It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

page: 23
42
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: John333

nope.. u dont. u have no idea. modern science is the same it was 5000 yrs ago. in development. proving what is already known by the spirit. u guessworkers.. dont have a pot to piss in because u have no idea how predictions were made to devise experiements. ur copycats. followfashions. u cant solve a unique problem urselves. u waste time in science. in fact id say.. u contribute most to science's stagnation.

Science ask questions about nature and the universe to which it does not know the answer.

Science devises specific answers to those questions (hypotheses) and then sets out to create ways to test those hypotheses in order to provide some verifiable evidence that those hypotheses might be true -- at which point a hypothesis becomes a theory that other scientists will further test in order to further refine that theory, or even find that the theory is not correct.

So in which part of that process do you say a problem lies?



im more referring to the hostile takeover of science by incompetent atheist non-inventive minds. modern science is what i believe they want to call it. science does not belong to nor carries a monoply by atheistic minds. in fact.. creationism is responsible for the ENTIRE MASS build of science to date. atheist scientists are a modern development. again.. they cant invent anything.. they have to copycat.. they have to assimilate.. like the borg. im just telling them dont get carried away. because even if all creationists stepped out of science and let atheists run the show.. then we'd see just how pitiful they really are. they wouldnt be able to solve a single problem and just talk Horse manure theory all their life. to a bunch of glassy eyed naive teenagers. and the scientific faculty is allowing it. because agian, it contains a bunch of narrow minded homosexuals who have to hijack things to take the credit for it.

that really shouldnt be a tc violation.. just stating facts!
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: John333

nope.. u dont. u have no idea. modern science is the same it was 5000 yrs ago. in development. proving what is already known by the spirit. u guessworkers.. dont have a pot to piss in because u have no idea how predictions were made to devise experiements. ur copycats. followfashions. u cant solve a unique problem urselves. u waste time in science. in fact id say.. u contribute most to science's stagnation.

Science ask questions about nature and the universe to which it does not know the answer.

Science devises specific answers to those questions (hypotheses) and then sets out to create ways to test those hypotheses in order to provide some verifiable evidence that those hypotheses might be true -- at which point a hypothesis becomes a theory that other scientists will further test in order to further refine that theory, or even find that the theory is not correct.

So in which part of that process do you say a problem lies?



im more referring to the hostile takeover of science by incompetent atheist non-inventive minds. modern science is what i believe they want to call it. science does not belong to nor carries a monoply by atheistic minds. in fact.. creationism is responsible for the ENTIRE MASS build of science to date. atheist scientists are a modern development. again.. they cant invent anything.. they have to copycat.. they have to assimilate.. like the borg. im just telling them dont get carried away. because even if all creationists stepped out of science and let atheists run the show.. then we'd see just how pitiful they really are. they wouldnt be able to solve a single problem and just talk Horse manure theory all their life. to a bunch of glassy eyed naive teenagers. and the scientific faculty is allowing it. because agian, it contains a bunch of narrow minded homosexuals who have to hijack things to take the credit for it.

that really shouldnt be a tc violation.. just stating facts!


But creation science (therefore creationist scientists) believe the world was created ,6000-10,000 years ago. That everything alive today was created the way it is now at the beginning. That man and dinosaurs co-existed. That evolution didn't happen at all.

Now we know that all of those (and more) are bunk.

We know for a fact that creation science started in the 1960s as that is when their first texts were released.

Modern science has been around a few more years than your creation science.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: John333

nope.. u dont. u have no idea. modern science is the same it was 5000 yrs ago. in development. proving what is already known by the spirit. u guessworkers.. dont have a pot to piss in because u have no idea how predictions were made to devise experiements. ur copycats. followfashions. u cant solve a unique problem urselves. u waste time in science. in fact id say.. u contribute most to science's stagnation.

Science ask questions about nature and the universe to which it does not know the answer.

Science devises specific answers to those questions (hypotheses) and then sets out to create ways to test those hypotheses in order to provide some verifiable evidence that those hypotheses might be true -- at which point a hypothesis becomes a theory that other scientists will further test in order to further refine that theory, or even find that the theory is not correct.

So in which part of that process do you say a problem lies?



im more referring to the hostile takeover of science by incompetent atheist non-inventive minds. modern science is what i believe they want to call it. science does not belong to nor carries a monoply by atheistic minds. in fact.. creationism is responsible for the ENTIRE MASS build of science to date. atheist scientists are a modern development. again.. they cant invent anything.. they have to copycat.. they have to assimilate.. like the borg. im just telling them dont get carried away. because even if all creationists stepped out of science and let atheists run the show.. then we'd see just how pitiful they really are. they wouldnt be able to solve a single problem and just talk Horse manure theory all their life. to a bunch of glassy eyed naive teenagers. and the scientific faculty is allowing it. because agian, it contains a bunch of narrow minded homosexuals who have to hijack things to take the credit for it.

that really shouldnt be a tc violation.. just stating facts!


