Wait, were the Creationistchads right the whole time?!

Wait, were the Creationistchads right the whole time?! Atheistbros, our religion of hopelessness is being debunked in real time!

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >LE SCIENCE
    Reddit

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If they do change their theory, it will just become something else that presupposes the same metaphysical beliefs. Those underlying assumptions of materialism, for which evolution is merely the most recent vehicle, still haven't been directly addressed or even acknowledged as not being provable by science. They are teaching materialist ideology in the classroom as if it were science. And so even if they are proven wrong a million times, they still won't change their metaphysical ideology.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how about you post the article instead of a screencap

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Atheism means no creator. The universe can have any age without a creator. It's irrelevant to the atheism question.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Atheism doesn't merely mean no creator, it means no creation. This necessitates denial of the Big Bang Theory, since the Big Bang is an act of creation, from which existence came into being from non-existence. No creator = no creation.
      However, since the universe exists, if there is no creative event that means that the universe is eternal, literally uncreated. Therefore the universe is, ipso facto, god. A purely material god, but god nonetheless.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the Big Bang is an act of creation, from which existence came into being from non-existenc

        No, the big bang is no nonexistence. Everything was compressed to a single point, but all the energy of the universe today was there.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Everything was compressed to a single point
          Assuming this is true, why?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We have no way of knowing, any kind of order or structure in the universe would be lost to the entropy of the compression.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system
            Reminder that Kepler ripped off Tycho Brahe after he died of mysterious circumstances then inverted his model to create Heliocentrism.

            Neither of those explain the motion of the planets.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Neither of those explain the motion of the planets.
            Don't worry, Einstein's relativity can't explain the motion of 96% of the observable universe but it's still the accepted model today. Lmao.

            None of the problems of the big bang, red shift, expansion, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, and countless others, exist in a geocentric model with a background medium. None of the mainstream models work today because they refuse to accept that the Earth could be special.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            and what proof do you have that earth is special

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What proof do you have for heliocentrism? Listening to paid liars or repeating what they told you at indotri- I mean school, isn't proof.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >everybody is on a lie that has been going on for thousands of years with nobody ever coming out bro
            sounds like a very convient excuse, espescially when you factor in how gravity works, or the fact every other system seen has had the same pattern of planets move around stars, in fact the moon also moving around the earth further supports the idea since one has more gravity than the other, so again were is the proof earth is some donut oc

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What proof do you have for heliocentrism?
            The phases of Venus, the moons of Jupiter, the size and angular motion of the sun, the view from Mars, the moon, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why do stars shift in the night sky? If the Earth was stationary relative to the sun, then the night sky would be completely static relative to us. You don't need fancy tools to understand this

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do stars shift in the night sky?
            Only the planets do that. The other "stars" haven't moved for thousands of years even though the solar system is traveling at almost a million mph. The sky rotates but the stars do not move.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but the stars do not move
            except they do, shit like the northern star was something figures like caesar never saw

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'll do something people never do here and concede that you may be right and I need to look into it more. I've found a few sources but they seem to be speculative (Maybe they have to be?)

            Either way, what's happening up there is irrelevant to what's down here. They're just dancing lights to us. Only very untrustworthy people who hate God tell us there is anything more.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Einstein's relativity can't explain the motion of 96% of the observable universe
            Yes it can. Dark Matter is absolutely predicted and explained by Relativity.

            https://i.imgur.com/n8qlA2H.png

            >a model used for 1500 years to explain the motion of the planets doesn't explain the motion of the planets

            Ptolemy thought that Venus was two separate planets and didn't know that Neptune, Uranus, or Pluto exist. There's a reason that we stopped using it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dark matter was invented because relativity doesn't work but they couldn't throw it out because it was the only way to justify heliocentrism in the face of experimental evidence against it. So instead, they gave the error a name. Modern cosmology is pseudoscience and heliocentrism is a religion.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >a model used for 1500 years to explain the motion of the planets doesn't explain the motion of the planets

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Atheism can exist with an eternal universe. The eternal universe isn't sentient.

        Theism can also exist with no creation of matter or souls (Mormons)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You are stretching it hard. Atheism means no God, simply like that.
        All the rest are conjectures.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People think a bunch of morons with telescopes are wiser than God.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Atheism is compatible with the universe being any age.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even with their current timeline, their beliefs are mathematically impossible (also logically, scientifically, biologically, etc.).

        Just look up "mathematical problems for evolution" or "mathematical impossibility of evolution" and you can find plenty of videos with professors going over hard numbers.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Christianbros, the metaphor said the universe was 13.8 billion years old... what's the cope...

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What would you say to the argument that yom can mean period of time or epoch in Hebrew?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that it is false. nobody ever brings an example where yom, in singular, means epoch.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, and of Psalm 90, used Yom in many different ways.

