Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

If you think they are hard to fake, watch Math Powerland's perception test on youtube. He has some videos called "perception test" and in his video called "NASA wikileaks" is probably the best perception test he does. His channel is called thenasachannel. See how good your perception is, watch this guy, an ultra realistic painter

Dear Daniel1611,

Yes, I checked out his painting skills. Pretty unusual and difficult. He's smart!! He must have learned some of it from someone, no??

God Bless You And Your Loved Ones,

Michael

:surf: :idea:

 

[MichaelCadry]

My understanding is that the edge of visible universe is about 42 billion light years away. Hubble I presume may have current design limits that restrict its depth of field to specific goals?
There are then perhaps good practical reasons for not seeing in detail both the deepest depths of the sea and the night sky. Not that conspiracy theorists want to know much about that of course.

Dear alwight,

See my post #10,360 on this Creation thread. It's like on Page #691. Just wanted to let you know.

Got to run this time!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

For one, Math Powerland Boylan's perception test is very important with regards to the alleged NASA photos. Michael Cadry said it would be hard to fool people with fake images. This guys demonstrates that it's actually pretty simple. I don't have the photos to show you because they're in a YouTube video and I don't know how well I could screenshot them on my smart phone. And unlike the presenter in the video, I'm not a realist painter, so I can't make some of the images he uses like he does. That's why I say watch the video.

Also, I'm typing on my smart phone, so some of the more complex points are just too complex to type on this phone. If I had a keyboard or were on the phone or Skype or in person, I could be much more articulate than I can with this phone.

Dear Daniel1611,

I agree with you Daniel. You have to watch the videos to see the way he paints his paintings and his results. I also don't believe our telescope can see that far. There's probably nothing much out that far to see anyway. The universe isn't as big as we've been led to believe.

God Be With You, Daniel!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Barbarian chuckles:
I have noticed that all those multilevel marketing scams always tell their followers not to explain the system to others, but to urge them to "just watch the video."

So when someone can't explain things, and wants me to "just watch the video", it's a tip-off for me.

Just noting that "watch the video" is a scammer's argument. If you can't understand it well enough to tell us about it, what makes you think it's right?

Dear Barbarian,

Daniel1611 isn't so dumb after all. If he can count the miles, he's doing pretty good. Plus he brought it to our attention. I don't believe the best telescope we could build could see that far away. He's got chutzpah!! He's got a good mind, I think!! Let's treat him better.

Tons Of Love Coming Your Way,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hiding more land and promoting godless evolution are the biggest motives.

Dear Daniel1611,

I thought I was helping you out, but now you've made it worse. We still think the Earth is a sphere, as is our Sun, moon, and the planets in our solar system, basically. I understand about the telescope, but not all of this other stuff. There are going to be a lot more things true that you are going to have trouble believing in. Just mark my words.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

YOU'VE GOT TO READ THIS!!

Scientists Wrong AGAIN!!

Esther Inglis-Arkell
Filed to: space 7/02/15 12:55pm

There May Be Nowhere Near the Number of Galaxies We Thought There Were

It looks like we might have overestimated how many neighbors we have. New predictions show that the universe might be an emptier place than we imagined.

Since the Hubble launched, we’ve been seeing stunning image of the crowded universe. Most of the images come accompanied by assurances that what we see in the images is just the start. Astronomers have been excitedly guessing at the amount of faint, distant galaxies that they can’t see. Lurkers surely outnumbered visible galaxies.

New simulations done on Blue Waters, a supercomputer at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications indicate that that isn’t the case. Researchers at Michigan State University simulated the formation of the early universe. The number of bright, luminous galaxies that the simulations predicted just about synced up with the data we can see from the Hubble. But the simulations indicated that number of faint galaxies, which the Hubble can’t see, wasn’t anywhere near what previous predictions had estimated. Conservative estimates reduce the number of faint galaxies ten times, but it’s just possible that the universe has only one hundredth the faint lurker galaxies we previously thought it did.

We’ll get an idea of whether those estimates are correct when the James Webb telescope goes up in 2018. Rest assured, there are still plenty of galaxies to explore.