You don't write for the onion, do you?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: John333

nope.. u dont. u have no idea. modern science is the same it was 5000 yrs ago. in development. proving what is already known by the spirit. u guessworkers.. dont have a pot to piss in because u have no idea how predictions were made to devise experiements. ur copycats. followfashions. u cant solve a unique problem urselves. u waste time in science. in fact id say.. u contribute most to science's stagnation.

Science ask questions about nature and the universe to which it does not know the answer.

Science devises specific answers to those questions (hypotheses) and then sets out to create ways to test those hypotheses in order to provide some verifiable evidence that those hypotheses might be true -- at which point a hypothesis becomes a theory that other scientists will further test in order to further refine that theory, or even find that the theory is not correct.

So in which part of that process do you say a problem lies?



im more referring to the hostile takeover of science by incompetent atheist non-inventive minds. modern science is what i believe they want to call it. science does not belong to nor carries a monoply by atheistic minds. in fact.. creationism is responsible for the ENTIRE MASS build of science to date. atheist scientists are a modern development. again.. they cant invent anything.. they have to copycat.. they have to assimilate.. like the borg. im just telling them dont get carried away. because even if all creationists stepped out of science and let atheists run the show.. then we'd see just how pitiful they really are. they wouldnt be able to solve a single problem and just talk Horse manure theory all their life. to a bunch of glassy eyed naive teenagers. and the scientific faculty is allowing it. because agian, it contains a bunch of narrow minded homosexuals who have to hijack things to take the credit for it.

that really shouldnt be a tc violation.. just stating facts!


But creation science (therefore creationist scientists) believe the world was created ,6000-10,000 years ago. That everything alive today was created the way it is now at the beginning. That man and dinosaurs co-existed. That evolution didn't happen at all.

Now we know that all of those (and more) are bunk.

We know for a fact that creation science started in the 1960s as that is when their first texts were released.

Modern science has been around a few more years than your creation science.


we dont know anything. these frikking labels really get to me. garrr...

yes there are people who believe in a sentient creator!. and there are creationists. im not referring to creationists. creationists believe that because they can tally the age of the men in the family tree of the bible in genesis to 6000 that the earth is thus 6000 yrs old.

now.. theres nothing in science that really says.. thats not possible. in fact there are quite a few theories that can support it. they would even identify missing factors in the carbon dating process. but hey i dont know what im talking about. im just a loon.

either way i conclude that the age of the earth cannot be determined from the bible based on the family tree from adam to JESUS + 2000 YRS.

but there is one thing that we have that coincides with 6000 yrs ago.. the first writing and noted civilization. which happens to be about 5-6000 years ago. so i dunno maybe its just the story began and was being documented 6000 years ago. but considering the bible identifies animals were created and even allowed to multiply before man says that the earth would naturally be more than that logically.

i dont like to spend much time on conjecture. so allow me to state that both creationist view of the earth based on biblical content as well as scientific dating method are currently.. NOT ACCURATE. and i would leave it at that. i have better things to spend my time and mental abilities on.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: John333

nope.. u dont. u have no idea. modern science is the same it was 5000 yrs ago. in development. proving what is already known by the spirit. u guessworkers.. dont have a pot to piss in because u have no idea how predictions were made to devise experiements. ur copycats. followfashions. u cant solve a unique problem urselves. u waste time in science. in fact id say.. u contribute most to science's stagnation.

Science ask questions about nature and the universe to which it does not know the answer.

Science devises specific answers to those questions (hypotheses) and then sets out to create ways to test those hypotheses in order to provide some verifiable evidence that those hypotheses might be true -- at which point a hypothesis becomes a theory that other scientists will further test in order to further refine that theory, or even find that the theory is not correct.

So in which part of that process do you say a problem lies?



Because god isn't involved.

I had a run in a few years back with a "creationist scientist". To say it was interesting would be an understatement. And not in a good way.

Well, if there is an unknown facet of nature or the universe about which a scientist wished to find an answer, and his hypothesis was 'Because God", then that scientist would then go about devising verifiable tests in order to find verifiable evidence that supports the hypothesis that "'Because God".

So there is room for God in hypotheses, but finding verifiable evidence of God to support those hypotheses might be a problem. "Because God" as the answer to an unknown facet of nature might not make it to theory status due to a lack of evidence.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: John333

You do know that tribes have been around longer than civilisations?

