Quarter bull 240 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 Can we keep it at science here chris please, this is how we will determine it, hopefully, or may us think at least,,, Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) Ok chris, lets talk evidence we can see, scientific lol These are going to be for a young earth an universe, an tells us that its not billions or millions,but thousands... What have you got to say about the "winding up dilema" as evoloutionary scientists like to call it.. Every theory they have come up with is thrown to the dustbin..... Another,,,what have you got to say about the limited number of super novas, that we can see, they say that one explodes every 25 years an that the remnants of the explosion,vfkoats about for millions of years,,,,well why can we only find 200 super novas in space, that adds up to around six thousand years of existence for the universe. This is science that we can see an test an observe, not long ago an far away. So radiometric dating is flawed, even though it all points towards an earth of over billion years old? I'm not a physics major so I'm sure you can put me straight on that one. Supernova remnants wouldn't be visible over 1m years though, would they? So, back to the bible. Can you validate it? Im very slow at typing so ill will just copy an paste from my source, that ok cause im no scientist, lol, just a researcher.... No problem. It's been a 4.5bn year race so far! No rush on the keyboard! Edited April 14, 2015 by ChrisJones Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 Yeah what is your problem with these chris could you explain,,,,an no other bible is to be trusted, apart from k.j, not the new one,,, the k.j I thought we were talking science here not our faiths? We're both posting over the top of each other here. My apologies. I'm not the fastest typer in the world! This is thread about god, don't forget. You're attempting to disprove scientific theory, so I'll concede a little ground. But if science is wrong what is right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) To far gone Chris, not a bad lad really, but ignores a solid argument/evidence, waste of time really mate. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we've systematically proved that all the scientific evidence, collected, tested, concluded, is complete fabricated horsehit. (Devil's Advocate as you know I think differently) What actually happened then? Will we be able to see any evidence to support a contrary position. This thread about "If God Made Everything, Who Made God" by definition is philisophical in nature. So if we're wrong. Who is right? How was it done? EDIT: BTW I'm off work until tomorrow, I have a sick lad at home and I can't go out... I've got nothing but time to waste! Edited April 14, 2015 by ChrisJones Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quarter bull 240 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 Settle yourself man, im not saying science is wrong im using science to back my young earth claim,,,,an yes the bible can an has been validated, but no one beleives it, so can we stick to science now mate, we can get to the bible later,,,,,,its creation science vs secular science lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) Settle yourself man, im not saying science is wrong im using science to back my young earth claim,,,,an yes the bible can an has been validated, but no one beleives it, so can we stick to science now mate, we can get to the bible later,,,,,,its creation science vs secular science lol Can you link to some peer reviewed papers on young earth science then? I always though radiometric dating was pretty f***ing accurate but I'm not a physicist! Can you link to some peer reviews papers on the validation of the bible? There is a tree alleged to be 9550 years old in Sweden. That would make it impossible? No? I've listed many, many examples of the science. You refute by saying it's bollocks and it's just my opinion! We're not really getting anywhere are we? Edited April 14, 2015 by ChrisJones Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Truther 1,579 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 https://youtu.be/g40Eck6gW7U Man made QB. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quarter bull 240 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 I agree with this statment on peer reviews, do you not think this statment is fair chris...... Feedback archive → Feedback 2008 Creationism, Science and Peer Review Published: 2 February 2008 We have often received feedback in the form of questions on the lines of, If creation is scientific, then why dont you publish in peer-reviewed secular journals? Andrew Kulikovsky answers this common question in detail. He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-too-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm. So it is folly for anticreationists to hide behind it instead of dealing with the arguments. This is why, to keep the advantages and overcome its drawbacks, creationists have started their own journals, e.g. CMIs longstanding publication now titled Journal of Creation. [Ed. note: subsequently published in Journal of Creation 22(1):4449, 2008; see PDF.] Introduction Critics have been quick to call into question either the scientific competence of creationist scientists, or the soundness and quality of their scientific work. The critics do this in order to effectively and pre-emptively dismiss or diminish the arguments creationists put forward in order to support the biblical teaching of a recent creation. Photo stockxpert.com One of the ways they do this is to show that a particular creationist scientist either does not participate in the main stream scientific community, orif they dothat they do not actually do research in, or are not regarded as sufficiently competent in relation to, the topics that they write about. Critics also claim that creationist scientists do not publish their research in the recognised mainstream scientific journals. And this clearly indicates to critics of scientific creationism that creationist theories are junk science because such theories have not passed the normal peer review process that all other recognized scientific research has had to undergo. Typical of demands for peer review opponents of young-earth creationism is the physiologist Dr Richard Meiss of the Indiana University School of Medicine: If the truths of creation science were as plainly manifest and as crashingly obvious as its proponents claim, surely they could convince at least a few outside reviewers of their validity on scientific merit alone.1 Likewise, self-professed progressive creationist who is really a theistic evolutionary sympathizer Greg Neyman of the AnswersInCreation website: Peer-review is critical for scientific research to be taken seriously Basically, several other scientists who are experts in the field examine your work to see if it contains errors. Occasionally you will see young earth claims of their work being peer-reviewed. However, for young earth work to be taken seriously, it must pass the muster of peer-review from non young-earth scientists Normally, a peer-reviewed article which passes muster would be published in a leading journal such as from the Geological Society of America, [not just] on the ICR website. If the RATE [Radio isotopes and the Age of The Earth] project truly publishes some work which is good enough for publication in secular journals, then they would surely pursue that route. It is clear in this case that the peers for these articles are other young-earth proponents, which cast serious doubts upon the validity of the works.2 Apart from the glaring inconsistencies in this line of argument (if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non young-earth scientists, then shouldnt old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists? Are the peers of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth? Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research?), it reveals an astonishing ignorance and naivety of how science and the peer-review process is actually conducted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) Nothing on radiometric dating then? EDIT: It's hard to say based on that. If you had overwhelming evidence to the contrary it would stand up and be counted, no? If you could prove that the way we know things is wrong then surely the scientific community would embrace it? Why wouldn't they if your case is airtight? Edited April 14, 2015 by ChrisJones Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quarter bull 240 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 Truther anyone thats knows their history, knows that it was constantine who created roman catholicism, when he mixed paganism, with christianity,,,,,,, Or am i wrong? So tell me then the prophecies in the old testament about jesus, which the jews wrote, how do you explain them if he was a mythical figure... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 So tell me then the prophecies in the old testament about jesus, which the jews wrote, how do you explain them if he was a mythical figure... If it's written hundreds of years later it's an anachronism, not a prophecy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quarter bull 240 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 Chris your getting into social an political reasons here now, we know the powers at be, are not to be trusted, but thats for another day... Yes radiometric. Potassium argon is flawed bigtime it relys on assumptions does it not, il throw up a few examples Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quarter bull 240 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 So tell me then the prophecies in the old testament about jesus, which the jews wrote, how do you explain them if he was a mythical figure... If it's written hundreds of years later it's an anachronism, not a prophecy? Well we can beg to differ there... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 Chris your getting into social an political reasons here now, we know the powers at be, are not to be trusted, but thats for another day... Yes radiometric. Potassium argon is flawed bigtime it relys on assumptions does it not, il throw up a few examples So what actually happened then? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJones 7,973 Posted April 14, 2015 Report Share Posted April 14, 2015 Truther anyone thats knows their history, knows that it was constantine who created roman catholicism, when he mixed paganism, with christianity,,,,,,, Or am i wrong? So tell me then the prophecies in the old testament about jesus, which the jews wrote, how do you explain them if he was a mythical figure... If Constantine corrupted christianity how do we know we have the real thing? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.