[Source: The Astrophysical Journal Letters]
Top Image: NASA


Dear Friends,

Now this makes more sense to me!! If there is only our galaxy, it would not surprise me.

Michael


Check out this post, Daniel1611!!
I had to put this on again for those who've missed it!!!

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't believe the best telescope we could build could see that far away.

Without any telescope at all, I can see millions of light years. (Andromeda Galaxy)

So that argument doesn't impress me. Fact is, unless photons hit something on the way, they keep on going. So as long as you have a sufficiently sensitive sensor, you'll get photons coming in from billions of light years away.

Pure water has a transmittance close to 100%, but it's not 100%. So miles of it pretty much absorb all light, even if there was nothing else in the water. But there are a lot of other things in sea water, so it's no mystery why we can't see to the bottom. I'm surprised anyone would bother making that claim.

 

[noguru]

YOU'VE GOT TO READ THIS!!

Scientists Wrong AGAIN!!

Esther Inglis-Arkell
Filed to: space 7/02/15 12:55pm

There May Be Nowhere Near the Number of Galaxies We Thought There Were

It looks like we might have overestimated how many neighbors we have. New predictions show that the universe might be an emptier place than we imagined.

Since the Hubble launched, we’ve been seeing stunning image of the crowded universe. Most of the images come accompanied by assurances that what we see in the images is just the start. Astronomers have been excitedly guessing at the amount of faint, distant galaxies that they can’t see. Lurkers surely outnumbered visible galaxies.

New simulations done on Blue Waters, a supercomputer at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications indicate that that isn’t the case. Researchers at Michigan State University simulated the formation of the early universe. The number of bright, luminous galaxies that the simulations predicted just about synced up with the data we can see from the Hubble. But the simulations indicated that number of faint galaxies, which the Hubble can’t see, wasn’t anywhere near what previous predictions had estimated. Conservative estimates reduce the number of faint galaxies ten times, but it’s just possible that the universe has only one hundredth the faint lurker galaxies we previously thought it did.

We’ll get an idea of whether those estimates are correct when the James Webb telescope goes up in 2018. Rest assured, there are still plenty of galaxies to explore.

[Source: The Astrophysical Journal Letters]
Top Image: NASA


Dear Friends,

Now this makes more sense to me!! If there is only our galaxy, it would not surprise me.

Michael


Check out this post, Daniel1611!!
I had to put this on again for those who've missed it!!!

Michael it is not surprising that scientists are wrong about some things. They are very up front about the level of likelihood for a conclusion to be accurate. This is the exact reason why science is so successful, because it admits its errors and progresses from there. That is very unlike the type of certainty that some seem to need. And although they may not admit it, they often sacrifice accuracy for the illusion of certainty.

 

[Jonahdog]

That would be interesting to do, although I would have to be approved by the Antarctica Treaty organization and would have to use their approved routes. Many Antarctica crossing tourist routes cross over the peninsula by south america. To be sure we were actually crossing Antarctica, we would have to use our own route, traveling from one coast to the other in the estimated time it would take to cover that distance.

Daniel, if you are so sure of yourself, don't bother with any approvals. Just charter a plane and do it. Think of the glory, the prizes, the $. Where is your sense of adventure? You can be the new Columbus, the new Magellan. Prove all of us who think you are a lunatic wrong.

 

[noguru]

Daniel, if you are so sure of yourself, don't bother with any approvals. Just charter a plane and do it. Think of the glory, the prizes, the $. Where is your sense of adventure? You can be the new Columbus, the new Magellan. Prove all of us who think you are a lunatic wrong.

But that would be going against the whole purpose that many seem to come here. To vent about how science and the rest of the world ignores the "fundamentalist" view of reality, and to rally the troops for ineffective action.

It is so much easier to play the victim card and complain about how the world has mistreated you.

:chuckle:

 

[Daniel1611]

But that would be going against the whole purpose that many seem to come here. To vent about how science and the rest of the world ignores the "fundamentalist" view of reality, and to rally the troops for ineffective action.

It is so much easier to play the victim card and complain about how the world has mistreated you.

:chuckle:

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, all played the victim card?

When it's about people who are now revered challenging the majority opinion, it's okay. But people today challenging the majority belief are playing victim? It doesn't seem to make sense. It's people, whether they are right or wrong, challenging the accepted beliefs of the day. Not sure how one person doing it is okay, but the rest are playing victim.

