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: 24
42
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

It's partially concocted and you know, specifically, which parts?

If it's partially concocted and allegories, how do you know the parts you take as truth aren't the wrong parts?




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333
So very many words to say this:


is it inaccurate?? no!

So the genealogies are accurate?


more than that.. the geneaology exposes a formula which allows 3 types of genes to intermix without causing genetic mutation. allowing for the whole world to be indeed populated by 3 families. the 3 sons of noah and their wives. the formula may have greater applications. following the line of marriages it is very clear.. they did not just have sex willy nilly. they carefully were guided to brides which were all descendents of the same father. whether you take that literal or allegorical.. both perspectives exist. this is the power of not just the bible but all scriptural "divinely inspired" works and words. they are true on multiple levels. sometimes that truth is metaphorically applied. meaning within the metaphor itself there is a literal application. sometimes its true both literally and metaphorically at a surface glance. but its not always easy to see.. not without understanding the language of the mystics.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

I think the Annunaki did the same thing and look how that turned out!



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: John333

I think the Annunaki did the same thing and look how that turned out!




going with the previous suggestion is the wisest. it worked for me.

how do u go about proving God? well theres a few fat books that try to teach us how. in those books we are given an experiment to perform. the experiment will reveal more about this world to you mind is what the books guarantee . if u dont perform that experiment to a T. just as rigidly as you would in the lab for any other experiment.. how can u negate the value of the results?

the books say that we are so far behind in technology that we might as well use the technology built INTO our bodies. into our very design we were given a way to get home to the Creator and know his Sentience. to know the Source. if u know the source.. dont u think that naturally how the universe operates and was formed becomes common knowledge to you?

i propose that the universe is not expanding but what we observe as evidence of that is basically a parallax effect. also identified by the ancient mystics who expressed it in various type of enochian and other chant styles. the ability to produce both an ascending and descending scale with the vocal chords. what this does is that for the listener, they would either be able to hear the ascending scale, or the descending scale... few would be able to switch perspectives and hear each distinctly. there is an inherent movement that is part of the force of life.. all that is in empty space.. an invisible thing seems moving.. flowing.. like currents of water that dont stop moving in the ocean. that thing from our perspective is providing us the illusion of space itself expanding. but what we have is both in and out occuring at the same time.. but we are only seeing the IN perspective. the laws of circular autonomy dictate that an equal amount enters as that which leaves at all times. infinity is thus a constant.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
ive explained this a thousand times so excuse me if i jump over it this time..

but to the other main topic..

Energy cannot be created no destroyed?.. so what is the process by which energy came to be

God is the alpha and omega, he was not created, he cannot be destroyed.. so what was the process by which God came to be?


perhaps the same process by which energy came to be huh?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

My, you write so much and say so little.

So, word salad aside, you seem to being saying that the genealogies are accurate. In that case they can be followed. And when that is done, right back to creation, it turns out the Earth is 6,000 years old.
creation.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333

My, you write so much and say so little.

So, word salad aside, you seem to being saying that the genealogies are accurate. In that case they can be followed. And when that is done, right back to creation, it turns out the Earth is 6,000 years old.
creation.com...


err no.. ur inference is that its 6000 yrs old. how much time passed before the first man entered the story. the 7 days creation story holds great symbolism as well.. the number 7. there is probably no greater and more significant number than 7 to mystics. because of the 7 chakras. which funny enough were anciently referred to as deities.. where a a deity is a God.. as in the same as the word itself Dei.. which eventually became Day.

so a day is actually a dei. a dei is actually a God. and teh 7 Deis are the foundations for the creation of a man/God.

dammnn im good.
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
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!


???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you seriously believe that Ham in any way shape or form humiliated Bill Nye then it can only be due to your own internal religious bias. Only a deluded supporter of Ham, who is a charlatan and a hack as well as being nuttier than a tree full of squirrels, would think otherwise.
It was the other way around. Nye didn't just humiliate him he destroyed him. There was no 'murmur of disapproval' from anyone in the faculty.
You're very amusing, you know that? It's that or you're trolling the lot of us.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: John333
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!


