Jump to content


Photo

How Old Is The Universe?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14 replies to this topic

#1 Saint Onan

Saint Onan

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 05 July 2006 - 12:42 AM

Big Bang cosmology dates the origin of the universe to approx 14 bya. Does anyone seriously disagree? Does the Bible?

#2 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 05 July 2006 - 03:45 PM

Big Bang cosmology dates the origin of the universe to approx 14 bya. Does anyone seriously disagree? Does the Bible?

View Post


1) You may be surprised to know that there is a growing number of secular scientists who acknowledge the vast, and in some cases fatal, contradictions to the Big Bang. For a list, see www.cosmologystatement.org, signed by some pretty prestigious secular scientists. They want to push an alternative atheistic model. Its interesting and ironic to hear their complaints about the dogma that prevents them from being heard. :)
2) Most YECs believe the earth and universe were created ~6K years ago. A fair number of YECs ascribe to Humphries White Hole cosmology, a cosmology that IMO is too close for comfort to an old universe position.
3) The Bible clearly contradicts a secular cosmology of billions of year old universe. The Bible genealogies only go back 6K years. In addition, the sun and stars were not created until the fourth day, *after* the earth was created, an obvious contradiction to the secular belief that the sun originated before the earth.

One fatal blow to the Big Bang that cosmologystatement.org does not mention is the quantized redshift problem. We have discovered that galaxies are lining up on concentric circles from our planet. Not only is this powerful evidence that we truly are the center of the universe, it completely invalidates the big bang.

http://www.answersin...6/i2/galaxy.asp

Fred

#3 Saint Onan

Saint Onan

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 06 July 2006 - 06:52 AM

1) You may be surprised to know that there is a growing number of secular scientists who acknowledge the vast, and in some cases fatal, contradictions to the Big Bang. For a list, see www.cosmologystatement.org, signed by some pretty prestigious secular scientists. They want to push an alternative atheistic model. Its interesting and ironic to hear their complaints about the dogma that prevents them from being heard. :)

View Post


There have been scientists of all stripes trying to overturn the BB since its inception, but it's proving pretty durable. However the actual origins of the cosmos aren't that relevant to my argument; what's important is that all the data points to a cosmic age measurable in billions of years.

2) Most YECs believe the earth and universe were created ~6K years ago. A fair number of YECs ascribe to Humphries White Hole cosmology, a cosmology that IMO is too close for comfort to an old universe position.

View Post


So what are the YEC explanations for
a) Galaxies visible at distances of millions or billions of light years, hence they must have existed several mya or bya, for the light to be reaching us now?
b) Stellar ages of several billion years?
c) The current temperature of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation?

3) The Bible clearly contradicts a secular cosmology of billions of year old universe. The Bible genealogies only go back 6K years. In addition, the sun and stars were not created until the fourth day, *after* the earth was created, an obvious contradiction to the secular belief that the sun originated before the earth.

View Post


Which sounds to me as if you're saying that the Bible is in conflict with observed reality. If I can stick my head out of the window at night and see starlight that's taken millions of years to arrive, then the Bible must be wrong, on this point at least.

One fatal blow to the Big Bang that cosmologystatement.org does not mention is the quantized redshift problem.  We have discovered that galaxies are lining up on concentric circles from our planet. Not only is this powerful evidence that we truly are the center of the universe, it completely invalidates the big bang.

http://www.answersin...6/i2/galaxy.asp

Fred

View Post


The evidence for Quantized Redshift would appear to be somewhat difficult to replicate, as improved technology allows for larger sample sizes. I think you'll have to put this one back into the "as yet unconfirmed" basket.

Wikipedia on Quantized Redshift

#4 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 July 2006 - 02:25 PM

So what are the YEC explanations for
a) Galaxies visible at distances of millions or billions of light years, hence they must have existed several mya or bya, for the light to be reaching us now?
:) Stellar ages of several billion years?
c) The current temperature of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation?



Dr. Russel Humpries "Starlight and Time" is a good answer from a physics point of view.

You can read a little about it here.

Starlight and time

Which sounds to me as if you're saying that the Bible is in conflict with observed reality. If I can stick my head out of the window at night and see starlight that's taken millions of years to arrive, then the Bible must be wrong, on this point at least.


