dad1
Active Member
Every time I see some phony science kook posting their anti creation opinions to the internet with a computer I can't help but chuckle a little.
Last edited:
-
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!
Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.
- Thread starter dad1
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Proof that "ignorance is bliss".
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
lol
dad1
Active Member
I prefer light, thanks. Nor am I ignorant of the devices of so called science and the basis for their models of the past. There can be no denying the fail of anyone to show that there was a same nature in the past here. How sweet it is.Proof that "ignorance is bliss".
Set Free
Member
From what I’ve read so far, I see no evidence presented for the same, absolute conditions of nature in the past as well.
Altfish
Veteran Member
I assume you do not fly because of these scientists and their models. What about tall buildings, you avoid those too? I'm amazed you risk the internet, designed by scientists with devious mind sets.
dad1
Active Member
Great, so it's not my imagination
dad1
Active Member
Crass cheap little attempt to hide under the skirt of actual knowledge and actual rubber meets the road science.
No same state past ever made a plane or a building FYI!
Altfish
Veteran Member
I'm not sure what you mean, especially the second sentence, doesn't make sense.
Could you restate your rebuttal but in English, please
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
the internet involves key technological breakthroughs like electricity, powered flight, computer software
Edison was home schooled, the Wright brothers were highschool dropouts, Gates flunked college..
They were not 'scientists' scientists at the time were too busy pushing phrenology, Piltdown man, and the Big Crunch!
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
...
The fact that you found this compelling enough to post tells me everything I need to know.
dad1
Active Member
No computer or car or anything else was made using the belief in a same state past. Capice?
Altfish
Veteran Member
But computers and cars don't breed. Leave two computers together and you won't after a romantic night end up with 3. Capice?
dad1
Active Member
Tell us how you think the fact that inanimate objects do not have sex helps you in some way?
Altfish
Veteran Member
Help, I'm not sure.
But because you and others have brought them in to the evolution vs creationism argument. I am pointing out that they are not the same.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
What they are trying to say is they have no problem with science as long as it doesn't step on their dogma.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Science is dogma...ha!
When did the bible last change? That is the measure of dogmatism, ability to change, science changes all the time ...religion...??
dad1
Active Member
Far as we know evolving in the nature of the past could happen to a living creature...fast. Unlike the evolution of today. Far as we know the modern genetics are not like the former nature genetics either. So when you talk about evolution, be specific as to when and what evolved.
dad1
Active Member
From your link
"If the whole universe really did begin in a hot dense state, then it must have released a great deal of light. As the universe expanded its temperature would cool...."
So we need to accept that the universe sailed out of a hot little speck for no apparent reason first. Then we need to believe a 'lot of light' had to result. Not that you have any hot specks that produce a lot of light and a universe to prove that of course. We need to believe. Then we need to believe with no proof this little new universe expanded like the dickens. You need it to be so. Then we need the new universe to cool. Then you need us to give you credit for the whole fairy tale because it seems like the universe in not too hot!!!?
Truly ridiculous. What would God creating the stars and universe and space leave? Have you some reason to claim it would not leave what your fairy tale would leave in the way of temperatures?? Talk about an appeal from ignorance!
They used to say if a prophet got something wrong, they were a false prophet. Even if they seemed to get some things almost right. Cosmology has many failed predictions. Where is the black hole they expected for sn1987a? Fail! You really think we are supposed to deny creation and grope around for any other explanation but creation?
You can't prove dark stuff even exists. Now you plot some curve that agrees with it. The reason it agrees with the 13 billion years is what....that it would have cooled in that imaginary time to what we now see?? Or..?
Now from your link we see this. (The Abundance of Light Elements)
" In all models of the big bang, this critical temperature, where neutral atoms form, is somewhere between three and four minutes into the Universe. Wait a little longer, and you’d have too little Helium. Do it a little faster, and you’d have too much. But the amount we have matches exactly what we predict..."
You invoke an imaginary scenario. Then you try to talk about a few seconds 13 billions years ago. Then you say that the little speck must have quickly done things responsible for forming the helium and hydrogen in that time!!!!
Then you try to take credit for the ratios of hydrogen and helium in the universe because in your little fantasy and baseless fable, that cannot be supported in any way, if it ll happened just right in the first few imaginary minutes..we also would get about the same rato!!!!
Well, how about creation, what would that have produced, if not what we see also? Why would we default to your strange beliefs?
Since you are making so many claims answer a few questions.
Your link about neutrinos said this
"Initially, these fluctuations were the same strength on all scales, but thanks to the interplay of normal matter, dark matter and the photons, there are “peaks” and “troughs” in these fluctuations. The positions and levels of these peaks and troughs tells us important information about the matter content, radiation content, dark matter density and spatial curvature of the Universe, including the dark energy density."
What evidence do you have that the fluctuations were the same at one point? What proof do you have that it was dark stuff that affected the scales in some precise way?
Your link goes on to talk of how the neutrinos would cause a phase shift.
"There’s also a very, very subtle effect: neutrinos, which only make up a few percent of the energy density at these early times, can subtly shift the phases of these peaks and troughs..."
Can you show us that it was neutrinos that shifted as you say? How do you know how many neutrinos were there in those early times?
Then the link goes on to say
"This phase shift -- if detectable -- would provide not only strong evidence of the existence of the cosmic neutrino background, but would allow us to measure its temperature at the time the CMB was emitted.."
Clarify this. Apparently we need to believe in 95% of the universe being dark stuff that was further affected by neutrinos which were here? How does all this allow us to know the temperature when emitted?
This seems like a numbers game so far. 'if there was enough imaginary time, and the universe was not created, and the invisible dark stuff affected it the right way, and the neutrinos affected some curve, etc etc...then our story could be true' ?
Also please explain what the number of neutrino species as inferred by the CMB fluctuation data is? How is it inferred?
I suppose I could invent some invisible stuff also, that I could wave around as needed and claim that it made curves a certain way so that the big bang seems right. Your problem is that you have a long series of things needed, none of which you have the slightest evidence for.