???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you seriously believe that Ham in any way shape or form humiliated Bill Nye then it can only be due to your own internal religious bias. Only a deluded supporter of Ham, who is a charlatan and a hack as well as being nuttier than a tree full of squirrels, would think otherwise.
It was the other way around. Nye didn't just humiliate him he destroyed him. There was no 'murmur of disapproval' from anyone in the faculty.
You're very amusing, you know that? It's that or you're trolling the lot of us.


babhahahaha that must be why bill nye had such a bewildered look of embarrassment on his face.. pot calling kettle black.

Ham was very effective in explaining teh difference between theory and fact. and the entire room got the point. heck.. im sure if u asked bill nye he would agree that the whole room had a problem with his answers at that point.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: John333



dammnn im good.

Indeed.
At spouting nonsense. And saying a whole lot of nothing.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333



dammnn im good.

Indeed.
At spouting nonsense. And saying a whole lot of nothing.


what can i say.... where u see nothing.. i see something..

seems to be the theme



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333



dammnn im good.

Indeed.
At spouting nonsense. And saying a whole lot of nothing.


what can i say.... where u see nothing.. i see something..

seems to be the theme


You do know there's doctors and medication for that?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333



dammnn im good.

Indeed.
At spouting nonsense. And saying a whole lot of nothing.


what can i say.... where u see nothing.. i see something..

seems to be the theme


You do know there's doctors and medication for that?


bahahah.. i wish there was doctors and medication to help ppl process metaphors more effectively.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: John333
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!


???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you seriously believe that Ham in any way shape or form humiliated Bill Nye then it can only be due to your own internal religious bias. Only a deluded supporter of Ham, who is a charlatan and a hack as well as being nuttier than a tree full of squirrels, would think otherwise.
It was the other way around. Nye didn't just humiliate him he destroyed him. There was no 'murmur of disapproval' from anyone in the faculty.
You're very amusing, you know that? It's that or you're trolling the lot of us.


babhahahaha that must be why bill nye had such a bewildered look of embarrassment on his face.. pot calling kettle black.

Ham was very effective in explaining teh difference between theory and fact. and the entire room got the point. heck.. im sure if u asked bill nye he would agree that the whole room had a problem with his answers at that point.


Yup, you're trolling us. Ham was a massive embarrassment.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: peter vlar

However either both you and phage are being disingenuous or ur forgetting something. carbon dating isnt something that stands on its own.


No dating method is ever the sole method of ascertaining a date. Everything is cross referenced and every method has a known margin of error that is accounted for.


and uses supporting THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS. some of those include tree ring and sendimentation layer analysis. trees can grow at different rates depending on the rhichness of the soil.


Trees certainly do grow at different rates. Those rates are exhibited in the tree ring count. Wider rings are wetter years, tighter rings are dryer years for example. The rate of group with however does not change the tree ring count. Ever.


sedimentation.. can happen for a number of reasons including a flood, landslide, river course changing over time. none of these things are factored in the dating process.


You could not be more wrong in this statement. All of this is factored in and variables are able to be seen as well as adjusted for. Do you have much experience with any of these dating methods?



so to say carbon dating is only c14 dating i have to say is disingenuous. carbon dating includes all the dating methods we use to guess the age of a fossil.


It's not disingenuous in the least, 14C is in fact what is commonly referred to as Carbon dating. The other methods are used to corroborate dates, dendrochronology is an excellent example of a method used to calibrate the effectiveness of 14C results. It's what you refer to as 'tree ring analysis'. But 'carbon dating' does not refer to the inclusion of dendrochronology and stratigraphy, at all.

What IS disingenuous, is to make statements about 'carbon dating' when I think you are actually referring to Radiometric dating. Carbon dating only applies to 14C dating, sorry to burst your bubble.


radioactive decay, tree ring analysis, depth in layers of sedimentation. these account for the full scope of carbon dating methods. so radioactive decay.. which again is an observation of the slowing of oscillations which is observed to be occuring at a constant rate is the most solid one. we get it, that can be calculated backwards. but the hijink is in the methods devised to support c14 dating where it cannot in any way accurately deduce the real age.


