U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-29-2008, 01:47 PM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,927,592 times
Reputation: 465

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
That would mean nothing could be farther than 6,000 light years away. We would be incinerated by the intense heat if this were true. It's 100% impossible.
This is false reasoning. See my arguement for your statements above.

 
Old 09-29-2008, 01:49 PM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,927,592 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Naw...He/she's not unreasonable, just a desperate person trying to defend beliefs. Remember if creationism is admitted to be wrong, then perhaps it's all wrong. The funny thing is that the more YEC believers try to defend their position the deeper the hole gets.
Just more name calling sanspeur. no substance here!
 
Old 09-29-2008, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,171,420 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
Not too sure what you are saying. God created the Universe. What size was the universe when God created it? I don't know.

A light year however is a distance. It is the amount of space that a light travels in one year. That is based on the current speed of light and what we think is the distance from us and a given object in space. But it does not imply that light at the current speed has passed that perticular distance using the same method that we understand today.

There are several questions about the past that we do not know.

Has C degraded over time (or changed whether increase or decrease)? Has the distance always been the same that we think it is now? How did God create the Universe? (ie. did he create light in transit? Did he aid in the movement of light?)

Remember creation is a miracle. It was done is 6 days. Adam was able to enjoy the stars the day he was created.

It is Humphreys et all that has proposed the idea that we are coming out of an events horizon and that creation occured within the events horizon of a "white" hole. If we look at Einstiens theory this would give an inflated time at creation which would account for the extra time needed for light to travel from the stars. This is called the "time dialation" of space. This theory still attempts to stuff time into Genesis which is contrary to scripture (even if it is the effects of time rather than actually more days).

I prefer to side with Mark McCutcheon's theory even though he is an evolutionist. That is "The Final Theory" see: here. In his book he explains how the universe has expanded and explains the errors that we find in our current science in the "Standard Theory". He shows how both Einstein and Newton have erred, but because there incorrect Models work we still use them. I however reject his evolutionary ideas. But his model works better for and in favor of a recent creation. This model explains what gravity really is and how not only the universe but all of matter is expanding.

So currently I do not think C has degraded and I think space is the same size. I think that based on what is observed the Universe and all matter is expanding giving us gravity and a recent creation. That is light had much less distance to travel in the past.
blah

Who is Mark McCutcheon and what credintials does he have? I'm having trouble finding scientists that agree with him.
 
Old 09-29-2008, 01:51 PM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,927,592 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
I'd say that ignoring reality is an unreasonable thing to do. He/she being unreasonable is besides the point though. I get a kick out of their (YEC) answers.
Yah and it is even funnier in hell, right?
 
Old 09-29-2008, 01:54 PM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 3,927,592 times
Reputation: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
Are you implying that the speed of light has changed?

What evidence do you have to support this?
Read the post! I said C has not degraded. I said I am currently in agreement with the evolutionist Mark McCutcheon on his Theory of how the Universe operates, not his evolutionary ideas.
 
Old 09-29-2008, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,171,420 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
Read the post! I said C has not degraded. I said I am currently in agreement with the evolutionist Mark McCutcheon on his Theory of how the Universe operates, not his evolutionary ideas.
Who is Mark McCutcheon and what credentials does he have?

This is a review I found:
Quote:
1)It misrepresents current theory, ignoring the rigorous aspects and muddling many of the important concepts. For example, it argues that gravity violates the law of conservation of energy, because it causes kinetic energy. It never mentions potential energy, and the fact that a falling object decreases potential energy as it increases in kinetic energy. It conveniently leaves out many important concepts like this, which frustrates anyone with a firm understanding of the concepts at hand.

2)It tries to answer unanswerable questions, and attacks science for failing to answer these questions. The book takes issue with Newtonian Mechanics because it introduces the idea of a force to explain observed phenomenon, but does nothing to explain what a force is. “Why does a force,” the book asks, “cause an acceleration?” It is neither the goal nor responsibility of science to answer these types of questions. The purpose of science is to predict nature through observation, and it does this by forming theories. These theories never attempt to comment on the nature of how things are, but rather attempt to make accurate and falsifiable predictions on nature.

3)It relies on common sense appeals. It often criticizes theory for “violating the laws of common sense.” Much of the book relies on the notion that science shouldn’t be mysterious or hard to understand, and that “common sense can be trusted,” as the author puts it. He’s not familiar with the fallible history of common sense. From common sense we have learned that the earth is flat, that the sun orbits the earth, that large metal objects cannot fly, and that an anvil will fall faster than a quarter. No serious scientist would ever rely on common sense.