It may only have the appearance of having taken billions of years. You cannot call this observed reality since its an intepretation based on a philisophical concept, not objective emperical science.

Terry

#5 Saint Onan

Saint Onan

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 07 July 2006 - 12:23 AM

Dr. Russel Humpries "Starlight and Time" is a good answer from a physics point of view.

View Post


Any reason why Humphreys hasn't submitted his theory for publication in a peer-reviewed journal?


It may only have the appearance of having taken billions of years.  You cannot call this observed reality since its an intepretation based on a philisophical concept, not objective emperical science.

View Post


The only philosophical concept required is the epistemological assumption that an observable, objective reality exists. If you won't allow that, you rule out any possibility of valid knowledge, making all debate pointless.

Personally, I'm sticking with reality as long as it remains consistent.

#6 Guest_rthearle_*

Guest_rthearle_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 July 2006 - 04:24 AM

1) You may be surprised to know that there is a growing number of secular scientists who acknowledge the vast, and in some cases fatal, contradictions to the Big Bang. For a list, see www.cosmologystatement.org, signed by some pretty prestigious secular scientists. They want to push an alternative atheistic model.


What is the age of the universe according to their alternative model? Is it significantly different from 14Bya?

Roy

#7 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 July 2006 - 10:08 AM

There have been scientists of all stripes trying to overturn the BB since its inception, but it's proving pretty durable.

View Post


Durable, or religious? The major objections to the big bang have not been sufficiently answered, only responses like “it’s durable”. A durable theory is one that is both testable and falsifiable. Numerous big bang predictions have failed. At what point do we move it from the realm of theory to the realm of fairytale?

So what are the YEC explanations for
a) Galaxies visible at distances of millions or billions of light years, hence they must have existed several mya or bya, for the light to be reaching us now?
:) Stellar ages of several billion years?
c) The current temperature of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation?


I don’t have any bones about saying a) above is the hardest question for creationists to answer. Creationists generally give three responses: 1) created with appearance of age, 2) the speed of light was much faster in the past, or 3) Humphrey’s white hole cosmology. For various reasons I personally don’t like any of these. There is a 4th proposal in the works that has to do with a concept similar to our time zones, but I haven’t quite grasped this enough to comment on it, though it sounds promising.

But the fact we don’t really know for certain why we see millions of years worth of light travel does not concern me, because God has given us ample evidence from other areas that the universe cannot possibly be billions of years old. For example, the winding up problem (galaxy arms should have wound up by now to be featureless), short-period comets, angular momentum, moon recession, quantized redshifts, uniform cosmic background radiation (CMB, see following), etc. In fact the CMB problem is the evolutionists very own time-light problem!

Regarding CMB, why do you claim this supports an old universe? Apparently you are unaware this is a serious problem for evolutionists, it’s called the horizon problem. The CMB is constant throughout the universe. Why? In the alleged age of the universe (14-20bya) light cannot travel fast enough to produce this equilibrium. This is powerful evidence of design because it thwarts a naturalistic explanation. Evolutionists try to explain it with the inflation theory, but plenty of informed scientists know it is no more than a story (a low-grade hypothesis with no tangible evidence to support it). Interestingly, some evolutionists have proposed a solution using creationist answer #2 above, that the speed of light was faster in the past! [1]

The evidence for Quantized Redshift would appear to be somewhat difficult to replicate, as improved technology allows for larger sample sizes. I think you'll have to put this one back into the "as yet unconfirmed" basket.


Translation: deny, avoid, and push aside (ie my mind is made up despite the evidence).

Fred

1- Albrecht, A. and Magueijo, J., Time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles, Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology) 59(4):043516-1–043516-13, 1999

#8 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 July 2006 - 10:29 AM

Any reason why Humphreys hasn't submitted his theory for publication in a peer-reviewed journal?

View Post


This question is a time-waster so you are hereby warned. Please see:

http://www.evolution..._alert_page.htm

(related to #2 on the top ten list).

