Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Over half of Britons think the moon landings were faked Watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The devil landed on the moon :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-existed.html

    What the hell is happening to this country? These people are wrong, stupid, and shouldn't be allowed to vote.

    here's a mirror...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Where are those papers supporting creationism as a valid scientific theory that you promised me?
    The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy. You know it deep down that there is something beyond the horizon something that you'll never understand or every truly know until that is you stand for judgement on the day of reckoning. You keep poking me expecting me to just roll over but I won't roll over like you did and your teachers/parents before you. Literally there are hundreds of dating methods which could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists like you. In the rush to examine all the amazing scientific evidence it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. Such a mountain of scientific evidence, accumulated by researchers, seems to obviously contradict the supposed billions of years, so why don’t more people rush to accept the truth of a young earth?

    The answer is obvious facts don’t speak for themselves. Interpreting the facts of the present becomes especially difficult when reconstructing the historical events that produced those present day facts, because no humans have always been present to observe all the evidence and to record how all the evidence was produced. Take forensic scientists for example who must make multiple assumptions about things they cannot observe. Assumptions like...how was the original setting different? And what were the processes in play? Was the scene later contaminated? Just one wrong assumption or one tiny piece of missing evidence could totally change how they reconstruct the past events that led to the present-day evidence. This is why it is creationism's inherent belief that reaching the correct conclusions requires the right starting point - a divine creator.


    #1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
    If sediments have been accumulating for 3 billion years + on the sea floor why isn't the sea floor comprised of miles upon miles of sediment than we currently have at the present moment? Most of this material accumulates as loose sediments near the continents. Yet the average thickness of all these sediments globally over the whole seafloor is not even 1,300 feet.http://www.icr.org/article/deep-sea-...sedimentation/


    #2 Bent Rock Layers
    In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen if they were laid down separately over hundreds of millions of years and already hardened?
    https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis....eformation.pdf
    https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis....asequences.pdf


    #3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
    The presence of soft tissue in fossils directly contradicts the idea that they are the remains of organisms who died billions of years ago. Using cutting-edge technology that maps molecules, researchers are confirming that soft tissue has been preserved in lots of fossils—not just big dinosaurs like T. rex but also small and large reptiles that lived in water.
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0019445

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...011.0135.short


    #4 Faint Sun Paradox
    The sun today is 40% brighter than it was 3-5 billion years ago this means that when life evolved on earth according to evolution the earth was bathing in considerably less energy than which means that life couldn't have evolved yet we are told that life evolved under these very conditions. The greenhouse gasses explanation of this issue is BS and so unlikely that scientific journals refer to it as the Goldilocks syndrome. The more appropriate explanation is that the earth and the sun are not billions of years old and have been created recently.

    http://hea-www.cfa.harvard.edu/lifea...nian-sep12.pdf


    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    The god thing could be explained by athiest Christians and people claiming they are Christian because they feel like they have to be. The other stuff makes no sense, if this were a yougov, ipsos mori, Lord ashcroft ect. I'd be more inclined to believe but I seriously don't believe that 2/3s of the country don't believe in dinosaurs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The god thing could be explained by athiest Christians and people claiming they are Christian because they feel like they have to be. The other stuff makes no sense, if this were a yougov, ipsos mori, Lord ashcroft ect. I'd be more inclined to believe but I seriously don't believe that 2/3s of the country don't believe in dinosaurs.
    Why should people believe in things that have no proof.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    so much stupidity
    Just wow.

    I'm impressed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    So much group think in this thread it's actually hurting my head. Please go and do your own research and look beyond what your 'betters' and the government tell you. It's comical how people on here are so lethargic to logic.
    Group think is an idea of psychology. Psychology is a type of social science. I thought creationists are supposed to be allergic to science?

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    Rah rah waffle waffle
    This post has a lot of words for so little content

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    Literally there are hundreds of dating methods which could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists like you. In the rush to examine all the amazing scientific evidence it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. Such a mountain of scientific evidence, accumulated by researchers, seems to obviously contradict the supposed billions of years, so why don’t more people rush to accept the truth of a young earth?
    If you are so enlightened of this "evidence", then present it

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    The answer is obvious facts don’t speak for themselves. Interpreting the facts of the present becomes especially difficult when reconstructing the historical events that produced those present day facts, because no humans have always been present to observe all the evidence and to record how all the evidence was produced. Take forensic scientists for example who must make multiple assumptions about things they cannot observe. Assumptions like...how was the original setting different? And what were the processes in play? Was the scene later contaminated? Just one wrong assumption or one tiny piece of missing evidence could totally change how they reconstruct the past events that led to the present-day evidence.
    That's why mathematical modeling and cross-checking exists.

