Another thing I don't understand about the creationist position...

[driewerf]

Let’s see.

You assume that the questions needed a response. I really don’t need to respond to those questions, or any specific questions about science. If you really want answers from a Christian perspective, you can find them on the internet.

That is the essence of a discussion forum.

What I can do is to explain once again that if these scientists believe that the universe is billions of years old, then that’s the lens they Will

You don't explain. You just state. Explaining implies supporting made statements.

 

[driewerf]

All I can do is to reiterate what I said and repeat that it isn’t a threat.

I am inclined to believe you. Now explain how these fragments need to be understood.

 

[Bradskii]

Suppose the offspring of a creature is a mammal by the miracle of evolution. If its parent is has not mammal characteristics, how does the offspring survive? It does not.

Your biology teacher let you down.

You can't say that you were schooled in evolution and have actually studied it and then ask a ridiculous question like that. The cat has escaped from the bag. You don't know enough about the subject to enable you to critique it. But don't be too concerned. It's quite usual around these parts...

 

[Bradskii]

I’m not making an opposing claim to this. I don’t see any biblical reason to say that x distance isn’t x distance.

Distance equals time. So you are quite happy accepting the age of the universe and this planet? Good for you. If you can confirm that then at least astrology has a chance.

Edit: I just noticed this from an earlier post: 'if these scientists believe that the universe is billions of years old, then that’s the lens they Will'.

So it appears that you think they are wrong. So astrology is now off the list of valid sciences. Shall we do geology next?

 

[Hammster]

That is the essence of a discussion forum.

You don't explain. You just state. Explaining implies supporting made statements.

See Genesis 1.

 

[Hammster]

Distance equals time. So you are quite happy accepting the age of the universe and this planet? Good for you. If you can confirm that then at least astrology has a chance.

Edit: I just noticed this from an earlier post: 'if these scientists believe that the universe is billions of years old, then that’s the lens they Will'.

So it appears that you think they are wrong. So astrology is now off the list of valid sciences. Shall we do geology next?

Once again….no.

 

[Bradskii]

Once again….no.

No what? No you think they are right? Or no you think they are wrong? How about we keep this simple...

Astrology tells us that the universe is billions of years old. Do you agree with that or not?

If you do then you'll have no problem with them continuing their work and teaching others about the subject.
If you don't then it's your position that astronomy is fundamentally wrong and the science would cease to exist because you want astrology to align with what you think the bible tells you.

Which is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Distance equals time.

Distance = Time x Velocity

Q: What's the distance of SN1987A, if light traveled for 170 thousand years at C?
A: 170,000 light years.

Q: What's the distance of SN1987A, if light traveled one day through a wormhole at C?
A: 170,000 light years.

 

[Hammster]

No what? No you think they are right? Or no you think they are wrong? How about we keep this simple...

No, your assessment is wrong.

Astrology tells us that the universe is billions of years old. Do you agree with that or not?

I do not.

If you do then you'll have no problem with them continuing their work and teaching others about the subject.
If you don't then it's your position that astronomy is fundamentally wrong and the science would cease to exist because you want astrology to align with what you think the bible tells you.

Once again, no. Astronomy is correct when seen through the lens of scripture.

 

[dlamberth]

Astronomy is correct when seen through the lens of scripture.

I have no idea how to reconcile the two.

 

[Bradskii]

Once again, no. Astronomy is correct when seen through the lens of scripture.

Which it doesn't. It says the universe is billions of years old. So astronomy as a science would cease to exist if you had your way. It took long enough, but that's one down. Now geography.

Geology is an earth science that provides first-hand evidence for the evolution of life, plate tectonics, and the Earth’s past climates. Geology Concepts » Keck Cave

Evolution? That's not even to be considered. Plate tectonics? It takes millions of years, so must be discounted. The party's past climates, going back tens of thousands of years? Gee, the planet isn't that old, so cancel that.

And geological principles from here: Important principles of geology - Wikiversity

The principle of intrusive relationships...

The principle of cross-cutting relationships..

The principle of inclusions and components...

The principle of Original Horizontality...

The principle of superposition...

The principle of faunal succession...

The principle of uniformitarianism states that the geologic processes observed in operation that modify the Earth's crust at present have worked in much the same way over geologic time. A fundamental principle of geology advanced by the 18th century Scottish physician and geologist James Hutton, is that "the present is the key to the past." In Hutton's words: "the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now."

I've left the details of the last one in, but they are all applicable. And all would be discounted if you had your wish. Noneof them align with a literal interpretation of scripture. The very principles that geology is based on would all be shown to be wrong. So that's two down.

Which one shall we do next?

 

[kiwimac]

See Genesis 1.

Once again, the Bible is not a science text.

 

[Hammster]

I have no idea how to reconcile the two.

There are some that do have ideas.

 

[Hammster]

Once again, the Bible is not a science text.

I never claimed that it was.

Once again.

 

[Hammster]

Which it doesn't. It says the universe is billions of years old. So astronomy as a science would cease to exist if you had your way. It took long enough, but that's one down.

Science is wrong if it says that. This doesn’t negate science at all. There’s still plenty of astronomy to do.

 

[Bradskii]

Science is wrong if it says that. This doesn’t negate science at all. There’s still plenty of astronomy to do.

Astronomy studies stars and distant galaxies. They are often millions of light years away. If that is wrong, then all astronomy is wrong. No observation can be trusted. All their readings from all their telescopes, visual, infra red or radio are out by an unbelievable factor. Astronomy ceases to exist as a scientific discipline. Nothing works. It becomes worthless.

Shall we address geology next?

 

[Bradskii]

I never claimed that it was (A science text).

But if we want scientific answers to questions like the distance of stars, you say we must get the answer from the bible. You say astronomy doesn't have the answer but the bible does.

On one hand you say we must use the bible to find the answers. But then say that we can't use it.

I don't think you know what you're saying.

 

[Hammster]

Astronomy studies stars and distant galaxies. They are often millions of light years away. If that is wrong, then all astronomy is wrong. No observation can be trusted. All their readings from all their telescopes, visual, infra red or radio are out by an unbelievable factor. Astronomy ceases to exist as a scientific discipline. Nothing works. It becomes worthless.

I already agreed that x distance is x distance. I’m not sure why you keep acting as if I’m denying that.

 

[Hammster]

But if we want scientific answers to questions like the distance of stars, you say we must get the answer from the bible.

I never said that.

You say astronomy doesn't have the answer but the bible does.

Answer for what?

On one hand you say we must use the bible to find the answers. But then say that we can't use it.

Nope. Never said that either.

I don't think you know what you're saying.

I don’t think you know what I’m saying.

 

[driewerf]

No what? No you think they are right? Or no you think they are wrong? How about we keep this simple...

Astrology tells us that the universe is billions of years old. Do you agree with that or not?

If you do then you'll have no problem with them continuing their work and teaching others about the subject.
If you don't then it's your position that astronomy is fundamentally wrong and the science would cease to exist because you want astrology to align with what you think the bible tells you.

Which is it?

*horrified*
Astrology?