Ok... You've said the same thing 3 times now and it's still not anywhere near the truth if the matter. Repeating the same statements doesn't strengthen a position built on weak foundations. Dendrochronology is a completely separate dating technique from 14C dating as are the multitude of geologic dating techniques such as K-Ar dating, Uranium-Thorium, Rubidium-Strontium et al. amongst many others. Each is suited to different circumstances, differences between igneous and sedimentary rock require different methods of dating for example, organic material another. Just because in science we believe in due diligence and insist on cross referencing different methods to make sure we are correct, doesn't mean a methodology is wrong. That... That is disingenuous on your part to try to pick apart a science you clearly don't understand because we like to make sure we've got the dating correct before announcing results. The entire premise blows my mind with the level of willful ignorance it takes to get there.


and dont pretend you dont know that even c14 dating methods tend to throw up different numbers in tests. 1st test will say 50,000 years. second test will say 25,000 years. 3rd test will say 5000 years. 4th test will say 32,000 yrs. 5th test will say 49,000 yrs... and then youll be like.. yeah we got close to 50,0000 twice so that must be it.


So you can support this wild claim with a citation then, right?


im not saying its not science in development. but its hardly the kind of thing you should promote under the dictionary meaning of the word FACTS!


So when I have a core sample from a tree that says that tree is 6500 years old and then I run that same sample through a mass spectrometer and come up with a date of 6473 BP +/- 200 years(the margin of error for that range) you're going to tell me that 14C is an unreliable method? This doesn't make dendrochronology an aspect of carbon dating per your earlier assertion. It's an independent dating technique used to corroborate the efficaciousness of a date. It's so,I'd science that can only be denied by someone who is willfully ignorant.


please science.. dont try to redefine the word. thats the part where i call BS.


Please ignorant public don't try to make claims about things you haven't read any science based papers on because you get all your information from sites like AIG which hasn't used an iota of real science since they formed the organization.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: John333
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!


???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you seriously believe that Ham in any way shape or form humiliated Bill Nye then it can only be due to your own internal religious bias. Only a deluded supporter of Ham, who is a charlatan and a hack as well as being nuttier than a tree full of squirrels, would think otherwise.
It was the other way around. Nye didn't just humiliate him he destroyed him. There was no 'murmur of disapproval' from anyone in the faculty.
You're very amusing, you know that? It's that or you're trolling the lot of us.


babhahahaha that must be why bill nye had such a bewildered look of embarrassment on his face.. pot calling kettle black.

Ham was very effective in explaining teh difference between theory and fact. and the entire room got the point. heck.. im sure if u asked bill nye he would agree that the whole room had a problem with his answers at that point.


Yup, you're trolling us. Ham was a massive embarrassment.


i did identify it as a matter of perspective didnt i. thus you will root for your team and i will root for mine. however in this case my team is neither ham nor nye. its nye where nye gives me good info. its ham's where ham gives me good info. but where the two of them give me nonsense i depart from both of them..

THAT my friend.. is called being an objective scientist. im in noone's fanclub causing me to biasedly agree with them. nor do i consider my thinking capabilities inadequate to challenge their theories. u think urs is inadequate and just say yes yes i agree. I, Question... Everything.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: John333

Why don't you do a Google search on carbon dating? Why don't you read the physical evidence? Do you even understand the process well enough to comment on it?

Why don't you write a letter to all these researchers and tell them why they're wrong? Why not write a letter to Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and tell them they should shut down because it doesn't work?



www.physics.arizona.edu...





i have studied it. why do u think im commenting. ive studied the entire process and all its interacting agents. Heck even phage admitted that it has it's limits. so.. how the hell did they devise the age of the earth with a 50-150,000 year limit with a high margin of error?


So you haven't actually studied the science then...gotcha. See, 14C dating has an effectiveness that drops off around 50KA and becomes useless at around 60KA. There's no argument there. But as you have yet to understand the difference between Radiometric dating(multiple methods of which I list a few in my earlier reply) and Radiocarbon dating, two different things. There are several other techniques used for different applications and materials that can date things from 100KA(like K-Ar with its youngest applicable dating) on to the range of billions of years. It all depends on the half life of the isotope you are testing for.


u assume that i havent thoroughly studied these things before commenting only places u at the disadvantage. pls.. dont assume u know my level of study and knowledge.


