The Laws of the Universe

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by Delphiki

Question I've been asking crea-... I mean Hovindists a lot lately is why you trust a what a book that God told people to write says about creation over what God created himself. Why is that?
​

That would be a fact that certain individuals said that 'god" told them to write.

More recently, we have Joseph Smith who made quite similar claims, and produced an entire book, that a lot of intelligent people take 100% seriously.

The fact that no trace of the books, nor of the archaeology or genetics of said people exists matters not to them.

There are Mormons who claim they have found Native Americans of Hebrew decent according to the DNA. So they feel what they believe is based on scientific evidence.

I am sure there are such specious claims. So what? Big difference between saying "science" and actually having something.

You in no way addressed the point of my post. why?

 

[Doveaman]

Fourthly, on a related note, how do you explain that Adam was created on day seix, God rested on Day Seven and then Adam and Eve were kicked out and died sometime after that? Did they live for several billion years?

This question has left me scratching my head too.

 

[Delphiki]

This question has left me scratching my head too.

I think what he's asking is directed toward the day-age school of creationism. If each day is actually thousands/millions of years, then Adam and Eve would have lived longer than the ~800 years or so as described before being banished from Eden.

 

[Hespera]

I think what he's asking is directed toward the day-age school of creationism. If each day is actually thousands/millions of years, then Adam and Eve would have lived longer than the ~800 years or so as described before being banished from Eden.

my head is going to spin. one day equals a billion years, so 365 billion times 800.... oh my.

 

[Doveaman]

I think what he's asking is directed toward the day-age school of creationism. If each day is actually thousands/millions of years, then Adam and Eve would have lived longer than the ~800 years or so as described before being banished from Eden.

I know. That's why I'm scratching my head.

 

[AV1611VET]

my head is going to spin. one day equals a billion years, so 365 billion times 800.... oh my.

No

Day-Age creationism says that the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are actually six ages of creation.

After the creation event, the days become 24-hour periods.

 

[Doveaman]

No

Day-Age creationism says that the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are actually six ages of creation.

After the creation event, the days become 24-hour periods.

Did the days become 24-hour periods after the sixth day-age, or after the seventh day-age? because if it's after the seventh day-age then Seventh-Day Adventists are not really keeping God's Sabbath day-age.

 

[Hespera]

Did the days become 24-hour periods after the sixth day-age, or after the seventh day-age? because if it's after the seventh day-age then SDAs are not really keeping God's sabbath day-age.

the earth did not start out with 24 hour days, they were shorter; for a while it had 24 hour days, and now again it does not.

 

[Doveaman]

the earth did not start out with 24 hour days, they were shorter; for a while it had 24 hour days, and now again it does not.

How many hours are in a day now?

 

[Hespera]

How many hours are in a day now?

it is not exactly 24, as i suppose you know.

 

[Tiberius]

Unprovable rubbish.
A day is a day...relax...
Can you give chapter and verse what day of creation they got the boot?????

I wasn't addressing this to you. What is it with people coming into a discussion I am having with another member? geez...

Likely.

Glad we agree.

Yes.

Again, glad we agree.

Ha. It doesn't appear that way to anyone but those that assume decay existed! Certainly not to me.

It's easily measurable. You say that radioactive decay has occurred for as long as the laws of the universe have been the way they are now, and you agree that the decay in that time has been occurring the way we understand it.

Well, the only way for us to see what we see is if the decay has been going on for billions of years.

It's like if there was a bathtub, and the tap (faucet for those of you in the USA) is only on a little bit, dripping slowly. You can say, "The tap has been dripping like that for ten minutes only, and before that it wasn't dripping at all." And yet, when we look, the bathtub is almost full.

It's impossible for a slowly dripping tap to fill a bathtub in ten minutes, just as it is impossible for the amount of decay we see to have occurred in a few thousand years.

So? Not to me.

Then you don't understand the process.

Yes.

And yet the signs of the stress this would cause in the rocks is absolutely nowhere to be seen.

heck, the heat generated by such movement would probably MELT the continents.

What does it matter? The origin of the thing wasn't in this state.

What does it matter where or when the origin was? Don't you want to understand the way the world works? The way it worked in the past?

 

[SharpSolaris]

Can you do your calculations on this spiral or star? Something seems to be interacting with something here.. ?

I might try to calculate for simple objects (I'm not a physicist) such as binary stars or binary pulsar.

We know its mass, radius, speed, etc (Kepler's laws). And we can use the formula:

g = Fr2 / (m1 m2).

g - gravitational constant
M1 and M2 - mass
r2 - distance
F2 - force of gravity (calculated knowing rate, mass and other parameters).

But I was wrote a letter to NASA and Roscosmos. Let's will see if they respond.

 

[Doveaman]

I might try to calculate for simple objects (I'm not a physicist) such as binary stars

Why don't binary stars collide?

 

[Upisoft]

Why don't binary stars collide?

They rarely do. Binary neutron stars colliding will probably wipe out half a galaxy of life, if there is such thing as life out there.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Why don't binary stars collide?

Centrifugal force. Are you sure you're not AoS?

 

[SharpSolaris]

It will lose energy and - collide.

 

[Doveaman]

It will lose energy and - collide.

Is there evidence of this anywhere in the universe?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Is there evidence of this anywhere in the universe?

It's called physics. There's evidence for that everywhere in the universe.

 

[Nabobalis]

Is there evidence of this anywhere in the universe?

Short gamma-ray bursts if I recall.

 

[SharpSolaris]

Is there evidence of this anywhere in the universe?

Yes. Theory of relativity predicts it. And we tested the equation for double star: PSR B1913 +16 and other. Accuracy of prediction was 100% (+/- 0.2%).
=======
Photo (It is not a model!) of Universe, based on cosmic microwave background radiation. The universe in this photo is age - 300 000 years.

Also, scientists have received the sound of Big-Bang.