| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
5th September 2007, 01:55 PM
|  | Contributor
   
| | Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 9,012
Blessings: 1,096,897
Reps: 84,929,301,057,186,064 (power: 84,929,301,057,204) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper  GOD created light and THEN GOD created the source (stars).
In the case of supernovae, God must have created light that looked like it was coming from a star, a star that never existed. Within this light God also made it look like radioactive decay has been constant for at least billions of years, that the Universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years, and that the speed of light is constant. Sounds like a pretty big deception to me. If I can't trust your God's Creation, then why should I trust his Word?
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154) |
5th September 2007, 01:55 PM
|  | Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure
31 
 | | Join Date: 29th December 2006 Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,721
Blessings: 71,852 My Mood 
Reps: 329,997,751,461 (power: 329,997,759) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper GOD created light and THEN GOD created the source (stars).
That seems backwards to me. It would be a lot easier to make the source, then use that source to create the light.
__________________ The human race will begin solving its problems on the day that it ceases taking itself so seriously - Principia Discordia All there is is metaphor - Robert Anton Wilson Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth. It is wise and terrible! - Spider Jerusalem |
5th September 2007, 01:57 PM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 9,012
Blessings: 1,096,897
Reps: 84,929,301,057,186,064 (power: 84,929,301,057,204) | | Originally Posted by TheOutsider
That seems backwards to me. It would be a lot easier to make the source, then use that source to create the light.
Baloney. Everyone knows that Edison was lighting the streets of large cities before he created the light bulb. 
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154) |
5th September 2007, 02:07 PM
| | Junior Member
 
| | Join Date: 4th September 2007
Posts: 24
Blessings: 90,393
Reps: 16 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper GOD created light and THEN GOD created the source (stars).
Then how do you explain new objects that keep appearing in places where there hadn't previously been any? These objects are also billions of lightyears a way, so they didn't JUST form. They've been there for billions of years but it took their light that long to reach us.
Your argument doesn't really make sense.
Another thing that Genesis is wrong about, "God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night."
The moon isn't a source of light, everyone knows that =/
Creationists need to give up on taking Genesis literally because it is full of fallacies, contradictions and false ideas. |
5th September 2007, 02:14 PM
| | Regular Member
33 
| | Join Date: 16th July 2007 Location: Texas
Posts: 452
Blessings: 52,277
Reps: 544,184,376,372,625 (power: 544,184,376,377) | | Another thing that Genesis is wrong about, "God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night."
I firmly believe the universe is 13.7 Billion years old and we share a common ancestor with apes.
But this is a silly argument against the Bible. The moon lights up the sky. It looks like a light. God isn't trying to give a scientific analysis about the source of light, whether it is created by the heat of a huge hydrogen body or reflected off the surface of a huge rock. There are two dominant "lights" in the sky, the sun and the moon. Likewise, all those complaints about the sun being another star. Yes, the sun is simply a star, but it is not simply like any other star to us. It is the one we are eight light minutes away from and therefor the one that heats are planet, feeds are plants, and is so bright in the sky it blocks out the light of everything else. |
5th September 2007, 02:35 PM
|  | Contributor
23   
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 15,588
Blessings: 50,320,603 My Mood 
Reps: 273,058,856,457,603,328 (power: 273,058,856,457,625) | | Originally Posted by peteos I firmly believe the universe is 13.7 Billion years old and we share a common ancestor with apes.
One step closer to atheism... bwahaha... Originally Posted by peteos But this is a silly argument against the Bible. The moon lights up the sky. It looks like a light. God isn't trying to give a scientific analysis about the source of light, whether it is created by the heat of a huge hydrogen body or reflected off the surface of a huge rock. There are two dominant "lights" in the sky, the sun and the moon. Likewise, all those complaints about the sun being another star. Yes, the sun is simply a star, but it is not simply like any other star to us. It is the one we are eight light minutes away from and therefor the one that heats are planet, feeds are plants, and is so bright in the sky it blocks out the light of everything else.
The argument is against literalism. The Moon is not a light. A mirror is not a light.
That said, a non-literal interpretation of that verse is fine and dandy.
__________________ "I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!
|
5th September 2007, 02:43 PM
|  | Contributor
| | Join Date: 9th March 2005 Location: MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
Posts: 9,179
Blessings: 116,985
Reps: 18,563,956,112,384,120 (power: 18,563,956,112,400) | | Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child - Mathematical equations do lie (or, at least, the mathematicians do)
- The Omphalos argument: the light was created in such a way as to look old.
- [Insert irrational ad hoc explanation here]
When I was a small child, my dad loved to play two hand tricks. The one was where he slid off his "removable" thub (that he said he'd cut off). He'd wiggle his thumb grimace and slide it off and then pop it back on without so much as a seam.
