"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 19, 2015

HitchSlap said:
The human eye has all the earmarks of evolution, as it is "wired" backwards and upside down. Modern cameras are designed much better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Its not wired upside down. Rather, lenses make upside down images, which fact is irrelevant because when the physical image is converted to electrical patterns that the brain can read the orientation of the image has to be calculated from the electrical patterns anyway, its just as easy to interpret it one way as the other. The miracle of understanding is not that the understanding easily gets the image correctly oriented, but that the understanding easily gets the image at all!

Howerver, it is wired backwards.

HitchSlap · Jun 19, 2015

Loudmouth said:
The squid eye is designed much better.

Creationists can never explain why having a notochord requires you to also have an inverted retina.

Exactly!

Nic Samojluk · Jun 19, 2015

Loudmouth said:
That is an assertion, not evidence.

Here is the dictionary definition of the word evidence. This means that I did use the term properly.

“: something which shows that something else exists or is true

: a visible sign of something

: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something”

Ref.: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

Loudmouth · Jun 19, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Here is the dictionary definition of the word evidence. This means that I did use the term properly.

“: something which shows that something else exists or is true

: a visible sign of something

: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something”

Ref.: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

What you referenced doesn't show that humans are designed. All you did was make the assertion that it did without ever demonstrating that it did.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 19, 2015

Loudmouth said:
It is your failure for rejecting well supported science because of your religious beliefs.

Being true to my Christian belief is not evidence of failure.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 19, 2015

Loudmouth said:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=scientific+theory

I did not claim that it was a scientific theory.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 19, 2015

Loudmouth said:
What intentional or accidental misinformation have the "evolutionists" presented in these threads?

I did not say that the misinformation was in these threads.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 19, 2015

Loudmouth said:
People who argue against evolution today are just as foolish as those who argued against Galileo.

People who argue FOR evolution today are just as foolish as those who argued against Galileo.

HitchSlap · Jun 19, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
People who argue FOR evolution today are just as foolish as those who argued against Galileo.

How so? It's my understanding that the ToE is supported by over 150 years of rigorous data, Mt. Everest sized, and that's why it's considered a scientific theory at this point in time. Much in the same was as theory of gravity, theory of germ disease, etc.

What do you know that I don't?

Loudmouth · Jun 19, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Being true to my Christian belief is not evidence of failure.

Being true to a dogma by ignoring reality is a failure of coping with a reality.

Loudmouth · Jun 19, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
People who argue FOR evolution today are just as foolish as those who argued against Galileo.

Didn't you read the quote? Heliocentrism was rejected because it conflicted with the Bible. Is that the argument that evolutionists are using?

Astrophile · Jun 19, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
In the following theory notice the absence of singularities.

TAKE 27 LTD/SPL

“The conventional model of cosmology is that most galaxies recede from one another as space itself inflates like the surface of a balloon — which would explain why other galaxies appear redshifted from our own galaxy's point of view. But one cosmologist has a different interpretation of that redshift. …

If an atom were to grow in mass, the photons it emits would become more energetic. Because higher energies correspond to higher frequencies, the emission and absorption frequencies would move towards the blue part of the spectrum. Conversely, if the particles were to become lighter, the frequencies would become redshifted. …

For Wetterich, the lack of an experimental test misses the point. He says that his interpretation could be useful for thinking about different cosmological models, in the same way that physicists use different interpretations of quantum mechanics that are all mathematically consistent. In particular, Wetterich says, the lack of a Big Bang singularity is a major advantage. …”

Ref.: http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

As I have said before, Wetterich's theory may be well founded; I am certainly not competent to judge it. I notice that, according to your link, in Wetterich's cosmology

The Universe still expands rapidly during a short-lived period known as inflation.

.

In the original source http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878/ Wetterich says

The potential of the cosmon is responsible for inflation and the present dark energy. Our model is compatible with all present observations.

Notice that he appears to accept inflation and dark energy. The preprint does not explain the cosmic microwave background or the abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium, so it is not clear whether the microwave background is the remnant of an early high-temperature state and the light elements were produced by a brief period of nuclear fusion, as in conventional Big Bang cosmology.

