- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,190
- 52,656
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
We're just a bunch of coughed-up ylem.There's even theories that the universe had no beginning. If that would be true, the big bang would be the biggest hoax in assumptions. Actually it's all assumptions, major major assumptions.
Maybe they need a lesson from Solomon?
1 Kings 4:29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore.
30 And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.
31 For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.
32 And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five.
33 And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes.
34 And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.
Good.I forget ...
Bro, light is seen from everywhere in transit from whatever source it comes from. You wake up today and see light, therefore it must only be a few seconds old since you see it only what you woke up according to your theory. Think of what you see now, when the universe was created ALL OF THE LIGHT THAT YOU SEE WOULD HAVE BEEN SET IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE DISTANT THINGS. I don't understand how you don't get this. Instantaneous light, in its path already, not complicated. You make it complicated because the scientists taught you how to think one way and in a box.
One of the great mysteries is why he was never awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics.That's cool! I've been aware of Dyson, but I didn't know these details about him. That's interesting. Thanks for sharing that.
Not sure if we're gonna get a reply to that question there Hans B(?)I'm beginning to wonder if you understand how light propagates. So I have a question about light and vision for you...
Scenario: I'm sitting at a table in the center of a room. It would be dark, but there is a lamp in the corner. How does light flow to allow me to see the table? (Don't worry about the function of the retina, optic nerve and brain. Just how the light moves about so that you can see.)
A problem with this scenario is that what we see isn't just static objects it's events and interactions.You have faith the it’s millions of years clearly. When the planets were created the light was already placed in transit to see it immediately. You force the other way around without actual observable evidence of that. Nice try though, nice try.
I understand. Catholicism does not require belief in a young creation click (my personal journey)It's a fact, the dimmest stars you see in the sky are where they were thousands to millions of years ago. The Bible is 100% Faith based, where as Science is 100% fact, this is coming from a Christian, and I'm not afraid of the truth.
Yes we should always be humble and careful when trying to apply our physics understanding to something as ontological as the universe and creation itself.Maybe we observe red shift simply because that’s the way the universe was created! But the. People extrapolate and assume oh it must have been closer. Maybe it was so close it was all in one dot at some point?! Seriously?! Or maybe it was put in motion for completely other physics reasons or something else!
Are you claiming that geology is a science only for the initiated?It is clear from this that both George F. Howe and Emmett L. Williams are young-earth-creationists of long standing, and that Williams, at least, has no qualifications in geology that would enable him to pronounce on the reality of the geological column. I have not been able to find anything about William Walsgerber, but would welcome any information that you can provide.
I should also welcome detailed references for the citations in your attachment.
That's the whole purpose of the specialised academic training (or education). Ie: for people to recognise the weaknesses in their own speculations for themselves, prior to their criticising published and accepted science... If something is overtly wrong with a concept, even to the acedemic without specialised training, then it is good to set forth that problem.
before I answer, can I ask your field of academic training?That's the whole purpose of the specialised academic training (or education). Ie: for people to recognise the weaknesses in their own speculations for themselves, prior to their criticising published and accepted science.
Oneself is the always the best critic when one's ideas just don't work.
Are you claiming that geology is a science only for the initiated?
Another problem with the scenario of light from planets (and stars and galaxies) being created in transit to avoid the issue of time in flight travel exceeding 6000 years or so is Olber's paradox.A problem with this scenario is that what we see isn't just static objects it's events and interactions.
None of these are real, and so the whole light show we see is simply lies.
In this scenario everything thing we see her destroyed that's from more than 6000 light years away, never existed.
Bro, light is seen from everywhere in transit from whatever source it comes from. You wake up today and see light, therefore it must only be a few seconds old since you see it only what you woke up according to your theory. Think of what you see now, when the universe was created ALL OF THE LIGHT THAT YOU SEE WOULD HAVE BEEN SET IN PLACE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE DISTANT THINGS. I don't understand how you don't get this. Instantaneous light, in its path already, not complicated. You make it complicated because the scientists taught you how to think one way and in a box.
Are you claiming that geology is a science only for the initiated?
I do believe that sicence should generally be understandable to the general academic populace, after explanation of a few key concepts.
If something is overtly wrong with a concept, even to the acedemic without specialised training, then it is good to set forth that problem.
For distant stars, light created in space would have to include those events that we now see. But they'd be fake events.
I graduated as an Electrical Engineer way back in the days when one had to actually demonstrate acuity in pure and applied mathematics (modelling) and applied physics. I subsequently worked in communications research and development environments. Lifetime interest in Astrophysics. Not sure why any of that makes any difference to anything presented in posts here at CFs though?PeterDona said:before I answer, can I ask your field of academic training?
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?