The other was when he'd count his digits and say, "How many digits do I have on both hands." I say ten and he'd say eleven. And then he'd proceed to demonstrate that ten, nine, eight, seven, six; plus five makes eleven. It made perfect sense, but I knew something was wrong. Again, he'd hold up one hand and say, "Including the thumb, how may fingers are on this hand?" I'd count five. Then he'd hold up the other hand and say, "How many all together?" I'd count ten and he say, "No, eleven! See, ten, nine, eight, seven, six; plus five is eleven."
It is always rather fun how parents, particularly dads, love to screw with kid's minds. But the fact is, my dad taught me not to trust anything anyone says, UNLESS you know you have all the facts and can figure it out for yourself. This is the greatest danger concerning evolution. It is often presented as matter of fact.and without reconsiderations. One can make eleven out of ten if one is following the wrong set of rules and procedures. Satan is presently influencing rules and procedures....... He is presently the prince of this world for now.  |
5th September 2007, 03:11 PM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 26th August 2003
Posts: 9,012
Blessings: 1,096,897
Reps: 84,929,301,057,186,064 (power: 84,929,301,057,204) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper But the fact is, my dad taught me not to trust anything anyone says, UNLESS you know you have all the facts and can figure it out for yourself.
That is, unless it was written by bronze age goat herders. This is the greatest danger concerning evolution. It is often presented as matter of fact.and without reconsiderations. One can make eleven out of ten if one is following the wrong set of rules and procedures. Satan is presently influencing rules and procedures....... He is presently the prince of this world for now.
First of all, evolution is both theory and fact. Evolution, both micro and macro, has been observed which makes it a fact. The theory of evolution is the mechanisms that cause this change, both in the present and in the past.
Secondly, what facts show that the theory of evolution is wrong? What are biologists missing? No theory is ever accepted as completely true. Every theory is tentative and open to reconsideration, so that complaint is thrown out immediately. All you have left is whining, which really isn't helping your case. Either show how evolution is wrong using evidence or agree with the 99.9% of biologists who accept the theory as being tentatively accurate.
__________________
“Because they know not the forces of nature, and in order that they may have comrades in their ignorance, they suffer not that others should search out anything, and would have us believe like rustics and ask no reason...But we ask in all things a reason must be sought.” --William of Conches (c. 1090 – after 1154) |
5th September 2007, 03:25 PM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd January 2002
Posts: 17,138
Blessings: 1,100,697
Reps: 55,386,685,686,280,104 (power: 55,386,685,686,308) | | | I'm still trying to get my head around the concept of light first, then the source. |
5th September 2007, 03:25 PM
| | Junior Member
| | Join Date: 4th September 2007
Posts: 24
Blessings: 90,393
Reps: 16 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by LittleNipper When I was a small child, my dad loved to play two hand tricks. The one was where he slid off his "removable" thub (that he said he'd cut off). He'd wiggle his thumb grimace and slide it off and then pop it back on without so much as a seam.
The other was when he'd count his digits and say, "How many digits do I have on both hands." I say ten and he'd say eleven. And then he'd proceed to demonstrate that ten, nine, eight, seven, six; plus five makes eleven. It made perfect sense, but I knew something was wrong. Again, he'd hold up one hand and say, "Including the thumb, how may fingers are on this hand?" I'd count five. Then he'd hold up the other hand and say, "How many all together?" I'd count ten and he say, "No, eleven! See, ten, nine, eight, seven, six; plus five is eleven."
It is always rather fun how parents, particularly dads, love to screw with kid's minds. But the fact is, my dad taught me not to trust anything anyone says, UNLESS you know you have all the facts and can figure it out for yourself. This is the greatest danger concerning evolution. It is often presented as matter of fact.and without reconsiderations. One can make eleven out of ten if one is following the wrong set of rules and procedures. Satan is presently influencing rules and procedures....... He is presently the prince of this world for now.
Ok, I will show you that math can't lie. Hubble's law is a statement in physical cosmology which states that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance or H(hubble constant)
We can find the redshift of something by pointing an optical spectrum at it. Redshift can be measured by looking at the spectrum of light that comes from a single source.
For example, if a galaxy has a redshift of 20,000 km/sec and H(hubble constant) is set to 70 km/sec/Mpc, then the galaxy's distance(x) = (20,000 km/sec)/(70 km/sec/Mpc) = 20,000/70 × [(km/sec)/(km/sec)] Mpc = 286 megaparsecs.
One parsec is 3.2 lightyears, a megaparsec is 1 million parsecs so that galaxy would be 932,932,000 lightyears away.
Like you said, unless we observe and calculate these things ourselves, it could be a lie. But if you take a college astronomy class (I have), You will do experiments that prove exactly what I just said. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