What puzzles me is how Wetterich's cosmology can be reconciled with your religious beliefs. As I say, Wetterich appears to accept inflation and dark energy, and he does not deny the conventional interpretation of the microwave background and the origin of the light elements. Do you agree with him on these four points, and if so, how do they fit with your religious beliefs?

dad · Jun 19, 2015

RickG said:
NO dad, you are the one claiming a different state of past, and have yet to show anyone anything to support it, other than your imagination.

Yes Rick many materials claimed by science are truly not there, and they simply declare they once were. No proof. Just a claim. I am claiming science does not know what the nature of the past was, and it should be patently obvious to any honest person.
God claimed things about the future and the past and those things seem to require a different nature. There is NO reason to doubt it. Not from science.

Loudmouth · Jun 19, 2015

dad said:
Yes Rick many materials claimed by science are truly not there, and they simply declare they once were. No proof. Just a claim. I am claiming science does not know what the nature of the past was, and it should be patently obvious to any honest person.
God claimed things about the future and the past and those things seem to require a different nature. There is NO reason to doubt it. Not from science.

What features would a billion year old rock have that rocks of today do not?

dad · Jun 19, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Nic Samojluk said:

I did? My theory is that God did not write, nor did he dictate the material we find in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Jesus cleared that up. You so called theory is a dark baseless doubt. Period.

Inspiration should not be confused with dictation.

Click to expand...

Jesus didn't indicate Moses or the prophets had it wrong. On the contrary.

The only portion of the Bible written by God is the Ten Commandments, and we have two versions of it. And the only writing by Jesus was on sand.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. He guaranteed His words would be handed down right, and last forever, long after your world crumbles.

Do not forget that we have four Gospels. If God had written or dictated the Bible, we would have only one official version of the Gospels—not four.

Click to expand...

That is utter rubbish. He had 12 apostles too, should He have just had the one? Lots of prophests too, maybe you think one was what He should have had.

dad · Jun 19, 2015

Loudmouth said:
What features would a billion year old rock have that rocks of today do not?

What features would a rock made bu Mickey mouse a trillion years ago have? Ignorant questions.

Astrophile · Jun 19, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
What seems foolish to some people today may turn to be rather smart tomorrow. A few centuries ago most people believed that the earth was flat!

What do you mean by 'A few centuries ago'? Educated people have known since the time of Aristotle (4th century BC) that the earth is a sphere. During the third century BC Eratosthenes even measured its circumference. If you are right in saying, 'A few centuries ago most people believed that the earth was flat!' then you should ask yourself who controlled education and the spread of ideas a few centuries ago.

Loudmouth · Jun 19, 2015

dad said:
What features would a rock made bu Mickey mouse a trillion years ago have? Ignorant questions.

Ignorant answer. Please answer the question.

What features would a billion year old rock have that rocks of today do not? If you can't answer the question, then you have admitted that the evidence is on the side of an old earth.

dad · Jun 19, 2015

JasonClark said:
Are you saying that God doesn't know how photosynthesis works?

http://photosynthesisforkids.com/

I am saying that process is one that goes on here in this nature. Our light. Our laws. How would I know if plants in the past reproduced in a different way, such as without pollen or etc? How would I know if there was anything in the former nature that helped plants last a day or two with no sun? How would I know that Jesus didn't do something if something was needed to help plants for a few days in creation week?

RickG · Jun 19, 2015

dad said:
Yes Rick many materials claimed by science are truly not there, and they simply declare they once were. No proof. Just a claim. I am claiming science does not know what the nature of the past was, and it should be patently obvious to any honest person.
God claimed things about the future and the past and those things seem to require a different nature. There is NO reason to doubt it. Not from science.

You are making a baseless claim that is completely without any supporting evidence. We know there has never been a changed past because we would see it in the physical properties in the atomic structure of all elements and compounds. The physical properties of all atomic structures, elements, and compounds are the same regardless of age. That is proof that there has never been a change.

"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

Finally Old Enough

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Undefeated!

Contributor

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Newbie

Contributor

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency