The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by simonsayz

 

That's a fallacious argument, it's called appeal to authority. Scientists are no more likely to be correct than anyone else, and in fact because they are pressured by group speak and other social factors more than the individual is, especially in today's religious scientific climate, they are more likely to not accept newer more correct ideas... and to stay with the old erroneous established notions.

Jaden

scientists aren't right all the time, but a theory is when multiple scientist with real knowledge and studies on the whole matter trying to figure something out throughout their life have more credential than people like golemina who just simply always writing

"0 = 1"

if big bang theory was really debunked it doesn't matter what group and pressure
they simply discard it

and you say you don't accept any theory, you believe in your own evaluation, what credentials do you have?
are you a physicist?

you guys keep saying we don't have proof because it's what scientists presented but us beings not be able to actually experiment or see the experiment shows that we have no reason and proof
i didn't choose my career to become a physicist, we have people that are doing the job for me and everyone else

reply to post by simonsayz


>you didn't destroy the big bang theory

>i gave you a real answer with science behind it and you simply laughed it off

Funny, I don't recall hearing ANY of your own words. I'm seeing a lot of posturing... but nothing in the showing your work category.

You know the rules (on math problems ), if you just give an 'answer' and don't show your work... You don't get ANY credit.

>and if the big bang theory was being destroyed...scientists would've discarded
>that theory and im sure they are a lot smarter than you are

THAT is an argument? THAT is reasoning?

I'm sure that I don't need to inform you of the taboo (in the field of Biology) on the subject of 'spontaneous generation' of lifeforms. It's one of those cornerstone thingies...

It is like a basic tenet of the rigidity of the field that a LIFEFORM CAN NOT spontaneously appear somewhere.

It HAD to have something 'there' to begin with... (such as a spore, an egg, etc).
'
(All of which would be news to a suppressed giant of Science whose name, Naessens, is sometimes whispered in dark corners and long hallways. )

But somehow it is OKAY, that the UNIVERSE sprang into existence OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!



Yes... The 'Big Bang' theory is DESTROYED!

If you don't agree with me. Then implement you know... One of the most basic principles of Science (no quotes)...

And REPLICATE it!

>this will be my last post to reply to you...

Come now... You OBVIOUSLY are way smarter than I am. Not to mention have ALL of the minions of 'Science' behind you.

Show me the 'error' in my 'thinking'!

>you can have the last words

>but your ignorance will be everybody's last laugh

It's not about having 'the last words' Simonsayz. That is incredible childish. It's about the search for the Truth.

I freely admit my ignorance. In fact, I embrace my ignorance. I proclaim my ignorance.

I am NOT afraid to say the words: "I don't know."

When you do and you observe a moment of humility and silence...

If you seek to know... The answers WILL come to you.

But you do have to ask.

reply to post by simonsayz


Based on your concept of scientists as you've reported here, you probably also believe that communism is viable human social structure???

Normally that would be an ad hominum attack and fallacious arguing, but allow me to explain.

You seem to report how science SHOULD work and are attempting to relate that it works like it SHOULD.

Yes, science is supposed to work the way you have described, but it doesn't.

Communism's ideal of every gets the same out of society and contributes the same in different ways is supposed to work like that, but because of human nature it is impossible to successfully implement in that way.

Science is the same way. The only thing we can hope to accomplish is to educate people on how to think(critically, instead of teaching them WHAT to think), to try and limit the amount of belief that is spouted as fact and to provide as much real (not contrived or manipulated) raw evidence as possible along with COMPETING theories.

Once we start doing that, we'll see a growth in real knowledge and capability like the planet in known history has never seen.

Mostly science has hindered progress not helped it. AS much as many of you paradigm lovers would like to think the opposite.

Jaden

I believe people are about 7,000 years old, and the planet itself is much more, near bilions

Originally posted by Ab123
I believe people are about 7,000 years old, and the planet itself is much more, near bilions

Simple question. Why?

reply to post by Ab123


Humans have been around for a lot longer than that I'm afraid. Modern humans have been walking this planet for around 200,000 years

reply to post by Masterjaden


There are two really important scientific lines of enquiry rght now. The origin of the universe, and the origin of life. Do you really think that every scientist blindly accepts either? There are so many competing theories to both that it's almost embarassing.

The first serious explanation that accounts for what we observe, and discounts the main theories, will guarantee a Nobel prize. and the million dollar cheque that goes with it.

Science is competative. Always has been, always will be. Major scientific theories don't stand because of apathy, but because they're yet to be superseeded. Evolution, inflationary big bang, quantum mechanics, and even mental health thories stand because they can't be best, not because everyone agrees with them.

Originally posted by healthysceptic
reply to post by Masterjaden

 

There are two really important scientific lines of enquiry rght now. The origin of the universe, and the origin of life. Do you really think that every scientist blindly accepts either? There are so many competing theories to both that it's almost embarassing.

The first serious explanation that accounts for what we observe, and discounts the main theories, will guarantee a Nobel prize. and the million dollar cheque that goes with it.

