Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And yet almost every fossil found was found in sedimentary rocks..... They simply reject it because of the implications to the frequency of global floods....
What evidence? that all wheat bread is made from wheat flour?What evidence? That all remains are found in sedimentary strata?
It's an interesting idea, that I don't recall hearing before... it's easy enough to see how it would cause a global 'winter' and huge tsunamis (there is geological evidence of such events in the past), but how would an asteroid strike cause a global flood (of which no geological evidence has been found)?... An asteroid hitting the earth, and blanketing the whole earth in a sort of "nuclear winter" blocking out the sun, could have initially caused a massive flood in proportions that the world had never seen. Those are plausible theories with evidence. Non-bible thumpers could even agree with that, from a scientific standpoint
Probably.
Specific instances?? Tell someone who doesn't believe in the Bible, that the flood happened. They will refute it based solely on the fact, that it came from the Bible.
An illustrative story that helped bring relativity into the forefront of modern science. It quite matters. Because the stationary twins clocks do not slow at all, only the moving twins do. So the moving twin can’t even perceive correctly the clock rate of the stationary twin. Nor can he perceive correctly his own, since they slowed and he believes they haven’t. Show me a single one where the stationary twin is surprised? It’s impossible for him to be surprised, he sees the moving twins clocks slow, when that twin returns he is younger, just as the stationary twin knew he would be.He'd only be surprised if he didn't understand special relativity or hadn't thought to work it out. Who is said to be surprised depends entirely on how the story is described; the stay-at-home twin is surprised in some tellings - in others both are surprised. It doesn't really matter, it's just an illustrative story, a Gedankenexperiment.
If nothing changed, then why is one twin younger than the other? Not only time changed, but decay rates as well.Nothing has changed; each twin has his own frame with his own proper time, that's all.
And yet despite your claim, only one twin ages slower, the one that can’t tell his clocks slowed and incorrectly believes the stationary twins clocks did. The only thing counterintuitive is people’s refusal to accept the truth.The thing about relativity is that it's... relative. While the twins are in relative inertial motion, the time each observes for the other twin really does run slower relative to his own proper time - there's no experiment either can do to show otherwise. When they get back together and are comoving again, the time difference between their clocks is a result of the non-inertial motion of the travelling twin. It's counter-intuitive, but that's SR for you.
You don’t believe that. If you did you would accept the frame where our clocks were once faster as an equally valid frame.... but your objecting to that, instead treating this frame as an absolute frame.You can pick any frame that you like, they're all equally valid, just as long as you don't change frames mid-analysis. But when dealing with a local context it's obviously simpler to use a local frame.
How do you know there is no stationary frame? According to every device we have we are stationary and everything else’s is in motion. So even if you saw a stationary frame, you wouldn’t know it. You can’t say one doesn’t exist, just that you can never detect such a frame. There is a difference.No - a 'preferred frame' is a hypothetical universal 'stationary' frame, as you'd have in an aether theory; there is no such frame, any more than there's absolute time. That's what SR does away with.
You don’t believe that. You continually object to using any frame but this one, because using another frame would show that your clocks are slowing as we speak, and therefore what you call a second now, is not the same as a second one year ago. You don’t want to consider any frame but this one which you treat as an absolute frame.You can choose whatever frame you wish to use because they're all equivalent. Use a cosmic background (e.g. the CMBR) frame if you wish, or the International Celestial Reference Frame, or the International Terrestrial Reference Frames. Use the one that is most relevant and makes the calculations simplest.
Why do you need maths? The maths would just confirm that since we are in a curved trajectory our clocks are continuously slowing. Just because you call a longer tick of time a second, doesn’t mean it is the same duration as a second was a year ago.I see little point continuing with this; I don't have the maths to go through it in the detail it deserves, and it's all available on the interwebs.
Yes, the magic that a point in space, a singularity, magically caused everything to appear everywhere in the universe.... perhaps some consider such illogic logical....From where? Don't confuse the metric expansion of space with movement of the matter through it. The 'big bang' wasn't an explosion.