Fred

#9 Saint Onan

Saint Onan

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:50 PM

This question is a time-waster so you are hereby warned. Please see:

http://www.evolution..._alert_page.htm

(related to #2 on the top ten list).

Fred

View Post


I don't think that's a fair call. I'm not asking you to quote from the literature; I'm asking if Humpheys has been reviewed and substantiated by any qualified person.

#10 Saint Onan

Saint Onan

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 07 July 2006 - 06:51 PM

Durable, or religious? The major objections to the big bang have not been sufficiently answered, only responses like “it’s durable”. A durable theory is one that is both testable and falsifiable. Numerous big bang predictions have failed.

View Post


But the biggest prediction made by BBT succeeded; the CBMR was predicted, and found.

At what point do we move it from the realm of theory to the realm of fairytale?

View Post


When someone provides a theory that better explains the observed evidence, makes a testable prediction that allows for discrimination between the new theory and the old, and does the experiment to validate the prediction.

I don’t have any bones about saying a) above is the hardest question for creationists to answer. Creationists generally give three responses: 1) created with appearance of age, 2)  the speed of light was much faster in the past, or 3) Humphrey’s white hole cosmology. For various reasons I personally don’t like any of these. There is a 4th proposal in the works that has to do with a concept similar to our time zones, but I haven’t quite grasped this enough to comment on it, though it sounds promising.

View Post


<shrug> So you concede the evidence, offer no counter-evidence, yet still refuse to accept the observed age of the universe? I notice you failed to address apparent stellar ages either.

But the fact we don’t really know for certain why we see millions of years worth of light travel does not concern me, because God has given us ample evidence from other areas that the universe cannot possibly be billions of years old. For example, the winding up problem (galaxy arms should have wound up by now to be featureless), short-period comets, angular momentum, moon recession, quantized redshifts, uniform cosmic background radiation (CMB, see following), etc. In fact the CMB problem is the evolutionists very own time-light problem!

View Post



The winding-up problem is a non-problem; Humphrey's over-simplified models don't allow for the gravitational attraction between stars. The moon recession problem is an unjustified extrapolation of the current rate of recession; basic Newtonian mechanics properly applied will give the correct answer. The short-period comets and angular momentum I'm not familar with; you'll have to provide more background before I can address them. For CMBR and quantized redshift, keep reading.

Regarding CMB, why do you claim this supports an old universe? Apparently you are unaware this is a serious problem for evolutionists, it’s called the horizon problem. The CMB is constant throughout the universe. Why? In the alleged age of the universe (14-20bya) light cannot travel fast enough to produce this equilibrium. This is powerful evidence of design because it thwarts a naturalistic explanation. Evolutionists try to explain it with the inflation theory, but plenty of informed scientists know it is no more than a story (a low-grade hypothesis with no tangible evidence to support it). Interestingly, some evolutionists have proposed a solution using creationist answer #2 above, that the speed of light was faster in the past! [1]

View Post


CMBR is an observed phenomenon that demands an explanation. It is a background noise a few degrees above absolute zero that pervades the entire universe to a remarkably homogeneous degree. The fact that it hasn't detectably changed with time since being observed fifty years ago means either that it is the product of a very old process (at least a billion years plus), or that some mechanism has acted to arrest the rate of cooling, or that it was created at the current temperature. Which of those options is your position?

You can't handwave the CMBR away by pointing out flaws in your opponents' explanation. The CMBR is observable by anyone who cares to check for it with the appropriate equipment; how does your cosmology explain it?


Translation: deny, avoid, and push aside (ie my mind is made up despite the evidence).

View Post


Not at all fair. Every scientific discovery that I quote has been subjected to rigorous peer review. Every argument you've put up (apart from QR) comes from one source - Humphreys - who refuses to submit his work for review. The QR problem has been reviewed and double-checked with later and better technology, and the later experimenters have been unable to replicate the earlier results. In addition, other lines of enquiry (quaser distribution) also don't support the hypothesis. The null hypothesis should stand.

#11 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 08 July 2006 - 11:16 PM

I don't think that's a fair call. I'm not asking you to quote from the literature; I'm asking if Humpheys has been reviewed and substantiated by any qualified person.