4)After all this, it replaces standard theory with something that isn't science. Current physical theory is rigorously formulated, and leaves no room for ambiguity. It makes strong, testable, tentative predictions. This book provides a series of non mathematically rigorous conjectures that make no new predictions that differ at all from current theory. Since it makes no differing predictions, it isn’t falsifiable. To quote Wolfgang Pauli, it’s not even wrong.
I'm not going to buy the book so could you give me a summary of what you believe and why Newton and Einstein were completely wrong.

Last edited by fancofu; 09-29-2008 at 02:10 PM..
 
Old 09-29-2008, 02:13 PM
 
249 posts, read 544,489 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
....No mams, no god created the earth, not yours or anyones.

Getting back to the original topic of this thread ...

There is not one shred of evidence that one kind of organism has ever transformed into a completely different type of organism over any period of time. We do not observe it happening today ... but even if we could, it would only be theoretical that it happened in the past and that we actually did descend from simpler organisms.

If it is not observable, testable, and reproducible it is not sound theory ... and that is a "SCIENTIFIC" definition ... not my own. You cannot extrapolate adaptation and variation and call that proof of macroevolution ... that is a huge leap of logic.

There is also not one shred of evidence that life sprang forth from non-living matter directed only by haphazard, undirected natural forces. None, zip, zilch, zero, nada. In fact, every objective test has confirmed the impossibility of the organization of matter into a living organism without information. Organation is impossible without information, genetic information is impossible without organization. But this is one of those issues evolutionists continue to ignore just as YEC advocates continue to ignore many evidences against a young age of the Earth and universe.

YEC is no more bunk science than abiogenisis and macro-evolution are.

Yes, eveolutionists like to point to bizarre fossils and current biological anomalies ... but the simple fact is there is zero evidence that a platypus was ever anything other than a platypus and that a human being was ever anything other than a human being.

If I am mistaken, please state your "PROOF".
 
Old 09-29-2008, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,171,420 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting For Air View Post
Getting back to the original topic of this thread ...

There is not one shred of evidence that one kind of organism has ever transformed into a completely different type of organism over any period of time. We do not observe it happening today ... but even if we could, it would only be theoretical that it happened in the past and that we actually did descend from simpler organisms.

If it is not observable, testable, and reproducible it is not sound theory ... and that is a "SCIENTIFIC" definition ... not my own. You cannot extrapolate adaptation and variation and call that proof of macroevolution ... that is a huge leap of logic.

There is also not one shred of evidence that life sprang forth from non-living matter directed only by haphazard, undirected natural forces. None, zip, zilch, zero, nada. In fact, every objective test has confirmed the impossibility of the organization of matter into a living organism without information. Organation is impossible without information, genetic information is impossible without organization. But this is one of those issues evolutionists continue to ignore just as YEC advocates continue to ignore many evidences against a young age of the Earth and universe.

YEC is no more bunk science than abiogenisis and macro-evolution are.

Yes, eveolutionists like to point to bizarre fossils and current biological anomalies ... but the simple fact is there is zero evidence that a platypus was ever anything other than a platypus and that a human being was ever anything other than a human being.

If I am mistaken, please state your "PROOF".
Sigh... No one claims otherwise. If this is the reason you believe evolution is false then you don't have even a basic understanding of evolution.

Start here.
 
Old 09-29-2008, 02:31 PM
 
249 posts, read 544,489 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by fancofu View Post
Sigh... No one claims otherwise. If this is the reason you believe evolution is false then you don't have even a basic understanding of evolution.

Start here.

Been there, done that. Lots of people claim otherwise (Richard Dawkins for one) and I have much more than a basic understanding of the "hypothesis" of evolution.

Evolutionary biologists like to speak of the concept as if it is established fact, or at the very least, sound theory. It is neither and every time I hear a discovery chanel show try to tell people "the first lizards evolved from aquatic life xxx million years ago ..." I want to puke at how stupid our college students are today for believing this drivel as established fact.
 
Old 09-29-2008, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,755,704 times
Reputation: 12223
francofu...To quote you.... "Just call it quits man. No amount of reasoning can work on an unreasonable person."....LOL!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top