If memory recalls there was one person who died that was the last member of a 60,000.70,000 year old tribe.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: John333

nope.. u dont. u have no idea. modern science is the same it was 5000 yrs ago. in development. proving what is already known by the spirit. u guessworkers.. dont have a pot to piss in because u have no idea how predictions were made to devise experiements. ur copycats. followfashions. u cant solve a unique problem urselves. u waste time in science. in fact id say.. u contribute most to science's stagnation.

Science ask questions about nature and the universe to which it does not know the answer.

Science devises specific answers to those questions (hypotheses) and then sets out to create ways to test those hypotheses in order to provide some verifiable evidence that those hypotheses might be true -- at which point a hypothesis becomes a theory that other scientists will further test in order to further refine that theory, or even find that the theory is not correct.

So in which part of that process do you say a problem lies?



Because god isn't involved.

I had a run in a few years back with a "creationist scientist". To say it was interesting would be an understatement. And not in a good way.

Well, if there is an unknown facet of nature or the universe about which a scientist wished to find an answer, and his hypothesis was 'Because God", then that scientist would then go about devising verifiable tests in order to find verifiable evidence that supports the hypothesis that "'Because God".

So there is room for God in hypotheses, but finding verifiable evidence of God to support those hypotheses might be a problem. "Because God" as the answer to an unknown facet of nature might not make it to theory status due to a lack of evidence.



And that's why God will never be more than a hypothesis as we can't prove either way if there is or isn't.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: John333

You do know that tribes have been around longer than civilisations?

If memory recalls there was one person who died that was the last member of a 60,000.70,000 year old tribe.


ur rigid reliance on carbon dating astounds me.. but even more astounding is the ability to comprehend the english language.

i do remember saying.. 6000 yrs ago may have just been when writing was developed and thus first documentation began. the bible does not say the earth is 6000 yrs old anywhere. the story just begins 6000 yrs ago.

i dont think u should be here. lol funny that you were telling me i dont know about science but u couldnt be a scientist with such poor reading and comprehension skills. no wonder your interpretation is so off.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: John333

You do know that tribes have been around longer than civilisations?

If memory recalls there was one person who died that was the last member of a 60,000.70,000 year old tribe.


ur rigid reliance on carbon dating astounds me.. but even more astounding is the ability to comprehend the english language.

i do remember saying.. 6000 yrs ago may have just been when writing was developed and thus first documentation began. the bible does not say the earth is 6000 yrs old anywhere. the story just begins 6000 yrs ago.

i dont think u should be here. lol funny that you were telling me i dont know about science but u couldnt be a scientist with such poor reading and comprehension skills. no wonder your interpretation is so off.


There are other methods besides carbon dating that are used to determine how old something is within a certain threshold.

The first written language would have been around 3000bc. Does that mean that no one existed before that or that they just didn't know ow to construct language to a visual form?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: John333


the bible does not say the earth is 6000 yrs old anywhere. the story just begins 6000 yrs ago.
Well, if you believe what the Bible tells you, yes it does tell you that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

It is not the purpose of this article to choose any particular one of these chronologies, but rather to show how the plain interpretation of Scripture gives a straightforward chronology that leads us to believe the world is around 6,000 years old, regardless of which of these other chronological frameworks one uses.

creation.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333


the bible does not say the earth is 6000 yrs old anywhere. the story just begins 6000 yrs ago.
Well, if you believe what the Bible tells you, yes it does tell you that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

It is not the purpose of this article to choose any particular one of these chronologies, but rather to show how the plain interpretation of Scripture gives a straightforward chronology that leads us to believe the world is around 6,000 years old, regardless of which of these other chronological frameworks one uses.

creation.com...


well.. this is bad.. this is really bad.

pls quote the passage which says in the bible "the earth is 6000 yrs old"

do u understand the difference? assumption is not fact. especially assumption with incomplete details. thats called theory. more details can change the theory until it truly becomes fact.. when all further details would support instead of question it.
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

Do believe the Bible is a history book? Are the genealogies which are given in the Bible accurate?

edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333


the bible does not say the earth is 6000 yrs old anywhere. the story just begins 6000 yrs ago.
Well, if you believe what the Bible tells you, yes it does tell you that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

It is not the purpose of this article to choose any particular one of these chronologies, but rather to show how the plain interpretation of Scripture gives a straightforward chronology that leads us to believe the world is around 6,000 years old, regardless of which of these other chronological frameworks one uses.

creation.com...


well.. this is bad.. this is really bad.

pls quote the passage which says in the bible "the earth is 6000 yrs old"

do u understand the difference? assumption is not fact. especially assumption with incomplete details. thats called theory. more details can change the theory until it truly becomes fact.. when all further details would support instead of question it.


