The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[McBell]

In my opinion, you've already proven my point. If Nature is not held accountable, from Nature which humans came, humans should not be held accountable for anything. Point proven due to it being evident that humans defy from which it came. Natural selection, from which humans came... leaves zero room for any intent/choice.

Humans came from natural selection(no logic) yet have logic. Also a contradictory.

Nature, natural selection from which humans came is blind as you've said. Humans are not blind-they are aware.

There is no mechanism of anything "psychological" with natural selection. Humans have psychological ability. The acquisition of that ability cannot be from natural selection. (At least in its current state.) I would think it more plausible that the species undergoing natural selection all the way to the path of humans would have some psychological abilities/intent/choice.

Humans came from that same cold,vicious, no intent/non-choosing path, non-logical, non-ethical path as its alleged.

Evolution is about species, not individuals.

 

[Super Universe]

So is that your source for the universe being “250 billion years”?

Yes.

 

[Super Universe]

Evolution is about species, not individuals.

The Theory of Evolution is about species but natural selection is about individuals.

 

[McBell]

The Theory of Evolution is about species but natural selection is about individuals.

*facepalm*

You keep demonstrating my signature....

 

[DavidFirth]

Creation? You stoned? We've proven there's no Creator.

 

[Super Universe]

*facepalm*

You keep demonstrating my signature....

Yeah, you are soooo smart with your one and two sentence posts.

When people like you are afraid to post more than one or two sentences it shows they don't want to expose their lack of real understanding about what is being discussed.

ROFLMAO!

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, you are soooo smart with your one and two sentence posts.

When people like you are afraid to post more than one or two sentences it shows they don't want to expose their lack of real understanding about what is being discussed.

ROFLMAO!

On the other hand, you seem to revel in such exposure.

 

[Super Universe]

On the other hand, you seem to revel in such exposure.

So, you're friends with the satanists.

 

[gnostic]

In my opinion, you've already proven my point. If Nature is not held accountable, from Nature which humans came, humans should not be held accountable for anything. Point proven due to it being evident that humans defy from which it came. Natural selection, from which humans came... leaves zero room for any intent/choice.

Humans came from natural selection(no logic) yet have logic. Also a contradictory.

Nature, natural selection from which humans came is blind as you've said. Humans are not blind-they are aware.

There is no mechanism of anything "psychological" with natural selection. Humans have psychological ability. The acquisition of that ability cannot be from natural selection. (At least in its current state.) I would think it more plausible that the species undergoing natural selection all the way to the path of humans would have some psychological abilities/intent/choice.

Humans came from that same cold,vicious, no intent/non-choosing path, non-logical, non-ethical path as its alleged.

Natural Selection is biological, as are all other evolutionary mechanisms (such as Mutation, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking).

You are right, it has nothing to do with ethics, but it also have nothing to do with ideology and psychology.

It also has nothing to do with being cold and viciousness. Natural Selection has to do with selection of physical and genetic traits, that will allow them to survive in changes to the environment (eg change in climate, terrain, availability of food resources, and types of food, etc).

 

[Sapiens]

Yeah, you are soooo smart with your one and two sentence posts.

That seems to be about all that is warranted or required.

When people like you are afraid to post more than one or two sentences it shows they don't want to expose their lack of real understanding about what is being discussed.

Or, perhaps, it is that you don't understand the simplicity of the situation.

ROFLMAO!

Ah ... you are rather easy to amuse ... simple is good.

 

[Polymath257]

So, you're friends with the satanists.

I'm friends with those who seek the truth and seek to increase human well being.

 

[gnostic]

Yes.

And are there indecent sources to verify your Urantia Book, that’s not religious literature?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is why I see flaws in natural selection as presented.. there is no logic, no intent, no choice, no awareness, no ethics. Humans are said to evolve from such, which I see as a large problem. Humans are many things contrary, as seen by our ability to artificially select and oppose the racist forms of natural selection and racist forms of eugenics, also seen by our logic, intelligence, having intent, awareness, choice, ethics. Also as you've mentioned, choosing our mates and/or having them chosen for us. Natural selection allows for no choice/no intent yet would state that humans evolved from such.

I understand that you're not advocating for such. However, many humans have done so in the past and still do today (Social Darwinism.) The problem with Eugenics are that the social class with the most power and control will deem whatever they want as disease and psychopath.... so for instance, anyone believing or thinking an alternate way from them (Ie: believing in God) can be used as an example to label one genetically flawed. The reality is that the social class in power and control will advocate for whatever they think is best.

I don't really understand this line of thinking. We don't base our lives on the principles of germ theory either. Germ theory has no choice, awareness, ethics, etc., just like natural selection or plate tectonics or anything else we find in nature. They're still accurate descriptions of the processes at work in nature though. But it doesn't mean we have to live our lives around them and form our morals and ethics through them. Recognition of the existence of such processes doesn't mean we all have to go around invading other organisms' bodies, causing them to become ill. In fact, many of us spend their lives working to find cures for the illnesses that plague us. Just because it exists in nature doesn't mean we have to embody it or transfer it into some kind of social system.

 

[Super Universe]

And are there indecent sources to verify your Urantia Book, that’s not religious literature?

I think you are asking whether there are independent sources to verify the universe is 250 billion years old? No.