          Genesis 4:3 "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months.
          Genesis 43:9 "...then let me bear the blame for ever." Here, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
          Genesis 44:32 "...then I shall bear the blame to my father for ever." Again, Moses uses Yom to represent eternity
          Deuteronomy 4:40 "...that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth the, for ever." Here Yom represents a physical lifetime
          Deuteronomy 10:10, "Now I stayed on the mountain forty days and nights, as I did the first time,..." Here, Yom is a "time" equal to forty days.
          Deuteronomy 18:5 "...to stand to minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for ever." Again, Yom is translated as eternity
          Deuteronomy 19:9 "...to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in His ways..." Here, Yom represents a lifetime. As long as we live we are to walk in his ways

          As you can see, Moses used the word Yom to represent 12-hours, 24 hours, the creative week, forty days, several months, a lifetime, and eternity.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In Exodus 20:11, it is talking about 24 hour days, just being as explicit as it can possibly be. Why not look at what it actually says about this subject instead of coming up with a conclusion that has to be based on forcefully ignoring the relevant passages in Genesis and Exodus, among others. The Bible is being as explicit about the 24 hour day here as it can possibly be.

            "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
            - Exodus 20:11

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            as I said, nobody ever provided a case of SINGULAR yom meaning anything else but day. the plural (yamim) is always part of some poetic shit like 'days of his life', 'for the rest of days' or somesuch, which apologists routinely try to twist into 'yom literally means blah blah'
            gen 4:3 says literally 'in the fullness of days' (miqqes yamim), usually translated as 'in the course of time'.
            gen 43:9 says 'for all days / every day' (kal he-yamim).
            gen 44:32 same kal he-yamim
            deut 4:40 yamim (your days), with one helping of kal he-yamim ...
            deut 10:10 arbaim youm, forty days (here day means just daylight, 12 hours, as forty nights is following. yom does not mean forty days here either
            deut 18:5 kal he-yamim ffs
            deut 19:9 *sigh* kal he-yamim ....
            so, you have nothing. turns of phrases containing 'days' do not mean that the singular 'yom' means 'epoch'. there's a bit of confusion between day = 12 hours sunlight and day = 24 hours full cycle, but that's common with any language.
            get some better material.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >were the Creationistchads right the whole time?!
    Even if it turns out the observable universe is less than 13.8 billion years old it will still be billions of years old.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > Atheistbros, our religion
    >theory invented by a Catholic priest
    >other threads ridicule atheists about this and claim atheists appropriated the theory and creationists are strawmen.
    What causes this?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Christians acting like petulant children in that it’s aggression and lashing out without coherent logic behind it. All emotion, little thought.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you'd read the whole article and understood the concepts referenced, you'd have a better understanding of what it's saying and how inconclusive it is to justify the article's clickbait title.
    The findings from Qi's team show incongruencies with computer simulated models using our current derivatives via Planck's equations and the standard model of the universe. They suggest that their findings are indicative of features you'd find in a comparatively younger model of the universe. This, along with the inconsistencies with the proposed Hubble constant (expansion rate of the universe; derived from Maxwell Planck's equations) that are reshaping our understanding of universal expansion are findings that don't perfectly align with the uniform expansion of the standard universe model. However, as the article points out, there is a problem in that our standard model does function correctly for most data that we've collected.
    There are theories about why expansion seems to be observed at inconsistent rates and how anomalies such as the ones Qi's team found exist. One of the more well known theories is dark matter. All this article is an example of is:
    • inconsistencies in the standard model that we've been aware of since the 80's
    • the struggles and problems of scientific communication to the public

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The findings from Qi's team show incongruencies
      lmao no fricking shit

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.space.com/universe-younger-than-thought-galaxy-motion
    >According to measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) by the European Space Agency's Planck mission, the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.
    >13.8 billion years old
    >In a new study, astronomers led by Guo Qi from the National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences...
    >Using observations made by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) of 813 galaxy groups within about 600 million light-years from Earth, Qi's team focused on the most massive galaxy in each group and measured how pairs of satellites on opposite sides of that galaxy moved.
    >With this expansion rate, rewinding the clock would give a younger age of 12.6 billion years.
    >12.6 billion years old

    So, no.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >were the Creationistchads right the whole time?!
      Even if it turns out the observable universe is less than 13.8 billion years old it will still be billions of years old.

