"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[bhsmte]

I am glad the universe is not in charge of atheists!

Who is the universe in charge of?

 

[bhsmte]

When I ventured into this Christian Forum, I did not expect to find myself in a hostile environment.

You don't do well with disagreement, do you?

 

[Winepress777]

I'm unable to handle a conversation very long with Christians who claim God age-embedded fossils to fit their unscriptural theology.
Probably about as long as I can handle an evolutionist pushing his religion of spontaneous life erupting and morphing on it's own...
I'd rather preach Christ

 

[bhsmte]

I'm unable to handle a conversation very long with Christians who claim God age-embedded fossils to fit their unscriptural theology.
Probably about as long as I can handle an evolutionist pushing his religion of spontaneous life erupting and morphing on it's own...
I'd rather preach Christ

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

 

[crjmurray]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

You think that would be clear by now.

 

[bhsmte]

You think that would be clear by now.

Not if some need to muddy the waters.

 

[dad]

If we dig up a human skeleton can we observe that it was used by someone in the past?

Used by someone? If you mean was it a real man (if we are sure it was such remains) of course it is a dead guy. I find science quite morbid, digging up dead folks and animals etc.

 

[dad]

You think that would be clear by now.

Very very clear to me

 

[dad]

Really? How do you think gamma-ray spectroscopy works? Never mind, I know you don't have a clue.

Why not tell us simply and in your own words? Then we all will have a clue if you know. No dancing needed.

 

[dad]

Yeah, keep making it up as you go along.

What you are essentially saying is that we can't identify artifacts of Jesus' time because they are actual physical objects, while we can say Jesus was a real person because the only thing we know about him was written more than a generation after his death by people who were not even alive during Jesus' time, much less knew him.

There is no question He was real. What sort of bizarre strawman is that? It is one thing to have holy men receive a promised exact record of His words and record them...when they were published is beside the point...and another thing to claim life in Eden was the same as now for plants and humans etc.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'll take the words of plasma physicists who actually did the experiments over a guy on the internet who only has a loudmouth.

"Plasma redshift explains the solar redshifts, the redshifts of the galactic corona, the cosmological redshifts, the cosmic microwave background, and the X-ray background. The plasma redshift explains the observed magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae SNe Ia without the big bang, dark matter, or dark energy. There is no cosmic time dilation. The universe is not expanding...This means that there is no need for Einstein's Lambda term. The universe is quasi-static, infinite, and everlasting."

"The plasma redshift, which follows from exact evaluation of photons interaction with hot sparse electron plasma, leads to a quasi-static, infinite, and ever lasting universe. It does not need big bang, dark energy, or dark matter for describing the observations. It predicts intrinsic redshifts of galaxies consistent with what is observed."

arXiv:astro-ph/0401420
arXiv:astro-ph/0602500v1

99.999% of physicists agree with me. For example, did the author offer a single plasma based redshift mechanism that was shown to be wavelength independent in lab experiments?

 

[dad]

You are ignoring that the 169,000 light year figure is a distance with respect to the amount of time it takes light to travel that far.

Glad you brought that up. That distance depends on time. You seem to be going loopti loop circular on us here!

Time is a calculation, not a figment of your imagination when you want it to be there or when you don't want it to be there.

No. The calculations are after the fact of time I suggest. What happened as a result of time is not time. That is like saying an ice cream cone dropping on your new shoe IS gravity. No. That would be caused by gravity. Big difference.

So you don't understand nuclearsynthesis.

Well if you do simply explain it in a paragraph or two so we all will understand. The link I posted showed that it was a theory. A way that we try to explain stars and explosions etc.

What you described supports my position, not yours. You are showing a time frame being described which you say doesn't exist. Wow! Therefore, it exists when you want too and does not exist when you don't want it to.

I must admit you threw me a curve ball and I am still regaining balance. However I have been through many of those in the past, and always am thankful for them. They usually lead to a deeper understanding, and new truths.

 

[dad]

99.999% of physicists agree with me.

Flies too? You couldn't be wrong!

 

[Winepress777]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It does to an evolutionist

 

[bhsmte]

It does to an evolutionist

I don't see how that can be, since an evolutionist would clearly understand, that the theory has zero to do with the origins of life.

It would appear, you want to convince yourself this is the case, because it is more appealing to you.

 

[Winepress777]

I don't see how that can be, since an evolutionist would clearly understand, that the theory has zero to do with the origins of life.

It would appear, you want to convince yourself this is the case, because it is more appealing to you.

Who told you that?

 

[bhsmte]

Who told you that?

Why would you reach this conclusion, if evolution clearly does not address the origins of life?

Do you have an example of a Phd biologist using evolution to describe how life originated?

Unless you can demonstrate evolutionists using the theory of evolution to claim how life originated, I have no choice but to conclude you are simply making this up.

 

[Winepress777]

Why would you reach this conclusion, if evolution clearly does not address the origins of life?

Do you have an example of a Phd biologist using evolution to describe how life originated?

Who are you even talking to?
If you want to communicate with me, then please reply to what I posted. They are very short posts. What "conclusion" are you supposing I've reached? Please quote me so I know what you are talking about. Or have you read anything I've posted here?

 

[Loudmouth]

Who are you even talking to?
If you want to communicate with me, then please reply to what I posted. They are very short posts. What "conclusion" are you supposing I've reached? Please quote me so I know what you are talking about. Or have you read anything I've posted here?

What did you mean by this post?

bhsmte: Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.

WinePress777: It does to an evolutionist.

 

[bhsmte]

Who are you even talking to?
If you want to communicate with me, then please reply to what I posted. They are very short posts. What "conclusion" are you supposing I've reached? Please quote me so I know what you are talking about. Or have you read anything I've posted here?

Are you following this thread? I did quote you in every one of my posts.

I stated evolution has nothing to do with origins of life. You responded, "it does to an evolutionist".

I responded with; how can that be, since an evolutionist would understand better than anyone, that evolution has zero to do with how life originated.

If you can not demonstrate that evolutionists use the theory of evolution to describe how life originated, than it is an empty claim you are making.