 

[noguru]

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, all played the victim card?

I disagree. On what are you basing that claim?

 

[noguru]

When it's about people who are now revered challenging the majority opinion, it's okay. But people today challenging the majority belief are playing victim? It doesn't seem to make sense. It's people, whether they are right or wrong, challenging the accepted beliefs of the day. Not sure how one person doing it is okay, but the rest are playing victim.

Again you seem to completely misunderstand my point. That is not surprising given your track record here.

 

[Daniel1611]

I disagree. On what are you basing that claim?

I'm saying the accepted view of earth's shape is probably not correct. Copernicus said the the accepted view of earth's shape was not correct. I'm playing victim I'm but he wasn't? Logic not consistent.

 

[noguru]

I'm saying the accepted view of earth's shape is probably not correct.

It is not what you say, it is what you do about it that matters.

Copernicus said the the accepted view of earth's shape was not correct.

He set about a methodology to demonstrate the veracity of his claim, rather than just whine and complain about the prevailing view of the time.

I'm playing victim I'm but he wasn't?

You are an idiot, and a coward. If you had wisdom and courage you would institute a methodology to demonstrate the veracity of your model.

Logic not consistent.

You would not know logic if it smacked you in the face.

 

[Daniel1611]

It is not what you say, it is what you do about it that matters.



He set about a methodology to demonstrate the veracity of his claim, rather than just whine and complain about the prevailing view of the time.



You are an idiot, and a coward. If you had wisdom and courage you would institute a methodology to demonstrate the veracity of your model.



You would not know logic if it smacked you in the face.

Dude. You are just brainwashed. You're a product of the unsaved, secular school system that churns out sheep. If we're going to start name calling, you might as well have a name that fits. You're a programmed sheep. Eat up that B.S. NASA and Dawkins feed you. Shovel in some more big spoon fulls.

 

[noguru]

Dude. You are just brainwashed. You're a product if the unsaved, secular school system that churns out sheep. If we're going to start name calling, you might as well have a name that fits. You're a programmed sheep. Eat up that B.S. NASA and Dawkins feed you. Shovel in some more big spoon fulls.

:chuckle:

OK, see ya. Good luck with your irrational emotionally charged strategy to influence others.

I have welcomed you to change the prevailing model and provide evidence which indicates your conclusion above the current one. And so far all we have gotten from you is excuses, baseless rhetoric, and empty bluster.

You do not even admit the vast amount of past errors you have made in this thread. How do you expect to have any credibility when you do that, and then whine like a child about how "No one understands me"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, all played the victim card?

When it's about people who are now revered challenging the majority opinion, it's okay. But people today challenging the majority belief are playing victim? It doesn't seem to make sense. It's people, whether they are right or wrong, challenging the accepted beliefs of the day. Not sure how one person doing it is okay, but the rest are playing victim.

You're thinking too black/white. Just because a handful of people who challenged the majority opinion are now hailed as heroes, that doesn't mean everyone who challenges the majority opinion will also be heroes.

As history shows, there are a lot more crackpots who challenged the majority opinion, got nowhere, and will forever be remembered as crackpots.

 

[Daniel1611]

You're thinking too black/white. Just because a handful of people who challenged the majority opinion are now hailed as heroes, that doesn't mean everyone who challenges the majority opinion will also be heroes.

As history shows, there are a lot more crackpots who challenged the majority opinion, got nowhere, and will forever be remembered as crackpots.

Wanting to know why you can look at a city skyline tens of miles away and still see it. Wanting to know why NYC and Phillly skylines are over 100 miles apart and both perfectly visible in opposite directions at the same time. This shouldn't be possible earth is a globe.

 

[Jonahdog]

Wanting to know why you can look at a city skyline tens of miles away and still see it. Wanting to know why NYC and Phillly skylines are over 100 miles apart and both perfectly visible in opposite directions at the same time. This shouldn't be possible earth is a globe.

I'm sorry, you can see the NYC skyline from Philly? Please advise where and document this claim.

And I still think you should charter that plane, show us that you are not just a fundy loony tune.