", verification from who? Try attacking the specific claims. Want to get into the article on Halton Arp?
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
outhouse said:
we dont waist our time with pseudoscience, so far that is all you have posted except for a few paragraphs that didnt pertain to anything you brought up.



I typical YEC tactic of truth , truth , dishonesty
Click to expand...


You want to get into the article on Halton Arp and how it disproves the basics of the Big Bang?
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
Shermana said:
You want to get into the article on Halton Arp and how it disproves the basics of the Big Bang?
Click to expand...

I have better things to do then waist time with YEC pseudoscience that is more fantasy then science. :facepalm:


it proves
Click to expand...

the only thing it proves is barry is off his rocker

YOU dont have any valid evidence





changing known science into want and wish fails everytime
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
outhouse said:
newhope went off into YEC strategy and mythology again.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I didn't think Shermana was "newhope101"...I saw the name Shermana as a member at a different forum from a long time ago. Plus...newhope101 was relentless at posting numerous amounts of misinformation and newhope101 presented herself as a christian. Shermana is far from that. IMO....:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top