the accomplishments of creation " science "

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

NO!, I was banned because I called out, the one guy who stole my work and claimed it for his own. Turned out he is a moderator there. He is a thief and a liar. I sent of the info of the Nebra Sky disk with time stamped to 1994, screen shots from the addition I made of it as a "belief of some as to what the Nebra sky Disk might be" time stamped to 2003 from wikipedia site itself. And then I show my work was removed from wikipedia time stamped in 2004, and then the publication this man made of the Nebra Sky disk in 2006, Word for word he copied my material and sent it to peer review in Germany and receive reword for it and never gave me even so much as a thank you.

They banned me in 2007 because he is one of them and I caught him red handed and yet they could not care less that one of their moderators was caught stealing other peoples research. Once banned every contribution you have made is automatically removed part of their built in system. I added greatly to many subject upon which none of them denied it as spurious or misleading and I shared where my materials were from older history books and listed them in the Bibliography on every subject. Those entries remain but the material edited were all removed. They didn't like the heat I put on them and the truth in front if their own eyes so their decision was to ban me. That was the moderator had informed me. It was not for any falsehood or fabrication was ever sited, it was for calling out the man publicly in the blog forum area for the contributors, it went against their T&C of the blog forum and nothing else.

I went back last year to look for the thread in the blog forum on it and it too was removed. Unlike here at ATS at best you are banned but your materials remain unless they trash it. and then you are given notice. Wikipedia didn't even have the class to arbitrate the issue.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

reading it - the obvious fact leaps out - its utterly lacking any actual scientific acheivement - over 23 [ now 24 years ] - thats a remarkable feat - to actually avoid any science for 24 years - while labeling yourself " creation scientists " Text

Good news for you.

According to new science (that old science is no good anymore) -- The new science for 2018 is that the polar bears and little baby seals do not have to slide off the ice and drown anymore. You know the old Al Gore and secular science guys that have been made filthy rich by the old science of global warming and now have changed it to climate change?

Global warming which has been changed to climate change. A scam that has profited many of both the scientific community and secular community. You know the Al Gores of this world? Well today, (December 6, 2018), the news headline of many newspapers and internet media have upset many of the scientific community. Seems as though this new science has discovered that the ocean temperature has only warmed 0.1 degree celsius in the past fifty years. Now that is good news for the bears and seals but real bad news for ole Al and the U.N. that has screwed the taxpayers for the past twenty years. Just think of all the bears and seals we have saved and maybe even a few Eskimos too.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I dont subscribe to their ideas but fail to see how they are at fault for anything.

Creation science isnt actually about science so the lack of scientific discoveries isnt a big deal, except to you.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
it takes more faith.....to believe the odds of interstellar chance occurrances the science puts forth as far as conjecture to make their models viable.......than to believe God spoke it so marvelous and peopled with emotional loving sexyazz human beings

In what realm of reality? Science is backed by testable evidence, god is not, hence god requires more faith. It's not that complicated.

I will go ahead and list all of the achievements and contributions to humanity that creationist "science" has given us:



*crickets*

a reply to: Barcs

Not all of science is backed by verifiable facts.

For example, scientist ASSUME that every know element is found here on earth. So the calculate the land space telescopes, and rovers on Mars with the evidence of elements found on earth. When those telescopes take computer digitized images, not real photographs) the computers have error in that sometimes if they find an element it can't compute it looks for the closest match and uses that and then plots it into the image an it comes back telling them this and that of a star system and it's planets things that may be totally false. And it can't be verified physically because no man can live long enough to get there and back to verify it.

Now like the Mars rover it too has the same faulty system it has only recorded bacteria and elements found on earth because, again man ASSUMES that the earth has all the elements, viruses and bacteria that would be found in the known universe. And thus reports false data by using the closest earth match it can. And at this time cannot be verified by man until he gets there.

If it does come across something totally outside of what is programed into these devices and cannot find a close match in these devices, then it reports an unknown, which enforces the scientist that all their programmed data is correct (though it may not be) but cannot be verified until man can actually get there and verify it as true.

Until then we should not jump to conclusions and heap praises on our inventions until man can visit those places and verify physically that the data is correct.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Hmm, fascinating they say:

And look what the Lord has accomplished through all the outreaches of AiG over the years:

And go on to list what is essentially a bunch of first world goals and wants.

Amazing how this God of theirs found it more prudent to help instrument Spanish Radio and Social Media than to stop giving children cancer, or wipe his pedo priests from the face of the earth.

When people claim God helps them with their first world problems of the ego and ignores the fundamental problems in humanity, I see why there is no such thing as a God.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Not all of science is backed by verifiable facts.
For example, scientist ASSUME that every know element is found here on earth.

Every element in the periodic table has either been found here on earth in nature or through experimentation, even if short lived. Which element(s) are you suggesting are not real?

I always found Reali Life Uses Of Periodic Elements pretty nifty.

Until then we should not jump to conclusions and heap praises on our inventions until man can visit those places and verify physically that the data is correct.

