Taking questions on the Creation.

[SuperPhil]

Hehe, I read up to 15 pages of this forum. I don't think you had more then 5 legitimate creation week questions.

Ephesians 6:12 (New International Version)

12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

 

[The Lady Kate]

That distance is included in my 95% of stuff I agree with science on.

See --- you guys think I don't agree with science at all --- and this is where you're sadly mistaken.

And when you guys make those mistakes (as you will), I'll be more than happy to correct you --- over and over.

Perhaps you didn't hear the question the first time... How did you come to the conclusion that God is 20 billion light years away from us?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Hehe, I read up to 15 pages of this forum. I don't think you had more then 5 legitimate creation week questions.

I've read the entire thread and haven't seen a single legitimate answer.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Explain how sound can travel instantaneously from the surface of the earth, through outer space to a point at least 20 billion light years out, and be heard by an Entity --- in real time.

Never mind the distance... if you think God is limited to human hearing, then how did He hear anything travelling through the vacuum of space?

Is it possible, AV1611VET, that you've interpreted something as literal that should not be? Could your Biblical interpretation be in error here?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow --- was I way off the mark!

The edge of the observable universe is now located about 46.5 billion light-years away.

Third Heaven then, is farther away than I thought it was.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it possible, AV1611VET, that you've interpreted something as literal that should not be? Could your Biblical interpretation be in error here?

Seeing as I am a literalist --- if I am going to err --- that would be the direction I would err in ---

 

[CoderHead]

Again --- 95% of what you guys say, I agree with.

What I disagree with --- that 5%

Man, but from what I've seen of your posts, that's a huge 5%. I mean, you've got all of these far-out explanations and constantly say, "no, the scientists are wrong," and then claim to agree with 95% of science? I think - but I'm not quite sure - that you're even debating the speed of light...and maybe the speed of sound as well...?

 

[AV1611VET]

Man, but from what I've seen of your posts, that's a huge 5%. I mean, you've got all of these far-out explanations and constantly say, "no, the scientists are wrong," and then claim to agree with 95% of science? I think - but I'm not quite sure - that you're even debating the speed of light...and maybe the speed of sound as well...?

Let's put it this way then: I agree with 95% of the conclusions --- 116, 530 .

 

[The Lady Kate]

Seeing as I am a literalist --- if I am going to err --- that would be the direction I would err in ---

That wasn't my question.

 

[Sophophile]

--- Here we go again with this SN1987A.

This is why I qv stuff, so you guys won't read it, and I can have the honor of repeating myself.

We keep going with SN1987A because you have (a) never explained observations of SN1987A without requiring illusions and (b) will not acknowledge point (a).

I don't object to your QVs. Never have. I have carefully read your previous discussions on this subject and it is clear that my points (a) and (b) above still stand.

I do not dispute the fact that this SN thing out there is 168,000 light years out.

Again --- 95% of what you guys say, I agree with.

What I disagree with --- that 5% --- is that the light from this SN that is hitting the earth, as we speak, left this object 168,000 years ago.

Any light we see --- regardless of where it is coming from --- has only been traveling for a maximum of 6100 years.

If you can't get this down, Sophophile --- believe me --- I can make it much harder.

Forget light --- that's kids stuff --- let's look at sound.

No, lets not change the subject AV1611VET. Lets look at light because light is, in fact, what we are discussing.

You agree the light that left SN1987A travelled 168,000 light years to earth. You say it did so in ~6,000 years. Not possible, unless our observations of SN1987A are illusions.

Why? Think about the following, please, I beg you.

If you are correct, and the light travelled 168,000 light years in 6,000 years, then the light must have an average velocity of 28 times the speed of light (28c). Now, this light was measured to take 240 days to travel from the exploding star to the ring around the star. According to your viewpoint, then, the ring around the supernova is 28 times bigger than astronomers think it is. Therefore, since its angular size has not changed, it must be 28 times further away than astronomers think it is. Therefore, the light, travelling, according to you, at 28c, will still take 168,000 years to get to the earth, because it has 28 times further to travel.

The only way you can fit our observations of SN1987A into a 6,000 year timeframe is if at least one of our direct visual observations is actually an illusion of something that did not happen when and where we saw it happen. This is a necessary logical consequence of your 6,000 year timeframe for the existence of the universe.

And this is what I have been saying all along, and will continue to do so as long as you refuse to acknowledge it. Its a simple point. Its a basic point. It behooves you to acknowledge it.

Regards
S.

 

[Alunyel]

What Av doesn't seem to realise is that if what he was saying were true, if you could travel at the speed of light, you'd only take a maximum of 6100 years to get there.

If each one of these seperate dots is another galaxy, then by Av's reckoning, they're no more than 6100 light years away, not just from Earth, but from eachother, also. (That image is only a tiny, tiny portion of our sky, and only the furthest we've seen, not the furthest there is.)

Think how big a single galaxy is.

If those galaxies are no more than 6100 lightyears away, then how close must our Sun be to us, for it to only take about 8 minutes to get here?

