Space was Warm.

[dad]

The problem is that most Creationists don't know ANYTHING about physics, especially Particle Physics or Quantum Mechanics. I'd be surprised if a single Creationist could, without Google, properly describe a Higgs Bozon, or a Graviton, or any other such particle, theoretical or not.

Are you suggesting some PO bozon, or element of quantum mechanics evidence a same past? Or do you just feel a little insecure, and want to try to make it sound like fairy tales taught in a building are somehow better than those one might google????

A Creationist Talking about Quantum Mechanics is like Rush Limbaugh talking about alternative energy. Both have a vested intrest in misrepresenting the truth.

Haven't heard you say much on things Quantum here, whatsa matter, you shy? Or do you just like to say those words for some reason??

 

[dad]

Oh it's even worse than that. In an attempt to explain a different reality in which the stories if Genesis work he has to create the "split". But wouldn't the split itself be a huge noteworthy event?

It was. But it just so happens that man at that same time had just had his languages scattered, and confused, and had to resort to pictures to communicate on paper!! But think about it, how noteworthy is a spirit leaving the room, so to speak? The effects were felt over time, yes. But I doubt id they had any idea how great a change had just gone down.

Why isn't it even hinted at in the Bible? So Dad has to use something not supported by the Bible to support a literal translation of the Bible. To me that's schitzophrenic reasoning.

It is hinted that Adam would have lived forever, and that can't happen in this world. We also lived almost a thousand years, and married angels, had babies with them, saw trees grow in a week, and a host of other things. There are hints coming out of the bible's wazzoo. Future, and past. If hints aren't enough, it up and plainly states that this world is temporary, and that a whole new heavens and earth is set to come to be!!!

The topper for me is that Dad's theory makes God a deceiver. Because then God created things that appear to be older/different than they are.

No He did not. The only way they appear that way, is if you consider He is a weak liar, and that the present is the great be all end all state.

 

[dad]

"HEY!!! Look at me everybody! I can construct strawmen!!!"

I noticed.

 

[Ondoher]

I noticed.

Then you should stop doing it.

 

[rambot]

google shows me:
http://www.phrenology.org/index.html
YAY PHRENOLOGY!
fairy tales in buildings:
http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/www/labs/ASL/MODE_AWARENESS/mode_awareness.html
BOO MIT!!!!

One more strange point.
The straight dope (aka Dad's link) says:

Let's clear up a couple misconceptions to start with. First, your idea that cold is "the absence of rapidly moving molecules of water or air" is a bit confused. Cold refers to very slow-moving molecules of anything, whether water, air, or Eskimo Pies. If you have no molecules at all, the concept of temperature is meaningless. That's why it's technically incorrect to speak of the "cold of outer space"--strictly speaking, space has no temperature.

the straight dope says:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mspacetemp.html

The temperature of the universe is 2.725 +/- 0.002 degrees Kelvin

Brilliant.
Well, keep asking "straightdope" for the best answers to support your conclusion. That way, when you stay with the same source, the credibility of your argument will only be directly tied to the credibility of your source.

 

[dad]

Then you should stop doing it.

You should, don't want to go blind do you?

 

[dad]

google shows me:
http://www.phrenology.org/index.html
YAY PHRENOLOGY!
fairy tales in buildings:
http://web.mit.edu/aeroastro/www/labs/ASL/MODE_AWARENESS/mode_awareness.html
BOO MIT!!!!

Yes? What?

the straight dope says:

If you have some other dope that says something different do share!
Looks like the site is some joke, but the point remains the same. The other site, for example, in the post you play with, said this.
"Here is a purely academic answer. Say for example somehow a certain volume
of liquid water @ T = 77 °F and @ P = 1 atm were to be magically placed into
space where T ~ 4 Kelvins and P = vacuum. The liquid all of the sudden will
have no pressure surrounding it. With the sudden lack of pressure the
volume of water would explosively boil off into water droplets. Shortly
thereafter, the water droplets will freeze. Why would not the block of water just instantly freeze? In space, matter does not cool or heat the same as it does on the ground. The ability of space to transfer heat is limited.
There is no CONDUCTIVE, or CONVECTIVE heat transfer (since these first two methods require physical contact w/ the cooler matter)...there is only
RADIATIVE heat transfer."