Science is competative. Always has been, always will be. Major scientific theories don't stand because of apathy, but because they're yet to be superseeded. Evolution, inflationary big bang, quantum mechanics, and even mental health thories stand because they can't be best, not because everyone agrees with them.

Unfortunately, most of what you said is nice banter but untrue.

Notice what you said here, the origin of the Universe and the Origin of life. These aren't scientific endeavors, they are philosophical endeavors. YOU CANNOT find ANYTHING to prove the origin of the universe or of life.

Anything at all that tries to relate the truth of the origin of life and the universe is based almost ENTIRELY on belief.

I don't feel like going into a two hour lecture on why that is, and with anything less you'd undoubtedly try to bring up supposed evidences that back it up but they aren't evidences, they are contrivances from current observations that couldn't possibly support origins of the universe OR life that purportedly happened so long ago that ANYTHING measured today would be unmeasurable and incomparable to the time frames referenced.

Science can barely predict the weather three days out with the most sophisticated computers on the planet at their disposal, but the modern paradigms would like us to believe that they can project backward billions of years with accuracy... pppaaahhhh!!!! that is so laughable I about piss myself when anyone mentions it...

Jaden

Originally posted by Masterjaden

pppaaahhhh!!!! that is so laughable I about piss myself when anyone mentions it...

Jaden

I'm gratefull for you're intellectual input...

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by healthysceptic
reply to post by Masterjaden

 

There are two really important scientific lines of enquiry rght now. The origin of the universe, and the origin of life. Do you really think that every scientist blindly accepts either? There are so many competing theories to both that it's almost embarassing.

The first serious explanation that accounts for what we observe, and discounts the main theories, will guarantee a Nobel prize. and the million dollar cheque that goes with it.

Science is competative. Always has been, always will be. Major scientific theories don't stand because of apathy, but because they're yet to be superseeded. Evolution, inflationary big bang, quantum mechanics, and even mental health thories stand because they can't be best, not because everyone agrees with them.

Unfortunately, most of what you said is nice banter but untrue.

Notice what you said here, the origin of the Universe and the Origin of life. These aren't scientific endeavors, they are philosophical endeavors. YOU CANNOT find ANYTHING to prove the origin of the universe or of life.

Anything at all that tries to relate the truth of the origin of life and the universe is based almost ENTIRELY on belief.

I don't feel like going into a two hour lecture on why that is, and with anything less you'd undoubtedly try to bring up supposed evidences that back it up but they aren't evidences, they are contrivances from current observations that couldn't possibly support origins of the universe OR life that purportedly happened so long ago that ANYTHING measured today would be unmeasurable and incomparable to the time frames referenced.

Science can barely predict the weather three days out with the most sophisticated computers on the planet at their disposal, but the modern paradigms would like us to believe that they can project backward billions of years with accuracy... pppaaahhhh!!!! that is so laughable I about piss myself when anyone mentions it...

Jaden

Originally posted by healthysceptic

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by healthysceptic
reply to post by Masterjaden

 

There are two really important scientific lines of enquiry rght now. The origin of the universe, and the origin of life. Do you really think that every scientist blindly accepts either? There are so many competing theories to both that it's almost embarassing.

The first serious explanation that accounts for what we observe, and discounts the main theories, will guarantee a Nobel prize. and the million dollar cheque that goes with it.

Science is competative. Always has been, always will be. Major scientific theories don't stand because of apathy, but because they're yet to be superseeded. Evolution, inflationary big bang, quantum mechanics, and even mental health thories stand because they can't be best, not because everyone agrees with them.

Unfortunately, most of what you said is nice banter but untrue.

Notice what you said here, the origin of the Universe and the Origin of life. These aren't scientific endeavors, they are philosophical endeavors. YOU CANNOT find ANYTHING to prove the origin of the universe or of life.

Anything at all that tries to relate the truth of the origin of life and the universe is based almost ENTIRELY on belief.

I don't feel like going into a two hour lecture on why that is, and with anything less you'd undoubtedly try to bring up supposed evidences that back it up but they aren't evidences, they are contrivances from current observations that couldn't possibly support origins of the universe OR life that purportedly happened so long ago that ANYTHING measured today would be unmeasurable and incomparable to the time frames referenced.

Science can barely predict the weather three days out with the most sophisticated computers on the planet at their disposal, but the modern paradigms would like us to believe that they can project backward billions of years with accuracy... pppaaahhhh!!!! that is so laughable I about piss myself when anyone mentions it...

Jaden

erm... i didn 't post that.

ATS mods... sort your re-posting stuff out...

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by healthysceptic
reply to post by Masterjaden

 

There are two really important scientific lines of enquiry rght now. The origin of the universe, and the origin of life. Do you really think that every scientist blindly accepts either? There are so many competing theories to both that it's almost embarassing.

The first serious explanation that accounts for what we observe, and discounts the main theories, will guarantee a Nobel prize. and the million dollar cheque that goes with it.

Science is competative. Always has been, always will be. Major scientific theories don't stand because of apathy, but because they're yet to be superseeded. Evolution, inflationary big bang, quantum mechanics, and even mental health thories stand because they can't be best, not because everyone agrees with them.