Not true at all and easily proven false.Not quite - each possesses velocity relative to the other. There isn't one 'correct' answer, because there is no preferred frame. You can pick either frame - they're both equally valid.
You say you are non-denominational
; do you doubt God's word and understanding is immeasurable when compared to man?
I've said all I want to say on this, and your opinions about what I object to, consider, or believe & don't believe are of little interest to me. I refer you to the Wiki entry on the Twin Paradox, which is fairly comprehensive....It’s impossible for him to be surprised, he sees the moving twins clocks slow, when that twin returns he is younger, just as the stationary twin knew he would be.
If nothing changed, then why is one twin younger than the other? Not only time changed, but decay rates as well.
And yet despite your claim, only one twin ages slower, the one that can’t tell his clocks slowed and incorrectly believes the stationary twins clocks did. The only thing counterintuitive is people’s refusal to accept the truth.
That once in motion you can not perceive the rate of time correctly, except for objects set in motion from your frame, and then only relative to you.
The stationary twin has no problem perceiving correctly the twin in motions clock rate, because that twin was set in motion from his frame. The same with two comoving twins. The twin set in motion from that frame can’t perceive the other twins clocks correctly, but the twin who set the other twin in motion can perceive correctly the one set in motions clocks.
You don’t believe that. If you did you would accept the frame where our clocks were once faster as an equally valid frame.... but your objecting to that, instead treating this frame as an absolute frame.
How do you know there is no stationary frame? According to every device we have we are stationary and everything else’s is in motion. So even if you saw a stationary frame, you wouldn’t know it. You can’t say one doesn’t exist, just that you can never detect such a frame. There is a difference.
You don’t believe that. You continually object to using any frame but this one, because using another frame would show that your clocks are slowing as we speak, and therefore what you call a second now, is not the same as a second one year ago. You don’t want to consider any frame but this one which you treat as an absolute frame.
Why do you need maths? The maths would just confirm that since we are in a curved trajectory our clocks are continuously slowing. Just because you call a longer tick of time a second, doesn’t mean it is the same duration as a second was a year ago.
It’s your belief that they are equal that makes you unable to understand why light always travels at c in every frame regardless of velocity.
Who rejects science? Those that accept a flood, or those that reject it, when 73% of the earths surface is sedimentary? Local floods? Then why do we not see one single flood in the last 4,000 years that has buried animals starting the process of fossilization? There simply is not enough sediment deposited in a small flood to bury animals quickly enough and deeply enough to prevent decay and begin fossilization.It's easy to claim that you have "the truth" without any justification or demonstration. There are plenty of Christians who I enjoy talking to about science, because most don't reject science like Creationists like to do in order to protect their faith.
See #410....Take two comoving frames. Set one in motion (A) from the other (B). A will think his time doesn’t change, so will B. A will see B’s clocks slow, B will see A’s clocks slow. When A returns, only his clocks will have shown a shorter elapsed time. If both frames were equally valid there would be no elapsed difference as both would show correctly each clock slowing and upon the return the clocks would still match. Apparently A can’t tell anything correctly, only B can.
Once in motion you can not perceive the rate of time in other frames correctly. Unless that frame is set in motion from your frame, and then only relative to your frame.
B has no problem seeing A’s correct clock rate of slowing. A on the other hand can’t percieve B’s clocks correctly. This is expected since A was set in motion from B’s frame.
If on the other hand each frame was equally valid, then both clocks in A and B should slow at the exact same rate, since that is what both see. But we know this to be false.
Which like you refuses to accept the traveling twin can’t percieve the stationary twins clocks correctly. Instead calling a paradox for what is simply the inability to perceive correctly another’s clock rate. The paradox only exists in the minds of those that refuse to accept the traveling twin is wrong in what he perceives the stationary twins clock rate to be.I've said all I want to say on this, and your opinions about what I object to, consider, or believe & don't believe are of little interest to me. I refer you to the Wiki entry on the Twin Paradox, which is fairly comprehensive.
