Originally posted by Bardock42
You mean Leviathan and Behemoth?Bit of a stretch.
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.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How is it you missed the clear implication of Tatto's submission that evidence is actively suppressed when it IS presented?
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.
Originally posted by Star428
I've posted plenty of links in the past to articles that show where the Bible refers to dinos but of course atheists stubbornly refuse to check them out.
Seems like a normal thing for an atheist to do, to be honest.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I don't think you quite understood me. Yes, God did design the universe. It happened the way Genesis said it did. That I'm sure we agree on. God is the intelligence behind creation. What I disagree with is the ID theory that theistic evolutionists use. They believe God created things and let evolution take over...over the course of billions of years. I disagree with that. You see what I'm saying? I disagree with ID from the viewpoint of theistic evolution.
Let Evolution take over? What does that even mean? Did God also let Gravity take over the movement of the stars? It's a very weird wording.
Originally posted by Bentley
Seems like a normal thing for an atheist to do, to be honest.Let Evolution take over? What does that even mean? Did God also let Gravity take over the movement of the stars? It's a very weird wording.
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.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
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.
Originally posted by Bentley
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.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
What's their rebuttals about light and how it would be impossible to see anything beyond the, IIRC, Crab Nebula like Neil mentioned in Cosmos?
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.
13 billion years later.
Quite remarkable.
Problem.
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.
Originally posted by Bentley
Ah, that makes sense. As I said, I just had a hard time making sense of it.
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.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I'll have to look into that theory more. Wither God ... was responsible for the big bang and everything that happened afterwards ....
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:
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
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 don't believe in the Big Bang. I believe the Genesis account.
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:
Here's yet even more !00% scientific proof that evolution is a lie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCtwH30Xu9g&index=10&list=WL
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. 🙂
Originally posted by Jmanghan
Never mind, it only applies to Jehovah's Witnesses.
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.
Originally posted by JmanghanI remember back in 2005, when my religious grandmother told me the Earth was 6,000 years old. You'd think it would be at least 6,001 by now.
I mean, I don't know much, but I know what I'm talking about with the whole 6,000 years thing.
God Days = 1000 Years each. 365,000 x 6,000.
Thats how long the earth has been around biblically.
Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
Prove it.
Originally posted by Jmanghan
Never mind, it only applies to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
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.
Googling the words "God", "one day", and "years" yields the following:
2 Peter 3:8
King James Version (KJV)
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.