View Post


This is a tired out T.O.-style claim that only serves to waste people’s time (like I’m wasting now). You gave yourself away when you claimed you have been debating CvE for a couple years, so I fully expected you should know seasoned creationists consider classic trolling for a red herring that ultimately is a colossal waste of time (surely by now you are aware that the major secular mags censor claims supporting creation, particularly if the scientist is a known creationist). But perhaps you were on boards so dominated by evos that you hardly got the opportunity to ever really engage one of us. So you were given leeway, I suspect the old Admin would have already had you in the cooler.

One of the primary goals of this forum is to squash trolling or anything else that results in people wasting their time. Your question was a HUGE red herring and it simply will not be tolerated in this forum.

Fred

#12 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 08 July 2006 - 11:17 PM

the biggest prediction made by BBT succeeded; the CBMR was predicted, and found.


It was off by an order of magnitude! Not really bad though for the evolutionary track record. Typically evolution predictions are completely off the Richter scale.

“What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.” – cosmologystatement.org, signed by many prominent secular astronomers and physicists

“In addition to the previous comment that one would expect the observed gigantic galactic formations to cause irregularities in the isotropy of MBR reception, the observed spectrum of the MBR, corresponding to a near perfect black body temperature of 2.7 K, doesn't agree very well with temperatures predicted by various Big Bang theorists. Those predictions had varied over a range of 5 to 50 K. (26) History also shows that some Big Bang cosmologists' "predictions" of MBR temperature have been "adjusted" after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.” -Physics Essays 1997

<shrug> So you concede the evidence, offer no counter-evidence, yet still refuse to accept the observed age of the universe?


I have provided evidence and citations to support them. Can you show me in this thread where you have offered *any* evidence. Just saying it is so doesn’t count. For example, your very next statement:

You: “The winding-up problem is a non-problem”

And why is that?

You: "Humphrey's over-simplified models don't allow for the gravitational attraction between stars."

This has nothing to do with Humphries or his model. This is a problem that is well known among *secular* scientists. In a debate with an old earth group in Denver, their panel of scientists did not offer a single explanation for this problem. I thought they would at least offer a just-so story, but they didn’t even do that.

You: "The moon recession problem is an unjustified extrapolation of the current rate of recession; basic Newtonian mechanics properly applied will give the correct answer."

Again, just saying so doesn’t count.

You: "MBR is an observed phenomenon that demands an explanation. It is a background noise a few degrees above absolute zero that pervades the entire universe to a remarkably homogeneous degree."

Exactly, and that is why it’s a HUGE problem for evolutionists. Just read some of the articles from your own side on this. Light cannot travel fast enough to produce this isotropic characteristic. Go to cosmologystatement.org - chances are >90% of the signees are committed evolutionists and/or atheists, and they mention this as one of the fatal contradictions of the big bang.

You: "he fact that it hasn't detectably changed with time since being observed fifty years ago means either that it is the product of a very old process (at least a billion years plus),"

And why is this lack of change over 50 years evidence for billions of years? I’m just dying to hear your explanation of this. :)

You: "or that some mechanism has acted to arrest the rate of cooling,"

Again, what does this have to do with billions of years? It really does sound like you are pulling this stuff out of thin air.

You: "or that it was created at the current temperature. Which of those options is your position?"

This seems quite reasonable to me.

You can't handwave the CMBR away by pointing out flaws in your opponents' explanation.


Sorry, but this is a completely ridiculous statement. This is like:

You: ”The moon is made of cheese”
Me: “Observational data has shown conclusively that the moon is made of rock. Lunar samples are inedible, we were unable to put them on Big Macs”.
You: “You can’t handwave the cheese theory away simply becuase you pointed out flaws in my claim”.

:)


Every scientific discovery that I quote has been subjected to rigorous peer review. Every argument you've put up (apart from QR) comes from one source - Humphreys - who refuses to submit his work for review. The QR problem has been reviewed and double-checked with later and better technology, and the later experimenters have been unable to replicate the earlier results. In addition, other lines of enquiry (quaser distribution) also don't support the hypothesis.