I understand, you have no response that reality shows one twin is simply incorrect in his viewpoint, while claiming both are equally valid, yet we both undertand they are not. The Evolutionists second tactic, run when science shows he’s wrong. It’s ok, I understand you have no valid response, so it’s ok.See #410.
Show me one animal that was killed in those floods undergoing the process of fossilization? Surely one can be found, since apparently local floods caused the fossilization of billions of dinosaur bones, both large and small, even eggs.Of course there was a flood, although not a world-wide one. Throughout recorded history Mesopotamia, or the flood plain of the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates, has been subject to destructive floods, due to snow-melt in the mountains of Turkey and Iran and to heavy rain. (So far as I know, there is no evidence of flooding due to marine incursions.) The Bible even preserves a measurement by some ancient surveyor recording that the water level during one such flood rose by fifteen cubits (6.85 metres) - Genesis 7:20; this is an impressive height in a flat country.
Well, thanks for your condescensionI understand, you have no response that reality shows one twin is simply incorrect in his viewpoint, while claiming both are equally valid, yet we both undertand they are not. The Evolutionists second tactic, run when science shows he’s wrong. It’s ok, I understand you have no valid response, so it’s ok.
Who rejects science? Those that accept a flood, or those that reject it, when 73% of the earths surface is sedimentary? Local floods? Then why do we not see one single flood in the last 4,000 years that has buried animals starting the process of fossilization? There simply is not enough sediment deposited in a small flood to bury animals quickly enough and deeply enough to prevent decay and begin fossilization.
No, only those rejecting science reject a global flood. Every fossil found is found in sedimentary rock, yet we see no fossils forming today from any of the claimed processes that lead to sedimentation, including small local floods. Every single one decays to the point of non-existance over time. Millions of buffalo were killed on the American plains and left to rot. Yet not a single bone began to fossilize, almost all are completely decayed away. In 65 million years there will be no record left of today’s animals through fossils, because no catastrophic event has occurred capable of causing fossilization. Those fossils are not fossils spread out over millions of years, but the results of catastrophic events that caused their deaths and burial in tons of sediment.
Science could easily prove this false by showing me one bone, even by your account of time, that has started to fossilize in the last 4,000 years? Not even one? Of course not, because no catastrophic event has occurred to bury them fast enough or deep enough to prevent their total decay.
You might want to rethink that belief.Can you give a reference for this statement that the components of binary stars show different radial velocities? Binary stars belong to our own galaxy, which is not taking part in the expansion of the universe.
Also, even if binary stars were receding from us as part of the expansion of space, their recession velocities would be too small to be measured; since the Hubble constant is about 70 km/s/Mpc, a star at a distance of 1000 parsecs (3260 light-years) would be receding at only 70 metres per second; this is much less than the radial velocities that can be measured by normal stellar spectroscope.
Catastrophic event. Show me a single bone beginning fossilization not involved in a catastrophic event? Just one?Are you really suggesting that the only way fossils form are in a global flood?
From mating.Still waiting for your genetic evidence for as to where the Asian and African came from in the first place.
You claim that Adam and Eve had nearly identical 'allies', so where did the diversity come from?
That’s why there are shared genes between them, yet some are distinct, because inbreeding reduces genetic variability and sets in specific traits.
98% of the genome is NOT non-functional - in fact, creationists claim that it is almost all functional! I think it is hilarious when one YEC expert on all science directly contradicts other YEC experts on all science.That’s why 98% of the genome is now non-functional because of genetic errors.
But, if all humans did not share the same original descendants after the flood,
the 98% would not be consistent across races which live in different continents and were therefore subject to different mutational variables.
It’s your story that can’t match what is observed, not mine. Even if it isn’t junk DNA.
But non-functional DNA is what you end up with when God deactivates it to shorten mans lifespan after the flood.
Test your own prediction.Go ahead, do some genetic experiments on man and get it working again and see what happens. That’s my prediction, test it.
I understand quite well that for a mutation to become fixed in the entire population, the population had to come from descendants....
No, that’s your claim they were nearly identical, not mine. Where did you get that from my statement one was A/B and the other C/D?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?