Unfortunately, most of what you said is nice banter but untrue.

Notice what you said here, the origin of the Universe and the Origin of life. These aren't scientific endeavors, they are philosophical endeavors. YOU CANNOT find ANYTHING to prove the origin of the universe or of life.

Anything at all that tries to relate the truth of the origin of life and the universe is based almost ENTIRELY on belief.

I don't feel like going into a two hour lecture on why that is, and with anything less you'd undoubtedly try to bring up supposed evidences that back it up but they aren't evidences, they are contrivances from current observations that couldn't possibly support origins of the universe OR life that purportedly happened so long ago that ANYTHING measured today would be unmeasurable and incomparable to the time frames referenced.

Science can barely predict the weather three days out with the most sophisticated computers on the planet at their disposal, but the modern paradigms would like us to believe that they can project backward billions of years with accuracy... pppaaahhhh!!!! that is so laughable I about piss myself when anyone mentions it...

Jaden

MasterJaden... I respect your view...

BUT, can you provide proof?

Otherwise, what you say is nonsense.

reply to post by Masterjaden

Fine words yet mostly philosophical drivel. Assuming scientists construct barriers to ideas to appease some institutional ideology is ridiculous. Its obvious you understand the various dating techniques though doubt them nonetheless for reasons that have remained hidden from us. Human nature is not an answer,

Something based ENTIRELY on belief would be a teapot in orbit between Mars and Jupiter, conveniently small enough to escape notice of telescope, for nothing in that belief contains the notion of falsifiability. The origin of life and the origin of the universe can be resolved through experimentation. Things that are tangible, which can be measured. To just use one example, the differential and predictable decay of matter is something that happens and something that can be used to extrapolate theories on pre-existing conditions. And I know as well as anybody extrapolation can often do more harm than good. If we 'extrapolate" the rate of population growth into the next 1000 years, humans will spread beyond the solar system at the speed of light. But scientists understand this and take these things in consideration. Their experiments are calibrated by a hosts of possible methods to fulfill the needs of efficacy.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



www.youtube.com...

Watch the five short series video by Dr. Gerald Schroeder both figures are reconcilable. Time, Expansion of the Universe etc... Time it relative, and in Hebrew TORAH its NOT days.. and its written from G_ds' perspective of time, Time isn't recorded in from the observance of earth until Adam....

Ancient Jews knew this when the wrote (1) Enoch and Jubilees calendar system

Now my fellow ATS friends just how much ancient knowledge have we lost we are merely only know understanding..

reply to post by uva3021


What you seem to fail to realize is that to extrapolite supposed constants from measurements taken for less than a millionth of one percent of the time you are purporting them to have been constant for is ridiculous on it's face. It is impossible to extrapolate how much carbon was in the atmosphere or potassium argon was in lava rock being expelled at ANY given time in history that we weren't there to measure it and the only valid equivalent to illustrate the preposterous nature of it is if you were to conduct a national poll and only call 5 people, one from California, two from NY, one from Boston and one from mississippi and claim that it was accurate to less than one percent for the WHOLE population of the nation.

Just because it has varied very little in the short time we have measured them, doesn't mean that it hasn't varied GREATLY at times in the past.

Everything except that your consciousnes exists is relegated to philosophy because that is the only thing you can know with certainty. So your argument that what I am stating is philosophy is moot. It is more logical conjecture than anything.

Jaden

reply to post by Masterjaden

Why make such an assumption. The levels of scientific validation ensure any experiment meets certain conditions. Everything is stardust, no elements existed then that didn't exist now (to a first approximation everything is hydrogen). Our telescopes enable us to see into the past. Things seem to agree with the scientific knowledge we have. The distribution and types of organisms that have existed over the last 500 million years even aligns with what we would expect given the conditions that were present.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You may be right madness, i mean there are dino bones that are millions of yrs old, i mean come on.what were dinosaurs floating in space before the earth was made i dont think so. their is a verse in the bible though that specifically says to god a human day feels like 1000 yrs maybe that verse specifia that the earth is a lot older then we think.

reply to post by Jollyphm1


I don't have time to debunk a multipart video series...but luckily I don't have to because this playlist comfortably debunks the claims made here and by others.

reply to post by Masterjaden


You have yet to provide evidence that science doesn't work in the manner that it does nor that anything is methodologically wrong with the way science is done in the first place.

You've said it's presumptuous to assume that hydrogen behaved in the same way 1 billion years ago as it does now, even though we have no reason to assume it didn't. You've said that because...of a false analogy to weather. Prediction is a lot harder than extrapolating backward events. And weather is a very complicated system that's difficult to predict, but we actually do a pretty damn good job of it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Now, there is actual science out there that proves that the Earth is 4.57 billion years old (1% margin of error), where is the science that proves that the Earth is 6000-10,000 years old/

The fact that you are almost certainly correct counts for so little with a lot of these guys mate. I sympathise with you but...

Threads like this are almost trolling threads due to one small problem.... fundamentalism!