The Age of the Universe

[Chriliman]

He's under the assumption that the word "assume" is a position of weakness.

All I can say is that when I choose to not assume, but rather ask questions first and actually seek truth, the truths I find make a whole lot of sense. If you're saying I'm wrong for doing this, then all I can do is respectfully disagree.

 

[Loudmouth]

All I can say is that when I choose to not assume, but rather ask questions first and actually seek truth, the truths I find make a whole lot of sense. If you're saying I'm wrong for doing this, then all I can do is respectfully disagree.

All we ask is that you present the objective and verifiable evidence that convinced you.

 

[Michael]

Nope. Your entire belief system is predicated on what you want to believe, not on reasons for why you should believe.

I've repeatedly pointed out how your syllogism is fallacious, and you continue to ignore this fact.

In a nutshell, your argument boils down to: This is what I believe, because I want to believe it.

FYI, I feel the same way about your minority stance on the historical Jesus issue.

 

[Chriliman]

All we ask is that you present the objective and verifiable evidence that convinced you.

And all I'm asking of you is to really think about that request. Can you present the objective and verifiable evidence that convinced you that you are actually a conscious being?

 

[Michael]

And all I'm asking of you is to really think about that request. Can you present the objective and verifiable evidence that convinced you that you are actually a conscious being?

FYI, he has no "objective and verifiable" evidence that 'space expansion' has any tangible effect on a photon, or photon redshift, but that doesn't stop him from 'believing' that he can determine the age of the universe with accuracy. Atheists tend to require a completely *empirical* set of 'evidence' with respect to the topic of God, but definitely not as it relates to the age of the universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

And all I'm asking of you is to really think about that request. Can you present the objective and verifiable evidence that convinced you that you are actually a conscious being?

I sure can. The measurements and findings that I make have been verified by others in an objective manner.

Now it's your turn. Where is the objective and verifiable evidence for the existence of God?

 

[joshua 1 9]

DNA is twisted.

That's why this world is in the twisted shape it's in today.

it is an assumption that all stars radiate the same spectrum and not unique spectrums.

They have a spectograph. Every element burns it's own individual color. So they know all the different elements that make up each star.

It is the light from the sun that substations us and gives us life. Only we are dependant on the plants to convert that light into food.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Evolution is impossible, both Biblically & Scientifically.

1. Number of known (including extinct) species, over the rate of mutation, over the age of the Earth. You would need Trillions upon Trillions upon Trillions of Eons and according to "Science" global extinction level events happen far more often than that. Factor in everything and Evolution is impossible.

2. Information cannot generate randomly.

3. The Information reading, correcting, replicating & executing system, cannot generate randomly.

4. No Beneficial Mutations from an increase in information, ever recorded.

5. Even in the theory, if a beneficial mutation occurs in a deer, once ever 1,000 years, the mutation would have to survive 200 generations of breeding with non-mutant specimens, before another specimen receives the same mutation, to reinforce the mutant gene within the gene pool.

The odds are astronomically stacked against species to species evolution.

ps. The "scientists" lie.
Humans & Chimps are closer to 70% similar, not 98%.
When that study was done, it cost $1 BILLION to sequence the Human genome and no one managed to raise the money to sequence the full chimpanzee genome. So they sequenced 1 arm of 1 chromosome and the fudged the results.

Just like everything else in the History of Evolutionary Science. Look into the authenticity of the evidence of evolution. You will find them all to be hoaxes, except the newest evidences; because it takes time to figure out their lies.

I hope this helps

I do not accept the mutation theory and I will argue against it. Yet some of the 101 evolution theory like founder effect and bottleneck are well established. To be sure man mixes truth and error. That is all a part of science. Our life depends on science. For example eating right is essential. So we all have to sift through for the truth and weed out the error. Those who fail to do so increase their risk factor. A popular theory right now is we can reduce our risk factor enough through healthy eating, exercise and stress control so that we will not need surgery or medicine.

 

[Chriliman]

I sure can. The measurements and findings that I make have been verified by others in an objective manner.

Now it's your turn. Where is the objective and verifiable evidence for the existence of God?

that is not objective evidence that proves you're not just a computer simulation designed to exhibit human like behavior. I must "believe" (accept the truth) that you are conscious like I am. The only thing you can do to show me that you are conscious is exhibit similar behaviors that I can exhibit, it's then up to me to "believe" you are conscious. Consciousness cannot be proven, therefore requires belief. God cannot be proven, therefore requires belief. At least you can agree this makes sense.

 

[HitchSlap]

All I can say is that when I choose to not assume, but rather ask questions first and actually seek truth, the truths I find make a whole lot of sense. If you're saying I'm wrong for doing this, then all I can do is respectfully disagree.

Yep. You're wrong for doing this, because you're picking the answer, then seeking the evidence, which is bassackwards. If it works for you, good on ya'.

 

[Michael]

Yep. You're wrong for doing this, because you're picking the answer, then seeking the evidence, which is bassackwards. If it works for you, good on ya'.

I hate to break it to you, but Guth did the very same thing with "inflation".

 

[Davian]

Well there's evidence right there in that picture, so it must be true! Oh wait, maybe physical evidence doesn't always point to the real truth about life.

Do you trust your senses or not?

 

[Davian]

I have Boolean standards that tell me to believe the earth circles the sun.

Does not your bible state that the Earth is immovable? And is that contrary to your senses?

 

[HitchSlap]

I hate to break it to you, but Guth did the very same thing with "inflation".

What?! When did this happen??

 

[Davian]

I hate to break it to you, but Guth did the very same thing with "inflation".

Or, he sought an answer that explained the observational evidence. But, if you think burning straw-men make your electrical universe ideas more credible, you get back to it.

 

[Michael]

What?! When did this happen??

I happened the very first day that Guth *decided* in his wild imagination that his invisible inflation friend existed, and he then proceeded to *postdict* a fit to observed data. The *entire concept* was a *postdicted* concept.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does not your bible state that the Earth is immovable?

No.

You're not even using the right term.[VERSE=1 Chronicles 16:30,KJV]Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.[/VERSE]And if by your wrong term, you mean "unmoveable" (i.e., you're double-wrong), then explain this:[VERSE=1 Corinthians 15:58,KJV]Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.[/VERSE]How can one be "stedfast" and "always abounding" at the same time?

 

[Michael]

Or, he sought an answer that explained the observational evidence.

He used an *invisible supernatural* agent to *postdict* a fit to observational evidence. It's bit like claiming "inflation God did it", and here's the math to demonstrate it......

But, if you think burning straw-men make your electrical universe ideas more credible, you get back to it.

Inelastic scattering and moving objects are 'credible' causes of photon redshift because the cause/effect relationship is *demonstrable* in the lab. "Inflation did it" is not a 'credible' cause of photon redshift, it's a *statement of faith* in an entirely *supernatural* claim.

 

[Michael]

Or, he sought an answer that explained the observational evidence. But, if you think burning straw-men make your electrical universe ideas more credible, you get back to it.

FYI, the "credibility" of EU/PC theory isn't the least bit dependent upon the lack of credibility of Lambda-CDM.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

 

[Davian]

FYI, the "credibility" of EU/PC theory isn't the least bit dependent upon the lack of credibility of Lambda-CDM.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

It certainly is not dependant on your opinion of mainstream science. But when will you realize that?