Search results

Yet avoid EVER presenting any. Do you have a hair follicle so as to examine its DNA?

In two sentences and a lot fewer words. Pretending to know what is unknown/unknowable is delusional, insisting goddidit to fill the gaps.

Yet have absolutely no evidence of its existence.

There are a number of methods to ESTIMATE stellar/galactic distances. Except for the closest few hundred stars all other distances are educated estimates... guesses.

Technology was more involved than your personal preferred version of a diety.

1. I'm the funniest person I know. 2. No. The ages of stars are totally independent of the BBT. 3. Not as outrageously funny as the average creationist. All bluster, no substance. 4. Sure. I'm not bothered by it. Why are you? 5. Yours doesn't work without invoking your personal preferred version...

1. I Googled it. Try it sometime. 2. They're not. 3. You don't know enough if "my version of a deity did it" is all you have in your scientific arsenal. "I don't know" is the better answer in lieu of the unknown. Your whole "argument" is "there are problems with a SCIENTIFIC theory, therefore...

Hey, thanks! 43 x 3 minute exposures. Sky Watcher Esprit 100 ED Triplet. ZWO ASI2600MC camera. At Big Cypress Nationl Preserve, Florida. Here's another couple.

I'm an astrophotographer, not an astrophysicist. I would suppose mathematical models are verified mathematically. You're a bright guy. Google it.

More of a, "You haven't supported YOUR claim", than a need for me to do anything. Essentially, I don't believe you.

Essentially, astronomers determine the age of stars by observing their spectrum, luminosity and motion through space. They use this information to get a star's profile, and then they compare the star to models that show what stars should look like at various points of their evolution.

No, it doesn't.

The speed of light is not used to date stars.

Sure you can (if we ignore your fallacy). You can always make your own measurements if you doubt theirs. In fact, astronomers have this bad habit of sharing their data (observations) with other astronomers for review and verification ( but only with those who are in on the conspiracy). Well...

Factually incorrect, unless you want to add astronomers who do indeed visually measure and quantify such things to your list of Illuminati conspirator.

If you had more than faulty arguments, logical fallacies and "videos" to offer you might be more persuasive.

You think my feelings are hurt? Seriously? :nono: If attacking me is the only way for you to defend your strange-as-flat-Earth religious belief(s) then the "problem" is yours, not mine. You rail against all other religions for having insane beliefs without realizing how ridiculous your beliefs...

It took less time than I expected for the you to resort to a personal attack. I knew it would eventually happen, when was the only unknown. :sigh:

It helps when you read all the way to the end... "The "problem" is you (either) can't see or refuse to see why." When compared to christianity it's the epitome of rationality :e4e:.

What should I name the thread, " Stupid christian(s) gets it wrong again"? You rail against all other religions for having insane beliefs without realizing how ridiculous your beliefs sound (are) to them. You have a "book" written (unquestionably) by men and have, by magical thinking, turned...