      Judging the age of the universe by the mathematical syllogism of the speed of light vis-a-vis the distance from earth is a foolish endeavor, since the maximum observable age from any one point is limited by C. Logically, the universe could be any age, but we wouldn't know if this were so because if a star or galaxy or whathaveyou was emitting radiation at some great further distance of lightyears, it would be that amount of years before we would be able to detect it. There could be galaxies hundreds of billions of lightyears further away than the current furthest detectable stars, but we would never know about it because it'd take hundreds of billions of years for the light to reach us. Tying the age of the universe to its observable size is a miraculous degree of hubristic assumption; with that attitude, humans would still believe the earth was flat.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >electromagnetic waves have been existing for however long
        >it takes them a certai time to travel a certain distance
        >electromagnetic waves from further away have yet to reach Earth
        >because electromagnetic waves didn't exist that long ago ago
        it takes actual Black brain to not understand linear relations, holy shit

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >we
    >think
    Both stretches.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Space is fake and gay. The Earth's motion has never been detected and every experiment has given a negative result. They pushed relativity to wave a magic wand and explain away why it appears stationary, same with the big bang, infinite expansion to explain why it looks like Earth is in the center. Atheist cosmology is literally a religion that defies all observations. Astrophysics is a complete sham and Einstein was a plagiarist.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also, apparently in the 60s we traveled 240k miles through deadly radiation years to play golf on the moon, have a phone call with only 4 seconds of delay, take pictures with stage lighting that show no stars, collect rocks containing petrified wood and brass, return successfully after the greatest achievement of mankind and look totally deflated and disappointed, then destroyed all of the telemetry data and all of the technology and can't return back after 50 years of progress.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But muh reflectors which could be placed unmanned anyway, and they already beamed signals off the moon decades before that.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >look up
      >stars change position
      weird

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >look up
        >ceiling fan is moving
        >can only detect motion above
        >cant detect movement on the ground
        shit guess the room is moving because scientists said so remember to take your booster

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          feel free to explain the movements of the planets without heliocentrism.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system
            Reminder that Kepler ripped off Tycho Brahe after he died of mysterious circumstances then inverted his model to create Heliocentrism.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            why do you disagree with the greatest physicists of all time?

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >people actually read the article that the larper didn't and found it doesn't support his argument
    >said larper has a schizo melt down and then claims space isn't real
    typical

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >clickbait title
    >doesn't link the article
    The Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light years across, meaning any light we see from the other side has traveled 100,000 years to get here.
    That alone disproves creationism.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This doesn't prove the light was uncreated

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It proves that the Talmud's dating of the age of the Earth that Creationists advocate is wrong, however. If you want to argue that Zeus created the universe 20 billion years ago then go ahead, but we all know that's not what "Creationists" are positing.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Do you think that the mainstream Creationist viewpoint is actually coming from something in the (Babylonian) Talmud? Would you happen to have any specific sources for this?

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >3.2 was ackshually 3.24 all along
    >THIS MEANS YESHUA IS REAL OMG I NEED TO DILATE MY HONORARY NEOvegana
    have a nice day

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Could anyone please share me some videos of an agnostic or atheist philosopher of religion steelmanning the fine tuning argument?
    I don't understand why I, a theist, am supposed to find this argument to be very compelling but I think I need to move past the kalam and look into more arguments

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Btw I should add that I don't think I understand the argument all that well

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >spoon feed every argument
    let me guess you actual "argument" just revealed you were a moron and gto btfo'd multiple times, whcih keeps happening to you when you are forced to actually discuss a topic

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks for proving your intellectual dishonesty and inability to argue in good faith (yet again) or even pretend like you're making any informed arguments. Here's another video full of arguments that not one single evolutionist has ever addressed once, and this one addresses the specific argument made by that clown who doesn't even know the difference between the Bible and Talmud.

      Even still, I'm actually discussing a topic and contributing but you're just posturing and making personal attacks because you're a subhuman ape-brained atheist who dehumanizes all of mankind just so you can justify living in sin like the loser you are. That's all you subhuman ape-brained atheists ever do, fling feces like monkeys.

      https://i.imgur.com/vjjeuba.png

      [...]
      >Kent Hovind video
      that's absolutely fricking rich. Kent Hovind is a master gish-galloper and he doesn't understand any of the science here.

      Fact is, Kent nor you know how we know how far away stars are. For the distances I'm talking about, we use the brightness of "standard candles", mainly Cepheid Variable stars and RR Lyrae stars, whose true brightness and mass we can determine from their variability period, they shift in brightness periodically depending on their mass.
      Using that we can judge their distance from us from their true brightness and how bright they appear in the sky.

      But to disprove YEC you don't even need to know how to calculate this shit or what these stars are.
      You can use simple trigonometry if you have an accurate telescope, and measure where a star is in the sky 6 months apart.
      From how much the star shifts when the earth is at these two different positions, you can calculate the star's distance from the Sun.

      This method is accurate for stars up to 10,000 light years away, 4000 years more than Kent believes the world as existed for.

      >>Kent Hovind video
      >that's absolutely fricking rich. Kent Hovind is a master gish-galloper and he doesn't understand any of the science here.
      Stopped reading there. All you guys ever have is personal attacks and you didn't address a single thing he said because you're a coward with no arguments and no defense for your blind faith beliefs. I could explain it to you, but you prove you wouldn't even read it, you just want to waste my time you pathetic antichrist lying troll.

