LOL. A "bit of stretch"? LMFAO. FFS dude, you believe that the universe came into being by some random accident of absolutely nothing exploding. LOL. And that life sprang from non-life and that humans came from monkeys.Believing that leviathan and behemoth refers to dinos is not nearly as much of a stretch as what u atheists believe in.
__________________ Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.-Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy
Most people believe Evolution not because they themselves are dumb, but cause they trust the "experts" who are feeding them evolutionary fast food, and so they don't bother questioning whether or not it's true.
But that still doesn't negate all the other various fossil evidence. It also doesn't conclusively prove what happened to the dinosaurs or that they co-existed with humans.
Since you surely realize for the planet to only be thousands of years old then it would have to mean every single fossil ever found is only thousands of years old. If you take the article at face value then it just means that some fossils aren't as old as we are lead to believe and that some people attempt to preserve these falsehoods instead of correcting them.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Dec 28th, 2015 at 12:15 AM
That is a strawman. Gravity is much different. God creating the first organism(s) and encoding it(them) with the ability to adapt in most environments and evolve like science insists that it has. God provided the raw material to start the process and evolution took over. This is theistic evolution.
That doesn't make it any clearer on how Evolution "takes over" anything nor how it is different from Gravity. God is said to control the very hair of each one of us despite not being born yet but Evolution has to be something unrelated to his Will and Creation?
I can say something like "God created Light, but then Gravity "took over" and Night came to be" and we can agree it doesn't make much sense.
I'm not arguing with you. I don't think it makes sense either, but that is what theistic evolutionists believe. Like I said, I don't subscribe to that theory.
To the best of my knowledge, the age of the universe is reckoned, by so-called "mainstream science", via a phenomenon called "redshift".
The idea behind it is that light, being a type of wave, or at least a phenomenon that has significant wavelike properties, parallels a type of behavior common with sound waves called the Doppler Effect. With sound, like say the arrival and then passing of a train, the observer perceives an increase in sound as the train approaches, a high plateau as the train is there moving swiftly past your face, then a drop in sound to partial or complete fade out as it disappears swiftly down its track.
That's for sound.
For light, it's a little bit different. Light approaching an observer, instead of getting louder to the ears, apparently becomes more and more blue.
Light going AWAY from an observer, by contrast, apparently becomes more red.
The closer, in general, the brighter and bluer.
The further, in general, the more red and faded.
Using this principle, if memory serves, astronomers have dated the universe to roughly 13 billion years old. This is roughly the light year rating, again if memory serves, of objects called quasars.
Quasars are regarded as possessing enormous amounts of energy because they are apparently extremely red, as measured by this "redshift" meter, and therefore not only extremely far away, but still moving away.
A group of astronomers, foremost among them one Halton "Chip" Arp, did research on the quasars mentioned in my previous post, which the current redshift of light methodology, used to determine not only the distance of stellar objects, but the age of the universe as well, places at the very limits of the universe, and thus its farthest and most distant and oldest objects.
(This is because distance in space is measured in light-years.
Literally the distance a beam of light would travel in a full year's time.
So it is both a measure of distance AND of age.)
Halton discovered galaxies in between pairs of these quasars.
The galaxies had very low redshift numbers and are regarded as very close and or young galaxies.
The quasars had very HIGH redshift numbers and, again, are regarded as some of THE oldest and furthest away of all universal objects.
Halton discovered many instances of this. He even got good at predicting that where you find a pair of these "old" quasars you'll find one of these "young" galaxies. He was met with superiors refusing to publish his findings.
Then he began finding "old" high-redshift-numbered quasars which were actually visually attached to "young" low-redshift-numbered galaxies by luminous connecting bridges. Halton, a previously decorated professional astronomer, had his telescope time taken away. He was forced to move to Germany to continue his research from that point on.
I'll have to look into that theory more. Wither God was involved in abiogenesis or he was responsible for the big bang and everything that happened afterwards unfolded the way he ordained it. I have to look into that theory again. It is more or less a 'god of the gaps' type theory that inserts god in circumstances that science can't fully explain.
If the conclusions of Halton Arp, as alluded to in my responses to the light distance question on page 1 are trustworthy, there likely was no Big Bang as"mainstream astronomy would have most believe, and the system used currently to reckon age and distance is flawed at the core.
Below.you'll find a link that summarizes what I wrote a little earlier AND provides some corroborating proof:
I was reminded of a clip I've seen where either Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins tries to dissuade a fellow agnostic/atheist who suggests that the phrase "Let there be light!" could refer to the Big Bang. It's interesting to note that version of things would account for light preceding the formal introduction of the Sun in Genesis. If I find that particular clip in the near future, I'll post it here.
In the meantime, I happened upon another clip that has an equally interesting proposal for explaining the Sun and the construction of those verses:
Just to be clear, the Bible is not used at all to disprove evolution in that video. Just the laws of science are used.The evidence that unequivocally disproves Darwinian evolution is now overwhelming. Not only that, but that video above and another one I've watched recently have proven to me now that the earth is not billions or even millions of years old. Wasn't sure about approximate age of the earth before but now I am.
__________________ Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.-Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy
Most people believe Evolution not because they themselves are dumb, but cause they trust the "experts" who are feeding them evolutionary fast food, and so they don't bother questioning whether or not it's true.
Last edited by Star428 on Dec 29th, 2015 at 06:34 PM
Yeah, I've heard them make that claim, so I thought you were familiar with it too.
I don't get were they get that from, though. I vaguely remember they claim that a Jewish word for day can also mean years so it was an error in the translation. I find it remarkable that they do so much digging for that but don't do it for things that will hurt their belief.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 27th, 2015 11:35 PM
Thanks Scribble!
