religion is often used as a civilised justification for war, defending ones beliefs quite often ends in bloodshed. As demonstrated in this thread.
What about light from other stars, people keep bringing that up, but you have yet to respond.
the big bang theory states that we started closer together than we are now.the speed of light is 300,000 km a second that amounts to 9.46 million millionkm a year.now if we started closer to the other galixies and then moved awayat a slower rate than the speed of light it is possible that the light was alwaysable to be seen or the other option is it caught up with us.
Not all creationists believe the world is 6000 years old.No scientist would presume to know anything. They would test, retest and draw some conclusive results before using those results as a basis for their work, which is exactly what was done. Are you trying to tell me that the halflife of these atoms has miraculously changed? Oh wait, you're all about the miracles.How does a natural disaster mess with any of the elements used in radiometric dating? Care to link us to some information on this?
That is hilarious. He watched 40 iterations, saw mutations and then decides that evolution isn't possible...
the big bang theory doesn't include a 6000 year time line. try again.We didn't 'start' closer to other galaxies, the galaxies formed after big bang, which started the universe expanding (at the speed of light) Colossal failure.
you can not test historical everdence.
you can not test historical everdence.no one can test the big bang theory its historicalyou can only observe the asumed affects. "for the scientist who has lived by his faithin the power of reason,the story ends like a bad dream. he has scaled the mountainsof ignorance;he is about to conquer the highest peak;as he pulls himself over the finalrock,he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."this is a quote from robert jastrow talking about the beggining of the univers scientistknow as much or little as anyone.we cant go back in time to see it.The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now. If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another. Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds.7 There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon.ther is lots more too
Radioisotopic Dating Techniquestechnique range (years past) dateable itemslead 210 1 - 150 lake and ocean sediments, glacial icecarbon 14 1 - 40,000 previously living thingsuranium series 1 - 400,000 bone, teeth, coral, shells, eggspotassium-argon 10,000 - 3 billion minerals, igneous rocksuranium-lead 1 million - 4.5 billion minerals, igneous rocksrubidium-strontium 60 million - 4.5 billion
read the quote again he has never seen any new genetic information that would lead to evolution.
ok to start with creationists believe the world is 6000 years old.and no dating method is reliable enough to convince me different.
you can not test historical everdence.no one can test the big bang theory its historical you can only observe the asumed affects.
Stars could not have come from the ‘big bang’Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion.But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.But according to theory, the ‘big bang’ made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium—the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen (H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form—and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.Abraham Loeb of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics says: ‘The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level.’1ReferenceMarcus Chown, ‘Let there be light’, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998.
ANd its probably as flawed. C14 carbon dating CANNOT be used on minerals (i thought we covered this already), ie Diamonds. Dr Bumgardener is a retard.c-14 dating 1-40,000 years.Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon. sorry not true.
Quote from: Black Heart;347089ANd its probably as flawed. C14 carbon dating CANNOT be used on minerals (i thought we covered this already), ie Diamonds. Dr Bumgardener is a retard.c-14 dating 1-40,000 years.Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon. sorry not true.
ANd its probably as flawed. C14 carbon dating CANNOT be used on minerals (i thought we covered this already), ie Diamonds. Dr Bumgardener is a retard.c-14 dating 1-40,000 years.
ALL geologists and astronomers would disagree with that, as would cosmologists.Lets look at things from a reasonable point of view. Lets observe things. The moon for instance. It's covered in crators. The crators appear to be caused by impacts. Basic physics here.Earth also has crators, most of the big ones are so eroded that it's hard to tell that they are impact creators - but due the geological analysis of the rocks contained in them we have in fact identified them as being exactly that - impact crators.http://www.solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htmSo, all these crators/impacts really happened within a 6000 year period?Or, did god simply create these crators in such a way to make it look like they were caused by impacts? To fool us? that crazy guy...all evidence is not historical.fossil evidence is fossil evidence which leads to historical theories.Ummm... so you agree with the big bang? You realise that the BB and Genesis are incompatible. Note, it would take 300 million years for the first stars to begin form.All evidence is historical.ROFL!1st - it appears in the above quote you have incorrectly inserted "evolutionist" when you actually meant to say "astrophysicist".2nd - astrophysicists have calulated precisely how a star would form from a cloud of hydrogen. There are mathematical models which have been backed up by observation.3rd - star formation has absolutely nothing to do with the big bang. If you have a large enough cloud of hydrogen you will get stars.4th - I guess the Eagle Nebula where stars are forming right now is just a illusion that god put here to confuse us.5th - can you mathematically prove the above?Our sun is believed to be a 3rd generation star btw - that means it has been nova 2 times in the past. This is based upon the proportions of heavy elements in our solar system. So, on which days in genesis did that happen? Or is it - yet again - another one of gods crazy tricks to make us think that the universe is much older than 6000 years.
Do you have any idea what you are on about?Of course Diamonds contain Carbon, Diamonds are Carbon!!What Black heart said is Carbon dating can not be used on minerals, it can only be used on previously living lifeforms.While a creature is alive, it's natural processes keep a stable ratio of carbon to carbon 14, i.e as long as the animal is alive, it will have the same ratio. But when it dies, the carbon 14 starts to decay, by testing how much carbon has decayed, we can find out how long ago that creature died.minerals were never alive, so we can't date them.
of course we can as soon as the diamond is formed it starts losing carbon just like every other thing we use it to date.
I still don't understand where you're coming from. you are the one that used big bang to support a 6000 year old earth. Now your discrediting the big bang.OK I will bite. I agree big bang is dubious, please select a piece of more reliable evidence to suggest the earth is 6000 years old.Sorry, but at the moment I feel like I'm feeding the fish in the barrel to make them bigger targets, before i go get the gun.
so far people on this site have said the evolution theory is poor and that the big bangtheory is dubious what have you left.the better option would be the historical record of our ancestors and a man who could do the impossible.
