Nope, if you watched the video you would see that when we try to copy the DNA of our predecessor we make it slightly worse than it was before. Have you ever seen the thing where you tell the AI to remake the picture and not change a single thing then do it 20 times? You'd be surprised at what happens.

Also death and disease that we have today weren't a thing back then. You can thank those people who went to the dumpster, contracted an infection, then went on a cruise ship and spread it to the rest of the passengers.

Being academic and understanding mathematics and geometry and all of that has nothing to do with it. Either does reading scripture. It only introduces limitations.

I understood the concept of 'nothing' and 'everything' at a very young age.

Having no preconceived limitations made the experiences clearer than they ever will be. To truly see things as they are as a child without any bias is deeper than anything an academic scholar or author can produce.

It is not a limitation to be acquainted with the modern results of the sum total of human intellectual endeavor. What you may perceive as limitation is the position of logical positivsm, something you need not accept. Deeper than academics" without even understanding piss basic disgustingly simple facts really makes me chuckle. It's like a child with intuition alone lecturing Aquinas on theology. Real intellectuals would have ZERO issue understanding modern science. It is simply an excuse to see it as a limitation while the truth is one simply lacks the intellectual capacity to get through it.

If you want to contribute something genuinely new in science or mathematics, you first need deep understanding of the existing literature and technical framework. Otherwise, you often end up attacking strawmen with misinformed, 'intuitive' (not rigorous) understanding of the concepts used. Technical competence acts as a filter because it demonstrates that someone has at least engaged seriously with the subject they want to critique.

If a person doesn't even have the intellectual faculty to understand the basics required to even fail at understanding the most basic of modern mathematics such as differential geometry and topology, what is the point of discussion? Esp if they claim that certain scientific theories are flawed (theories they don't even understand)

In your posts you keep criticizing modern physics while showing no evidence that you can engage with even its most basic mathematical prerequisites. For example, if I gave you a random metric tensor, could you compute the Christoffel symbols from it? If all you knew are calculus (this is kindergarten) and newtonian mechanics, you are behind many centuries of discussion.

We are not being elitist but judging from your posts your understanding of science is at best highschool level. Genuine thinkers cover all of these at enough level : epistemology, math, logic, natural sciences. We've met countless people with nothing to show and all confidence to boot. By 'we' I mean also theologians, priests, physicists, mathematicians, and bishops I know personally. They would be nicer to you but me? I don't give cranks the stage nor I will lecture them myself. They are not even genuine enough to actually read the material, so it is pointless matter.

This post was edited by Hajun123 on May 13 2026 08:19am

Appreciate the response.
But the sum total of human intellectual endeavor is a fallacy.
And you have no choice but to accept limitations. Intellectual capacity has limitations.
As I said I grasped this as like a 4yr old.
To claim it doesn't is a fallacy.

You don't need a deep understanding of the topics you mention in order to critique them.
Imagine you sitting infront of a judge in a courtroom and saying to them that there is no point discussing truths because they don't understand Aquinas, Topology and Christoffel Symbols.

As soon as you choose the word 'belief' or 'believe' it opens up pandoras box.
Many people in this world are caught up in belief systems. You are caught up in some yourself or you wouldn't use the word. So I analyze why this might be the case.

I look for patterns that defy logic, lack supporting evidence, or show bias. Just like a Jury would.

You yourself tick all of those boxes. Your reply suggests patterns that defy logic. Like suggesting that limitation is not something we need to accept. You lack supporting evidence. Using a 'random' metric tensor in regards to my analysis of the heliocentric model is not supporting evidence. You also show bias. Towards academia.

Your statements don't really add any value to any truths in this discussion. Rather the opposite. If you want to refute any of the claims I have made in regards to the heliocentric model or God you would need to refrain from this diversion.

As I said before though I appreciate your response.

Death and disease we have today weren't a thing back then? What are you smoking bud? It's literally the opposite of what the bible claims. An average lifespan was around 30‐40 years for thousands of years. And even shorter for earlier humans we have plenty of archelogical and fossil records to corroborate that. It's only with modern medicine, nutrition and hygiene we were able to improve that to around 85‐88.

You have 0 proof of +900 year old people and you know it. Stop projecting your confirmation bias with tinfoil AI videos.

We know you have 0 proof.



God still exists and he created everything we see today. Even the youtuber you linked agrees with eternal.

there is a lot to unpack on the topic of human longevity in the bible.
both sides actually agree that conditions of the earth was different in the past. the conditions were perhaps better.
the argument is how it got changed. creationists say a flood. 'atheists (known n proven frauds) say it was a meteorite. (my view is there is obvious evidence of both)
i only know of one person that has tried to replicate conditions of the past. dr caral baugh he do it in a biosphere

if i was a christian and didnt know anything about carl baugh and his experiments. i would definite get it on the list

now that we are on this topic. look into oxygen therapy. it is believed that oxygen was perhaps double in the past. making living condition much better. hence evidence for possible longer life spans

The conditions were likely better but still doesn't warrant 900 year life spans that's pure tinfoil projection. We have plenty of oxygen rich environments where the jungle is lush yet people who live there don't live longer. In fact the best places to live are where the blue zones are. People in communities they tend to live longest.

Yeah that's right. Have you ever heard of the origins of Covid and how it came to be? Same with the Hantavirus, or even the plague?

All of these diseases are only recent, hence they didn't have to worry as much about that back then.

(its not just atmospheric differences to take into consideration)

we are not talking about a small difference. according to this vid they are talking a increase in excess of 30%
What Do Ancient Air Bubbles In Amber Tell Us About Earth's Past? - Earth Science Answers