First, you got it backwards. I only cited Humphries for QR, and even this problem is based on secular findings, not his (you can’t count my citation of Humphries White Hole cosmology since I don’t agree with it!). Finally, please provide evidence, a citation of some sort, for your claim in the penultimate sentence above, since I have not heard this. Your last sentence also appears to be out of thin air and I would be interested to see support for it.

Fred

#13 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 10 July 2006 - 09:24 PM

Due to Onans' obvious disrespect for the rules, along with his blatant rule-violating posts (that were deleted), we are also editing the person. I'm closing the thread, and bye bye to Onan.

Fred

Edited 7/12/06: Due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics' impact on my brain, I mistakenly banned MRC_Hans instead of Saint Onan. MRC_Hans has been re-instated with my apologies. I'm going to re-open the thread.

#14 Driv3r

Driv3r

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Norway

Posted 18 July 2006 - 03:03 AM

So you believe sience is all farytales and God not, right ?

I don't really know why people stille believe in God and this stuff, are you afraid of science or something ?
And as if Big Bang isn't true this doesn't mean science is wrong, there are about hundreds of theories about the univers.

And the earth isn't 6k years old, thats for sure.
We got iceage 20 000 years ago.
A supervulcano errupted about 75 000 years ago.
The Neanderthal dated back as far as 130 000 years ago.
Dinosaurs about 160 mio years ago.

We know how elements are made, we know how suns, planets and solar systems are beeing formed. Why should there be any god at all. And you can really say that the bible is a farytale, a 2000 year old farytale.

In the past people thought the earth was flat and the earth was in the middle/center of everything. It turned out not to be true and the earth is travelling around the sun.

Many religious people say "because science can't prove it" or "i don't understand this and i can not imagine that" - "there has to be a god".

And if you got a lousy education system (USA) people turn out that way. Half of the population in the US believe in some sort of god.

#15 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 18 July 2006 - 10:06 PM

So you believe sience is all farytales and God not, right ?


NO, I only think evolution is a fairytale. I do not think science is a fairytale.

I don't really know why people stille believe in God and this stuff, are you afraid of science or something ?


No, I love science, in fact science supports the Bible and the truth of creation. See my sister site, www.bibleevidences.com.

And the earth isn't 6k years old, thats for sure.


There is far more evidence against an old earth, than for it, and we do have evidence for a ~6K yr old earth. Here's an example from this forum, and it's how science is supposed to work:

http://www.evolution...p?showtopic=283

We got iceage  20 000 years ago.
A supervulcano errupted about 75 000 years ago.
The Neanderthal dated back as far as 130 000 years ago.
Dinosaurs about 160 mio years ago.


All based on assumptions that have to be true over the life of the dating method. Why is it we can't get accurate dates of young rocks where we know the age, yet we blindly trust dates of rocks where we don't know the age?

We know how elements are made, we know how suns, planets and solar systems are beeing formed.


Huh? We do? News to me! How was Hydrogen made?

Why should there be any god at all. And you can really say that the bible is a farytale, a 2000 year old farytale.


The Old Testament of the Bible is much older than 2000 years.

In the past people thought the earth was flat


Who thought the earth was flat? You've fallen for a myth that was unscrupulously perpetrated in the 1800s. You should look in to it. Learned men going back at least 4000 years knew the earth was round.

Many religious people say "because science can't  prove it" or "i don't understand this and i can not imagine that" - "there has to be a god".


I’m a Christian and that’s not what I say. I believe in a Creator because there is overwhelming evidence for a Creator. It takes far greater faith to believe we are related to bananas and dirt. It is more silly for a person to say we evolved than it is for a person to claim Mt Rushmore was the result of wind and erosion.

Once you realize there is a Creator, you'll find only one religious book that has overwhelming support for its claims, namely the Bible. Again, see www.bibleevidences.com

And if you got a lousy education system (USA) people turn out that way. Half of the population in the US believe in some sort of god.

View Post


It’s actually 90% last I heard. But we do agree on something here! I agree the US public education system is lousy. Do you know when SAT scores began their rapid decent? The very year evolution was pushed into the school books and God was removed.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Almost all of the above is off-topic, so I’m closing the thread. If you have questions about a specific comment made above, please feel free to start a thread in the appropriate forum.

Fred




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users