Kevinb

Members
  • Content count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

1 Follower

About Kevinb

Recent Profile Visitors

87 profile views
  1. Okay...I thought you were stating a physical barrier around the earth that we couldn't cross and so couldn't send vehicles to moon...Mars..and beyond. So on the hiding god comment why would not only nasa but uk...European and other space agencies do this in this global conspiracy?
  2. Also please falsify and explain images and involvement from sources other than nasa including Russia and the European space agency. So in your view these other sources are in league with nasa in putting forward all this misinformation. Please explain why they would and to what end?
  3. If these pictures are fake you could easily prove this as you know where the pictures are supposedly taken on earth then go and stand where the shots were taken and repost without photoshopping. The earth and its atmosphere and it's gravity could qualify as one system. Space is not a total vacuum also. Solar particles winds radiation. Asteroids...why don't Asteroids hit the physical barrier? Please define and demonstrate this physical barrier? So you also would think sputnik..moon landings...all pictures of Asteroids where we have flown vessels into Asteroids..landed on Asteroids. All pictures of planets and their moons. Landings on Venus..all of voyager pictures..signals still received are fake. Please falsify all imagines and signals using any any credible method of your choosing but specify it. I'm excluding images from earth and hubble obviously. 200 miles is the distance of the space station with a speed of 17000 miles an hour granted. Please explain and quantify reasons why nasa would be complicit in some bizarre misinformation conspiracy.
  4. Enoch..I think you're missing the point to a degree..and bogging any normal discourse down into pedantic word defining and smoke screens. As I've said I think it's fair for people to say they believe in God and still be okay with any unguided or guided by God evolutionary process. Or no acceptance at all of evolution and be a young earth creationist at the other end of the scale as people do...along with many other beliefs I'm sure. The totality of evolution in a natural selection unguided by God way doesn't need to be demonstrated by quantum mechanical mathematics. Although why say it won't ever be ever? Also if it can't be ergo your view is the correct one? What I mean by wider scientific community: Serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. - scientific America. The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation-evolution controversy and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific and political issues. The subject is especially contentious in countries where significant levels of non-acceptance of evolution by general society exist although evolution is taught at school and university. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3]- wiki I know now there is a creationist peer review system but I recall you speaking about bias way back in the thread. For me it's hard to discredit this stance but I'm happy to change my view to where I stand now to be more in line with yours...please publish papers demonstrating evidence and models you have and change the world whether it be for creation or any evolutionary devine guiding. I for one would be extremely grateful as it would further confirm and deepen a God belief.
  5. Great pictures.. I'm pretty sure squirrel weasel things don't live on mars lol. There may have been life on mars or we will find some in the future..very very simple life at best I'd wager Pareidolia at work here I suspect. Anyone remember the face on mars from years back? I know I've double taked on animal shapes or faces in branches and bark etc before. Also I'm confused on the carbon dating rocks comment.. you can't date rocks this way. Carbon dating requires organic material...carbon containing and is only good for 40 k ish years figures based on earth sun exposure and atmosphere.
  6. North korea aren't necessarily the issue... I think it could be how Russia and China deal with any US action..the US Russia relationship in Syria doesn't look great since bombing the airport.
  7. Oh they'd hit the aircraft carrier no doubt as it sails closer in...still in international waters. Well they could attempt to hit it..I'm sure there's a reasonable chance it would get shot down. They've been testing longer range missiles and have demonstrated they're no where close to hitting US soil. These longer range tests are about extending range of course. I'd wager there would be some covert submarine cat and mouse too..that side of things is rarely mentioned and the koreans have subs. I live in the UK and we've been told we have roaming subs that are strategically placed to launch counterstrikes anywhere in the world...nuclear counterstrikes if need be. I'm sure the usa have 20 times our military ability.
  8. America would have to retaliate. Or be seen to be attacked and do nothing. North Korea seems to want a war and is happy here to launch the 1st strike on a US ship in international waters. I'm sure they'd have no trouble launching a nuke at US soil if they had one with that range. So what should we do..wait for this to happen..I don't know. Also who would the Russians and Chinese side with...historically in the 50s it wasn't the US and allies. All very worrying
