View Single Post

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 20:04
I promised myself that I wouldn't do this but… well, here it goes.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
I do understand your point of view both of you.
I understand that you belive in this.
I hope that you two can see that even though scientists on the TET side wants to
count a number of things as evidence, just as the creationist scientists wants to
count them as evidence for their agenda, there is not any real evidence observed.
However, this whole idea of TET has been invented and not observed, if you don't
count micro evolution.
TET is not science. It could be historic science but it does not qualify cause it lacks witness.
Once again, microevolution is evolution.
Even if you were right and this was some kind of massive conspiracy to fool everyone into believing in evolution, what is the motivation behind it, who stands to gain from people believing in evolution?

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
To belive in historic documents as them that is included in the bible.
What would you call that?
Written historic documents from 4000 to 1800years old depending on witch book you chose to read in the bible.

You have to understand that when they were written the bible did not exist.
Later when these scripts had been choosen to represent the word of God, the
individual books became a part of the bible.

So you do have to treat each document as a historic document
not as a part of a religiosbook.
Yes. So?
Why don't you take that up with Corwin, he knows more about the subject than I (and most likely you) ever will.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
Since I have myself been filled with the different excuses, turnarounds and inventions of all the things that TET needs, not to be totaly disgraced,
It took the bigger part of my life to see through it.

for belief in TET people have invented meassurments of time that fits the geologic time scale. Still, it does not work but who cares…
The redshift was hijacked to be a doppfler effect. The invention of dark materia was needed. The invention of the Ort cloud. Now we have to think about paralel universes.
It gets so silly because TET simply can't do it.
Invented measurements of time? What does that even mean? I suppose all measurements of time are made up in one way or another (with the possible exception of Planck Time) but I doubt that is what you meant.
What does redshift/blueshift have to do with evolution and how is it not an example of the Doppler Effect?
What was dark matter/dark energy needed for? Certainly not to observe redshift/blueshift.
Who invented the Oort cloud and why? And once again what does it have to do with evolution or the age of the Earth?
Parallell universes are only required in one interpretation of quantum mechanics so you needn't think about them too much, they certainly are completely irrelevant to Evolution and the age of the Earth and the Universe.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
Have you noticed that the age of the earth is expanding rapidly cause TET always need more billions of years to seem trustworthy.
It's been 4,5 billion years for as long as I can remember.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
It's totaly out of hand. They make up a new caveman/apeman every now and then. It gets refuted but lives on for ages in text-books and museums.
All these "trees of life" has been refuted. They live on several of them posted in this thread, called evidence by evolutionists.
No they haven't and you have yet to provide any evidence that they have.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
The second law of TD does aply to the universe no matter how much evolutionists cry out. It has not been refuted. The evo-side always do refute something else and say it's the same. It is not.
It's you who don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It does apply to the universe (given that it's a closed system). It does not apply to the Earth or anything on it as it is not a closed system. If you have any evidence that it is please present it.

Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
Because of the mocking of plain and simple truths in favour of a young earth
it's not easy to reach you.
It does not matter if sombody says it's silly to talk about all the evidence for a young earth, the evidence is still there.
Because of your refusal to present any evidence or to concede when you are clearly and plainly wrong, it's not easy to reach you.

conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evil, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

rational, adj. Devoid of all delusions save those of observation, experience and reflection.
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devils Dictionary
peko is offline

peko

Watchdog

#524

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 117