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...1/gen01060.htm

So, do you have some science, or point? Or do you just want to push Phrenology, POology, and such??

 

[Ondoher]

You should, don't want to go blind do you?

I know you are but what am I? My four-year-old can play that game too.

Of course, the original point was: if you want to argue against something, you should argue against what it actually says, no some invented caricature of it.

 

[dad]

I know you are but what am I? My four-year-old can play that game too.

Hmm, wonder where he gets that from?

Of course, the original point was: if you want to argue against something, you should argue against what it actually says, no some invented caricature of it.

So, what are you argueing against? What are you argueing for? You certainly can't defend a same past in any way on earth! That means if the universe was different we could have differences in space, no? So, is that fine with you?
Why play games, if you have something to say, out with it.
Why not have flood water slooshing around and smacking down on Mars, and places, later, when space changes, and the water turns to ice, we smack that down,- making craters all over the place as well?
Why not have stars pre split, still merged with the spiritual, being in an eternal, stable state, and not exploding wily nily as they have been since??? Etc.
If you're happy, I am.

 

[Ondoher]

Hmm, wonder where he gets that from?


So, what are you argueing against? What are you argueing for? You certainly can't defend a same past in any way on earth! That means if the universe was different we could have differences in space, no? So, is that fine with you?
Why play games, if you have something to say, out with it.
Why not have flood water slooshing around and smacking down on Mars, and places, later, when space changes, and the water turns to ice, we smack that down,- making craters all over the place as well?
Why not have stars pre split, still merged with the spiritual, being in an eternal, stable state, and not exploding wily nily as they have been since??? Etc.
If you're happy, I am.

Because it's all nonsensical ad hocery. I'm glad this stuff makes you happy, but nobody else is buying it.

I'll stick with actual science.

 

[kermit]

It was. But it just so happens that man at that same time had just had his languages scattered, and confused, and had to resort to pictures to communicate on paper!! But think about it, how noteworthy is a spirit leaving the room, so to speak? The effects were felt over time, yes. But I doubt id they had any idea how great a change had just gone down.

All throughout the Bible we see God warning good people about major upcoming events. But yet we are to believe that God would not tell us throught scripture about changing the very nature of the universe?

That's a pretty big pill to swallow. It is made even bigger by the fact that there no direct (absolutely none) physical evidence to support you theory and there is no direct (absolutely none) Biblical evidence to support your theory.

No He did not. The only way they appear that way, is if you consider He is a weak liar, and that the present is the great be all end all state.

Changing the nature of the universe without teling us and making things appear artificially old ranks as quite possibly the biggest lie in history. If your theory were true it would mean every time we try to learn about he nature of the universe we are really be deceived by God's lies. By your theory the very light we see from the stars at night is a lie.

 

[dad]

Because it's all nonsensical ad hocery. I'm glad this stuff makes you happy, but nobody else is buying it.

I'll stick with actual science.

Good, that doesn't cover the past state of the universe, the bible does. I'll stick with science too, and stick it where it belongs, right here and now, not in your fantasy same state futures, and pasts. The world has had enough of your ad hockery, quackery, and fringe fantasies, of a never neverland same past that never never was. And which we can all see you cannot support in any way at all, and never never will do so.

 

[Ondoher]

Good, that doesn't cover the past state of the universe, the bible does. I'll stick with science too, and stick it where it belongs, right here and now, not in your fantasy same state futures, and pasts. The world has had enough of your ad hockery, quackery, and fringe fantasies, of a never neverland same past that never never was. And which we can all see you cannot support in any way at all, and never never will do so.

Science concludes, on firm grounds, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is 4.55 billion years old based on multiple lines of converging evidence. You've not provided any rational reason to reject these conclusions, you've merely declared them false because they disagree with you.

Tough. Unless you have a rational reason to reject these conclusions, nobody is going to believe you.

 

[TheBellman]

Good, that doesn't cover the past state of the universe, the bible does. I'll stick with science too, and stick it where it belongs, right here and now, not in your fantasy same state futures, and pasts. The world has had enough of your ad hockery, quackery, and fringe fantasies, of a never neverland same past that never never was. And which we can all see you cannot support in any way at all, and never never will do so.