Nobody is assuming, your own words make it clear how little you know about the claims you have made.


i am predicting.. definitively, that the numbers produced by science WILL CHANGE. and when that happens you will HOPEFULLY understand what ive been calling BS on. a fact is a fact. an elephant has 4 legs. thats a fact. 100 or 1000 years from now, an elephant will still have 4 legs. but if science is watching the elephant from the side and sees the elephant as having two legs. we must be forced into accepting that as fact until they walk around the elephant to realize it has 2 more legs?


This completely contradicts your argument against 14C dating in your earlier reply to me. You claim the 14C is unreliable because we corroborate dates with other methods such as stratigraphy and dendrochronology...you know, looking at the elephant from all sides?


science is developing. working theories are working theories. the reason theyve stayed theories for so long is because with each successive test the data is inconclusive to determine a constant law. this simply means taht some factors havent been factored into the equation. so you go believing everything science says is the God given truth if you like.


And now we all know that you don't know what a scientific theory consists of or how it is defined.


but you should use google also.. a change of perspective helps to see the whole picture

answersingenesis.org...


Anyone refuting hard science with an AIG link is clearly not anywhere near as educated on the subject as they have deluded themselves into believing.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: John333
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!


???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If you seriously believe that Ham in any way shape or form humiliated Bill Nye then it can only be due to your own internal religious bias. Only a deluded supporter of Ham, who is a charlatan and a hack as well as being nuttier than a tree full of squirrels, would think otherwise.
It was the other way around. Nye didn't just humiliate him he destroyed him. There was no 'murmur of disapproval' from anyone in the faculty.
You're very amusing, you know that? It's that or you're trolling the lot of us.


babhahahaha that must be why bill nye had such a bewildered look of embarrassment on his face.. pot calling kettle black.

Ham was very effective in explaining teh difference between theory and fact. and the entire room got the point. heck.. im sure if u asked bill nye he would agree that the whole room had a problem with his answers at that point.


Yup, you're trolling us. Ham was a massive embarrassment.


i did identify it as a matter of perspective didnt i. thus you will root for your team and i will root for mine. however in this case my team is neither ham nor nye. its nye where nye gives me good info. its ham's where ham gives me good info. but where the two of them give me nonsense i depart from both of them..

THAT my friend.. is called being an objective scientist. im in noone's fanclub causing me to biasedly agree with them. nor do i consider my thinking capabilities inadequate to challenge their theories. u think urs is inadequate and just say yes yes i agree. I, Question... Everything.


?????????????????????????
Ham spent his entire time in that debate trying to redefine science, failing massively, and then saying 'goddidit' to the point where everyone watching realised what a massive hack he is.
And no, you are not objective. Not even anywhere close.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
Trees certainly do grow at different rates. Those rates are exhibited in the tree ring count. Wider rings are wetter years, tighter rings are dryer years for example. The rate of group with however does not change the tree ring count. Ever.


wetter and dryer periods does not account for mineral concentrations of the soil nor rate of absorption. couldnt trees grow faster during higher mineral concentration and slow down as that decreases.. other environmental factors can affect rate of growth. also the actual gap in the margin for error is quite wide here. but hey truly i got nothing against all this. like i said its the scientific process with science in development. if science knew everything then all our sciences would be considered "Perfected". and we know it isnt.. thats not my argument.


originally posted by: peter vlar
So you can support this wild claim with a citation then, right?


by now you should know that had i said anything that wasnt in keeping with the proces as defined by science Phage wouldve been sure to point it out. but yes, when i was studying dating methods, this is what i learned. a series of tests are performed. it isnt one date it and thats the date. the dating process for a piece of fossilized bone for instance will produce different dates for samples taken at different parts of the bone. tell me how confident that makes you feel in it's accuracy.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

come on i said all that already. when i said carbon dating i say it to mean all the methods under it's umbrella of dating methods. used in conjunction with eachother to cross-verify for the "most logical true answer". there are a variety of dating methods and the margin for error is considered.. negligible. why u think i dont get that is silly. lets just assume ive studied for many years quite diligently ok?
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
42
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join