Are you on about standard theory or scientific theory?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333

Do believe the Bible is a history book? Are the genealogies which are given in the Bible accurate?


i believe it incorporates elements of history.. some from witness account.. some from word of mouth and affidavit testimony. comparing archaeological findings with biblical narrative we can see that those events truly happened.. brimstone upon sodom etc the timelines dont always line up. such as in the bible God says he is lifting up CYrus to conquer egypt.. but its Cyrus descendent Allecxander 3 that actually did that. to me.. thats negligible. its still the same house.

however biblical narrative really is not meant to totally follow a physical tangent. thus it is carefully crafted to carry a spiritual observance above all the materialist physical perspective most will hold from looking at it on the surface. best way to read the bible, is first learn the mystics language of symbolism. its not hard. its quite fun and stems from the ancient hebrew and aramaic languages. from before man could write and just did cave drawings. when u learn that language. reading the bible becomes quite different. water isnt just water. air isnt just air. a mountain isnt just a mountain a unicorn is most certainly not a unicorn. a valley isnt just a valley. these words have very high symbolic meaning.

moses did not heal the poisoned and sick by wrapping a snake around a pole and holding it up. that whole thing is a symbolic representation. ppl who use these things to attack the logic in healing methods of prophets etc just dont understand mystics. its not the mystics fault.. just like science expects me and others to learn its language to talk to it. u are expected to learn the mystics' language to speak to the mystics.
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: John333
Ok. Just to be sure then, to summarize that excessive pile of words; are you saying that you think the Bible is nothing but a collection of allegories and not an accurate history? Or were you just trying to avoid a direct answer?

Because if it is an accurate history, the age of the Earth can be determined to be 6,000 years. Because it traces the genealogies of people who supposedly lived, right back to the creation.

edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: John333

The page you posted a link to mentions 'creation scientists'. That's a contradiction in terms. What they actually meant was 'theologians who misunderstand or openly twist science to fit their preconceived religious biases'.



no ur a dummy. science was created by religion. and the scientific method was also created by religion.

u guys have no history of ur own. so pls.. stop riding our d!cks and acting like u own the place.


Words fail me. You really do have no idea about modern science, do you?


nope.. u dont. u have no idea. modern science is the same it was 5000 yrs ago. in development. proving what is already known by the spirit. u guessworkers.. dont have a pot to piss in because u have no idea how predictions were made to devise experiements. ur copycats. followfashions. u cant solve a unique problem urselves. u waste time in science. in fact id say.. u contribute most to science's stagnation.



Words again fail me. I'll look beyond the misspellings, the bad grammar and the use of what amounts to text-speak. Let's look at the repeated insistence on using AiG as a source. It's a joke. In fact it's a bad joke, given the way that Bill Nigh verbally humiliated the man behind AiG, Ken Ham, in a debate in 2014.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333
Ok. Just to be sure then, to summarized that pile of words; are you saying that you think the Bible is nothing but a collection of allegories and not an accurate history?

Because if it is an accurate history, the age of the Earth can be determined to be 6,000 years.


i am saying.. not that i believe but that i know...

it is a partially concocted, partially adapted collection of allegories with included historical events which perfectly addresses the mystiries of the universe and the path of evolution of man. providing precise details on how to achieve that evolution.

ignore it at your own peril. it is profound.. yes. it is mind boggling.. yes. it is tough to decipher and has led to all sorts of conflict and confusion.. yes.

is it inaccurate?? no!



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
lol lol. i like your wording. very carefully constructed sentences. tell me how u know i dont understand magnetism. the ancient mystics identified this energy a long time now as a quality of the spirit. the force of attraction.. love. love is why atoms bond to form molecules. love is the reason why a larger and denser mass will possess the dominant gravitational power.


How do I calculate the bonding energy of say H2 based on these laws of love? And what exactly do you mean by gravitational power and how does it relate to density and size? A mathematical definition please.



cause nearby smaller masses to conform to concentric circular patterns based on the dips and rises in the fractally emanating sine wave pattern which creates recesses or train tracks at calculable distances to structure things such as our solar system.

sure you "very well understand it.. in general" ... somewhat.


How do I calculate the distances of these "train tracks"? And what exactly do you mean with a fractaly emanating sine wave pattern and how does it relate to those tracks? Show me your math please.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: John333
So very many words to say this:


is it inaccurate?? no!

So the genealogies are accurate?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

a mater of perspective. i found ken ham humiliated bill nye who couldnt answer questions leading to the entire university faculty to mumur in disaproval.

but.. u can turn a blind eye to that to see support your biased perspective assuming noone reading ur comment watched the debates.

lel

sigh why do u guys try this sort of thing. dont u know ill call u out?

also considering my spelling mistakes.. i thought id leave a few in this post for you.. enjoy!
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
42
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join