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    This is why it is creationism's inherent belief that reaching the correct conclusions requires the right starting point - a divine creator.
    The conclusion does not follow from its premises.

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    #1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
    If sediments have been accumulating for 3 billion years + on the sea floor why isn't the sea floor comprised of miles upon miles of sediment than we currently have at the present moment? Most of this material accumulates as loose sediments near the continents. Yet the average thickness of all these sediments globally over the whole seafloor is not even 1,300 feet.http://www.icr.org/article/deep-sea-...sedimentation/
    The sea-floor isn't stationary, and after certain depths begins to melt. I don't have a geology background either, but this is very basic knowledge

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    #2 Bent Rock Layers
    In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen if they were laid down separately over hundreds of millions of years and already hardened?
    https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis....eformation.pdf
    https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis....asequences.pdf
    I'm not a geologist so I'll leave it to someone else.

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    #3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
    The presence of soft tissue in fossils directly contradicts the idea that they are the remains of organisms who died billions of years ago. Using cutting-edge technology that maps molecules, researchers are confirming that soft tissue has been preserved in lots of fossils—not just big dinosaurs like T. rex but also small and large reptiles that lived in water.
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0019445

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...011.0135.short
    The conclusion "contradicts the idea they are the remains..." does not follow from premises "the presence of soft tissue".

    (Original post by Galadrielll)
    #4 Faint Sun Paradox
    The sun today is 40% brighter than it was 3-5 billion years ago this means that when life evolved on earth according to evolution the earth was bathing in considerably less energy than which means that life couldn't have evolved yet we are told that life evolved under these very conditions. The greenhouse gasses explanation of this issue is BS and so unlikely that scientific journals refer to it as the Goldilocks syndrome. The more appropriate explanation is that the earth and the sun are not billions of years old and have been created recently.
    I don't think you're qualified to comment, what do you know of polar bonds and IR spectroscopy?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder how many believe Elvis isn't dead?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Lol he's in Argentina with tupac and hitler
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The god thing could be explained by athiest Christians and people claiming they are Christian because they feel like they have to be. The other stuff makes no sense, if this were a yougov, ipsos mori, Lord ashcroft ect. I'd be more inclined to believe but I seriously don't believe that 2/3s of the country don't believe in dinosaurs.
    The sample group was likely a very specific selection from a small area, and then only a meagre 1000 people were asked, that's one in every 6000 people in the UK: And it is, as you have said, done by a group no one has ever heard of decreasing the likelihood of it being accurate further.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Lmao I can't believe we have batty people on a student forum insisting the earth is no more than 6,000 years old
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Because we don't punish people for their beliefs. We aren't thought police.

    Yeah, they're wrong. But so what? Are they hurting anybody?

    Additionally, we don't imposed any regulations/minimum qualifications on people who wish to be voted for, so how can we impose regulations on those who do the voting?



    You just don't like the people. You just want to limit the vote to people who agree with you. You're the dangerous one.
    Completely agree


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rather_Cynical)
    Group think is an idea of psychology. Psychology is a type of social science. I thought creationists are supposed to be allergic to science?



    This post has a lot of words for so little content



    If you are so enlightened of this "evidence", then present it



    That's why mathematical modeling and cross-checking exists.



    The conclusion does not follow from its premises.



    The sea-floor isn't stationary, and after certain depths begins to melt. I don't have a geology background either, but this is very basic knowledge



    I'm not a geologist so I'll leave it to someone else.



    The conclusion "contradicts the idea they are the remains..." does not follow from premises "the presence of soft tissue".



    I don't think you're qualified to comment, what do you know of polar bonds and IR spectroscopy?
    Psychology is an art that thinks it is a science.

    That's why they never make breakthroughs in treatments as they are stuck measuring tiny variables for stuff that doesn't matter.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    plagioclase has gone into hiding? LOOOOL

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Its a survey of only 1000 people its hardly a credible source
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-existed.html

    What the hell is happening to this country? These people are wrong, stupid, and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
    And 52% of the country are xenophobic racists.


    Don't just believe every claim you see or hear.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 24, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.