Why aren't we all burned to a crisp? If the furthest galaxies are no less than 6100 lightyears away, then our own Sun must be close enough to disintergrate us all.

<staff edit>

 

[SuperPhil]

<staff edit>

I believe in creation. Does that make me an idiot? Are you a superior being because your belief in evolution?

Why must you think that anyone who disagrees with your theory is idiotic?

<staff edit>

Why can't you just give valid explanations to your full proof evolutionary theory? Why must there be such immature and childish naming calling and insults?

It is a rare bread of evolutionists who actually know how to debate with their minds instead of their emotions.

 

[Alunyel]

The difference is, Av consciously ignores anything even remotely scientific, if it contradicts his religious beliefs.

That's anti-science, and has no place in the Physical and Life Sciences forum. This area is for the discussion of things pertaining to science, but nothing Av says is ever even remotely scientific, as he says in his own words; "Science can take a hike.".

If "Science can take a hike.", why does he hang around trolling the Physical and Life Sciences forum, when there's the rest of CF where he can be as unscientific as he pleases?

As for valid explanations of the "full proof" theory, I've described numerous times, in fair detail, things such as ERV markers, atavism, chromosome fusion in Human Chromosome #2, amongst many others that all perfectly support evolution. Things that have been observed scientifically and also things that Av chooses to ignore in favour of his own interpretation of the Bible (Lacking any empirical evidence, making him less scientific, and giving him less reason for even posting here.)

 

[BananaSlug]

I believe in creation. Does that make me an idiot? Are you a superior being because your belief in evolution?

Why must you think that anyone who disagrees with your theory is idiotic?

<staff edit>

Why can't you just give valid explanations to your full proof evolutionary theory? Why must there be such immature and childish naming calling and insults?

It is a rare bread of evolutionists who actually know how to debate with their minds instead of their emotions.

Do you believe that God created the earth with 4.5 billion years of "embedded age" only 6100 years ago?

 

[AV1611VET]

The difference is, Av consciously ignores anything even remotely scientific, if it contradicts his religious beliefs.

That's anti-science, and has no place in the Physical and Life Sciences forum.

So it's 100% or 'get out' --- right?

95% agreement with science's conclusions doesn't cut it?

 

[Alunyel]

You disagree with a lot more than that.

I don't think I've ever seen you agree with anything scientific discussed here. Not based off of evidence, not based off of logical reasoning, but based off of your interpretation of the Bible. A wholly unscientific concept.

You disagree with the way science works, in general. To you, empirical, observable evidence means nothing, and that is what science is built on. You actively object to that evidence, claiming it as wrong because the Bible says otherwise, then turn around and say how it did happen, entirely unsupported by any evidence.

I believe that highly unscientific way of thinking belongs in Apologetics, and not Physical and Life Sciences.

This can be applied to almost everything you've claimed.

Step 1) Science can take a hike!
Step 2) The Bible said it happened this way.
Step 3) Ignore evidence supporting scientific claim.
Step 4) Fail to produce evidence to support your Biblical claims/Admit there is no evidence.
Step 5) Goddidit!
Step 6) Repeat.

 

[AV1611VET]

You disagree with a lot more than that.

Then please explain to me how, if I disagree with so much science, I still manage to agree with 95% of their conclusions?

Using the Creation Week as an example, I agree that the universe is 13.7 billion years old --- yet that isn't good enough, is it?

If the Bible is so 'anti-science', as you'd like to think It is, then I'm not a very good disciple, am I?

 

[BananaSlug]

So it's 100% or 'get out' --- right?

95% agreement with science's conclusions doesn't cut it?

I'll have to agree with Alunyel. We've seen how you work. "Embedded age" has zero evidence to back it up and even many fellow Christians (dad included) have acknowledged it is poor theology.

You enjoy using word games to try and get us to say what you want us to. Many of us consider that deception and is not a very Christian thing to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll have to agree with Alunyel. We've seen how you work. "Embedded age" has zero evidence to back it up and even many fellow Christians (dad included) have acknowledged it is poor theology.

And yet, if it wasn't for Embedded Age, I wouldn't be saying the universe is 13.7 billiion years old.

All Embedded Age is, is a modified form of OEC, anyway.

I take a lot of flack for Embedded Age --- but it's worth it, if it will reconcile the Bible with Science.

( You're welcome --- )

 

[Alunyel]

TUsing the Creation Week as an example, I agree that the universe is 13.7 billion years old --- yet that isn't good enough, is it?

Then why do you constantly claim that the universe is no older than 6100 years?

This thread is a perfect example, You say that it can't take light any longer than 6100 light years to reach Earth from anywhere in the universe, because the universe is only 6100 years old.

I explained earlier why that is impossible. It'd mean that our own Sun was so close that everything on Earth would be frazzled. If it only takes a maximum of 6100 years for the light from the image of the galaxies I posted to reach Earth, considering how massive they are, and how far apart they are, in order for light from our Sun to reach us in a mere 8 minutes, we'd have to be close to it that none of us would be alive.