I will always heap praise on science. Science and Tech are, and will be, the only things that save humanity.

a reply to: noonebutme

may be I have to use simpler words.

You cannot verify that all elements are the same in all of the universe because you would have to go there to be absolutely sure they are the same and you can't.

I think our elements are limited our solar system or at least a few planets at best.

1) evolution proposes that conscious beings came from the random behavior of matter

2) creationism proposes that matter came from an always-existent Conscious Being


It makes much more sense to me that a highly intelligent Conscious Spirit formed matter effortlessly, rather than matter working against all odds to create the complexity of human beings and solar systems out of randomness.

a reply to: cooperton

This is why we should stop personifying God publicly, even though we have personal relationships with 'him' privately. You assume you're talking with a mentally developed adult, rarely are. They start talking about giant lightning-bolt-holding humans floating in nimbus clouds and it's like, "oh.. youve been reading the children's version." (You can blame Rome for that)

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Not all of science is backed by verifiable facts.

If it's not backed by verifiable facts and testable data, it doesn't fit the scientific method, sorry.

originally posted by: cooperton
1) evolution proposes that conscious beings came from the random behavior of matter

2) creationism proposes that matter came from an always-existent Conscious Being

It makes much more sense to me that a highly intelligent Conscious Spirit formed matter effortlessly, rather than matter working against all odds to create the complexity of human beings and solar systems out of randomness.

Evolution does not propose that in the least. Natural selection is not random behavior of matter, whatever that even means.

originally posted by: Barcs
Natural selection is not random behavior of matter, whatever that even means.

Natural selection in theory relies on random mutation. You can confess your sin of blasphemy at your local Pfizer factory.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
Natural selection is not random behavior of matter, whatever that even means.

Natural selection in theory relies on random mutation. You can confess your sin of blasphemy at your local Pfizer factory.

Natural selection doesn't rely on anything. EVOLUTION relies on both genetic mutations and natural selection. After all this time arguing against evolution, you still don't even grasp the very basics of the theory. How is that even possible?

a reply to: Barcs

That is exactly what I said. They cannot verify the data of the elements of the earth is the same as what is billions of light years away because they can't get there to verify the truth. So their data is faulty in claiming that the same elements exist here exist throughout the Universe, no matter what spectrometers or other Earth bound machines may say, the computers are only using the closest match or say unknown but that is not verified fact. There is no veritable for new elements in the equation, only existing ones here on earth and that only.

originally posted by: Barcs

Natural selection doesn't rely on anything.

Your belief system is so convoluted it's difficult to understand your thoughts. You are wrong though. Natural selection relies on random mutations from which favorable traits are naturally selected.

Seriously, go to pfizer or the nearest elementary school. You can confess your secular sins there and they can correct your misunderstanding of these elementary concepts.

a reply to: cooperton

Coop, I'm sorry but you are arguing nonsense as usual. Environmental changes happen regardless of genetic mutations. You said that conscious beings came from random behavior of matter. That's laughably wrong. It is you that needs schooling, not me. You may want to look up what a transcription error is and how that causes the majority of mutations. Natural selection is not random, the genetic mutations are. Our DNA is not perfect, hence transcription errors every time a cell replicates.

So a perfect god creates crappy DNA susceptible to mutation every single time a cell copies itself? You wonder why cancer and genetic diseases are everywhere. But that's god's plan, right?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

That is exactly what I said. They cannot verify the data of the elements of the earth is the same as what is billions of light years away because they can't get there to verify the truth. So their data is faulty in claiming that the same elements exist here exist throughout the Universe, no matter what spectrometers or other Earth bound machines may say, the computers are only using the closest match or say unknown but that is not verified fact. There is no veritable for new elements in the equation, only existing ones here on earth and that only.

Scientists have other ways to study things besides traveling billions of light years away. If you have evidence of other elements, I'd love to see it. Your argument doesn't even make sense here.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

So a perfect god creates crappy DNA susceptible to mutation every single time a cell copies itself? You wonder why cancer and genetic diseases are everywhere. But that's god's plan, right

Stop changing the subject. I said natural selection relies on random genetic mutation. Which you initially argued here:

Natural selection doesn't rely on anything (in reference to my statement about random mutation).

but then later admit to be true in your most recent post:

Natural selection is not random, the genetic mutations are .

I'm glad you did some googling and figured it out, but politely stop insulting people who correct you when you're wrong.

a reply to: chr0naut

For a closed universe the total density has to be greater than that of a flat universe. The total density of an open universe has to be less than a flat universe. That doesn't take into account vacuum energy, or the cosmological constant. At the Big Bang event, energy was in the form of radiation. As radiation cooled, it became the cosmic background radiation which we detect today. Visible matter makes up only a small portion of the energy density. The contribution of dark energy, which causes the acceleration of the universe, and dark matter (without exact measurements) are estimated to be close to critical energy density causing the universe to be flat. Not open, not closed - but flat. The net energy of the universe is zero.