No, which YOU can 'see' - nobody else supports your wacky notions. There isn't any 'we all' who see the nonsense you rave on about.

 

[dad]

All throughout the Bible we see God warning good people about major upcoming events. But yet we are to believe that God would not tell us throught scripture about changing the very nature of the universe?

There was a warning!!! A very chilling one, that something big was coming down soon, and it even gave the years till it happened!!! 120 years to be precise. They knew, God is faithful.
Just like we have warning we are in a temporary heavens and earth right now! We are told it will be a new heavens, and this one will be no more!

That's a pretty big pill to swallow. It is made even bigger by the fact that there no direct (absolutely none) physical evidence to support you theory and there is no direct (absolutely none) Biblical evidence to support your theory.

It agrees with all the physical evidence we do have, though. Notice that the same past has no physical evidence either!!
As for the bible, as I mentioned it goes on and on and on about how different it was and will be, and how this temporary mess is going to pass away.

Changing the nature of the universe without teling us and making things appear artificially old ranks as quite possibly the biggest lie in history.

No lie about it, He told them in advance. The only reason some people think it looks old is because they have assumed that the present processes, and decay, and light, etc were always here since the universe came to be. That is why they end up with the universe in a speck, and decend into the depths of maddness, and absolute absurdity with that so called reasoning.

If your theory were true it would mean every time we try to learn about he nature of the universe we are really be deceived by God's lies.

No, if we realize that we are learning just about our present natural, it is all clear as transparent gold. It should encourage us that we will have so much more to discover and learn about in the coming life!

By your theory the very light we see from the stars at night is a lie.

No, it is a true as true can be. What is a lie, is that this was the same light, in the same state universe, and that it took a coon's age to get here!

 

[dad]

Science concludes, on firm grounds, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and the earth is 4.55 billion years old based on multiple lines of converging evidence.

Patently, and absolutely false. It concludes on solely PO past assumptions that have not the tiniest iota of evidence! What you mean is they have been messing up, trying to get a cohesive PO story together for so long, that the PO past web they wove converges on it's little self!

It doesn't converge on the past, or future, or known spiritual, or the bibkle. It is null and void of a Creator.

You've not provided any rational reason to reject these conclusions, you've merely declared them false because they disagree with you.

Those conclusions you have not shown us, and are in your head, you seem to forget?

 

[kermit]

There was a warning!!! A very chilling one, that something big was coming down soon, and it even gave the years till it happened!!! 120 years to be precise. They knew, God is faithful.
Just like we have warning we are in a temporary heavens and earth right now! We are told it will be a new heavens, and this one will be no more!

Provide your Biblical evidence.

So far, at best, I've seen a few Bible passages that could fit your theory, but you have presented no Biblical evidence that indicates your theory.

 

[dad]

No, which YOU can 'see' - nobody else supports your wacky notions. There isn't any 'we all' who see the nonsense you rave on about.

Anyone can see if they read the threads!! Because you can't give any proof of the so called science claimed same past assumption! All can see that. They have no choice! It is what it is.

 

[dad]

Provide your Biblical evidence.

So far, at best, I've seen a few Bible passages that could fit your theory, but you have presented no Biblical evidence that indicates your theory.

OK. I'll whip something up, likely in the next hour or two, and post it.

 

[Ondoher]

Patently, and absolutely false. It concludes on solely PO past assumptions that have not the tiniest iota of evidence! What you mean is they have been messing up, trying to get a cohesive PO story together for so long, that the PO past web they wove converges on it's little self!

You've yet to provide a rational reason I should reject the converging lines of evidence that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is 4.55 billion years old. Just claiming it isn't doesn't actually constitute a rational argument.

It doesn't converge on the past, or future, or known spiritual, or the bibkle. It is null and void of a Creator.

Those conclusions you have not shown us, and are in your head, you seem to forget?

Actually, they are in science journals, text books, etc. Not too hard to find really. Your assurances the data is wrong without rational counter argument doesn't actaully account for much.