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.
Yes, the Bible presents these facts clearly. Things on earth were created by The Creator with apparent age.
You know this, I assume, because you "know" that the speed of light has remained constant for the past 4.5 billion years.
How do you know that the speed of light was constant for the past 4.5 billion years? Did you observe it during that time? No.
So basically your argument is as follows:
Because the speed of light is constant now, the speed of light was constant in the past.
As you can see, the conclusion of this argument does not follow from the premises. There is a missing premise. The missing premise is:
Unobserved events resemble observed events.
How do you know that unobserved events resemble observed events? If you think about it carefully you will find that the only reason you believe that unobserved events resemble observed events is because that's what you've observed in the past and you assume that unobserved events (which you will observe in the future) will resemble the observed events from the past.
"Light Traveled Faster in the Early Universe" -- The Varying Speed of Light Theory (Today's Most Popular)If the speed of light were faster in the past, it would have an affect on just about every known constant in the universe. That is one of the reasons we know the speed of light is a constant, because we would be able to detect the effects of it changing.
What would happen if the speed of light were 10 times faster?
The radiation pressure inside every star would be 100 times higher and most stars would explode. The fine-structure constant would be 10 times higher, so electrons would be held near atomic nuclei with 100 times more energy making organic chemistry driven by solar radiation impossible. Black holes would be 10 times smaller, and although the force of gravity would not change, stars themselves would be smaller, denser and hotter and live much shorter lives I would suspect. As for cosmology, because the universe started out dominated by radiation pressure, with 100 times the pressure, the expansion would have been far faster than it actually was, and very little primordial helium would have been synthesized as the universe rushed through the temperature-density regime where this could have been possible.
SOURCE
Depends on the canyon.What you guys keep ignoring is that there's no just age in the Earth - there's history, too. History that doesn't make sense in the universe was just made 6,000 years ago.
Exactly how do you think canyon's form? It's not overnight.
PASADENA, Calif.In the summer of 2002, a week of heavy rains in Central Texas caused Canyon Lakethe reservoir of the Canyon Damto flood over its spillway and down the Guadalupe River Valley in a planned diversion to save the dam from catastrophic failure. The flood, which continued for six weeks, stripped the valley of mesquite, oak trees, and soil; destroyed a bridge; and plucked meter-wide boulders from the ground. And, in a remarkable demonstration of the power of raging waters, the flood excavated a 2.2-kilometer-long, 7-meter-deep canyon in the bedrock.
This news story's inapplicability to the Grand Canyon is shown by two words: Incised Meanders.
You are the first person in this thread to mention the Grand Canyon. Your argument is a form of the straw man fallacy.This news story's inapplicability to the Grand Canyon is shown by two words: Incised Meanders.
At least your remaining true to form and including geologists on your list of professionals that are too stupid to perform their careers adequately.
It's a good thing that they're not used by energy companies to find oil. Otherwise, the price of gasoline would be even higher. Thank goodness for divining rods!!
Maybe, maybe not.You are the first person in this thread to mention the Grand Canyon. Your argument is a form of the straw man fallacy.
That makes God a deceiver. Are you OK with that characterization?Yes, the Bible presents these facts clearly. Things on earth were created by The Creator with apparent age.
What is your evidence against it?"Light Traveled Faster in the Early Universe" -- The Varying Speed of Light Theory (Today's Most Popular)
Your first claim relies on the belief that nuclear fusion happens at the center of stars. There is no reason to believe so.
What is your evidence against it?Your second claim relies on the belief that the fine structure constant is proportional to or controlled by the speed of light. There is no reason to believe so.
What is your evidence against it?Your third claim relies on the belief that black holes exist. There is no reason to believe so.
What is your evidence against it?Your fourth claim relies on the belief that the universe was created by some Big Bang explosion. There is no reason to believe so.
Death (decay) did not begin until Adam separated from God
and choose to go his own way. My conclusion is that time,
as we know it, did not begin until that day.
This clears up all the problems of the 6 day creation week as well
because it did not happen in normal time, as we know it.
First of all, the Grand Canyon is a place that is prone to flash flooding. It is possible that some or all of the carving out of said Canyon was produced by a series of flash floods.Maybe, maybe not.
Your post was in reply to a post that mentioned the evidence of millions of years of geological change.
The Grand Canyon is one of those pieces of evidence, so I thought that your post was a defense of the possibility that the Grand Canyon was formed in a very short period of time. Your "strawman" comment indicates otherwise.
So, you agree that it took multiple millions of years to form the Grand Canyon or are you going to argue that we have no evidence that erosion rates were the same then as they are today?
First of all, the Grand Canyon is a place that is prone to flash flooding. It is possible that some or all of the carving out of said Canyon was produced by a series of flash floods.
https://rrfw.org/RaftingGrandCanyon/Flash_Floods
"Places [such as] Havasu, National Canyon, and Diamond Creek have experienced major flash flooding. But realize that in the monsoon season, there really is no place safe. Every side canyon in Grand Canyon has experienced many flash floods."
Or do you deny the very possibility that flash floods cause erosion?
It's not up to me to make a positive claim for your pet theory and then tear the claim down. There are several reasons this is so.What is your evidence against it?
Let me see whether I understand your argument:The geology of and formations in that canyon do not resemble those of many ancient canyons at all.
I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Mt. St. Helens canyon as well.
Incised meanders.
No, it is not an accurate summary of my argument.Let me see whether I understand your argument.
Premise: The Grand Canyon contains incised meanders.
Conclusion: Therefore, no flooding ever occurs in the Grand Canyon and, even if said flooding did occur, it would not result in any erosion.
Is that an accurate summary of your argument? I'd like to know before I rip into it.
If that's not your argument, then you should learn to make arguments that are clear, concise, and easily understood.No, it is not an accurate summary of my argument.
It takes a long time for incised meanders to form to the depth that a large flood would not ruin them.
Add to that, the fact that a great deal of the rock that the Grand Canyon goes through is very hard and would resist significant erosion from floods once the canyon had reached them.
Your dismissal of the knowledge attained within the profession of geology doesn't seem well founded. Are you saying that we cannot know if erosion rates in the past were higher for the same water flow?
If that's not your argument, then you should learn to make arguments that are clear, concise, and easily understood.
You say that it takes a long time for incised meanders to form to the depth that a large flood would not ruin them. Who was talking about a large flood? I merely pointed out that the Grand Canyon is prone to flash floods.
Why is that a problem for the theory? As far as I can tell it isn't a problem at all.What happens in a flash flood when you have a meandering river that has not incised?
The water overflows the banks, spreads out, and flows in a single direction. It produces a series of parallel braided channels instead of a single, meandering channel.
In order for a flash flood to occur within a meandering channel, the meandering channel has to first be cut by the slow flowing and meandering river.
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?