      Why should I waste my time with the rest of your homosexual whining when you, like the other atheist troll, prove you're incapable of arguing in good faith. Not just incapable, but completely unwilling even just to hear the arguments against your lies.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >personal attacks
        that rich when you entire argument is just seethe along with not even addressing the other guys argument on how you can easily prove the universe is far older (hell even earth is far older than what you claim is the age of the universe)

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        bro I explained the science to you.
        you're the one only doing personal attacks and redirecting us to a 30 year old Kent Hovind video instead of making your own argument.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's hilarious because the response to their le ebin "argument" is a single verse.

        And they'd already know it had they even read the Bible just once before claiming it was all false (or had they listened to any of the Christian arguments). But they don't, they just come to IQfy to shit up the board and "own the chuds" like they're on r/atheism. Most of them can't even comprehend the concept of an Eternal and Almighty God, they're so indoctrinated into the self-refuting belief of materialism to understand the concept.

        Meanwhile, they claim nothing blew up in and matter isn't evenly dispersed because well um inflation theory!1! and that all life came from a rock which came from nothing, and they call that science, get tax funding, and demand kids recite their religious dogma on tests or else the kids fail. Or they give boys hormones and chop off their wieners when they turn 18 and give them some axe wound and they call that a "woman". This is who Christians are arguing against when they argue against naturalism and evolutionism and atheism.

        >personal attacks
        that rich when you entire argument is just seethe along with not even addressing the other guys argument on how you can easily prove the universe is far older (hell even earth is far older than what you claim is the age of the universe)

        bro I explained the science to you.
        you're the one only doing personal attacks and redirecting us to a 30 year old Kent Hovind video instead of making your own argument.

        The proof is already posted. Where are any of your arguments against it? Your only response to it is character attacks. And now you're just projecting because I'm calling you out for your lies and your fallacies.

        All you democrat/LGBT/antiwhite atheist homosexuals ever do is lie and project.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Atheism requires ignorance, they can't preserve their world view if they even just hear other world views or criticisms of theirs.

          It's why they litigate and sue any competing views out of the public space as much as possible and use groups like the ACLU to achieve their monopoly on access to children (atheists even sued to keep the Genesis reading of the Apollo mission from being aired). Funnily enough, the LGBTs also demand access to children like the evolutionists do.

          Even in 3v1 debates, 3 evolutionist professors can't beat Kent Hovind, so all the evolutionists on this board can do is personal attacks and slanders while refusing even to mention his arguments because they're cowards.

          But why would these atheist schizos even listen to a debate? They never study anything and never make honest or informed arguments. They only pretend to be honest once called out, but the facade never lasts long, and it's not like they can make informed arguments when they always stick their head in the sand when someone posts anything.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >atheism
    >religion

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Kent Hovind video
    that's absolutely fricking rich. Kent Hovind is a master gish-galloper and he doesn't understand any of the science here.

    Fact is, Kent nor you know how we know how far away stars are. For the distances I'm talking about, we use the brightness of "standard candles", mainly Cepheid Variable stars and RR Lyrae stars, whose true brightness and mass we can determine from their variability period, they shift in brightness periodically depending on their mass.
    Using that we can judge their distance from us from their true brightness and how bright they appear in the sky.

    But to disprove YEC you don't even need to know how to calculate this shit or what these stars are.
    You can use simple trigonometry if you have an accurate telescope, and measure where a star is in the sky 6 months apart.
    From how much the star shifts when the earth is at these two different positions, you can calculate the star's distance from the Sun.

    This method is accurate for stars up to 10,000 light years away, 4000 years more than Kent believes the world as existed for.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>Kent Hovind video
      >that's absolutely fricking rich. Kent Hovind is a master gish-galloper and he doesn't understand any of the science here.
      see

      >personal attacks
      that rich when you entire argument is just seethe along with not even addressing the other guys argument on how you can easily prove the universe is far older (hell even earth is far older than what you claim is the age of the universe)

      >that rich when you entire argument is just seethe along with not even addressing the other guys argument
      and see

      bro I explained the science to you.
      you're the one only doing personal attacks and redirecting us to a 30 year old Kent Hovind video instead of making your own argument.

      >you're the one only doing personal attacks

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        so are you going to actually address his argument or are you just going to use more youtube videos

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >christtards
          >addressing anything

          Christtards really just have two traditional counterarguments, the words 'soon' and 'will'.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Younger means by 10 orders of magnitude

    Cope

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >It's not, they need deep time for their state-funded religion to survive.

    Not if they say God doesn't exist as a default stance and you must prove God to exist.

    >Just look up "mathematical problems for evolution" or "mathematical impossibility of evolution" and you can find plenty of videos with professors going over hard numbers.

    Science can form another theory compatible with atheism.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *