Do creationists critically examine their own ideas (re: creationism)?
- Thread starter pitabread
- Start date
- Status
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
So, you do have a position, despite your earlier contention that you do not. ("Throwing an idea around" is equivalent to having a position.)
1. I have already stated earlier that I agree the moon is a source of light, but the light is reflected light.
2. The sun generates its light, the moon does not.
3. Therefore your position is flawed.
Upvote
0
KWCrazy
Newbie
- Apr 13, 2009
- 7,229
- 1,993
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ultimately, we leave it to the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible for us. Many don't read the Bible and leave it to others to tell them what is written. They are frequently deceived by others who only want them to send in their savings.
Upvote
0
- Dec 24, 2018
- 15,128
- 6,906
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
So time has always ticked by as it is now...seconds...minutes...hours...days...etc...just like we measure now? What was keeping the time 400 million years ago? Is this where decay rates are introduced...how do we know that they have been constant...and does it take into consideration cataclysmic events?
Upvote
0
- Dec 24, 2018
- 15,128
- 6,906
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
So all the light in the universe is from generating suns?
Upvote
0
- Dec 24, 2018
- 15,128
- 6,906
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
Reflected or re-emitted?
Does the moon have potential to generate light...do we?
What is my position?
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2017
- 12,920
- 13,372
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
We have no reason to think that physics 400 million years ago were any different today, if that is what your asking.
If you want to know more about decay rates, how the Earth is dates, and why it is considered reliable, I suggest reading this page: Radiometric Dating
Upvote
0
- Dec 24, 2018
- 15,128
- 6,906
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
Whose physics? Are you familiar with "Experimenter effect / Experimenter Bias" (Observer Bias / Research or Experimenter Bias: Definition, Examples, How to Avoid - Statistics How To)?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 29, 2017
- 12,920
- 13,372
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Private
I'm not interested in an argument over this. Just go read the article I linked.
Upvote
0
Steve Petersen
Senior Veteran
This is why you document your work, so it can be checked by others to help eliminate bias.
Upvote
0
- Dec 24, 2018
- 15,128
- 6,906
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
Yeah, but I can find an article that says otherwise...and then you can come back with another article...then I can with another...then you...then he...then she...then I...
ad nauseam...
This is my whole point about science being all about division...analyses...reduction...
I did read some of the article and they said that cataclysmic occurrences do not throw off the decay except in some special cases. However, I think that the forces mentioned may not be exhaustive powers that could throw it off...
To use the diffusion analogy...the forces they mentioned may entail a brisk stirring of the glass,however, there may be other powers that would cover the lid and vigorously shake the container, then pour the contents into a large bowl and blend it all together, and then re-pour it all into the original glass container...
My point being that there may be things that we have yet to conceive of that have taken,are taking, and will take place. If we take your timeline as a measure, we humans have only been observing these things for a fraction of a fraction of another fraction (probably...not mathematically inclined) of a moment, relatively speaking, so...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Since that idea does not follow in any way from anything previously discussed and is so wide of the mark that either you are trolling, or have understood nothing you have been told in this thread. If you wish to continue the discussion make sure your next post contains evidence of intelligence.
Upvote
0
- Dec 24, 2018
- 15,128
- 6,906
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
What about like an atom bomb?
What about like on a nuclear scale?
Upvote
0
- Dec 24, 2018
- 15,128
- 6,906
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Private
Unlike you, I don't have "colleagues", so go easy on me huh? Thanks.
This is not going easy ^...
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
No. Quite the reverse. I see a total disregard, or inability, on your part to apply even an ounce of critical thinking or common sense. Make a list, right now, of six mechanisms for generating light. Then look at the list and recognise that, at most, only one of them directly involves suns. Consequently, your remark that "light is not independent of suns" is wrong.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