  9. There are many views Christians have about evolution for example as...some deny it's validity totally and prefer creation and young earth....some creation and old earth...some accept with an intelligent guiding..some accept via natural selection. All would call themselves Christian and there are many fragments and churches of Christianity. We can choose to discuss with a generosity of spirit..fruits of spirit or serpents and wolves. The 1st many unite us as people under God the latter may lead the in the opposite direction. Also I see Christianity as the most welcoming and tolerant especially looking at Islamic factions being so intolerant and filled with hate and fear to the point where they can justify killing each other.
  10. There seems to be some form of acceptance here of evolution although its not worded as such. From the link the ark was 4500 years ago...based on a few "kinds" we now have...via a quick search 8.7 million species. Some estimates of the number of species is many times that. This feels problematic as would necessitate fantastically fast mutation to account for this which isn't supported with evidence. Also we'd have to set aside fossil records and rock aging which further causes issue to believe this as well as no evidence of a global flood. Can you provide the evidence to support this and debunk the contrary? My mindset needs to find God and spirituality in a less easily falsifiable place but I appreciate we all have different views on where that is.
  11. I'm new to thinking about this and it's interesting to see people's views. At this point i guess I'm still more comfortable in a stand off creator type view..maybe setting things in motion and spirituality. Absolutely agree views can take time to be accepted. When I said wider scientific community I guess we're in agreement that what you've proposed isn't the main established view...yet. However since Darwin...150 years ish I'm not seeing a debunking more a adding meat to the bone. In this time there isn't a general acceptance yet by scientists of what you've said so I need to stick with what's most likely. As you say interpretation may be difficult to limited supply of fossils but does this mean we go to a creator who's micromanaging or just wait and see what other fossils will be found. I guess I've got to look at what's most likely. So much ground has been given and so much more understood. When we say explosion...are we certain of all appearing at the exact same moment or over the cambrian period which is 50 ish million years for evolution by natural selection ? Are you certain this isn't enough time? Interesting though...I'll read also in the direction you've highlighted too thanks
  12. Regarding the 1st self replicating molecule . Yes dna would be a no go. You quote Joyce from 24 years ago. There are other models as you know I'm sure such as Tkachenko and Maslov. Anyway whatever the answer is in 400 plus years of science I think it's more reasoned and rational to say even if we don't know now we can't say we won't or things are impossible to know and that they can't follow scientific models whether well established..proposed or yet to be proposed . Also any supposed crushed or debunking you seem to feel on other evolutionary matters doesn't seem to be born out by the wider scientific community. I wonder where is your nobel prize for this work?
  13. I put forth my ideas and thoughts prior and some areas to further investigate if people wished. I also responded further to some points but think it's reasonable to say I didn't have time to respond to all points and suggested. I'm sorry if that's not good enough in your eyes
  14. We spoke about a bias of opinion before...you don't think reference to James emery white the church leader is a problem here? Even if we've pushed back bacterial life on the planet to an earlier date I don't see an issue in terms of time scales. Biologists have observed big changes in decades if natural selection pressures are right. Search lizards on islands near Croatia for example. Absolutely genetics does back up evolution too. The issue is to set aside so much and overwhelming evidence. The big issue for evolutionary Biologists is the 1st replicating molecule...this is of course more in the realms of chemistry and work is being done here and we'd be brave to say we won't ever work that out too. Anyways as some have eluded to none of this means we can't believe in God and I'm vigilant to not fall into a God of the gaps pitfall. We have so many opinions on what God means to us of course.
  15. Impressively lengthy post Enoch. I don't have time to respond to all points. More broadly...again I would encourage people to look at bodies and amounts of evidence as objectively as possible. It isn't always easy to do and you even quote a bias. However if you assume answers from the outset you will inevitably encounter a bias trying to fit perceived evidence and those with bias agendas doing this to discredit overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This applies to those who would deny evolution or part of or are young earth creationists. As I said I cannot deny the overwhelming evidence in this regard but that does mean one has to not believe in God to accept this as so many theologians and religious bodies do manage it. Perhaps to further aid coherent discussion it's better to narrow the topic somewhat?