How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

caddy · Apr 13, 2005

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

Very Interesting....

Physics_guy · Apr 13, 2005

Would you care to learn the physics why Humphreys is wrong (and dishonestly so)?

His white-hole cosmology relies upon some truly nonsensical and in likely fraudulent mathematics (he knows that his time coordinate is not acceptable given GR, but he uses it anyway to make his "model" work).

Vastavus · Apr 13, 2005

Despite all the biblical and scientific evidence for a young earth/universe,

I couldn't read past this.

Hydra009 · Apr 13, 2005

caddy said:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

Very Interesting....

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE412.html

TheMagi · Apr 13, 2005

All complete nonsense. And I'm a creationist. It would be bad enough if he was inaccurate about his own theories, but this, for example:

This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular (big bang) cosmologies deny this. That is, they make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundariesno edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out.

I have a bit of trouble reconciling that with conventional big bang theory...

Magi

caddy · Apr 13, 2005

Kind of like what Miller-Urey did years ago working with elements they thought existed in the early atmosphere, of which today has been (actually since the 60s) has all but been proved False, but yet, it is STILL taught in our Science books as though it were valid proofs for evolution.

Thanks for the Heads up. I'm NOT familiar with Humphreys at all.

Physics_guy said:
Would you care to learn the physics why Humphreys is wrong (and dishonestly so)?

His white-hole cosmology relies upon some truly nonsensical and in likely fraudulent mathematics (he knows that his time coordinate is not acceptable given GR, but he uses it anyway to make his "model" work).

NamesAreHardToPick · Apr 13, 2005

1. Theist posts a link from a random website.
2. Therefore, God exists.

LittleNipper · Apr 13, 2005

Vastavus said:
I couldn't read past this.

Well, now you know how a Bible believing Christian feels every time he sees magazine & newspaper articles, textbooks, TV specials, etc., proclaiming evolution as viable fact.

Carmack · Apr 13, 2005

caddy said:
Kind of like what Miller-Urey did years ago working with elements they thought existed in the early atmosphere, of which today has been (actually since the 60s) has all but been proved False, but yet, it is STILL taught in our Science books as though it were valid proofs for evolution.

That's evidence for abiogenesis, not evolution.

How has it been proven false?

At Peace Without God · Apr 13, 2005

Maybe the whole theory needs to be translated back from tongues. I just don't understand TongueMath and TonguePhysics enough to see how this works.

Maybe this is the parallel universe people talk about, where the laws of physics are completely different.

TheMagi · Apr 13, 2005

NamesAreHardToPick said:
1. Theist posts a link from a random website.
2. Therefore, God exists.

I think you missed a couple of steps:

1. Theist posts a link from a random website.
2. God is Good
3. If God is good, then he would not decieve his followers.
4. If God does not decieve us, he would not allow those using false evidence to prove his existence
5. If a website exists demonstrating God's existence, then it cannot be false, or this would constitute deception.
6. Therefore, God exists.

Perhaps you are being a little unfair...

Magi

caddy · Apr 13, 2005

As your quote of Mr. Russell suggests something similiar to Socrates, which I like:

The trouble with the world is the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

I'm full of Doubt on many things when it comes to Origins, but not as it relates to God, but your post seems to imply your more sure of things than I am?

Or am I reading you wrong....?

NamesAreHardToPick said:
1. Theist posts a link from a random website.
2. Therefore, God exists.

Lucretius · Apr 13, 2005

TheMagi said:
I think you missed a couple of steps:

1. Theist posts a link from a random website.
2. God is Good
3. If God is good, then he would not decieve his followers.
4. If God does not decieve us, he would not allow those using false evidence to prove his existence
5. If a website exists demonstrating God's existence, then it cannot be false, or this would constitute deception.
6. Therefore, God exists.

Perhaps you are being a little unfair...
Magi

You missed a step as well: Step 1.5 "Proof of God". Where is step 1.5?!

LittleNipper · Apr 13, 2005

This is simple. GOD created the LIGHT and then GOD created a source for the LIGHT.

Physics_guy · Apr 13, 2005

This is simple. GOD created the LIGHT and then GOD created a source for the LIGHT.

Then why did he create sources for light that must never have actually existed (for example supernova that are more than 10,000 light years away).

NamesAreHardToPick · Apr 13, 2005

TheMagi said:
I think you missed a couple of steps:

1. Theist posts a link from a random website.
2. God is Good
3. If God is good, then he would not decieve his followers.
4. If God does not decieve us, he would not allow those using false evidence to prove his existence
5. If a website exists demonstrating God's existence, then it cannot be false, or this would constitute deception.
6. Therefore, God exists.

Perhaps you are being a little unfair...
Magi

No, I couldn't remember it from Godless Geeks that I had seen, but it's funny.

Here it is:

ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

I had forgotten number 1, oops.

LittleNipper · Apr 13, 2005

Physics_guy said:
Then why did he create sources for light that must never have actually existed (for example supernova that are more than 10,000 light years away).

GOD likes diversity...

Lucretius · Apr 13, 2005

LittleNipper said:
GOD likes diversity...

I don't think that answers the question lol

NamesAreHardToPick · Apr 13, 2005

caddy said:
As your quote of Mr. Russell suggests something similiar to Socrates, which I like:

The trouble with the world is the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

I'm full of Doubt on many things when it comes to Origins, but not as it relates to God, but your post seems to imply your more sure of things than I am?

Or am I reading you wrong....?

You're reading me wrong. I post for irony and humor about 75% of the time. I love how you said you don't doubt when it relates to God though, I'll have to add that to my dumb quotes sometime.

3Amig(o)s · Apr 13, 2005

Physics_guy said:
Then why did he create sources for light that must never have actually existed (for example supernova that are more than 10,000 light years away).

.

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be

bel esprit

Active Member

Junior Member

All That You Can Leave Behind

Contributor

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Well-Known Member

All That You Can Leave Behind

Contributor

Senior Veteran

All That You Can Leave Behind

3Amig(o)s

Similar threads