The Hubble can see only about 13.8 billion years. The James Webb telescope should be able to see farther than 13 billion years but it's not going to be able to see anything that is 250 billion years away. But still, anything over 13.8 billion years is going to give the scientists a dilemma, either they will just increase their guess that the big bang happened 13 billion years ago, which is most likely, or dismiss the big bang altogether.

 

[Super Universe]

I'm friends with those who seek the truth and seek to increase human well being.

Ah, you're like Donald Trump then, you like anyone who agrees with you even if they are white nationalists.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah, you're like Donald Trump then, you like anyone who agrees with you even if they are white nationalists.

Nope, not at all. But I prefer disagreements that are based on evidence and not on faith. Unlike Trump and his supporters.

Again, I am friends with those who seek the truth and strive for human well-being. Exactly the opposite of white nationalists.

 

[Polymath257]

I think you are asking whether there are independent sources to verify the universe is 250 billion years old? No.

The Hubble can see only about 13.8 billion years. The James Webb telescope should be able to see farther than 13 billion years but it's not going to be able to see anything that is 250 billion years away. But still, anything over 13.8 billion years is going to give the scientists a dilemma, either they will just increase their guess that the big bang happened 13 billion years ago, which is most likely, or dismiss the big bang altogether.

You keep saying that the Hubble can only see a certain distance and that the Webb will be able to see farther. This shows a lack of understanding of how telescopes actually work.

Telescopes don't have a *distance* limit on what they can see. They have a *brightness* limit and and *angular size* limit. So, Hubble can distinguish separations of .05 arc seconds with the Advanced Camera for Surveys and of .022 arc seconds for the Faint Object Camera. In terms of brightness, the limiting magnitude of Hubble is around 31 (larger is dimmer, here).

So, Hubble would be quite able to see something 20 billion light years away that was bright enough and to see it clearly if its angular size in the sky was big enough. Distance just isn't the relevant factor.

Now, more distant things *tend* to be dimmer and smaller. That is why larger telescopes are built: to collect more light and give better angular resolution.

But, say, if we had two objects, one that is a certain brightness at the source and 13 billion light years away and another that was 4 times as bright and 25 billion light years away, then *both* would be equally visible via the Hubble (actually, the more distant would be slightly brighter to us).

And yet, Hubble doesn't detect *anything* farther than 13.8 billion light years, no matter how bright they would be. it would if they were bright enough. But nothing is.

The reason is simple: there is nothing visible farther than 13.8 billion light years away.

 

[McBell]

Yeah, you are soooo smart with your one and two sentence posts.

When people like you are afraid to post more than one or two sentences it shows they don't want to expose their lack of real understanding about what is being discussed.

ROFLMAO!

As apposed to those like you who post and post and post about things they have no knowledge of.


Now, IF your posts ever warrant more than one or two short sentences, i will provide more than one or two sentences.

I shant be holding my breath

 

[Super Universe]

You keep saying that the Hubble can only see a certain distance and that the Webb will be able to see farther. This shows a lack of understanding of how telescopes actually work.

Telescopes don't have a *distance* limit on what they can see. They have a *brightness* limit and and *angular size* limit. So, Hubble can distinguish separations of .05 arc seconds with the Advanced Camera for Surveys and of .022 arc seconds for the Faint Object Camera. In terms of brightness, the limiting magnitude of Hubble is around 31 (larger is dimmer, here).

So, Hubble would be quite able to see something 20 billion light years away that was bright enough and to see it clearly if its angular size in the sky was big enough. Distance just isn't the relevant factor.

Now, more distant things *tend* to be dimmer and smaller. That is why larger telescopes are built: to collect more light and give better angular resolution.

But, say, if we had two objects, one that is a certain brightness at the source and 13 billion light years away and another that was 4 times as bright and 25 billion light years away, then *both* would be equally visible via the Hubble (actually, the more distant would be slightly brighter to us).

And yet, Hubble doesn't detect *anything* farther than 13.8 billion light years, no matter how bright they would be. it would if they were bright enough. But nothing is.

The reason is simple: there is nothing visible farther than 13.8 billion light years away.

Telescopes don't have a distance limit, they have a brightness limit? A brightness limit, yes, but we were talking about the age of the universe being based upon how far we can see with the telescopes. We weren't talking about trying to see the Spirit rover on Mars.

Hubble doesn't detect anything farther than 13.8 billion years away because there is nothing there? You're not familiar with the Ultra Deep Field picture then. Hubble stared at black space for over three months and when the picture was resolved it was full of galaxies, they estimate 10,000 of them. It took three months of viewing to see galaxies that are 13.2 billion years away.


Also, look at this picture.

https://www.space.com/18502-farthest-galaxy-discovery-hubble-photos.html

See the reddish/orangeish blob in the center of the square, that is the farthest known galaxy yet measured. But, notice all the other blue spots in the box that are other galaxies out there much farther. Hubble just can't resolve them.


So, your opinion that there isn't anything farther than what Hubble can see is obviously wrong and your own pictures prove it.

 

[Super Universe]

As apposed to those like you who post and post and post about things they have no knowledge of.


Now, IF your posts ever warrant more than one or two short sentences, i will provide more than one or two sentences.

I shant be holding my breath

Please don't hold your breath, you really need the few brain cells you have left.

ROLFMAO!